Friday, December 19, 2014

*********************************************
Prosperity tries the fortunate, adversity the great.
Rose Kennedy
*********************************************

posted by Dot Calm @ 11:57 PM 

Top Marginal Tax Rates
1958 vs. 2009

By Timothy Taylor

Friday, March 16, 2012--Top marginal income tax rates used to be much higher back in the 1950s and 1960s.

How much revenue did those higher tax rates actually collect?

Daniel Baneman and Jim Nunns address that question in a short report "Income Tax Paid at Each at Tax Rated, 1958-2009," published by the Tax Policy Center last October.

 For starters, take a look at the statutory tax brackets for 1958 and 2009.

The The tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, so the horizontal axis is constant 2009 dollars.

The top statutory tax rate in 2009 was 35%; back in 1958, it was about 90%.

Marginal income tax rates are lower across the income distribution in 2009.

In addition, the top marginal tax rate occurs much lower in the income distribution in 2009 than it did in 1958.

How many households actually paid these rates?

Here's a figure showing the share of taxpayers facing different marginal tax rates.

At the bottom, across this time period, roughly 20% of all tax returns owed no tax, and so faced a marginal tax rate of zero percent.

Back in 1958, the most common marginal tax brackets faced by taxpayers were in the 16-28% category; since the mid-1980s, the most common marginal tax rate faced by taxpayers has been the 1-16% category.

Clearly, a very small proportion of taxpayers actually faced the very highest marginal tax rates back 1958.

It's interesting to note how the share of taxpayers facing higher marginal rates expanded substantially in the 1970s, probably due in large part to "bracket creep"--that is, tax brackets at that time didn't increase with the rate of inflation, so as wages were driven up by inflation, you were pushed into higher tax brackets even though real income had not increased. 

How much revenue was raised by these high marginal tax rates?

Although the highest marginal tax rates applied to a tiny share of taxpayers, marginal tax rates above 39.7% collected more than 10% of income tax revenue back in the late 1950s.

It's interesting to note that the share of income tax revenue collected by those in the top brackets for 2009--that is, the 29-35% category, is larger than the rate collected by all marginal tax brackets above 29% back in the 1960s.

A few quick thoughts:

1) Perhaps it goes without saying, but there's no reason to think that 1958 was the high point of social wisdom when it comes to tax policy.

In addition, the economy has evolved considerably since 1958: talent and tasks are probably more mobile, and methods of categorizing income in ways that affect tax burdens have become more sophisticated.

Also, the distribution of income has become much more unequal in recent decades, and so arguments over the appropriate share of taxes to be paid by those in the top income groups have evolved as well.

2) Raising tax rates on those with the highest incomes would raise significant funds, but nowhere near enough to solve America's fiscal woes.

Baneman and Nunns offer this rough illustrative estimate:

"If taxable income in the top bracket in 2007 had been taxed at an average rate of 49 percent, income tax liabilities (before credits) would have been $78 billion (6.7 percent of total pre-credit liabilities) higher, taking into account likely taxpayer behavioral responses to the rate increase."

The behavioral response they assume is that every 10% rise in tax rates causes taxable income to fall by 2.5%.

3) If one wants to use the 1958 example as a precedent, it would be fair to point out that the lowest-bracket income tax rates are a fairly new development, as of the mid-1980s.

One could also use the example of 1959 to argue that many more taxpayers in the broad range of lower- and middle-incomes should face marginal federal tax rates in the range of 16-28%.

4) If the goal is to raise more tax revenue from those with high incomes, higher tax rates are not the only method of doing so.

For example, one could limit various tax deductions that apply with greatest force to those high up in the income brackets.

One could also look at ways in which the tax code lets those with high incomes pay lower rates, like the lower tax rates for capital gains and on tax-free investments like state and local bonds.

posted by Dot Calm @ 11:44 PM 

*******************************************
FESTIVE & UNIQUE HOLIDAY DRINK
Sure to please even the most
discriminating palate !
Mix 12 ounces of fracking fluid with eggnog
shake vigorously til foam appears...
Serve in Belleek stemmed glassware
over crushed ice and one of those adorable umbrellas!
*********************************************

posted by Dot Calm @ 10:38 PM 

Fox Business News host Melissa Francis said on Tuesday about Elizabeth Warren and Wall Street's deep hostility to the Senator:
"And I can tell you from talking to people in the financial industry, in banking, on Wall Street, they think she is actually the devil. I mean, without question, Elizabeth Warren is the devil."
This statement clearly reveals the fear--from Fox to Wall Street--that Warren might run for president.

Well, now it's time for us to make those fears come true.

With the support of 87.6% of Democracy for America members, DFA just announced that we are joining our friends at MoveOn to launch the Run Warren Run campaign urging Sen. Warren to seek the Democratic presidential nomination.

This is one of the biggest campaigns in the history of DFA--and we see it as a win/win for Elizabeth Warren, the progressive movement, and the country.

If Sen. Warren runs, it will fundamentally change America.

