Surely you could find a better forum to make this request than in the first comment on an article that hasn't even been replied to and is not even demonstrating the problematic functionality.
Also, go space!!
You are so far off the original point it's tempting to not respond. The original point was that the income tax was 90% in the 1970s, which is correct.
I'm sorry, but no, that is not correct. Income tax in the 1970's was approximately 70% on the top marginal tax bracket, which is net income over about $200,000. During that same period, the bottom marginal tax bracket was 14% on net income up to around $1000. These numbers are clearly defined in the previous document that I posted ( http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax... ) on rows 66-75.
So, a person making $250,000 in 1970 would have paid 14% tax on his first $1000 of net income and 71.75% tax on his last $50,000 of net income. That is, by definition, a progressive tax.
A marginal tax system can be either progressive or regressive. In every single case that I've demonstrated thus far it has been progressive. This includes the document I last posted describing the history of tax brackets from 1945 through 2012. Figure 1 in the previously posted document illustrates a top marginal tax rate during the Nixon and Regan eras of around 40-70%. This is in comparison to the lowest marginal tax rate during that period of about 15%. That is less progressive than in the 30's and 40's when the top bracket was taxed at around 80% and the bottom bracket was taxed at around 5%, but it is, by definition, still progressive.
Please see the following document, which details the tax base, brackets, and rates for the top and bottom marginal tax brackets from 1913 - 2012. This is provided directly by the IRS and is thoroughly sourced at the bottom:
I'm not trying to be insulting by using the word "misinformed", so if I have been I apologize. I'm just trying to convey that historic income taxation in the USA since 1913 has operated using progressive marginal tax brackets. Some periods have been more or less progressive than others, but there has never been a period since 1913 when progressive marginal tax brackets were not used.
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. Please take a look at the following document. It's a report from the Congressional Research Service on the history of top marginal tax rates since 1945.
Tax policy analysts often use two concepts of tax rates. The first is the marginal tax rate or the tax
rate on the last dollar of income. If a taxpayer’s income were to increase by $1, the marginal tax
rate indicates what proportion of that dollar would be paid in taxes. The highest marginal tax rate
is referred to as the top marginal tax rate...
Although the statutory top marginal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950s, the average tax rate for
the highest income taxpayers was much lower. The average tax rates at five-year intervals since
1945 for the top 0.1% and top 0.01% of taxpayers are shown in Figure 1. The average tax rate for
the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
With all due respect, I'm not selectively reading anything. You're the one missing the part where the law states, "1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000..."
You're taxed 1% upon the amount of your total income that exceeds $20k and does not exceed $50k. I don't know how to phrase it more clearly. This is relatively straightforward language for a statute.
Yes, that's exactly what it says, right there in the part that you quoted:
1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $50,000 and does not exceed $75,000
That means 1% tax on any income within the bracket of $20k to $50k and 2% tax on any income within the bracket of $50k to $75k.
1% tax on your income between $20k and $50k
2% tax on your income between $50k and $75k
3% tax on your income between $75k and $100k
4% tax on your income between $100k and $250k
5% tax on your income between $250k and $500k
6% tax on your income above $500k
It works the same way now, and it worked the same way in 1970, just with different brackets and different rates.
The "progressive" tax was not part of US tax law until more recent times. Read tax laws from 1890-1970, it should take all of an hour to read them all, probably twice.
I did a hefty amount of writing on the subject many years ago, and I'll give you a hint. Historical Tax law and rate schedules are freely available from a.gov site and anything ending in.com should be scrutinized heavily (including Wiki). If I had the material handy I would be happy to provide the links, but alas you can find them easy enough by adding ".gov" to your search. Like this one.
This is the original text of the United States Revenue Act of 1913, which was the first income tax passed after the ratification of the 16th amendment: http://legisworks.org/sal/38/s...
The section on income tax starts on Pg. 53 (of the PDF) and explicitly includes marginal tax brackets. Back then it was an additional 1% of your income in each successive bracket.
Marginal tax brackets have been a part of American income tax since it first became constitutional.
The Tax code is public information, please go read it instead of presenting an absolute fairy tale and claiming that people disbelieving that fantasy are under a misconception as an appeal to emotion.
"Tax brackets are the divisions at which tax rates change in a progressive tax system (or an explicitly regressive tax system, although this is much rarer). Essentially, they are the cutoff values for taxable income — income past a certain point will be taxed at a higher rate."
It's harmful, especially to children, when there are people living on such low wage that they can't afford to eat or go to the doctor.
Many people believe that it is an ethical imperative when such conditions exist in a country where billionaires also exist that the inequality be reduced to the point where the poorest people are no longer starving or dying of easily preventable illness.
"Consider that up until Nixon, anyone making 1,000,000 a year in personal pay was paying 90% income tax (true since income tax was implemented)."
This is not exactly true and is a common misconception. In reality, anyone making $1 million or more a year was paying 90% income tax only on the income exceeding $1 million. All income below $1 million was taxed at a rate corresponding to each income bracket.
