[eesmith]

"so laughable I can't believe you can make it with a straight face"

Which is why I didn't. I specifically pointed out that there are other taxes.

My point was to get ekianjo to present data to support their claim.

Do you have better data?

[ltbarcly3]

This reminds me of the guy who lost his keys. He was looking by the street light when his friend asked him if he lost his keys by the light. "No, I lost them over by my car, but it's too dark to see anything over there."

Here is a graph from wikipedia that shows that taxes in the US are in total about as high as they have ever been (which was 2000). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Federal%... You can very clearly see that while Federal taxes are gradually decreasing, that is more than made up by Payroll taxes.

[nonameiguess]

This still directly contradicts the original claim, though. This graphic shows aggregate tax burden was at its highest ever in the late 90s and is currently on a slight downward trend. "About as high" isn't great if you hate taxes, but it isn't what was being disputed.

[eesmith]

It's supposed to remind you of Cunningham's Law: "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."

As nonameiguess already pointed out, your answer disputes ekianjo's claim, as the peak in your graph was 1999.

[ltbarcly3]

As fun as tribal arguing is, I wasn't taking a side. Did you read my post at all? I was saying that the methodology for claiming taxes were lower was so stupid as to defy even any attempt to ascribe good faith.

Let me quote my post for your convenience: "I don't know if taxes are higher now vs some point in history"

[eesmith]

I don't know what "tribal arguing" means.

I did read your side. You believe I'm not arguing in good faith. I think that's a misinterpretation. I am not versed in the topic, and I don't pretend to be one. But the exchange was claim/counter-claim/counter-counter-claim without any citations, going nowhere.

While presenting wrong, or at least incomplete numbers, shifts it to one about presenting the actual numbers and what they mean, and if it's justified tax increases.

If that's that's bad faith tribalism, than so be it. But you'll notice the pointless exchange about "most taxes EVAR" has stopped.

[ltbarcly3]

It's a trope among liberals in the US that taxes are too low, just look at the marginal rates, they used to be 90%! If they used to be 90%, then it's perfectly reasonable to raise them to 35%... I would guess you've heard this quite a few times (even if you don't agree with it, it's a very commonly presented argument), whether you realize it or not, and you are just repeating it. This is largely how political opinions are formed, people pay attention to the side they want to agree with and they internalize the one sided, often easily debunked arguments that side presents over and over and over. It's a form of voluntary brainwashing. As you said, it's not completely obvious what is true here, but if you ask around you'll find that people have very strong opinions about it and are often willing to argue at great length despite having literally zero information for or against.

The tribal point was that I got 2 responses saying 'technically we aren't at the absolute peak tax rate' based on the graph I posted. Instantly people wanted 'taxes aren't at an all time high' to win, and assume this is because their 'tribe' is the one that wants to raise taxes. If you look at the graph we are very nearly at the peak, and certainly from a historical perspective we are plateauing very near the peak. That's not arguing in good faith to chime in that OP was wrong because technically we are a smidgen below the all time high, and OP said 'all time high' rather than 'near the all time high', so they get an L and their side loses and we can just pretend there's no more detail than that.

[eesmith]

Years ago a FB friend posted something along the lines "every country where the debt is 100% of GDP ended up with runaway inflation." (It's been a decade; I've forgotten the exact details.)

It was easy to point out that the US had >100% ratio in the 1940s, due to WWII, without the consequences he postulated.

I then found it was a "tribal point" going around, that he was repeating without investigating.

This claim that taxes now are the highest ever felt like the same sort of "tribal point."

How does one challenge an seemingly wrong assertion without also being labelled "tribal"? Especially in a field so contentious as this where there are position papers upon position papers for- and against- just about every point you can think of.

FWIW, I think the premise is flawed. Rich people put their assets in trusts and foundations, which are not subject to the same taxes, and yet controlled by the them and their family.

(For example, "Patagonia Billionaire Who Gave Up Company Skirts $700 Million Tax Hit; Founder Yvon Chouinard structured the transfer of his firm in a way that keeps control within the family and avoids taxes." - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-15/patagonia... )

Because those savings aren't paid taxes, they don't show up in charts which summarize only those taxes paid.

So when "liberals in the US [talk about how] taxes are too low", I believe it also refers to the legal techniques rich people use to avoid paying taxes, including through laws which were specifically created for this purpose.