What a Collapsing Empire Looks Like

[Surlethe]

Shep, that's fucked reasoning. You're looking at share of federal tax inlays, while what you need to examine is share of total income paid in taxes by income quintile and proportional change in that share over time.

[Vympel]

You ought to know better than this. As the pithy saying goes, "'data' is not the plural of 'anecdote'." On principle, anyway, establishing major, embarrassing decay in the richest country on earth should involve statistical comparisons between the US now and during previous business cycles that weigh a variety of objective measures to paint a full picture of the country --- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. After all, you can find anecdotes to support any position you want.

If I was taking it as data, I would've called it data. However, its hard to argue there is something seriously wrong with these anecdotes. I mean, if states have considering making the 12th grade optional to save some dough before, or have torn up those expensive paved roads and replacing them with something that would be more at home in some forgotten corner of the former USSR before, I'd be less alarmed (and I'd like to know), but the main point is that its obscene that the country is running two wars and a ridiculously bloated and useless national security state (refer to the Washington Post's largely ignored piece on that subject from last month) whilst parts of it are shutting off the lights, selling off helicopters, ripping up roads, and cutting services - not to mention this farce of a Democrat president looking at cutting Social Security (!!!). Something has got to give here.

[Uraniun235]

It absolutely, utterly boggles me that we could consider cutting Social Security before removing the income cap on Social Security taxation.

I mean, if states have considering making the 12th grade optional to save some dough before, or have torn up those expensive paved roads and replacing them with something that would be more at home in some forgotten corner of the former USSR before, I'd be less alarmed (and I'd like to know),

The State of Oregon currently mandates that all school districts shall provide free bus service to students who live more than a certain distance from the school that they attend. I think it's ~1.5 miles or something, but whatever. That law was enacted in (if I remember right) the late 1980's, because two or three school districts attempted to eliminate bus service. I work for one of those districts.

I think in that same year, the district wound up cutting over 20 school days in order to balance the budget. Granted, this is more an indication of the feast/famine bullshit funding model that Oregon still hasn't decided needs to be fixed, but there's an example of a public entity in America willing to unreasonably slash services prior to today.

[Ford Prefect]

Reading the OP, I am reminded - absurdly - of the Japanese novel Fate/Zero. In that, a petulant student magician summons Alexander the Great who, upon reading about the state of the world and recent history declares that, in the course of his new world domination, 'this Bill Clinton will be a worthy opponent!'

Growing up, I found that even though opinions of the septics was extremely low, the impression of America as totally invincible was very common. It's almost kind of shocking to remember that once upon a time I thought that America was this huge, unassailable foreign empire the likes of which the world has never seen before, while these days it seems hounded by disaster at every turn and rife with internal conflict. I suppose strictly speaking this isn't exactly new or anything, but I was a kid back then.

Also I was born after 83 so I didn't get to see Australia's giant killing act.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, that's fucked reasoning. You're looking at share of federal tax inlays, while what you need to examine is share of total income paid in taxes by income quintile and proportional change in that share over time.

I'll just post the tax brackets for married/filing jointly for 1979 and 2006:

1979:
0.0% $0 to $3,400
14.0% $3,400 to $5,500
16.0% $5,500 to $7,600
18.0% $7,600 to $11,900
21.0% $11,900 to $16,000
24.0% $16,000 to $20,200
28.0% $20,200 to $24,600
32.0% $24,600 to $29,900
37.0% $29,900 to $35,200
43.0% $35,200 to $45,800
49.0% $45,800 to $60,000
54.0% $60,000 to $85,600
59.0% $85,600 to $109,400
64.0% $109,400 to $162,400
68.0% $162,400 to $215,400
70.0% $215,400 to UNLIMITED

When Bush roughly took office, the FY2001 Married/Filing Jointly Tax Brackets looked like this:

15.0% $0 to $45,200
27.5% $45,200 to $109,250
30.5% $109,250 to $166,500
35.5% $166,500 to $297,350
39.1% $297,350 to UNLIMITED

By 2006, it looked like this:

10.0% $0 to $15,100
15.0% $15,100 to $61,300
25.0% $61,300 to $123,700
28.0% $123,700 to $188,450
33.0% $188,450 to $336,550
35.0% $336,550 to UNLIMITED

What is interesting is how the tax brackets have been much simplified and that all levels have been significantly reduced in taxes; the FatCats went from 70% to 35%, the average Median Family ($42,609 in 1979, $52,673 in 2007) went from 43% to 15%.