And, even if she doesn't run, it will fundamentally shift the center of gravity in the Democratic Party between the Wall Street Wing and the Warren Wing.

But the only way Elizabeth Warren is going to consider running is if DFA members like you step up to make this unprecedented people-powered presidential draft campaign possible.

The best defense against Fox and Wall Street is to go on offense. Chip in $3 or more today and help DFA convince Elizabeth Warren to run for president.
Wall Street is running scared in reaction to Elizabeth Warren.

And they should be scared.

On issue after issue, Elizabeth Warren is fighting back for the American people:
  • In her game-changing speech on the Senate floor last Friday, Warren boldly declared to Citigroup that "we should have broken you up."
  • Warren is leading the effort to block the nomination of an unqualified Wall Street crony, Antonio Weiss, to a major position in the Treasury Department.
  • Warren also led the fight to stop the huge giveaways to Wall Street in the "cromnibus" bill last week, including new rules that weaken the all-important Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. 
  •  
  • The effort failed, but Warren's perceived power increased, as the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House followed her lead. 
The same reason Wall Street is so afraid of Elizabeth Warren is exactly why she should run for president.

She is a champion of the middle class, a warrior against income inequality, and believes that our government should work for "we the people"--not for the Wall Street elite.

The media is taking notice, as Fox's "devil" comment demonstrates.

Conservative columnist David Brooks even wrote a New York Times piece this week headlined "Warren can win."

 But first, we have to convince her to run.

A strong grassroots movement can do that, just as it convinced her to run for the Senate in 2012.

posted by Dot Calm @ 10:18 PM 

I've posted the entire history of Ohio's experience regarding fracking. It is overwhelming. Is America being torn apart fracking site by fracking site?

posted by Dot Calm @ 6:31 AM 

Fracking In Ohio

Connect with us



Act on Fracking

What's at Stake| Our Plan | Take Action | Policy Updates | Recent News

Bottom line: Our government has failed to protect us from fracking.

Click the image to see the full infographic

What’s at stake

This summer, we witnessed a terrible accident at a fracking site in Clarington, Ohio. Twenty-five families living nearby had to evacuate their homes, one person was injured, and toxic chemicals leaked into a nearby stream.
How did this happen?
Several trucks at the fracking site caught fire, triggering a series of more than 30 explosions. The fracking well was RIGHT next to a stream that feeds into a major drinking water source and was within two football fields’ distance from two homes!
Immediately after the accident, emergency workers and drinking water managers weren’t sure how best to protect residents. That’s because the fracking company did not release complete details on all of the chemicals that were used and stored on site.
And guess what the worst part is? This is all  perfectly legal under Ohio law.

Our Plan

As you can see from the story above, there are A LOT of problems with the way fracking operates in Ohio. To read our complete 34 point plan for fixing these issues, see here.
We’ll be working year after year to make this plan a reality. But, in the short term, we’ve identified three priorities that we must immediately address to keep Ohioans safe.
  1. First, we’re working to pass a law that would require companies to notify the necessary authorities about all fracking chemicals stored on-site or in-use before an accident or spill occurs. This would make sure fire departments, first responders, Ohio EPA, and drinking water authorities know what they’re up against.
  2. We are also working to secure increased funding for training and equipment for state and local emergency responders. The firefighters and Ohio EPA emergency response personnel need to have up-to-date tools to be able to do their job to protect the public.
  3. Finally, it is unacceptable that a fracking well can be closer to a waterway than the distance between home plate and the pitcher’s mound. We’re working with lawmakers to make sure that fracking wells stay away from our water and our homes.
Learn more

#ActOnFracking: Take Action Today!

ACTION ALERT: With just a click you can tweet to the Senate Agriculture Committee for stronger fracking protections!
We need stronger laws to better protect Ohioans from fracking, and we need you to make that happen.
One of the best ways to join this fight is by betting your chips on us! A monthly contribution of as little as $10 will keep us at the statehouse, in the media, and in the courtroom, fighting for better protections.

Spread the word:


Policy Updates

House Bill 490, a wide-ranging environmental and agricultural bill,  was voted through the Ohio House and now sits with the Ohio Senate’s Agriculture Committee. In it’s current form, the bill will make significant changes to penalties on fracking operators, and chemical disclosure requirements.
The house bill eliminates most of the Governor’s proposed improvements, which were introduced in the original version of the bill as a response to flagrant fracking violations in the state.   These include:
  • Expanding ODNR authority to suspend operations and revoke permits for dangerous and harmful violations
  • Allowing ODNR to deny permits to violators that have failed to fix existing violations
  • Requiring full background checks of owners and key employees of companies and subsidiaries who want to drill or dispose of brine in Ohio
  • Increasing civil penalties on fracking law violators
  • Boosting criminal monetary and imprisonment penalties for the most flagrant polluters
The house bill also contains provisions which would allow the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to replace the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) as the repository of chemical inventory reporting. In Ohio, all other industries which handle large volumes of chemicals must provide this information to the SERC, local emergency planning committees and local firefighters.

Recent News

posted by Dot Calm @ 5:55 AM