Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The missing $1,000,000 tax bracket

  1. #1
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default The missing $1,000,000 tax bracket

    Tuesday, March 10, 2009

    The Missing $1,000,000 Tax Bracket

    Matt Yglesias has this creepy habit of writing about things the very moment that I'm thinking about them. Today I was looking at this handy chart prepared by the National Taxpayers' Union on the top marginal tax rates at different points in time. If you're at all familiar with debate over tax policy, this will be pretty familiar territory to you: the top marginal tax rate is now higher than it was under Reagan, but lower than it was under Clinton, and much lower than it's been at various other points in history. (The average top marginal tax rate since the income tax was established is 60 percent).



    What the discussion over the top marginal tax rate ignores, however (and what Ygelsias picks up upon) is that this rate has been assessed at very different thresholds of income. In 1940, for example, the top marginal tax rate was 81.1 percent -- but this rate only kicked in once you made $5,000,000 or more in income, which is equivalent to about $75,000,000 in today's dollars.

    But today, the threshold where the top tax bracket kicks in isn't $75 million, or $5 million, or even $1 million ... it's a mere $357,700. The progressivity of the tax code stops there.


    NOTE: Inflation-Adjusted Dollars

    Needless to say, these are much more dramatic differences -- more than a thousandfold at various points in our history -- than we've observed in the progress of top tax rate. They're so large, in fact, that we need to plot them on a logarithmic scale to get a better handle on things:


    NOTE: Inflation-Adjusted Dollars

    The median top income tax threshold since 1913 -- adjusted for today's dollars -- is a little over $1.3 million, almost four times higher than it is now. This is one thing that advocates of more progressive taxation (of which I am one) need to keep in mind: although the top tax rates have been much higher throughout much of the country's history, they also kicked in at much higher thresholds of income than the ones we see today.

    The question, of course, is why there isn't a millionaires tax bracket now ... or even a multi-millionaires tax bracket. I haven't run the numbers, but I'm guessing that if you established a new tax bracket at, say, 40.5 percent, that started at incomes of $1,000,000 or more, this would bring in as much revenue to the government as restoring the $250K tax bracket (which is really $360K now given indexing to inflation) to 39.6 percent, as it was under Clinton.

    And I think Yglesias is also right that the politics of this might play out even better for Obama (although, to be clear, a recent NBC/WSJ journal says that most Americans favor a repeal of the Bush tax cuts). I don't really feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for those in the $250,000 to $999,999 income bracket. (It's tough to raise a family of five in Manhattan on $250K per year? Then don't live in Manhattan). But I suspect a fairly large fraction of Americans have either a friend, family member, or immediate supervisor who makes that sort of money, and might still consider them to be within the broad definition of "middle class". Or they have some reasonable hope of someday making that amount themselves: I've heard it said before that people tend to define "rich" as someone making four times as much as themselves, and there are certainly quite a few American households who make at least $62,500 per year (one quarter of $250K).

    Not very many people, however, are good acquaintances with a million-dollar income earner, and in a great many industries it is impossible to even imagine making that sort of money no matter how far one advances. Using the 4x rule that I described above, about 70 percent of the country would consider $250K to be "rich", but 98 percent would describe a million dollar income that way. And when you ask people whether they think the "rich" should be paying more taxes, the response is overwhelmingly that they should be ... about 66 percent of Americans think that "upper-income people" pay too little in taxes, versus just 9 percent who say they pay too much.

    To be clear, this is not necessarily intended as an argument against raising taxes at the $250,000 level, or some other sub-million dollar threshold of income. I'm merely stipulating that if that if the conversation stops at that point, we aren't really using all the tools at our disposal to craft socially and economically optimal tax policy.

    -- Nate Silver at 7:36 PM

    FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Missing $1,000,000 Tax Bracket

  2. #2
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    See.. his whole argument was fine right till this point:

    I don't really feel a tremendous amount of sympathy for those in the $250,000 to $999,999 income bracket. (It's tough to raise a family of five in Manhattan on $250K per year? Then don't live in Manhattan).
    What about the vast differences in costs between living in a large city vs. living in the burbs or a small town? It's the same criticism.

    the whole "don't live there" comment is a stupid, facile and slightly bitter bit of nonsense that helps nobody. People's jobs are in cities. They can't go live in a small town and work them 500 miles away.

    The rest is fine.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #3
    Elite Member sparkly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Exchanging glances with the cunty bitches
    Posts
    14,422

    Default

    This article makes some very strong points. And I totally agree with you, Grimm. If someone lives and works in Manhattan, they can't help that a lot of the time.
    Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

  4. #4
    Elite Member Charmed Hour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    See.. his whole argument was fine right till this point:



    What about the vast differences in costs between living in a large city vs. living in the burbs or a small town? It's the same criticism.

    the whole "don't live there" comment is a stupid, facile and slightly bitter bit of nonsense that helps nobody. People's jobs are in cities. They can't go live in a small town and work them 500 miles away.

    The rest is fine.
    Also, for those who do move out of the city to the burbs, they aren't necessarily saving money. T

    The burbs themself aren't actually any cheaper than living in Manhattan/NYC (depending on exactly where you move). My sister says the food; whether it's a market, a fast food place, or a sit down resturant, is usually more expensive than similar places in the outer boroughs of NYC. Child care costs are almost equivalent, they pay higher property taxes, they pay for sewage and garbage removal, etc.

    My BIL commutes into the city every day for work for over $600 per month. He is taxed by his state plus NYC for working in the city.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Tati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Your Pocket
    Posts
    17,998

    Default

    ^ And there are some strong reasons for living in a metropolis too, aside from simply needing to. Living in a denser area means you aren't contributing to urban sprawl or contributing extra emissions via commuting. You might live in a smaller, more eco-friendly dwelling, you might be more likely to patronize your local small businesspeople (because let's face it, they're generally denser and much more plentiful in a metropolis than in a suburb). You might make do with less space and less stuff. You likely won't have a resource-sucking lawn (on the flip side you probably won't be able to garden much either).

    Now, I'm not knocking small towns at all, just sleeper, commuter communities - they represent an inefficient and wasteful model. I think people should have the reasonable expectation of being able to live where they work.
    If you reveal your secrets to the wind you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.

    - Kahlil Gibran

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. My cat is missing
    By samantha jones in forum Pets and Animals
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: October 14th, 2008, 01:10 PM
  2. 300 people still missing since Ike hit Texas
    By Mariesoleil in forum News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2008, 09:56 AM
  3. Another missing mother
    By sweetrebel in forum News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 6th, 2007, 04:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •