The vice president is rolling out her first revenue-raising policy proposal as the Democratic presidential nominee and drawing a contrast with GOP opponent Donald Trump.
You have to bear in mind that the “like it used to be” part operated when digital card payments were not a thing. A customer would give you cash, and maybe you would write it down in your taxes, but there was no digital indicator of what actually happened.
Small business owners got to stay afloat by swindling the government, and this was the normal way for centuries.
I’m not saying it’s right, just that the high business tax of the past wasn’t as effective as you think it was, and will hit extremely differently this time around in the digital era.
That used to be the case until 2017. Highest bracket was 39%, but they had a weird system where it went UP until about 350Kish, (Income between 100K~350K) and then the variable rate started dropping again for income past that, back down to 35%. Would have been fair to assume any fortune 500 company not doing shady shit would have paid an effective rate of 35%.
Trump’s tax cuts drastically decreased that, down to 21% flat for everyone. 28% would still be a tax cut over what it was up til 2017.
Smaller businesses have better wages and hire more people. Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail. Smaller businesses, mean more options, more ideas, and variety is good for the marketplace, consumer, and the country as a whole.
Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail.
Some of this is questionable and other bits are flat wrong. Small businesses have bigger lending costs and less slack in their workforces, so they’re often contained to focusing on a niche field.
And after a break up or spin off or outsourcing effort, certain components of the old business can become lynchpins for the rest.
That’s basically the story of Cloud Strike. Much smaller than it’s clients, but still too critical to be allowed to fail.
And just because a business administration is broken up doesn’t mean it’s revenues are. Modern conglomerates - Berkshire Hathaway, and Citadel Investments being the most notorious - have big stakes in enormous swaths of private industry. They control enough board seats to function as economic central planners.
Buffet doesn’t really care if he owns one big Coca-Cola or a thousand little ones, just so long as he continues to extract that sweet sweet labor value.
The top marginal corporate tax rate never exceeded 52.9%. This is conflating the corporate tax rate with the individual income tax rate. The marginal rate was raised above 80% during the Great Depression, and it was raised above 90% in the 1940’s.
In the 1950’s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but people were allowed to avoid income tax by funneling income through corporate tax shelters, leaving a top effective tax rate that wasn’t much higher than it is today (the exact number is hard to calculate). Not only that, but the tax burden has also shifted dramatically since the 1950’s. In Eisenhower’s day, those earning more than $100,000 per year shouldered around 20% of the tax burden. Today, the equivalent economic class shoulders over 80% of the tax burden.
Heres another flaw: when tax rates were 90%, the tax code also provided for tons of deductions that no longer exist. It also treated income from many sources as not being subject to tax, such as income derived from trusts or investments held in trusts. Imagine Bill Gates placing his Microsoft stock into a trust and only paying tax on the money he takes as a salary from his Foundation or from speaking fees. Sure, his “tax rate” might hit 90%, but the vast majority of his income would escape taxation. Such was the tax code under Eisenhower. You can’t just compare tax rates without also accounting for the rest of the tax laws including credits, deductions, exclusions, and definitions of taxable income.
So, no, corporate tax rates were literally never 90%.
Are you including the fact that $100,000 in the 1950s is more than $1million after accounting for inflation?
According to some quick googling, $1,300,000 is the modern equivalent of $100,000 in 1950. That would put you in the top 5% earners (and very nearly in the top 1%). According to the IRS, the top 5% contribute about 65% of the tax burden.
The top 25% make up about 90% of contributions, but that starts around $70,000 annual income.
that is fascinating… do you have some longer easy to read source to learn about this topic?
also, you say those earning 100k in 1950’s only carried 20% of tax burden and now they carry 80%… what exactly is tax burden and is that number inflation adjusted? how big fraction of income distribution are we talking about?
Should be no less than 90%, like it used to be.
You have to bear in mind that the “like it used to be” part operated when digital card payments were not a thing. A customer would give you cash, and maybe you would write it down in your taxes, but there was no digital indicator of what actually happened.