For da poor it changed as following:

NOTE: I assume a work year of 1,800 hrs, and $2.90/hr in 1979 and $7.35/hr in 2007 for minimum wage.

One Minumum Wage Worker Family ($5,220 in 1979 and $13,050 in 2007) taxes went from 14% to 10%.

Two Minumum Wage Workers Family ($10,440 in 1979 and $26,100 in 2007) taxes went from 18% to 15%.

It's worth noting that minimum wage workers may sound like they get screwed; but thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit (ETIC), if you have 1-2 kids, you can get at a maximum, between $3,000 and $5,000; which can significantly reduce your tax burden in regards to the Feds.

It's worth noting when Reagan took office; the maximum ETIC benfit was $500; by the time he left office, it was $870. Bush I then raised it to $1,384. From there on it continued it's rise -- Clinton raised the benefits significantly -- something that Bush II didn't try to reverse.

THOSE HEARTLESS CONSERVATIVES! GIVING MONEY TO THE POOR FROM THE POCKETS OF NON-POOR.

[ShadowOfMadness]

Or rather, taxes are not being collected. For 30 years the mantra in the US has been "cut taxes", with emphasis on cutting taxes for the rich. This reduces the funding for programs, yet the programs were seldom cut and in some cases expanded.

You of course will source this?

Oh wait, I can.
...

The other charts except for the federal excise tax chart show the same pattern -- the share of taxes for the first through fourth quintiles goes down, while the highest quintile sees their tax shares go up.

The only chart in which this pattern does not repeat is the "Share of Federal Excise Tax Liabilities"; which is stuff that's indirect taxtation -- e.g. you cannot get around paying it as its built into the cost of stuff you buy, like gasoline taxes; and that table remains largely static from 1979 to 2006; albeit with temporary yearly ticks up and down.

Or rather, taxes are not being collected. For 30 years the mantra in the US has been "cut taxes", with emphasis on cutting taxes for the rich. This reduces the funding for programs, yet the programs were seldom cut and in some cases expanded.

...
What is interesting is how the tax brackets have been much simplified and that all levels have been significantly reduced in taxes; the FatCats went from 70% to 35%, the average Median Family ($42,609 in 1979, $52,673 in 2007) went from 43% to 15%.
....

Maybe I misunderstood your point, Shep, but it sounds like you are agreeing with all of his points except for the level of the rich's taxation.

[FSTargetDrone]

In a moderately-related story, Camden, New Jersey to close all public libraries:

Posted on Sat, Aug. 7, 2010

Camden set to close all libraries

Associated Press

The library board in Camden is preparing to close all three of its branches by the end of the year, saying its funding has been slashed so drastically that it cannot afford to keep operating.

Library officials are hoping enough money surfaces to save the system, but they're preparing for a shutdown and say they're not just threatening it as a ploy.

Budget cuts across the country have caused local officials to close library branches, reduce hours and spend less money on books, computers and other materials. But officials at the American Library Association believe that Camden's library system would be the first in the U.S. with multiple branches to check out entirely.

"Of all places, they're one of the places that needs free public libraries the most," said Audra Caplan, president of the Public Library Association.

The city consistently ranks as one of the nation's most impoverished. It's a place where most families don't own computers, where just one big bookstore serves the local colleges and where some of the public schools don't even have librarians.

Camden Free Public Library is a major hub for many residents and draws 150,000 visits a year.

The problem is money.

The city has a permanent financial crisis. Even when times are good, it relies heavily on the state government for support.

But the state also is in crisis. This year, Gov. Chris Christie filled an $11 billion budget deficit, largely by making cuts. Cities, schools, libraries and just about everything else are getting less from the state.

The effects are especially acute in Camden, which now has to compete with more cities for a smaller pool of special aid.

Camden Mayor Dana Redd has asked all departments in the city to cut costs by nearly one-fourth. Even police and firefighters are bracing for layoffs, though none has been announced yet.

The library received $935,000 from the city and $88,000 from the state last year.

This year, the library asked the city for $823,000 and considered the 12 percent reduction a way to share in the sacrifice, interim library director Jerome Szpila said.

