The Rich Are Different From You and Me: They Pay 17%

[boutons_deux]

http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif (http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.salonmagazine.com/extra/classic/1929080175/TopLeft/default/empty.gif/516c723343556e58486f45414349744f)http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif (http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.salonmagazine.com/extra/classic/1043952693/Top/default/empty.gif/516c723343556e58486f45414349744f) http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.cgi/extra/classic@Top (http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.cgi/www.salonmagazine.com/extra/classic@Top)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2010/02/17/top400/print.html

http://images.salon.com/src/salonlogo.gif


The top 400: Income way up and taxes way, way down

A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year

By Joe Conason
Feb. 17, 2010 |

Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf) found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).

So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data (http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument) shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.

In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year. Meanwhile, Johnston writes, "Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007." He also notes that the IRS data probably understates the income of the top 400, because of deferral rules enjoyed by hedge fund managers (at least three of whom earned $3 billion or more in 2007).

Johnston's data comes from the latest edition of an annual IRS study of the top 400 taxpayers, which was first made public during the Clinton presidency. When Bush became president, unsurprisingly, he curtailed public access to the top 400 report for eight years. The Obama administration has made the report available this year, but such embarrassing statistics will no doubt be buried again as soon as the Republicans return to power.

-- By Joe Conason


=====

So where are the facts from (mostly non-rich) people who say the rich should get bigger tax cuts because they pay so much more than the non-rich?

Wonderfully self-serving how wealthy dubya and dickhead REFUSED TO DISCLOSE the IRS data on rich people for 8 years. That's one tactic how you get poor dumb-fuck red-staters to vote against their best interests and for the super-wealthy.

[SouthernFried]

We're all different than you...hopefully.

[101A]

Yes.

Let's make policy based on 400 people in a country of 300 million. Let's get all worked up over THEM. BTW; Any of them in Congress? Any of them friends of Congressmen? Only Republicans in your World, eh B?

I ain't rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I sure as hell pay more than 16.7% of my income in taxes. And you know what? I got a nice tax break in '01 - and am prepared to lose it next year. I know you want to stick it to the man, B - but you DO realize that those 400 are going to do just fucking fine now matter WHO is in office, right? It's not about them: EVER - they OWN the fucking Congress! It's about you and me - and I am about to get fucked (as is every small business owner, or anyone else, in this country who has managed to eek out a low 6 figure income).

[DarrinS]

Class envy.

[coyotes_geek]

So the top 400 people are paying 17% and the bottom 47% are paying 0% or less.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

[boutons_deux]

So you right wingers are just fine "getting screwed by taxes" while the super-wealthy get a pass?

Billionaire fund managers are taxed at capital gains 15% for their _FEE_ income for managing other people's investment money. No problem for you guys.

And what about the 50,000 US richies who hide their incomes in Switzerland? I guess all y'all think "Whatever screws the govt is fine with us right-wingers".

[101A]

So you right wingers are just fine "getting screwed by taxes" while the super-wealthy get a pass?

Billionaire fund managers are taxed at capital gains 15% for their _FEE_ income for managing other people's investment money. No problem for you guys.

And what about the 50,000 US richies who hide their incomes in Switzerland? I guess all y'all think "Whatever screws the govt is fine with us right-wingers".

What, exactly, is being proposed to make sure those (400 or 50,000) are going to pay their fair share, that doesn't also lump a bunch of not "richies" in with them?

Also, it's easy to get pissed about what's happening with a (very small) number of elite taxpayers; when it really doesn't matter; take all of their money, and it doesn't begin to make a dent is covering what our dear leaders are spending. Dems at the national level get it; they HAVE to raise taxes on everybody to cover Congresses glutonous appetite for largesse; they just make sure dupes like you feel good thinking their REAL goal is to stick it to the super wealthy (also known as their friends, neighbors and benefactors).

You are the classic useful idiot, B.

[101A]

Oh, and....Straw-man much?

