Logic-lacking argument in WSJ about Tax rates

[DaveJ]

I never expect Wingnuts to make sense. But I can usually contort my thoughts to at least conceptualize the tiniest logic, even though that logic is totally disconnected to other outlying factors.

This is something stated in a WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204653604577247800370322294.html?mod=WSJ_hps_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

"According to the Census Bureau, the share of income received by the top 5% of American households is now 21.5%, up from 21.4% in the 1990s. Their share of income taxes has risen to 59% under President Obama from 52% under President Clinton. This despite the fact that the top tax rate was five points higher in the Clinton years.

If you go further back to the pre-Reagan days, when the top tax rate was 70%, the story becomes even more dramatic. Under the four presidents of that era, the income share of the top 5% was 16.8% and their share of the income tax was 36%. In other words, the share of income received by the top 5% has risen 28% and their share of income taxes has risen 64%."

This is supposed to be an argument against raising taxes on the rich, arguing that the rich are treated unfairly now compared to 60 years ago, but it really seems to make the opposite point.

It sounds like they are saying when tax rates were 70% for the rich, the rich contributed less in relation to the overall tax revenue. Meaning the middle class had MORE to contribute.

When forcing the rich to pay their fair share, the middle class had more.

One could say that there is no cause-effect relationship, but I think there is when government builds infrastructure and looks out for the wellbeing of the nation overall.

[CJCRANE]

1. It also depends on where the rich invested their surplus cash...

I don't know for sure but I assume that higher tax rates would force the rich to re-invest their money in new businesses and business infrastructure rather than just sitting on the cash as they do now.

[mbperrin]

3. You are right. Confiscatory rates are meant to keep money moving,

rather than just sitting there as now.

The top rate in 1952 was 92%.

[BearsandBulls]

2. His Arguement Makes Sense Through His Eyes Though

Sorry for playing devil's advocate or whatever, but the point of this guy's argument is that even as the top 5 percent's income hasn't gone up a particularly large amount, their percentage of the tax burden has.

[DaveJ]

4. I reread it and realized his logic was much simpler than I imagined

I admit that I did not thoroughly understand his simplistic logic, but even after understanding it better, it still seems to clearly make an argument for taxing the rich. He has demonstrated that things were better when the rich were taxed more. More people were in the top 5%, and the rest paid more because they had more money.

As far as being burdened is concerned, if one looks at the lives of the rich, vs the lives of the rest of us, I do not know how any sentient person could be concerned about burdening rich.

[BearsandBulls]

5. Not That I'm Saying His Argument Is Correct

It's not, his statistics are biased to show that his point of view is right when it's not. I mean he even gives himself away: we lowered the taxes since the Clinton era and yet their paying a larger percentage of the income tax burden. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense for his argument, does it?

All that bullshit about class warfare and how much the Republicans love the rich, and people still vote for them. Doesn't make much sense does it.

[Taitertots]

6. That really is the sort of stupid shit that the right believes

Marginal tax rates on the rich are at historic lows, but the right is complaining that they still pay too much in taxes.

The simple answer is that rich people pay more because their share of income and wealth is at historic highs.