But the mayor offered only $281,666 - nearly a 70 percent cut. It was too little to qualify for any state assistance, library board member and activist Frank Fulbrook said.

City Hall was closed yesterday because it was a furlough day for most city workers, and Redd did not return messages from a reporter left with two of her top aides.

The only thing the library could do was close, Fulbrook said. The plan, approved by the library board on Thursday, is to shutter one branch next month, then another in October and the system entirely on Dec. 31.

Twenty-one employees would lose their jobs.

Szpila already is planning for what to do with the 187,000 books and artifacts the library has acquired since it opened in 1904. They would have to be sold, donated or destroyed, he said.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's worth noting that minimum wage workers may sound like they get screwed; but thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit (ETIC), if you have 1-2 kids, you can get at a maximum, between $3,000 and $5,000; which can significantly reduce your tax burden in regards to the Feds.

It's not that impressive when you consider that it and the more limited TANF were basically replacements for the defunct ADFC program.

It's worth noting when Reagan took office; the maximum ETIC benfit was $500; by the time he left office, it was $870.

That puts it just about even after inflation, which was approximately 39% for the period from January 1981 (when he took office) to January 1989 (when he left).

[Thanas]

No doubt Valdemar will all explain that with Mindset.

You should know by now that when I use that term, I'm referring to human expansion beyond all measure. I don't need to qualify it any further than that, especially with something that epitomises the very concept of empire and man's reach exceeding his grasp. Nitpick away, I wasn't going to start some super critical analysis to get some historical circle jerk going when the basic premise is "greed + growth". The same thing is happening today, and we've not hit absolute hard resource limits just yet even.

Tranlation: I was shooting off my mouth about things I do not understand. How exactly was the Roman Empire overrreaching when its borders largely stayed static for over 400 years? Oh golly, they must have been overreaching from the start. Clearly it was all a house of cards, ready to tumble at the first challenge.

Your smarmy refusal to adhere to the debating rules is noted.

Many coups and wars for the throne were comparatively shortlived (like the Year of the Four Emperors), but the very violent squabbling was undeniably chronic in the 3rd Century Crisis, chipping away at the legion and auxiliary units over many decades, though the military rebounded enough in the long-run to go on big campaigns under Julian's direction in the 350s & 60s. And while the state and military infrastructure likely remained where it was for most part, baring direct attack, it must've still been pretty ugly for the families, followers and dependents trapped on the losing side of a civil war.

I'd advise you to stop now because you are just making a fool of yourself. The 3rd century is nowadays no longer seen as a crisis. Especially considering the frontiers remained relatively stable throughout it and no barbarians managed to get lodged inside the empire.

As for the army, if we go by surviving units, then that also means that the first century was a crisis, because a lot of legions and auxillia units were also disbanded when the Flavians took power etc. Also, a lot of the disbandement was not due to military losses, but due to army reforms.

The Empire ultimately tore itself apart over time. The Parthians and Sassanids were organized and wealthy enough to deploy standing armies that included armoured cavalrymen, the Parthians early on stopped major Roman expansion dead

No they did not. See Judea, Arabia, Osrhoene, Palmyra, Mesopotamia etc. for that.

while the Sassanids had a good grasp on siege craft, however they never really advanced much further than Syria and the buffer region inhabited by the Armenians.

They advanced all the way to Egypt.

Then there were the Hun invaders under Attila who steamed into Europe with skilled mounted horsemen that were so tactically effective two thousand of them could feasibly loose 12, 000 accurate arrows per minute, but even they did not really topple the Empire, and Attila (who ultimately proved to be a flash in the pan) was concentrating mostly on Eastern Europe and went the furthest in the Middle East.

JESUS CHRIST. You just do not stop on the platitude train, do you? Furthest in the middle east? WTF?

I agree that emperors could not be everywhere at once, Hadrian and Aurelius were jetting about the Empire for much of their rule, while the lean central bureaucracy only grew under Diocletian's reforms some considerable time after Aurelius, but the Principate must've been uprooted on some level when a later emperor (I don't know his name off the top of my head) spent his entire life away from Rome and was surprised by the mere sight of it, its sheer size, when trying to lay siege to it.