[TeyshaBlue]

http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif (http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.salonmagazine.com/extra/classic/1929080175/TopLeft/default/empty.gif/516c723343556e58486f45414349744f)http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/default/empty.gif (http://sacdcad03.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.salonmagazine.com/extra/classic/1043952693/Top/default/empty.gif/516c723343556e58486f45414349744f) http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.cgi/extra/classic@Top (http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.cgi/www.salonmagazine.com/extra/classic@Top)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2010/02/17/top400/print.html

http://images.salon.com/src/salonlogo.gif


The top 400: Income way up and taxes way, way down

A new IRS report on the richest 400 taxpayers shows their income rose an average of $81 million -- in a single year

By Joe Conason
Feb. 17, 2010 |

Before angry voters restore Republicans to power -- in the name of "tea party populism" -- perhaps they should consider just how well right-wing rule worked out for them during the past decade. Last fall a Census Bureau study (http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf) found that real median household income had declined from $52,500 in 2000, the last year that Bill Clinton was president, to $50,303 in 2008, George W. Bush's final year -- a period during which Republicans dominated Congress as well. Millions of those median households lost their health insurance (and, since the onset of the Great Recession, many of those same families have lost jobs as well).

So most of those middle-class Americans who flock to the tea party demonstrations were big losers during the Bush era. So who were the winners? According to David Cay Johnston, America's premier tax journalist, newly released IRS data (http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument) shows that the country's very wealthiest citizens -- the top 400 -- marked enormous income gains while paying less and less in taxes. For purposes of comparison, Johnston notes that the bottom 90 percent of Americans saw their incomes rise by only 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with a 399 percent increase for the top 400.

In a single year, between 2006 and 2007, the income of those top 400 taxpayers rose by 31 percent -- from an average of $263.3 million to an average of $344.8 million per year. Meanwhile, Johnston writes, "Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007." He also notes that the IRS data probably understates the income of the top 400, because of deferral rules enjoyed by hedge fund managers (at least three of whom earned $3 billion or more in 2007).

Johnston's data comes from the latest edition of an annual IRS study of the top 400 taxpayers, which was first made public during the Clinton presidency. When Bush became president, unsurprisingly, he curtailed public access to the top 400 report for eight years. The Obama administration has made the report available this year, but such embarrassing statistics will no doubt be buried again as soon as the Republicans return to power.

-- By Joe Conason


=====

So where are the facts from (mostly non-rich) people who say the rich should get bigger tax cuts because they pay so much more than the non-rich?

Wonderfully self-serving how wealthy dubya and dickhead REFUSED TO DISCLOSE the IRS data on rich people for 8 years. That's one tactic how you get poor dumb-fuck red-staters to vote against their best interests and for the super-wealthy.








http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/DaveBowman.jpg

[Spursmania]

400 people is nothing! Goddamn you class envy suckers are so fucking stupid. Those top 400 people are the business owners who employ thousands and thousands of people. Take your blindfolds off and stop whining about the have and have nots.

[Marcus Bryant]

Between the federal income tax, as well as the federal payroll taxes (not to mention state income taxes) the little people are soaked regularly. Or, when your income is primarily in the form of wages, you're fighting uphill to accumulate savings. And even what you manage to save is subject to mediocre returns, thanks in part to a Federal Reserve which is artificially keeping interest rates low.

Perhaps someday the little people will receive a larger allowance from the politicians. But as long as the various nuts with their grand schemes continue to ascend to the thrones of power in this country, that's unlikely.

[SnakeBoy]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/DaveBowman.jpg

:lol That's a good one.

[boutons_deux]

"Those top 400 people are the business owners who employ thousands and thousands of people"

proof? My bet is that they are mostly capitalists playing investment games, and playing with inherited wealth, employing essentially nobody, not corporate barons (who anyway pocket huge bonuses every time they cut another 10K jobs).

[boutons_deux]

"Those top 400 people are the business owners who employ thousands and thousands of people"

proof? My bet is that they are mostly capitalists playing investment games, and playing with inherited wealth, employing essentially nobody, not corporate barons (who anyway pocket huge bonuses every time they cut another 10K jobs).

[Wild Cobra]

So you right wingers are just fine "getting screwed by taxes" while the super-wealthy get a pass?

