Wait...I thought taxes were at the lowest point in history?

[blackangst1]

Thats what I keep reading anyway.

According to the CBO, 2013's revenue "will be the most money the federal government has collected in history."

SHOCKING!

And wait...whats this? Wealthy's Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013.

I think its high time we quit bitching about raising taxes for the wealthy and start talking about our SPENDING PROBLEM!

 

[utahraptor]

Here you go year by year: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

As percentage of GDP it appears 1944 was the winner.

 

[blackangst1]

Here you go year by year: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

As percentage of GDP it appears 1944 was the winner.

Thanks for confirming my post

 

[Anarchist420]

Doesn't surprise me.

 

[Screech]

I think it's pretty obvious that phrase is intended to refer to tax rates, not nominal amount of taxes collected.

 

[Nintendesert]

Considering a growing population and a growing economy I would hope each year would be a record year.

 

[thraashman]

I think it's pretty obvious that phrase is intended to refer to tax rates, not nominal amount of taxes collected.

Shhh, don't use logic with a conservative. It makes them wet themselves and lash out in anger.

 

[Dulanic]

Considering a growing population and a growing economy I would hope each year would be a record year.

Don't you go about bringing your logic in here!

 

[blackangst1]

I think it's pretty obvious that phrase is intended to refer to tax rates, not nominal amount of taxes collected.

My post includes both.

 

[blackangst1]

Shhh, don't use logic with a conservative. It makes them wet themselves and lash out in anger.

I guess Im not a conservative

Of course it makes sense, but it seems all we hear is how rates are so low and revenue isnt high enough. Which doesnt seem to be the case.

 

[blankslate]

I'd have figured that the late 1800's or the roaring 20's had the lowest taxes... going off of what I can recall of history.

 

[umbrella39]

Shhh, don't use logic with a conservative. It makes them wet themselves and lash out in anger.

Aren't these threads hilarious? Disingenuous? Stupid? Lying?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Clearly we need to raise tax rates, thus lowering government revenue and shrinking the size of government once and for all.

 

[Matt1970]

We were only $100 Billion short in 2012 of the $2.568 Trillion we collected in 2007.

 

[Screech]

My post includes both.

Sure, in the sense that a single scrambled egg is the same as eggs benedict with hollandaise. Let's take a look at your linked article:

For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top one percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.
Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.

So.....they are paying among the highest taxes since tax brackets on high income were gutted:?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H...ate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg

That's hardly news; the rest of the article is basically discussing how the rich have the largest tax bills in decades:

With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.

So, the top fraction of wealth earners have their income and wealth skyrocket in the last few decades -- I would be shocked if they were paying anything less than the highest tax bill ever given this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Further on in your linked article:

It's middle- and low-income families who aren't paying as much as they used to.

I'm not sure this is really surprising either. Both Republicans and now Obama have been pushing the "cut taxes for the middle class" schpeel for a while.

 

[blackangst1]

Sure, in the sense that a single scrambled egg is the same as eggs benedict with hollandaise. Let's take a look at your linked article:



So.....they are paying among the highest taxes since tax brackets on high income were gutted:?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H...ate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners.jpg

That's hardly news; the rest of the article is basically discussing how the rich have the largest tax bills in decades:



So, the top fraction of wealth earners have their income and wealth skyrocket in the last few decades -- I would be shocked if they were paying anything less than the highest tax bill ever given this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Further on in your linked article:



I'm not sure this is really surprising either. Both Republicans and now Obama have been pushing the "cut taxes for the middle class" schpeel for a while.

Why did you link a wiki on tax RATES? I never mentioned tax rates...the rest I agree with *shrug*

edit: Back on topic...of course revenues are up if their income is up. But the problem is even though the government continues to collect more and more revenue, its never enough. They need to cut spending!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Why did you link a wiki on tax RATES?

Because it's the only way to interpret your thread title that makes the slightest bit of sense. Even then it only works if you define 'history' as comprising a few decades at most.

 

[blackangst1]

Because it's the only way to interpret your thread title that makes the slightest bit of sense. Even then it only works if you define 'history' as comprising a few decades at most.

Two questions for you.

Have the top 20% of income earners ever payed more than they are expected to in 2013?

Has the IRS ever collected more tax revenue than they expect to collect in 2013?

edit: a quote from one of the articles in the OP

For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top one percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.


Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.