You do not know anything off the top of your head, apparently. The cnetral bureaucracy was lean only by modern standards, no Roman Emperor ever laid siege to Rome. You are thinking about Constantius II, who held a triumph in Rome.

[Sarevok]

@Admiral Valdemar: Did you not get the memo ? We can no longer mention the Roman Empire in any topic having absolutely nothing to do with ancient history without it being hijacked into a circlejerk to demonstrate mastery of totally irrelevant historical minutae. This is a geek board so use galactic empire or dominion or imperium of man or something. The board members will understand what you are trying to convey about overstreched and collapsing empires.

[Thanas]

@Admiral Valdemar: Did you not get the memo ? We can no longer mention the Roman Empire in any topic having absolutely nothing to do with ancient history without it being hijacked into a circlejerk to demonstrate mastery of totally irrelevant historical minutae. This is a geek board so use galactic empire or dominion or imperium of man or something. The board members will understand what you are trying to convey about overstreched and collapsing empires.

How ironic, that the little man child thinks a claim of "the Roman Empire was overstretched for over 400 years" or a claim of "past empires have collapsed in the same manner" is irrelevant to the discussion. Do you also think the law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to a discussion of physics?

More importantly, do you have anything to contribute to this thread or are you just trying to troll me here? If it is the latter, why don't you just shut up?

[Patrick Degan]

Shep, that's fucked reasoning. You're looking at share of federal tax inlays, while what you need to examine is share of total income paid in taxes by income quintile and proportional change in that share over time.

Actually, the relevant data would be comparisons between total tax revenues and budget outlays, both in terms of hard surplus/deficit figures and as percentage of GDP, as well as comparisons between economic growth and tax revenues under conditions of the Reagan and Bush Jr. tax cuts and the Clinton tax increases:







The latter chart was included with a report from The Centre For Budget and Policy Priorities attacking the conservative claim of how tax cuts pay for themselves.

So Broomstick's statement that "taxes aren't being collected" would be better amended to say that "taxes are being collected, but nowhere near enough to actually pay for everything".

[Big Orange]

I'd advise you to stop now because you are just making a fool of yourself. The 3rd century is nowadays no longer seen as a crisis. Especially considering the frontiers remained relatively stable throughout it and no barbarians managed to get lodged inside the empire.

OK, I'll stop there, and I agree that the Empire was certainly more than big and resilient enough to go through the allegedly more frequent (in relation to the 2nd century) civil wars and raids of the 3rd century. Though Gaul (and then Britannia and Iberia) suddenly splitting off as an independent state for 15 years in the 260s & 70s indicated something was going wrong and many towns got more fortified around that time, but those places could've still been peaceful and prosperous for years on end. But we know it was more precarious for many short-lived and would be emperors in that period (though that does not really indicate the plight of the soldiers, slaves, peasants, and city dwellers).

They advanced all the way to Egypt.

If so (in contaxt of the Empire's height) wasn't that with the help of the Palmyra under Queen Zenobia? And that matter was settled by Aurelian by 373. And lasting Sassanid occupation of Egypt by the 600s was when the Romans ceased to be a major power and it was their Byzantine cousins by then.

JESUS CHRIST. You just do not stop on the platitude train, do you? Furthest in the middle east? WTF?

Ok, my head's not screwed on properly and I'll clarify: Attila's people (a few decades before Attila ruled) certainly went as far as Turkey and Syria, capturing tens of thousands of people, then gor repelled by Sassanid forces around the Euphrates and Tigiris around the 390s - it was a smash and grab raid, not a conquest. It certainly spooked Saint Jerome of Bethlehem:

Behold the wolves, not of Arabia, but of the North were let loose upon us last year from the far-off rocks of the Caucasus, and in a little while overran great provinces. How many monastaries, how many streams were reddened with human blood!... etc

Taken from page 144 of Attila the Hun: A Barbarian King and the Fall of Rome (John Man)

[Thanas]

I'd advise you to stop now because you are just making a fool of yourself. The 3rd century is nowadays no longer seen as a crisis. Especially considering the frontiers remained relatively stable throughout it and no barbarians managed to get lodged inside the empire.

