Democratic debates

[Schneed10]

But forgive me, I read your original post on the matter and thought it to mean it was a high priority for you. I misread.

[JoeRedskin]

So the whole marginal tax rates of 70 - 90 in the 50's 60's and 70's got me curious. I was aware the rates existed and that these rates really only applied to the very rich. (i.e. multi-millionaires). I was also aware that, unlike today's four tax brackets, back in the day the had 24 tax brackets. In 1969, the marginal rate for those earners making ~$112K (adjusted for inflation) was at 36% as opposed to today where income of $143K is taxed 28%.

So yes, tax rates were much higher the 50's -70's. For everyone.

To me, however, tax rates are only part of the story. Yes, taxes were higher. However, what effect has lowered marginal rates had on the total federal income from taxes.

Also, tax laws change, and while marginal rates were high, without an understanding of allowable exemptions, credits and deductions, marginal tax rates are guidelines but not indicative of the real tax rates.

Here are a couple sites that are useful - they have all sorts of charts for number nerds.

This site shows the historical tax rates in nominal and adjusted income: U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets) | Tax Foundation

This is the OMB website with tons of charts and stuff:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I looked at the chart: Table 2.1—Receipts by Source: 1934–2021
It shows income in nominal (unadjusted) dollars.

To really get a sense of tax rates v. income, you would need to correlate the two in 2016 dollars to see where or if marginal rate changes had an effect on actual govt. income.

To me, the question, "should we go back to this model of super-high tax brackets for the super rich?" involves a much more nuanced approach than "taxes bad v. tax the rich." Fundamentally, I oppose taxation as a method of enforced wealth transfer because, in today's economy and as long as the govt. is doing the redistribution, I do not believe it solves the underlying problem of income inequality and is, instead, treating the symptom rather than the illness.

Would we face economic ruin if we reinstituted the 70-90% tax rates on the wealthiest of the superwealthy? No. Would we expand income dependency on the central govt. and, in turn, lessen real economic freedom? Yes.

[MTK]

Not a big issue eh? For tax revenue alone it's huge.

http://time.com/4037604/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue/

And then there's the issue of our overcrowded prisons, wasted law enforcement $$, etc.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

Not a big issue eh? For tax revenue alone it's huge.

Colorado Brings in $70 Million in Pot Tax Revenue

And then there's the issue of our overcrowded prisons, wasted law enforcement $$, etc.

Matty hate to burst the bubble. But you have to keep the dollar values in perspective. 70 million doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket for a state's budget. It is by monetary definition, a very small issue.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Matty hate to burst the bubble. But you have to keep the dollar values in perspective. 70 million doesn't even register as a drop in the bucket for a state's budget. It is by monetary definition, a very small issue.

Colorado's total revenue in 2014 was ~7.8 billion. So pot tax was about .9% of their total revenue picture.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Colorado's total revenue in 2014 was ~7.8 billion. So pot tax was about .9% of their total revenue picture.

Exactly. I'm not a Coloradan (Coloradoan? Colorodite?) but I am a Pennsylvanian. If PA were to legalize and tax it, I'd be fine with it because live and let live, but how can anyone possibly consider it a big issue?

What's bigger, raising 1% of revenues, or figuring how to best spend the existing 99%?

Whatever, legalize it or don't, I don't care. But you guys are REALLY stretching if you think it's a big consequential thing.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Exactly. I'm not a Coloradan (Coloradoan? Colorodite?) but I am a Pennsylvanian. If PA were to legalize and tax it, I'd be fine with it because live and let live, but how can anyone possibly consider it a big issue?

What's bigger, raising 1% of revenues, or figuring how to best spend the existing 99%?

Whatever, legalize it or don't, I don't care. But you guys are REALLY stretching if you think it's a big consequential thing.

It's like a 3rd tier issue IMO...but it's a subject that intertwined with larger problems: justice system reform, drug war in Mexico & failed US drug war, and immigration and our loose border.

[MTK]

The rabbit hole is much deeper than taxes. How about what keeping it illegal costs us.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/marij...n_3123397.html

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

The rabbit hole is much deeper than taxes. How about what keeping it illegal costs us.

Marijuana Prohibition Now Costs The Government $20 Billion A Year: Economist

Matty, again, he's saying it costs all state and federal governments combined $20 billion. Do you know what the federal budget is, in total? $3.8 trillion. So let's not even bother adding in the 50 state budgets into that and just stick with the $3.8 trillion.