Billionaire fund managers are taxed at capital gains 15% for their _FEE_ income for managing other people's investment money. No problem for you guys.

And what about the 50,000 US richies who hide their incomes in Switzerland? I guess all y'all think "Whatever screws the govt is fine with us right-wingers".
Go fuck yourself with your antagonistic class warfare.

You obviously don't believe in the American Dream, and might have a different attitude if you paid any decent amount of taxes.

I think 17% of their income is plenty. Consider this. They have their retirement planned. They will likely never dip into Social Security as they likely don't pay any or qualify for it. Their earnings are likely only capitol gains and dividend earnings, which means the money they earned are from stocks. They already paid 35% as part of their ownership, and now you think another 17% isn't enough more?

Go fuck yourself you Marxist pig.

[RandomGuy]

Yes.

Let's make policy based on 400 people in a country of 300 million. Let's get all worked up over THEM. BTW; Any of them in Congress? Any of them friends of Congressmen? Only Republicans in your World, eh B?

I ain't rich by any stretch of the imagination, and I sure as hell pay more than 16.7% of my income in taxes. And you know what? I got a nice tax break in '01 - and am prepared to lose it next year. I know you want to stick it to the man, B - but you DO realize that those 400 are going to do just fucking fine now matter WHO is in office, right? It's not about them: EVER - they OWN the fucking Congress! It's about you and me - and I am about to get fucked (as is every small business owner, or anyone else, in this country who has managed to eek out a low 6 figure income).

Would you be in favor of raising the tax rate on those 400 if it were possible, to the same level that you pay?

[RandomGuy]

Go fuck yourself with your antagonistic class warfare.
Go fuck yourself you Marxist pig.

As ever, you have him in the crushing grip of reason.

Well played sir, well played.

[Spurminator]

They gotta feed they families

[DarrinS]

They gotta feed they families


And other people's families.

[Spurminator]

That shouldn't be a problem.

[ElNono]

Why employ people and deal with risk, unions and all that crap?
Just invest in the too big to fail companies. No risk, and you end up making money by leeching on their success, or even their failure!

Land of opportunity, indeed.

[boutons_deux]

"Why employ people and deal with risk, unions and all that crap"

Exactly. US mfrs would rather "buy" (in Asia) than "make" in USA. Mfrs have become importers, distributors, wholesalers to the greatest extent they can manage.

Those 8M jobs lost in the Banksters' Great Depression aren't ever gonna come back any where near completely.

[101A]

Would you be in favor of raising the tax rate on those 400 if it were possible, to the same level that you pay?


It IS the same; the same code for all of us; Are they doing anything illegal, or just taking advantage of loopholes that are there for all of us - and doing it well? Hell, I just got a $1500 credit on a new door and furnace I had installed; that "lowered" my effective rate, didn't it? Did I do anything wrong?

Those 400 aren't the problem; the screwed up tax code is the problem.

I would be in favor of a flat tax to end this crap.

You in?

[ChumpDumper]

They will likely never dip into Social Security as they likely don't pay any or qualify for it.How does that work?

[EmptyMan]

It's really not that hard to turn Earned income into portfolio income.

Quit crying and learn to play the game.

[Wild Cobra]

How does that work?
You don't pay into the Social security and Medicare system if your earnings are only capital gains, dividends, and a few other types of income like bonuses. If you don't pay in a certain amount for a certain period before you retire, you simply don't qualify for SS.

[Wild Cobra]

As ever, you have him in the crushing grip of reason.

Well played sir, well played.
I simply cannot stand such anti-American, Marxist assholes.

[Nbadan]

http://www.thismodernworld.com/arc/2009/TMW2009-09-09colorlowrespy.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"anti-American"

being anti-Repug, anti-teabagger, anti-conservative, anti-neo-c*nt doesn't make one anti-American.

"Marxist assholes"

... and doesn't make one a Marxist.

WC, I may have missed your answer to this question earlier, but were you this stupid before you went in the Army or did your Army career make you stupid?

