The XYZelensky Affair and the Whole Impeachment Shebang

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here's a good piece on the tax burdens of various income levels -- it factors in fed, state, local, property, estate, etc..

Link

In 1913, the 1% had an effective tax rate of about 14% compared to the lower 50% income households rate of 6%. In 2013, a 36% rate was noted for the 1%, while the lower half rate was 24%. One could argue that the gap had increased "against" the rich by 50%, going from 8-12 points...

I would, I suppose, reluctantly note that the comparative rates for 1% v lower 50% were a factor of 2.33 in 1913 but have shrunk to a factor of 1.5 in this millennium; or I could note that the effective taxes on the wealthy have not quite tripled whereas the taxes on the lower 50% households have fully quadrupled...but those interpolations wouldn't let me continue to think of myself as deserving of government largesse despite my affluence.

Perhaps I should follow Idaho's line of thinking and disdain the lower 50% because of their melanin difference from me? If I just accept that I can never be anything but a bigot because I am white and not poor then this would all be so much easier. I can be trapped in someone else's label of me and pilloried forever. Beats thinking I suppose.

[Montmorency]

Hi everyone, ♪ look at this 'graph ♪, then look at the graph on total tax rates I posted above. Then think about how one factor depressing wage growth for a generation has been the skyrocketing of employer health-insurance premiums. Then knock together a tumbrel.




Also, read this massive expose (disclosure: too long for me) entitled "Welcome to Coffeyville, Kansas, where the judge has no law degree, debt collectors get a cut of the bail, and Americans are watching their lives — and liberty — disappear in the pursuit of medical debt collection." I can't tell you what to do then.

Here's a good piece on the tax burdens of various income levels -- it factors in fed, state, local, property, estate, etc..

Critically, the analysis I referenced factors not just the "1%" but the 0.01% - and the Slate article notes, "moreover, as Greenberg admits, tax rates on top 0.1 percent have fallen by about one-fifth since their 1950s heights" - and the very richest 400 households (0.00...1%); their effective tax rates are much diminished. It is convenient that Greenberg from the Slate article uses data from Saez & Zucman just as the new article I linked does, because it helps reinforce the same point. To say that the high marginal tax rates for earned income did not affect many people has little meaning, because as we see the people who were affected felt the full force of the high tax rates, paying the vast majority of their income in taxes. Now these tax rates do not exist, the number and proportion of households who would be affected by their existence is orders of magnitude greater, and the truly wealthy make off astonishingly well. What inferences do you draw from this information?

Perhaps I should follow Idaho's line of thinking and disdain the lower 50% because of their melanin difference from me? If I just accept that I can never be anything but a bigot because I am white and not poor then this would all be so much easier. I can be trapped in someone else's label of me and pilloried forever. Beats thinking I suppose.

Support redistributive policies? I don't see why you would treat this as some inscrutable mystery. From a rational perspective it's very little to ask, unless it gets to the tumbrels phase.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hi everyone, ♪ look at this 'graph ♪, then look at the graph on total tax rates I posted above. Then think about how one factor depressing wage growth for a generation has been the skyrocketing of employer health-insurance premiums. Then knock together a tumbrel.




Also, read this massive expose (disclosure: too long for me) entitled "Welcome to Coffeyville, Kansas, where the judge has no law degree, debt collectors get a cut of the bail, and Americans are watching their lives — and liberty — disappear in the pursuit of medical debt collection." I can't tell you what to do then.




Critically, the analysis I referenced factors not just the "1%" but the 0.01% - and the Slate article notes, "moreover, as Greenberg admits, tax rates on top 0.1 percent have fallen by about one-fifth since their 1950s heights" - and the very richest 400 households (0.00...1%); their effective tax rates are much diminished. It is convenient that Greenberg from the Slate article uses data from Saez & Zucman just as the new article I linked does, because it helps reinforce the same point. To say that the high marginal tax rates for earned income did not affect many people has little meaning, because as we see the people who were affected felt the full force of the high tax rates, paying the vast majority of their income in taxes. Now these tax rates do not exist, the number and proportion of households who would be affected by their existence is orders of magnitude greater, and the truly wealthy make off astonishingly well. What inferences do you draw from this information?



Support redistributive policies? I don't see why you would treat this as some inscrutable mystery. From a rational perspective it's very little to ask, unless it gets to the tumbrels phase.

my last line or so were more of a jibe at Idaho's attitude than anything else.

And our current tax system is horrid. In its current form, income ranging in the 51-90 percentile ranges all too often pay a higher rate than the portion above because of things like using losses to offset taxes etc. The whole system is rotten.

