When Dwight Eisenhower was president, the marginal tax rate reached its peak (92%) in 1952 and 1953. Union membership reached its peak in 1953, and the country experienced significant economic growth for most of the 1950’s.
Although you might think that we were “soaking the rich”, the
reality is a lot different than that. The article listed below goes into more
detail, but the short version is that due to deductions and credits that are available
to wealthy individuals, the top 1% actually paid 42% of their income in
federal, state, and local taxes. Today, that total has declined only slightly,
to 36.4%.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
The article below lists the tax burdens in all 50 states. The list
compares personal individual income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and combined
sales and income tax leaders.
If you took the time to review the data in the article that I published
in January of 2019, you’d discover that the states that have the highest income
taxes also happen to have the highest GDP, and they also tend to have the best
schools.
https://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2019/01/its-really-just-simple-math.html
The man most responsible for causing the Republican Party “off
the rails” is Grover Norquist, who founded Americans for Tax Reform in 1985. Prior to the
November 2012 election, 238 of 242 House Republicans
and 41 out of 47 Senate Republicans had signed ATR's
"Taxpayer Protection Pledge", in which the pledger promises to
"oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for
individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of
deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing
tax rates.
Ronald Reagan introduced the “tricle down” theory, which
stated that tax reductions for corporations and wealthy individuals would lead
to economic growth, and more income for everybody. The Trump administration followed
this theory in December of 2017, when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed.
The Tax Policy
Center (TPC) estimated that the bottom 80% of taxpayers (income
under $149,400) would receive 35% of the benefit in 2018, 34% in 2025 and none
of the benefit in 2027, with some groups incurring costs. TPC also
estimated 72% of taxpayers would be adversely impacted in 2019 and beyond, if
the tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts separate from the legislation, as
most spending cuts would impact lower- to middle-income taxpayers and outweigh
the benefits from the tax cuts.
In 2018, companies spent a
record-setting $1.1 trillion to buy back their own stock, and a majority of
major firms (84%, as polled by the National Association for Business Economics)
did not alter their hiring practice or their investment in their business in
response to the tax cuts they received. This pattern was evident even in early
2018, when Bloomberg reported (based on an analysis of 51 S&P 500
companies) that an estimated 60% of corporate tax savings was going to
shareholders, while 15% was going to employees. A Bloomberg Economics
analysis found that, while business investment did increase in 2018, relatively
little of that activity could be attributed to lower taxes.
The law also impacts healthcare by
repealing the ACA individual mandate, resulting in projections of up to 13 million
fewer persons covered by health insurance as some younger, healthier persons
will likely choose not to participate. Those in the remaining less healthy pool
will pay higher insurance costs on the ACA exchanges, which will result in
additional persons dropping coverage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017
When Doug Ducey was sworn into office, he pledged to reduce
taxes every year. If you’d studied the recent history of Kansas (which slashed
taxes when Sam Brownback was governor, you’d realize that tax reduction is NOT
a good idea.
Two ballot initiatives related to taxes managed to get onto
the ballot in Arizona for the November election.
Proposition 207 asks voters if they want to legalize
recreational marijuana. You would think that this proposition should be fairly
straight, but the state managed to spend 70 pages listing the pros and cons of
the proposition.
In 2014, the state of Colorado legalized recreational marijuana.
To date, the state has surpassed $1 billion in tax revenue. In addition, the
state has also saved money because it no longer needs to imprison folks
convicted of minor drug offenses.
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/12/colorado-marijuana-revenue-one-billion/
In my opinion, Proposition 207 should be an easy “yes” vote.
Ever since the Great Recession, funding for Arizona schools
has been among the worst in the nation. Although the state passed a very modest
sales tax increase a few years ago, it simply was not enough to measurably improve
school funding.
Proposition 2018 would impose a very modest increase in taxes
for the wealthiest individuals in the state Individuals making less than $500,000
a year would see no increased in taxes at all. Individuals making $501,000
would see their taxes go up by a whopping $35 a year (the 3.5% surcharge only
applies to income over $500,000. Although opponents contend that Arizona is one
of the highest taxed states in the country, the Turbo Tax listed above illustrates
that it is completely FALSE.
A proposition similar to 208 was suggested last year, but was
yanked from the ballot due to a minor technicality. Thankfully, it will be voted
on again this year. Hopefully, voters will be smart enough to approve it this
year.
Arizona registered voters overwhelmingly support Proposition 208, the education measure that would tax the wealthy. They also back legalizing recreational marijuana, though are less enthusiastic about it, a new poll shows.
The Monmouth University poll indicates 66% of registered voters “support adding a 3.5% surcharge onto the income tax rate of high-earners to fund teachers’ pay.” Only 25% would vote against it.
That support drops just a bit to 64% among a high turnout likely voters and 61% among low turnout likely voters, the poll says.
Either way, the widespread backing is clear, and that might explain why opponents of Prop. 208 tried every possible legal maneuver to keep it off the November ballot.