[RandomGuy]

It IS the same; the same code for all of us; Are they doing anything illegal, or just taking advantage of loopholes that are there for all of us - and doing it well? Hell, I just got a $1500 credit on a new door and furnace I had installed; that "lowered" my effective rate, didn't it? Did I do anything wrong?

Those 400 aren't the problem; the screwed up tax code is the problem.

I would be in favor of a flat tax to end this crap.

You in?

I used to be fairly opposed to the flat tax. One thing a lot of people miss is the costs of switching things over when they calculate the costs/benefits and that cost is not insubstantial.

BUT

Our tax code has gotten downright byzantine. I got an "A" in my income tax accounting class, and know how to navigate it, but yuck...

I am actually for it at this point. The costs of the current system in terms of time/effort spent trying to figure out if one is in compliance with the IRS code/regs is beyond any reasonable benefit.

But, it will never happen. Too many people have too many little gimmies in the tax code for one thing or another. The tax lever is just too popular not to pull.

One thing to remember is that the tax rate from a flat tax would probably have to be a bit higher than many proponents would have you believe.

[101A]

I used to be fairly opposed to the flat tax. One thing a lot of people miss is the costs of switching things over when they calculate the costs/benefits and that cost is not insubstantial.

BUT

Our tax code has gotten downright byzantine. I got an "A" in my income tax accounting class, and know how to navigate it, but yuck...

I am actually for it at this point. The costs of the current system in terms of time/effort spent trying to figure out if one is in compliance with the IRS code/regs is beyond any reasonable benefit.

But, it will never happen. Too many people have too many little gimmies in the tax code for one thing or another. The tax lever is just too popular not to pull.

One thing to remember is that the tax rate from a flat tax would probably have to be a bit higher than many proponents would have you believe.

Considering our deficit; I'm betting it would have to be a lot higher!

Also; there is not just people with gimmies in the code; there are A BUNCH of jobs at stake if that thing gets simplified - attorney's, accountants (both at firms and within other corps), and their related support staff, would be scrambling for work.

[boutons_deux]

exactly, a super-complicated tax code is make-work (aka societal overhead/friction) for 10s of 1000s of lawyers, accountants, their support staff.

Let's see, lawyers (the elected ones, and the lobbyist ones who ghost-write the tax laws) make the tax laws, and lawyers hustle the tax laws. Such a deal.

[Wild Cobra]

"anti-American"

being anti-Repug, anti-teabagger, anti-conservative, anti-neo-c*nt doesn't make one anti-American.

"Marxist assholes"

... and doesn't make one a Marxist.

WC, I may have missed your answer to this question earlier, but were you this stupid before you went in the Army or did your Army career make you stupid?
A sure trait of a Marxist is believing that people should pay by their ability to pay.

[Cry Havoc]

You obviously don't believe in the American Dream

:lmao

....

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Considering our deficit; I'm betting it would have to be a lot higher!

Also; there is not just people with gimmies in the code; there are A BUNCH of jobs at stake if that thing gets simplified - attorney's, accountants (both at firms and within other corps), and their related support staff, would be scrambling for work.

Indeed.

Being one of those accoutants, I still support the simplification.

Any job loss would be more than mitigated by the overall savings to everybody.

Sadly the overall public good is not what drives the country. It is the narrow interests with enough money to throw around that drive public policy.

I know it, you know it, and it is clear to just about everybody else at this point.

The bigger question is what do we do about it?

[RandomGuy]

A sure trait of a Marxist is believing that people should pay by their ability to pay.

If one were to benefit most out of any given system, would not that person bear some moral responsibility to support that system more than others who did not benefit as greatly?

[101A]

Indeed.

Being one of those accoutants, I still support the simplification.

Any job loss would be more than mitigated by the overall savings to everybody.

Sadly the overall public good is not what drives the country. It is the narrow interests with enough money to throw around that drive public policy.

I know it, you know it, and it is clear to just about everybody else at this point.

The bigger question is what do we do about it?