Small business owners got to stay afloat by swindling the government, and this was the normal way for centuries.
I’m not saying it’s right, just that the high business tax of the past wasn’t as effective as you think it was, and will hit extremely differently this time around in the digital era.
The best thing to have is a variable tax rate that goes up the more profit is made.
That’s how it is in my country.
That used to be the case until 2017. Highest bracket was 39%, but they had a weird system where it went UP until about 350Kish, (Income between 100K~350K) and then the variable rate started dropping again for income past that, back down to 35%. Would have been fair to assume any fortune 500 company not doing shady shit would have paid an effective rate of 35%.
Trump’s tax cuts drastically decreased that, down to 21% flat for everyone. 28% would still be a tax cut over what it was up til 2017.
what if a company decides to split up into 100 smaller companies to avoid taxation?
Identify them then seize all of their assets IMO.
Good?
Smaller businesses have better wages and hire more people. Smaller businesses are more nimble, flexible, and they’re never too big to fail. Smaller businesses, mean more options, more ideas, and variety is good for the marketplace, consumer, and the country as a whole.
Less consolidation is good! Competition is good!
Some of this is questionable and other bits are flat wrong. Small businesses have bigger lending costs and less slack in their workforces, so they’re often contained to focusing on a niche field.
And after a break up or spin off or outsourcing effort, certain components of the old business can become lynchpins for the rest.
That’s basically the story of Cloud Strike. Much smaller than it’s clients, but still too critical to be allowed to fail.
And just because a business administration is broken up doesn’t mean it’s revenues are. Modern conglomerates - Berkshire Hathaway, and Citadel Investments being the most notorious - have big stakes in enormous swaths of private industry. They control enough board seats to function as economic central planners.
Buffet doesn’t really care if he owns one big Coca-Cola or a thousand little ones, just so long as he continues to extract that sweet sweet labor value.
That’s fraud and illegal.
I’m pretty sure that it would be practically impossible to prove in practice that it’s fraud and illegal.
The top marginal corporate tax rate never exceeded 52.9%. This is conflating the corporate tax rate with the individual income tax rate. The marginal rate was raised above 80% during the Great Depression, and it was raised above 90% in the 1940’s.
In the 1950’s, the top marginal tax rate was 90%, but people were allowed to avoid income tax by funneling income through corporate tax shelters, leaving a top effective tax rate that wasn’t much higher than it is today (the exact number is hard to calculate). Not only that, but the tax burden has also shifted dramatically since the 1950’s. In Eisenhower’s day, those earning more than $100,000 per year shouldered around 20% of the tax burden. Today, the equivalent economic class shoulders over 80% of the tax burden.
Heres another flaw: when tax rates were 90%, the tax code also provided for tons of deductions that no longer exist. It also treated income from many sources as not being subject to tax, such as income derived from trusts or investments held in trusts. Imagine Bill Gates placing his Microsoft stock into a trust and only paying tax on the money he takes as a salary from his Foundation or from speaking fees. Sure, his “tax rate” might hit 90%, but the vast majority of his income would escape taxation. Such was the tax code under Eisenhower. You can’t just compare tax rates without also accounting for the rest of the tax laws including credits, deductions, exclusions, and definitions of taxable income.
So, no, corporate tax rates were literally never 90%.
Are you including the fact that $100,000 in the 1950s is more than $1million after accounting for inflation?
According to some quick googling, $1,300,000 is the modern equivalent of $100,000 in 1950. That would put you in the top 5% earners (and very nearly in the top 1%). According to the IRS, the top 5% contribute about 65% of the tax burden.
The top 25% make up about 90% of contributions, but that starts around $70,000 annual income.
that is fascinating… do you have some longer easy to read source to learn about this topic?
also, you say those earning 100k in 1950’s only carried 20% of tax burden and now they carry 80%… what exactly is tax burden and is that number inflation adjusted? how big fraction of income distribution are we talking about?