OK, I'll stop there, and I agree that the Empire was certainly more than big and resilient enough to go through the allegedly more frequent (in relation to the 2nd century) civil wars and raids of the 3rd century. Though Gaul (and then Britannia and Iberia) suddenly splitting off as an independent state for 15 years in the 260s & 70s indicated something was going wrong and many towns got more fortified around that time, but those places could've still been peaceful and prosperous for years on end. But we know it was more precarious for many short-lived and would be emperors in that period (though that does not really indicate the plight of the soldiers, slaves, peasants, and city dwellers).

You are of course correct about the western part splitting off - however, note that this splitting off is mainly considered as such by us in retrospect. We only call it the Gallic Empire because we wanted a specific term of it. Of course, in the view of the Romans, Postumus was just another usurper. So it is not that the empire split, it is more like you had different emperors who, while still believing in the ideology of one empire, could not make it come to pass due to their weakness. You are also correc that usurpations happened more often in the third than in the second century, which is mainly the fault of Commodus and Alexander Severus failing to make a clear chain of succession (note that when it was present, as under Hadrian-Marc Aurel, Septimius Severus-Caracalla and Diocletian/Constantine-Constantius II the empire was stable).

Fortifications of towns is also an indication of it, but it is very hard to pinpoint how much of that was due to Barbarians. We think that Italy was fortified due to the Barbarian threat from Raetia, but considering that modern reasearch has shown that Raetia was actually also owned by Postumus we might just as well conclude that a lot of fortification was done to deny usurpers easy territorial gains. In any case, real large-scale fortification across a whole frontier only happened under Diocletian - see the strata diocletiana.

If so (in contaxt of the Empire's height) wasn't that with the help of the Palmyra under Queen Zenobia? And that matter was settled by Aurelian by 373. And lasting Sassanid occupation of Egypt by the 600s was when the Romans ceased to be a major power and it was their Byzantine cousins by then.

I am talking about the occupation under Heraclius, (600s it is). However, why call the Byzantines the roman cousins? They still controlled Rome and most of Italy and they always considered themselves Romans.

Ok, my head's not screwed on properly and I'll clarify: Attila's people (a few decades before Attila ruled) certainly went as far as Turkey and Syria, capturing tens of thousands of people, then gor repelled by Sassanid forces around the Euphrates and Tigiris around the 390s - it was a smash and grab raid, not a conquest.

Yeah, but I really doubt they did much damage there in comparison to the damage they wreaked along the Danube. The situation was not even serious enough for the Emperor to move troops from the west to oppose them.

[Big Orange]

GHETTO EDIT: Actually the affair with Queen Zenobia was settled in 273 (typo goof), the annexation was lauched by Zenobia's city state, and Queen Zenobia tried to flee to the Sassanid homelands. The Sassanids, before the major shrinking of the Empire, had made it as far as Antiach.

And I know Rome never really went under a proper siege even in the height of the 3rd century's internal fighting, but in 312 Constantine's forces gathering not far from Rome was enough to pressure his rival, Maxentius, into leaving the cover of Rome's reasonably formidable walls into open battle. That's one cited example of Rome getting into potential danger by usurpers, even though it was not officially sacked until much later (but even then the two sackings in the 5th century were not so terminal).

I am talking about the occupation under Heraclius, (600s it is).

OK, copy. But the Sassanids were then supplanted by the Arabs comparatively soon afterwards

However, why call the Byzantines the roman cousins? They still controlled Rome and most of Italy and they always considered themselves Romans.

OK, the word "Byzantine" is a lazy modern term for the self-identifying Romans who clung on in Constantinople well into the Medieval era, but official rule from Rome seemed to have finally folded from around 450s to 70s, with the Senate informed Zeno that he was in charge after Romulus Augustulus abdicated around 476. But I shouldn't forget Justinian's successful campaigns to retake Vandal territory around Mediterranean (that included Rome) launched in the 530s, but the world was likely moving on by then.

[MKSheppard]

Actually, the relevant data would be comparisons between total tax revenues and budget outlays, both in terms of hard surplus/deficit figures and as percentage of GDP, as well as comparisons between economic growth and tax revenues under conditions of the Reagan and Bush Jr. tax cuts and the Clinton tax increases

You know, thanks for that information (the huge ass chart) that had a link to hist01z3.xls on the GPO site.

That led me to interesting places.

It's interesting how the US Government's Table 1.3 (XLS) only shows the percentage of GDP consumed by US Government taxtation out to 1940.