Actually, "what to do about it," I think, is happening, to an extent. Never before have I had SO man discussions with people of a disparate political bent from myself, that have ended in agreement as to WHAT the problem in this country is; usually the animosity (or insert word of greater or lesser degree as you see fit) between liberal and conservative, or Republican and Democrat is too great to overcome. Many are now figuring out that Corporatism (large powers controlling the govt - which is controlling all of us) is the ultimate evil - it manipulates Congress, and both sides of the political landscape to its own ends. Keeps us arguing about meaningless stuff while we get (insert euphemism for "sodomized" here).

The GREAT thing about this country is that every 2 years, we have a chance to almost wipe the slate clean with a new set of leaders. We have not taken advantage of that opportunity - and, frankly, we've been so fat, rich and happy for so long; ignorant of so much, that it is no wonder. Ain't so happy or rich anymore, and society is becoming less ignorant (fat is debatable). Democrats misread the results of the last election as everyone is pro-Democrat; and Republicans, IMO, are misreading Brown's election, and other trends as the country swinging back the Republcans way. Both are wrong; people are PISSED at ALL of THEM! The pendulum, that for 160 years has swung strait back and forth, is beginning to tilt off its axis ever so slightly - and I think (hope, pray) the momentum is building; There is not a coming third party, but I think there is a coming "Throw the Bums out" movement - and it WILL have an effect.

However, if that doesn't happen, we're fucked.

[RandomGuy]

You get a chance to read the Tiabbi article posted by Winehole?

I thought I was mad before... man.

[RandomGuy]

Democrats misread the results of the last election as everyone is pro-Democrat; and Republicans, IMO, are misreading Brown's election, and other trends as the country swinging back the Republcans way. Both are wrong; people are PISSED at ALL of THEM!

Yup. I concur. As a committed Democrat, I must admit my party leadership in Congress seems to be as clueless as the GOP's.

[101A]

If one were to benefit most out of any given system, would not that person bear some moral responsibility to support that system more than others who did not benefit as greatly?

You assume the "system" is what gave the person the ability to succeed.

The founding document of this Nation is VERY clear as where the credit lies, and thus, by your reasoning, where moral obligation to payback should be directed.

[RandomGuy]

Con artists have a word for the inability of their victims to accept that they've been scammed. They call it the "True Believer Syndrome." That's sort of where we are, in a state of nagging disbelief about the real problem on Wall Street. It isn't so much that we have inadequate rules or incompetent regulators, although both of these things are certainly true. The real problem is that it doesn't matter what regulations are in place if the people running the economy are rip-off artists. The system assumes a certain minimum level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations. If those ethics are absent — well, this thing isn't going to work, no matter what we do. Sure, mugging old ladies is against the law, but it's also easy. To prevent it, we depend, for the most part, not on cops but on people making the conscious decision not to do it.

That's why the biggest gift the bankers got in the bailout was not fiscal but psychological. "The most valuable part of the bailout," says Rep. Sherman, "was the implicit guarantee that they're Too Big to Fail." Instead of liquidating and prosecuting the insolvent institutions that took us all down with them in a giant Ponzi scheme, we have showered them with money and guarantees and all sorts of other enabling gestures. And what should really freak everyone out is the fact that Wall Street immediately started skimming off its own rescue money. If the bailouts validated anew the crooked psychology of the bubble, the recent profit and bonus numbers show that the same psychology is back, thriving, and looking for new disasters to create. "It's evidence," says Rep. Kanjorski, "that they still don't get it."

More to the point, the fact that we haven't done much of anything to change the rules and behavior of Wall Street shows that we still don't get it. Instituting a bailout policy that stressed recapitalizing bad banks was like the addict coming back to the con man to get his lost money back. Ask yourself how well that ever works out. And then get ready for the reload.
article posted by Winehole in this thread:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146999

[101A]

RG: ^^^^ ?


You get a chance to read the Tiabbi article posted by Winehole?

I thought I was mad before... man.


Thanks for the heads up; just read it.

Screw waiting for November. Gonna go fire up the Cessna.

(Since I posted that: how long you think before the black helicopters appear above my house?)

[RandomGuy]

RG: ^^^^ ?




Thanks for the heads up; just read it.

Screw waiting for November. Gonna go fire up the Cessna.