$20 billion as a % of $3.8 trillion is 0.5%.

If I convert that in terms of the NFL salary cap, because you know I like that shit, 0.5% of the $153 million salary cap is $765,000. In other words it's one veteran minimum (! lol) salary player.

It's not a big issue.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Matty, again, he's saying it costs all state and federal governments combined $20 billion. Do you know what the federal budget is, in total? $3.8 trillion. So let's not even bother adding in the 50 state budgets into that and just stick with the $3.8 trillion.



$20 billion as a % of $3.8 trillion is 0.5%.



If I convert that in terms of the NFL salary cap, because you know I like that shit, 0.5% of the $153 million salary cap is $765,000. In other words it's one veteran minimum (! lol) salary player.



It's not a big issue.

I understand in terms of the numbers, but all this over a relatively benign substance, putting people in prison and ruining lives over it, is absurd.

And $20b is still $20b, I'm sure that could be allocated more wisely.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

I understand in terms of the numbers, but all this over a relatively benign substance, putting people in prison and ruining lives over it, is absurd.

And $20b is still $20b, I'm sure that could be allocated more wisely.

Yeah no argument that its about as benign as alcohol and tobacco, maybe even more so. But it's a freakin recreation. We have serious injustices to deal with in this country, from healthcare costs and coverage to equal pay for women to how we deal with international terror threats, etc. etc.

You can't prioritize a recreational activity over these much more serious matters, not on the basis of $ cost and not on the basis of the gravity of the impact on the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (the most important being life).

[That Guy]

who's saying we're prioritizing it? i'm just saying it makes sense to do things that make sense. the cons of legalization are pretty low, so it's not like there's a strong financial or safety risk compared to some of the more intractable issues.

again,, you're saying :why don't we deal with terror first" because terror is an arbitrary term and kills less americans than drug violence. how many americans died to foreign terrorism last year?

if we're prioritizing harm reduction, international terrorism falls very low on the list. alcohol and drugs land much much higher. and people definitely die to pot deals too, any time you put big money and people that aren't afraid of committing crimes in the same place, bad things can happen.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

who's saying we're prioritizing it? i'm just saying it makes sense to do things that make sense. the cons of legalization are pretty low, so it's not like there's a strong financial or safety risk compared to some of the more intractable issues.

again,, you're saying :why don't we deal with terror first" because terror is an arbitrary term and kills less americans than drug violence. how many americans died to foreign terrorism last year?

if we're prioritizing harm reduction, international terrorism falls very low on the list. alcohol and drugs land much much higher. and people definitely die to pot deals too, any time you put big money and people that aren't afraid of committing crimes in the same place, bad things can happen.

K follow me here.

Unless you're a complete sheep, I'm sure there are subjects upon which you agree with the democrats and subjects upon which you agree with the republicans.

Parenthetically, if you line up entirely behind one party or the other on every single issue, then you're not really much of an independent thinker. But you guys are all sharp.

So when you decide who to vote for, how do you reconcile those conflicts? For example, I personally can't stand that republicans are opposed to gay marriage rights, but I'm also very supportive of their stance on trade policy, particularly with China. How do you decide how to break those kinds of ties?

You prioritize. You decide which policies are more important to you, and you put more weight on them.

All I'm saying is this weed issue can't possibly factor big into your voting choice, or I worry about how you think through your priorities.

I jumped on Mooby because I read his post to mean that this is a big issue for him. I since realized I misunderstood. While I agree that legalizing pot just makes practical sense, I can't believe it would factor into anybody's decision on who to vote for.

And maybe it's not factoring into your decision on who to vote for. In which case I'm sorry I even engaged in the discussion, because who cares.

[That Guy]

yeah, no, it has nothing to do with deciding who i vote for, it's really not the president's job either, it's congress's, i just think it's a reasonable thing to do. I don't think anyone is using it as issue #1 in who to pick, so i guess we were kind of talking past each other. that's for the articulation, the thread makes a lot more sense now.

i really wish our political process didn't cater to short sighted, self-serving a-holes. it just seems like every 4 years i have to make a binary decision between different shades of terrible/

[CRedskinsRule]

From a CNN entrance poll in Nevada



Top candidate quality
1024 total respondents
Can win in November HC-80 BS - 15
Cares about people HC 26 BS - 72
Honesty and Trust HC 12 BS - 82
Right Experience HC 92 BS - 8

Those are some stark numbers.