You can calculate that for other years thanks to:

Table 1.1 Summary of Receipts, Outlays, Surpluses/Deficits - 1789 to 2014 (XLS)

US GDP Table Generator

I'm using "total receipts" rather than "on budget" for these computations; since even though Social Security etc taxes are "Off Budget", they still count towards taxtation.

Results in these:


Source: US Federal Income Taxes, Top Marginal Rates for Married, Filing Jointly 1913-2010 LINK



It's very interesting to note that since the modern era began in 1940, USG revenue has fluctated in a very narrow band from 15% to 20%
of GDP, with declines MOST notable when the economy is in total fucking freefall (Post WWII Recession, the Great Depression), and thus tax revenues from various sources dry up.

What stands out for me is that in 1967; government receipts were 17.68% of the economy on a top tax rate of 70%; while in 2008, government receipts were 17.48% of the economy on a top tax rate of 35%.

Clearly there's not a direct correlation between high tax rates (remember that in 1969 the average family made $37,559 and was taxed at 45%, versus the average family in 2007 making $52,673 and being taxed at 15%) and total government inlays as a percentage of the budget.

It does seem that a better correlation in how much the government takes in is:

A.) Is the economy in pretty good shape? (Recession Y/N?)

B.) Does the Political party in power understand basic psychology about businesses? It's interesting to consider how the Silicon Valley boom of the 1980s would have been different if the maximum tax rates had remained at the 70% of the 1970s rather than being cut to 50% by 1981, and then 38.5% by 1986, along with other various measures.

That's something the far liberal wing of economists simply don't consider -- they act like going from a top tax rate of 35% to 50% will magically cause all this money to start pouring into government coffers, when the increase is marginal at best -- since the people who fall into that tax bracket, along with the businesses that hire them; will simply restructure their business plans and personal lives to avoid paying those tax rates.

Best example is John Kerry (HUFFPO) one of our betters. He simply had his new yacht docked in Rhode Island to avoid paying $437,500 in taxes to Massachusetts on the sale, and also $70,000 in annual excise taxes on it.

On a smaller scale than John Kerry's dickishness is the small business owner who simply choses to not expand his business, so as not to put him into a bigger bracket both in income and corporate taxes, and instead decides to keep things as they are to save on asprin.

[Alphawolf55]

It absolutely, utterly boggles me that we could consider cutting Social Security before removing the income cap on Social Security taxation.

Why? True we should extend SS tax, but cutting SS if done right would be the same thing as raising taxes for certain groups.

[Surlethe]

I'll just post the tax brackets for married/filing jointly for 1979 and 2006: ...

Again, the question is how the proportion of tax outlays to income has changed for each point on the income distribution. Your statistics do not answer this question.

It does seem that a better correlation in how much the government takes in is:

A.) Is the economy in pretty good shape? (Recession Y/N?)

B.) Does the Political party in power understand basic psychology about businesses? It's interesting to consider how the Silicon Valley boom of the 1980s would have been different if the maximum tax rates had remained at the 70% of the 1970s rather than being cut to 50% by 1981, and then 38.5% by 1986, along with other various measures.

That's something the far liberal wing of economists simply don't consider -- they act like going from a top tax rate of 35% to 50% will magically cause all this money to start pouring into government coffers, when the increase is marginal at best -- since the people who fall into that tax bracket, along with the businesses that hire them; will simply restructure their business plans and personal lives to avoid paying those tax rates.

I'm sure you have some statistics to quantify and support these arguments.

[Surlethe]

You ought to know better than this. As the pithy saying goes, "'data' is not the plural of 'anecdote'." On principle, anyway, establishing major, embarrassing decay in the richest country on earth should involve statistical comparisons between the US now and during previous business cycles that weigh a variety of objective measures to paint a full picture of the country --- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. After all, you can find anecdotes to support any position you want.

If I was taking it as data, I would've called it data. However, its hard to argue there is something seriously wrong with these anecdotes. I mean, if states have considering making the 12th grade optional to save some dough before, or have torn up those expensive paved roads and replacing them with something that would be more at home in some forgotten corner of the former USSR before, I'd be less alarmed (and I'd like to know), but the main point is that its obscene that the country is running two wars and a ridiculously bloated and useless national security state (refer to the Washington Post's largely ignored piece on that subject from last month) whilst parts of it are shutting off the lights, selling off helicopters, ripping up roads, and cutting services - not to mention this farce of a Democrat president looking at cutting Social Security (!!!). Something has got to give here.