(Since I posted that: how long you think before the black helicopters appear above my house?)

Heh, fixed the post to put in the source. Sorry about that.

[101A]

Heh, fixed the post to put in the source. Sorry about that.


Yeah, I just read it; now I see; just tying the threads together.

[TeyshaBlue]

Indeed.

Being one of those accoutants, I still support the simplification.

Any job loss would be more than mitigated by the overall savings to everybody.

Sadly the overall public good is not what drives the country. It is the narrow interests with enough money to throw around that drive public policy.

I know it, you know it, and it is clear to just about everybody else at this point.

The bigger question is what do we do about it?

Produce body counts, apparently.

[angrydude]

if people who were about taxing the rich actually wanted to tax the real rich people in this country I wouldn't mind.

But they don't.

They convince poor people that the middle class are rich and tax them instead.

then they act all indignant when the middle class objects to "taxing the rich".

2nd biggest scam ever. (the first being fractional reserve banking)

[Wild Cobra]

If one were to benefit most out of any given system, would not that person bear some moral responsibility to support that system more than others who did not benefit as greatly?
Are you saying the people taking my tax dollars should return money to the community somehow?

After-all, they benefit the most. Those who my wealth is redistributed to, right?

[Sec24Row7]

40% of the people in this country contribute no tax dollars to the system.

Thats 120 million people.

Go after them.

Make them pay something or kick them into the fucking ocean or across the border into a Saguaro Cactus or Pine Tree.

Thats how I feel about the tax code.

[jacobdrj]

It IS the same; the same code for all of us; Are they doing anything illegal, or just taking advantage of loopholes that are there for all of us - and doing it well? Hell, I just got a $1500 credit on a new door and furnace I had installed; that "lowered" my effective rate, didn't it? Did I do anything wrong?

Those 400 aren't the problem; the screwed up tax code is the problem.

I would be in favor of a flat tax to end this crap.

You in?

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but either way:
Flat taxes are regressive. They have the dual problems of castrating a government's ability to create non-mandatory incentives while simultaneously punishing the poor as a flat tax more drastically impacts take home income per relative need. $10,000 on 10% tax is 1000 that might otherwise go to food, for example...

[boutons_deux]

A flat earned/unearned income tax with no loopholes will never fly in USA because the wealthy have enough wealth to bribe enough Congress critters, who are really, really cheap (in many ways) compared to the wealth of the wealthy.

ie, do you think Buffet would pay a 25% flat tax (earned and unearned) rather than his 17% (avg paid by the wealthy)? He'd pay millions to bribe Congressmen away from that idea, and the bribes would work with 100% confidence.

Those loopholes you talk about are NOT available to everybody, because many depend on investing, ie it takes money to "save" money, but most people below the median income and certainly the poverty level, simply don't have the discretionary funds to invest AND pay the accountants and tax lawyers to find and exploit the loopholes.

[RandomGuy]

You assume the "system" is what gave the person the ability to succeed.

The founding document of this Nation is VERY clear as where the credit lies, and thus, by your reasoning, where moral obligation to payback should be directed.

I do not quite assume that it is entirely the system that "gave the person the ability to succeed."

Success is a mix of luck and ability, but no one is an island in and of themselves.

When you form contracts, you benefit from a system of laws and enforcement of those laws.

When you hire people, you benefit from the education they received.

When you benefit from not having organized crime extort 90% of your profits, you have benefited.

We benefit in a myriad of ways from all manner of public goods.

[101A]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but either way:
Flat taxes are regressive. They have the dual problems of castrating a government's ability to create non-mandatory incentives while simultaneously punishing the poor as a flat tax more drastically impacts take home income per relative need. $10,000 on 10% tax is 1000 that might otherwise go to food, for example...


A model I would support would include a significant personal deduction; ideally it would be the only deduction.

[101A]

I do not quite assume that it is entirely the system that "gave the person the ability to succeed."

Success is a mix of luck and ability, but no one is an island in and of themselves.

When you form contracts, you benefit from a system of laws and enforcement of those laws.

When you hire people, you benefit from the education they received.

