Manhattan Institute article misses a key point..

A very good Manhattan Institute article titled Hillary & Bernie’s tax fantasies points out some very big problems with the left’s tax-and-spend approach to business. From the article:

Soak-the-rich proposals ignore history and wouldn’t raise nearly enough money to fund big spending plans.

If they stole every penny from anyone making over $100K a year, the collectivist government Hillary & Bernie promise wouldn’t be able to operate for more than a year anyway. Who would they steal money from after they robbed the productive? And the sad thing is that Hillary at least knows this. Bernie is a fucking loser and doesn’t care. It is about revenge for the fact that he couldn’t hold a real job or bag a real women. That is why, in practice, I firmly believe that the left wouldn’t do this (maybe Bernie would). So why this charade then?

Here is a question to ask Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders: What is the best tax rate to impose on high-income earners to ensure there is enough government revenue to pay for your trillion-dollar promises to voters?

Perhaps they think it is 83%, a rate that economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saezhypothesized in 2014 in a widely circulated paper. Or maybe it is 90%, which Sen. Sanders told CNBC last May was not out of the question. “Our job is not to think small,” Mr. Sanders elaborated in the Huffington Post a month later. “It is to think big.”

Progressives have often reminded us that the U.S. had such rates in the past. From 1936 to 1980, the highest federal income-tax rate was never below 70%, and the top rate exceeded 90% from 1951 to 1963. Under Ronald Reagan, the top federal rate declined to 28% by 1988 and has never reached 40% since.

The discussion of these rates can easily create the impression that the federal government collected far more money from “the rich” before the Reagan administration. And it can also leave another impression: There would be no downside to raising rates to 1950s levels, given that decade’s prosperity.

Neither impression would be correct. The effective tax rates actually paid by the highest income earners during the 1950s and early ’60s were far lower than the highest marginal rates. Few taxpayers reached the top brackets, the code was rife with loopholes, and capital gains were taxed at much lower rates.

And when you read between the lines, that last paragraph, it becomes obvious why the left still thinks this absolutely idiotic idea has merit. Insane tax rates provide the political left with the greatest opportunity for graft. In the name of “social engineering” they would flood that system with loopholes to favor their preferred constituencies: lobbyists, mega crops, the ultra rich, and the people that vote for a living. If we went back to the tax rates of the 50s, it would come with a trough feeding frenzy by the lawmakers pushing this crap on the people, as one special interest after another lines up to buy their own bennies.

The only people really screwed would be the middle class. The left can’t operate their totalitarian command driven economy nanny state unless they get rid of the middle class, anyway. History shows us that you always end up with a 2 class system: the aristocracy in charge, and the serfs bearing the brunt of the horrible policies they are made to live under.

Nostalgia aside for a world that never existed, few people paid the top tax rates of the 1950s and early 1960s…

Meh, the political left doesn’t pine for any of that. They spout it to hide their real intention: to rob taxpayers fucking blind by making everyone line up to buy favors from them. In short, they think this move will enhance their ability to pick the winners and the losers even more while in the process lining their pockets. gangsters the lot of them.

Comments are closed.

  1. richtaylor365

    I read that article Monday in the WSJ, but you left out the most salient point;

    In the 1960s, for example, the average rate paid by the top 0.1% of tax filers—the top 10th of the top 1%—ranged from 26.5% to 29.5%, according to a 2007 study by Messrs. Piketty and Saez. Even during the 20 years after the Reagan tax cuts, the top 10th of the top 1% paid an average rate of 23.7% to 33%—essentially the same as in the 1960s. In the decade following 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average rate for this elite group never exceeded 32%.

    And yet today, combining both federal and state taxes, most folks doing well for themselves pays 50% in taxes.

    Thumb up 0

  2. RonK

    don’t forget they not only want what you earn but they want to take over your retirement plan, (401k, roth), what ever you saved on your own.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    RonK, you got it wrong. According to these bastards you didn’t earn  shit, because they want you to believe that without them and their big government you couldn’t have done any of it. While that applies to the really well off today that are definitely there because of the system that requires them to buy their prosperity from the gatekeepers, it needs to be mentioned that they firmly believe that everyone else’s money is theirs, and you need to be content that they are letting you keep some of it.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    The problem we have today is that what the collectivist promise can’t be delivered even if we had a 100% tax rate. Some of us see that. Others willfully ignore that or choose to go along with this evil shit anyway, expecting that when the shit hits the fan, they are long gone or will avoid the effects.

    Collectivism is about splitting the pie, oft in a very biased and detrimental way, but sold as justice, instead of growing it so everyone can get a bigger piece.

    Thumb up 0