This is how it works now too. If you get a raise and it puts you over the line into a new tax bracket, only the income that exceeds that line will be taxed in the new bracket. All other income below the line will be taxed in its original bracket.
This is nonsense. The crash of 2008 certainly impacted production of greenhouse gases, but if that was the only factor, why did so many other countries fail to meet targets?
The USA has done a great deal to reduce carbon emissions under the Obama administration and it's all been done under the Clean Air Act without any new action from Congress. So yes, America is doing something about this. As for your proposed solution, what do you think the chances are that a 5% tariff on Chinese products would pass the US Congress right now? It'd never happen.
Your post is just concern-trolling. We're doing what we can and we're asking China to do what they can because we're expecting that the upcoming UN climate treaty will not exempt developing nations (China & India) like the Kyoto treaty did. If those large developing nations don't get on board, it becomes a much harder sell.
A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
The first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.
GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.
While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
Cap and Trade is not the same thing as a Carbon Tax. They're two distinct approaches to the same problem. Under a Carbon Tax, a company could emit unlimited carbon as long as they paid the tax. Under Cap and Trade, their carbon emissions would be limited to their "cap". They could then buy rights to emit more carbon from other companies, reduce the amount that they're emitting sell their rights to emission, or offset their emissions in some way (planting trees, etc.).
I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way; as long as its still profitable, emissions will occur. Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market.
That said, UN Agenda 21, as mentioned by a previous poster, has nothing to do with which of these approaches is better.
This sounds like overbearing government intrusion into the private market to me. Employers should be free to demand whatever they want as a condition of employment, from high-school transcripts to semen samples! If you don't like it, find another place to work!
theblaze.com's sole source is the Alliance for Natural Health's article which grossly misrepresent the FDA's case, as you can see if you read the FDA's motion for summary judgement:
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, it should go without saying.. but that's because this is a single study not an enormous body of evidence spanning decades.
DON'T PANIC! I'm sure it's not a fish.
In fact, doing both would allow you to look for missing emissions in your bottom-up sources.
This is an incredibly informative post.
Surely you could find a better forum to make this request than in the first comment on an article that hasn't even been replied to and is not even demonstrating the problematic functionality. Also, go space!!
The point is that those people who are religious have a right to make this decision for themselves.
You are so far off the original point it's tempting to not respond. The original point was that the income tax was 90% in the 1970s, which is correct.
I'm sorry, but no, that is not correct. Income tax in the 1970's was approximately 70% on the top marginal tax bracket, which is net income over about $200,000. During that same period, the bottom marginal tax bracket was 14% on net income up to around $1000. These numbers are clearly defined in the previous document that I posted ( http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax... ) on rows 66-75.
So, a person making $250,000 in 1970 would have paid 14% tax on his first $1000 of net income and 71.75% tax on his last $50,000 of net income. That is, by definition, a progressive tax.
A marginal tax system can be either progressive or regressive. In every single case that I've demonstrated thus far it has been progressive. This includes the document I last posted describing the history of tax brackets from 1945 through 2012. Figure 1 in the previously posted document illustrates a top marginal tax rate during the Nixon and Regan eras of around 40-70%. This is in comparison to the lowest marginal tax rate during that period of about 15%. That is less progressive than in the 30's and 40's when the top bracket was taxed at around 80% and the bottom bracket was taxed at around 5%, but it is, by definition, still progressive.
Please see the following document, which details the tax base, brackets, and rates for the top and bottom marginal tax brackets from 1913 - 2012. This is provided directly by the IRS and is thoroughly sourced at the bottom:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax...
I'm not trying to be insulting by using the word "misinformed", so if I have been I apologize. I'm just trying to convey that historic income taxation in the USA since 1913 has operated using progressive marginal tax brackets. Some periods have been more or less progressive than others, but there has never been a period since 1913 when progressive marginal tax brackets were not used.
http://democrats.waysandmeans....
On page five (of the PDF):
Tax policy analysts often use two concepts of tax rates. The first is the marginal tax rate or the tax rate on the last dollar of income. If a taxpayer’s income were to increase by $1, the marginal tax rate indicates what proportion of that dollar would be paid in taxes. The highest marginal tax rate is referred to as the top marginal tax rate...
Although the statutory top marginal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950s, the average tax rate for the highest income taxpayers was much lower. The average tax rates at five-year intervals since 1945 for the top 0.1% and top 0.01% of taxpayers are shown in Figure 1. The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990.
We've had marginal tax brackets for a long time.
With all due respect, I'm not selectively reading anything. You're the one missing the part where the law states, "1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000..."
You're taxed 1% upon the amount of your total income that exceeds $20k and does not exceed $50k. I don't know how to phrase it more clearly. This is relatively straightforward language for a statute.
1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net in-come exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds $50,000 and does not exceed $75,000
That means 1% tax on any income within the bracket of $20k to $50k and 2% tax on any income within the bracket of $50k to $75k.