 

[Bowfinger]

Why did you link a wiki on tax RATES? I never mentioned tax rates...the rest I agree with *shrug*

edit: Back on topic...of course revenues are up if their income is up. But the problem is even though the government continues to collect more and more revenue, its never enough. They need to cut spending!

Come on, we've been over this again and again here. Tax revenues grow almost every year because America grows and because of inflation. This "new record" of $2.7T is only 3.8% higher than the previous peak of $2.6T in 2007. Over six years, that's about 0.6% per year. In comparison, the U.S. population has increased by about 4.9%, the CPI has increased 13.8%, and the raw GDP has increased by over 17% over that same period. By any intelligent measure, tax revenues are down compared to America's growth. Yes, we need to cut government spending, but taxes are also too low and need to be increased.

 

[First]

First, no one has ever argued anything about nominal tax revenue, that's just strawman so stop talking about it.

Second, 27.2% as the average tax rate for the top 20% wealthiest families isn't particularly high historically, and your CNBC article (an AP lift actually) offers no such references to back its assertion, they just site the Tax Policy Center (a very good thinktank) but I can't find the study myself so I couldn't confirm if "among the highest" in the past 30 years was among the top 5, top 10, top 15 highest or what. "Among the highest" is just vague, so it's hard to know if 27.2% really is out of whack; same with the top 1% paying 35.5%, hard to know without a link to the study and previous pre-1979 studies. And speaking of pre-1979, it should be noted that, if the study only looked at the past 30 years, then this isn't particularly surprising since the trend of dramatically cutting taxes started with Reagan. So by its very nature (and again, I haven't seen the source material from the TPC study), it's limiting itself to low-tax rate years.

Third and finally:

The middle 20 percent of U.S. households — those making an average of $46,600 — will pay an average of 13.8 percent of their income in federal taxes for this year, according to the Tax Policy Center. Over the past three decades, the average federal tax rate for this group has been about 16 percent.

The Associated Press analyzed two sets of data to compare tax burdens over time.

The CBO produces data from 1979 to 2009; the center has overlapping data from 2004 through 2013. Both get tax data from the IRS, but they use slightly different methodologies to calculate federal tax burdens.

Still, their numbers track closely enough to make some general observations. For example, it is clear that for 2013, average tax bills for the wealthy will be among the highest since 1979. It also is clear that federal taxes for middle- and low-income households will stay well below their averages for the same period.

So it looks like middle-class folks, who provide the great bulk of the revenue to the country (depending on exactly how you define "middle class"), are actually taxed quite low, even over the low-tax period of the last 30 years. I would be for raising middle class taxes slightly IF middle class wage growth had been more substantial, but alas it hasn't been so we should not depress middle class spending with higher taxes.

 

[soundforbjt]

Two questions for you.

Have the top 20% of income earners ever payed more than they are expected to in 2013? Proportionally, yes they've paid much higher

Has the IRS ever collected more tax revenue than they expect to collect in 2013? No

edit: a quote from one of the articles in the OP

bolded

 

[3chordcharlie]

Two questions for you.

Have the top 20% of income earners ever payed more than they are expected to in 2013?

Has the IRS ever collected more tax revenue than they expect to collect in 2013?

edit: a quote from one of the articles in the OP

Read your own thread title.

NO ONE has made a claim that tax revenue is at the lowest point in history.

 

[nehalem256]

Come on, we've been over this again and again here. Tax revenues grow almost every year because America grows and because of inflation. This "new record" of $2.7T is only 3.8% higher than the previous peak of $2.6T in 2007. Over six years, that's about 0.6% per year. In comparison, the U.S. population has increased by about 4.9%, the CPI has increased 13.8%, and the raw GDP has increased by over 17% over that same period. By any intelligent measure, tax revenues are down compared to America's growth. Yes, we need to cut government spending, but taxes are also too low and need to be increased.

So which tax rates are lower than 2007?

 

[Screech]

Why did you link a wiki on tax RATES? I never mentioned tax rates...the rest I agree with *shrug*

edit: Back on topic...of course revenues are up if their income is up. But the problem is even though the government continues to collect more and more revenue, its never enough. They need to cut spending!

So did you think, according to the thread title, that nominal taxes were the lowest in history? Or did you think tax rates were the lowest in history? If the former, with all due respect, your IQ is in the single digits. If the latter, then it obviously depends on the bracket in question, but that isn't what this thread is about....?

reminder: your thread title reads

Wait...I thought taxes were at the lowest point in history?

lol thread backfire.

edit: but yes spending needs to be cut. I can think of some good places to start.