Just remember that the US has always been enormous with tremendous variation in wealth between class and region --- for instance, electricity didn't make it out into some rural areas until the 1950s and 1960s. If you dig hard enough, especially during a recession, you'll be able to find anecdotes as horrifying as you please; that doesn't mean the entire country is in an advanced state of decay. I don't disagree about the obscenity of two wars and a national security state when parts of the country are shrinking or cutting back, but, again, anecdotes are easily cherrypicked.

Let me give you an example. During the 1990s, the steel belt was becoming the rust belt. In 2000, I could go to a dozen towns and cities, take pictures of their downtowns and closed factories and decrepit neighborhoods, and paint you a dark picture of post-industrial decay. This, after the country as a whole had experienced one of the largest, longest economic expansions in its history. Another example --- consider how the right, through cherry-picked media portrayals, harnessed white backlash and convinced the middle class that the country was coming apart at the seams during the mid-1960s.

[Thanas]

And I know Rome never really went under a proper siege even in the height of the 3rd century's internal fighting, but in 312 Constantine's forces gathering not far from Rome was enough to pressure his rival, Maxentius, into leaving the cover of Rome's reasonably formidable walls into open battle. That's one cited example of Rome getting into potential danger by usurpers, even though it was not officially sacked until much later (but even then the two sackings in the 5th century were not so terminal).

The vandal sacking was very much destructive. And Maxentius actually believed he could win a field battle, otherwise he would have sat it out in Rome.

OK, copy. But the Sassanids were then supplanted by the Arabs comparatively soon afterwards

We are still talking maximum penetration of the Sassanids into Roman territory here, so I fail to see why it would not apply.

OK, the word "Byzantine" is a lazy modern term for the self-identifying Romans who clung on in Constantinople well into the Medieval era, but official rule from Rome seemed to have finally folded from around 450s to 70s, with the Senate informed Zeno that he was in charge after Romulus Augustulus abdicated around 476. But I shouldn't forget Justinian's successful campaigns to retake Vandal territory around Mediterranean (that included Rome)

Ostrogothic territory, not vandal territory.

And Rule from Rome had not existed since...well probably since the first emperor moved to a residential city.

[D.Turtle]

Again, the question is how the proportion of tax outlays to income has changed for each point on the income distribution. Your statistics do not answer this question.

Since Shep didn't do it so far, this is the closest I can quickly get.
From the CBO:
Average Federal Tax Rate by Income Quintile, 1979-2007 (This is the total effective federal tax rate)

Data for the top 10%, 5%, and 1% are also available here (pdf).

And another interesting graph (to put the Tax rates and their effect in perspective):
Cumulative Change in Real After-Tax Average Income (1979 = 1):


[Fake edit]:
Ah, finally found something close to what you might be looking for:
From the Census site, you can get the Table H-2: Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of Households.

Then you can combine this with the share of taxes paid by the CBO (btw Shep, the data for 2007 is also available, with very slightly different numbers).

So, lets simply divide the share of federal taxes liabilities by the share of aggregate income. This results in the following table:

For example, in 1979 the lowest quintile earned 4.1% of total income, they were only liable for 2.1% of total federal taxes, leading to the ratio of 0.51.
In 2007, the ratio was 0.24, as the lowest quintile earned 3.4% of total income, but were only liable for 0.8% of total federal taxes.
In 1979, the top 5% earned 16.9% of total income, but were liable for 29.6% of total federal tax, leading to the ratio of 1.75.
By 2007, this ratio had increased to 2.09, as the top 5% earned 21.2% of total income, but were liable for 44.3% of total federal taxes.

I'll post a link to the table showing all three (share of federal tax liabilities, share of aggregate income, ratio) below:


Oh, a final note: If you look at the total cumulative change in income, it is obvious that the top 1% is a very different story compared to the 99% below that. Unfortunately all the data is not available for that, so I (unfortunately) couldn't take a look at the ratio and its differences for the top 1%.

[D.Turtle]

Ah hell, here is a a copy of the first chart (effective federal tax rate) including the top 10%, 5%, 1%, and total average.