1% tax on your income between $20k and $50k
2% tax on your income between $50k and $75k
3% tax on your income between $75k and $100k
4% tax on your income between $100k and $250k
5% tax on your income between $250k and $500k
6% tax on your income above $500k
It works the same way now, and it worked the same way in 1970, just with different brackets and different rates.
The "progressive" tax was not part of US tax law until more recent times. Read tax laws from 1890-1970, it should take all of an hour to read them all, probably twice.
I did a hefty amount of writing on the subject many years ago, and I'll give you a hint. Historical Tax law and rate schedules are freely available from a .gov site and anything ending in .com should be scrutinized heavily (including Wiki). If I had the material handy I would be happy to provide the links, but alas you can find them easy enough by adding ".gov" to your search. Like this one.
This is the original text of the United States Revenue Act of 1913, which was the first income tax passed after the ratification of the 16th amendment:
http://legisworks.org/sal/38/s...
The section on income tax starts on Pg. 53 (of the PDF) and explicitly includes marginal tax brackets. Back then it was an additional 1% of your income in each successive bracket.
Marginal tax brackets have been a part of American income tax since it first became constitutional.
Here is another source, in case you don't like Wikipedia: http://www.econlib.org/library...
The Tax code is public information, please go read it instead of presenting an absolute fairy tale and claiming that people disbelieving that fantasy are under a misconception as an appeal to emotion.
"Tax brackets are the divisions at which tax rates change in a progressive tax system (or an explicitly regressive tax system, although this is much rarer). Essentially, they are the cutoff values for taxable income — income past a certain point will be taxed at a higher rate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
It's called marginal taxation and it's the underpinning of progressive taxation. This is not a fairy tale, it's reality.
I agree with everything else in your post, I just wanted to correct this misconception.
It's harmful, especially to children, when there are people living on such low wage that they can't afford to eat or go to the doctor.
Many people believe that it is an ethical imperative when such conditions exist in a country where billionaires also exist that the inequality be reduced to the point where the poorest people are no longer starving or dying of easily preventable illness.
"Consider that up until Nixon, anyone making 1,000,000 a year in personal pay was paying 90% income tax (true since income tax was implemented)."
This is not exactly true and is a common misconception. In reality, anyone making $1 million or more a year was paying 90% income tax only on the income exceeding $1 million. All income below $1 million was taxed at a rate corresponding to each income bracket.
This is how it works now too. If you get a raise and it puts you over the line into a new tax bracket, only the income that exceeds that line will be taxed in the new bracket. All other income below the line will be taxed in its original bracket.
That is very cool.
This is nonsense. The crash of 2008 certainly impacted production of greenhouse gases, but if that was the only factor, why did so many other countries fail to meet targets?
The USA has done a great deal to reduce carbon emissions under the Obama administration and it's all been done under the Clean Air Act without any new action from Congress. So yes, America is doing something about this. As for your proposed solution, what do you think the chances are that a 5% tariff on Chinese products would pass the US Congress right now? It'd never happen. Your post is just concern-trolling. We're doing what we can and we're asking China to do what they can because we're expecting that the upcoming UN climate treaty will not exempt developing nations (China & India) like the Kyoto treaty did. If those large developing nations don't get on board, it becomes a much harder sell.
The Antarctic has land. The Arctic does not. Hence different processes occur.
A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
The first Cap-and-Trade program in the US was under Ronald Reagan and came out of his administration.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 includeds GHWB's cap-and-trade proposal for sulfur pollution.
GWB included a cap-and-trade proposal in his "clear skys" bill.
While running for president in 2008 McCain proposed to reduce global warming pollution via a cap-and-trade program.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
Cap and Trade is not the same thing as a Carbon Tax. They're two distinct approaches to the same problem. Under a Carbon Tax, a company could emit unlimited carbon as long as they paid the tax. Under Cap and Trade, their carbon emissions would be limited to their "cap". They could then buy rights to emit more carbon from other companies, reduce the amount that they're emitting sell their rights to emission, or offset their emissions in some way (planting trees, etc.).
Cap and Trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Carbon Tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I think a Carbon Tax is the wrong approach because it does not explicitly limit emissions in any way; as long as its still profitable, emissions will occur. Cap and Trade, on the other hand, explicitly limits industry-wide emissions and requires individual companies to set a value on their limited emissions in the free market.
That said, UN Agenda 21, as mentioned by a previous poster, has nothing to do with which of these approaches is better.
"Gamers also lack the PR money to respond" "because gamers are an easier and more lucrative target" Which is it?
This sounds like overbearing government intrusion into the private market to me. Employers should be free to demand whatever they want as a condition of employment, from high-school transcripts to semen samples! If you don't like it, find another place to work!
School Administrator responsible, Robert Colby: rcolby@lewiscassisd.org
It is not accurate. That is my point.
theblaze.com's sole source is the Alliance for Natural Health's article which grossly misrepresent the FDA's case, as you can see if you read the FDA's motion for summary judgement:
http://www.hpm.com/pdf/blog/GovernmentSupportforSummaryJudgmentMotion.pdf
The article is about as useful as if it had come from the National Enquirer.