[Montmorency]

my last line or so were more of a jibe at Idaho's attitude than anything else.

And our current tax system is horrid. In its current form, income ranging in the 51-90 percentile ranges all too often pay a higher rate than the portion above because of things like using losses to offset taxes etc. The whole system is rotten.

Since we're not delving here, I'll add another story on the theory that cumulative dozens of such stories will stir the intellect to contemplation. From the Equifax class-action lawsuit (non-Americans look it up): They stored sensitive personal information in unencrypted plaintext accessible from front-end portals. Sensitive data served over the web was also unencrypted. They used "admin" as a username and password.

In a point for Sanders, he has called for eliminating these credit rating leeches and replacing them with a public credit registry - as well as making it unlawful to use credit scores as a discriminatory criterion in employment, insurance, and rental housing. Who can disagree on either?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Since we're not delving here, I'll add another story on the theory that cumulative dozens of such stories will stir the intellect to contemplation. From the Equifax class-action lawsuit (non-Americans look it up): They stored sensitive personal information in unencrypted plaintext accessible from front-end portals. Sensitive data served over the web was also unencrypted. They used "admin" as a username and password.

In a point for Sanders, he has called for eliminating these credit rating leeches and replacing them with a public credit registry - as well as making it unlawful to use credit scores as a discriminatory criterion in employment, insurance, and rental housing. Who can disagree on either?

Rental housing? Why would it not be a valid tool there? Credit should be an irrelevance to the other two as it is not germane, unless you are writing up some kind of credit-insurance policy.

[Montmorency]

Everything about the US Government is insane - you took all the wrong lessons from two World wars.

Here only the self-employed file their own taxes, which they do because they are operating as a business. If you think you've been over-taxed you can file you a change of tax code, at which point the Revenue will re-calculate and pay you the difference, with interest on anything from the previous tax-year.

You're unlikely to be in the wrong tax code unless you change jobs, or work more than one job.

Noted, but what do tax filing procedures have to do with the lessons of the world wars? The wars drove up tax rates and I'm sure led to innovations in administration, but what's the specific connection you're making?

Rental housing? Why would it not be a valid tool there? Credit should be an irrelevance to the other two as it is not germane, unless you are writing up some kind of credit-insurance policy.

For reference, see Sanders' overall housing reform plan and a think-tank paper that influenced the public credit registry idea.

The narrative as I know it is:

1. Financial and real estate speculation destroyed the economy in 2007-9.
2. Besides losing homes many people suffered unduly in their credit ratings.
3. Businesses and speculators who treat real estate as an appreciating asset have contributed to rising property prices and rents.
4. Credit score tests for rent have become more stringent, placing greater burdens and restrictions on middle-class renters and below.
5. Credit scores are often inaccurate anyway.
6. All of the above are subject to and perpetuate racial and other forms of discrimination, where people of color are more likely to be targeted for predatory lending in the first place (thus harming their scores among other things), categorized as high-risk or not have a credit history at all - further noting that all the above, including the 2008 recession and contributing factors, devastated middle-class black and Hispanic families in particular.
7. The current system of credit checks is deeply unfair to tens of millions of people who need access to credit to live.

As for why a transparent and accurate government registry of credit scores shouldn't be relied upon in residential leasing (including after medical debt is excluded from the algorithm as Sanders proposes), I'm not sure. I would assume to preclude any resurgence of the long-standing disadvantages referenced.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Noted, but what do tax filing procedures have to do with the lessons of the world wars? The wars drove up tax rates and I'm sure led to innovations in administration, but what's the specific connection you're making?

I'll repeat - everything about the US Government is insane.

You did ask for my opinion.

[edyzmedieval]

In 1913, the 1% had an effective tax rate of about 14% compared to the lower 50% income households rate of 6%. In 2013, a 36% rate was noted for the 1%, while the lower half rate was 24%. One could argue that the gap had increased "against" the rich by 50%, going from 8-12 points...

One problem over here - tax loopholes.

Loopholes are so widespread in the American fiscal code that you can effectively negate your own taxation by a significant margin if you go through the "company" route. A lot of CEOs forego salaries for PR (of course) but also for taxation purposes. Capital gains tax is encouraging top leaders who can go without the salary to ditch it completely.

Furthermore, since I'm working closely with the financial industry, tax optimisation (as it's called) is widespread and EU nationals can use various fiscal havens like the United Kingdom (yes, the UK) to lower their tax rates significantly. How does 5-10% taxation on a 300-400.000 USD annual income sound?