I have to admit, that while the effect of the Reagan tax cuts and the Clinton tax increases is as expected, the Bush tax cuts were surprisingly across the board.

[Big Orange]

Here's a fairly recent news article about the Republicans wanting to keep up with the tax cuts:

Bush-Era Tax Cuts for Wealthy Should Stay, House’s Pence Says
July 31, 2010, 12:02 AM EDT

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Congress should retain tax cuts passed under former President George W. Bush without offsetting the $40 billion cost of including families earning more than $250,000, said Indiana Representative Mike Pence, the third- ranking U.S. House Republican leader.

“It is imperative that we preserve the tax relief,” Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said in an interview on “Political Capital with Al Hunt” airing this weekend on Bloomberg Television. “I also believe that if we get the economy moving again and provide both tax relief and reform going forward, that as the economy expands federal revenues will expand.”

Pence, a fifth-term lawmaker, was lukewarm to a suggestion by Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s national debt commission, that three-quarters of budget savings should come from spending cuts and the rest from tax increases. The tax-boost idea would get “very little support among Republicans” in the Capitol, Pence said.

“Raising taxes during the worst economy in 25 years is a profoundly bad idea and I won’t support it,” he said.

The Bush-era income tax cuts expire at the end of this year. Obama and congressional Democrats want to extend them for households earning up to $250,000 and let them end for wealthier taxpayers. Republicans insist on keeping the tax cuts for all income levels without reducing spending or raising taxes elsewhere to make up for the cost.

About three months before midterm elections, Pence said he’s optimistic that Republicans may be able to retake control of the House, though he didn’t predict the odds of a change in control.

‘Genuine Opportunity’

“I think House Republicans believe we have a genuine opportunity to win back the majority of the House of Representatives,” Pence said. The party lost its previous majority in the 2006 elections.

The top priorities of a Republican majority would be “to get this economy moving again and to get federal spending under control,” he said. Asked about Obama’s health-care overhaul, Pence, 51, said repealing it remains a goal.

“I believe House Republicans are going to work to repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel,” he said. “Obviously, the president will be in office in 2011. He certainly would have the ability to veto any effort that we make.”

House Republicans would nevertheless seek a debate over how to better control health-care costs and could use their power over House spending bills to make changes, he said.

Engine Issue

While Republicans are making fiscal discipline a top issue, Pence defended a speech he made on the House floor supporting approval of funds for General Electric Co.’s backup engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. A factory in his district would benefit if the House approved the $450 million cost of continuing development of the engine.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says a second engine is a wasteful expense, and Obama has threatened to veto legislation that includes the funding.

Pence pointed to a study by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group in Washington, that said the U.S. should have more than one source for an engine produced under a defense contract that will span decades.

“The fact that one of those two engines in part is manufactured in Indiana, we certainly welcome,” Pence said. “I really do believe that it was in the interest of our national defense and in the interest of fiscal responsibility.”

Bloomsberg Businessweek

[His Divine Shadow]

I always thought that the Roman Empire fell from a combination of horrendous internal politics/backstabbing, massive corruption at the core on the Empire, and that tiny problem of hordes of Germanic barbarians burning, raping and pillaging their way to Rome.

I had thought the problem with rome was partially the destruction of the roman middle class and concentration of wealth in the few top percent. Yes I posted this because I want Thanas to Confirm/Deny this.

[Thanas]

To be honest, I find that one impossible to answer because

a) While there seems to be a problem with the city institutions like the decuriones, that seems to be more related to a lot of people choosing other ways to save money (also, a decurion is not what I would call middle class, upper class more likely).
b) It is related to the economic view of the of the Empire, which once again is far from uniform - we know cities in north africa flourished, cities in the west less so etc
c) We have next to no sources about a Roman middle class. We know some of them managed to get obscenely rich, but we know nothing about the vast majority in the middle ages.

There also is the problem of interpretation. For example, if you see that a Roman Emperor vastly exceeded the scope of the food program to the urbs, what do you take from that? Is it an indication that people need more assistance or is it an indication that Rome flourished economically and the state could spend more money to show it was rich. Given that a lot of the new items were pork and wine, I would say the latter, but it is a matter of interpretation.

So honestly, I cannot answer that.