When you benefit from not having organized crime extort 90% of your profits, you have benefited.

We benefit in a myriad of ways from all manner of public goods.


True, but each of those successes, again, may stem from "society"; but that does not mean it stems from govt. To that end, giving to the govt. != giving BACK to society.

[coyotes_geek]

A model I would support would include a significant personal deduction; ideally it would be the only deduction.

Here's the model I like.

(total income - poverty level) x flat tax rate = tax owed

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but either way:
Flat taxes are regressive. They have the dual problems of castrating a government's ability to create non-mandatory incentives while simultaneously punishing the poor as a flat tax more drastically impacts take home income per relative need. $10,000 on 10% tax is 1000 that might otherwise go to food, for example...
Since when should the government pick winners and losers?

Everyone who has income should pay taxes. Every voter should have a financial stake that their vote effects. If we don't do such a thing, then I'm all for instituting a "poll tax."

[Rogue]

the poor always aren't the targets for leviers while the rich often possess more or less political clout that helps them avoid it. That's why middle class has to be the all-time preys of predators.

[Wild Cobra]

the poor always aren't the targets for leviers while the rich often possess more or less political clout that helps them avoid it. That's why middle class has to be the all-time preys of predators.
Well, I haven't really figured out what range to place, but as starters, how about this. Nobody should pay more than 20% taxes and nobody should pay less than 10%?

[Winehole23]

Well, I haven't really figured out what range to place, but as starters, how about this. Nobody should pay more than 20% taxes and nobody should pay less than 10%?You can't have full spectrum dominance and welfare on that rent (http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/rent.html), WC.

[Winehole23]

Since when should the government pick winners and losers?You think it doesn't already?

[Winehole23]

Hello TARP?

[Darrin]

This is sickening. We are one country and greed in today's climate is nothing short of treason. We need tax revenue from these people--they can do the most good for the nation. I cannot believe that these tax loop-holes allow them to do everything we accuse illegal immigrants of doing--coming here, taking advantage of the system, and not giving a damn about their county.

[101A]

This is sickening. We are one country and greed in today's climate is nothing short of treason. We need tax revenue from these people--they can do the most good for the nation. I cannot believe that these tax loop-holes allow them to do everything we accuse illegal immigrants of doing--coming here, taking advantage of the system, and not giving a damn about their county.


If I deduct my mortgage interest should I be shot?

WTF are you talking about?

These people are NOT breaking the law - they are getting every last benefit the tax code has to offer; most of which would be exploited by EACH and every one of us simply by loading the requisite data into TurboTax Premier edition. They put the money in places YOUR government is encouraging them to do so by writing the tax code the way they do.

Also, I just went back and re-read the OP; the "comparison" group to these high earners is "People with income in the low six figures" - ostensibly those of us who pay the very highest of gross income in taxes - and EXACTLY those who benefit the most from the Bush tax cuts, and stand to lose (pay) the most when they expire this year. Didn't know you had so much concern for upper-middle-classers.

Also, the OP cherry-picks its data; takes income from the rich from before the bubble; while citing the travails of the post-crash meltdown. We've now gone three pages on an emotionally written red-meat piece.

[RandomGuy]

Here's the model I like.

(total income - poverty level) x flat tax rate = tax owed

Define "income".












(welcome to the swampy, murky marsh of tax reform, be sure to address whether capital gains meet this definition, and remember, the instant you define it, there will be some high dollar accountants looking for loopholes)

[angrydude]

Define "income".












(welcome to the swampy, murky marsh of tax reform, be sure to address whether capital gains meet this definition, and remember, the instant you define it, there will be some high dollar accountants looking for loopholes)

/cosigned

[coyotes_geek]

Define "income".












(welcome to the swampy, murky marsh of tax reform, be sure to address whether capital gains meet this definition, and remember, the instant you define it, there will be some high dollar accountants looking for loopholes)

My definition of income would be wages, tips, dividends, capital gains and interest. Not being an accountant though, I'm sure one could add a whole laundry list of things that are currently or could be considered to be income which would cloud the definition considerably. So, point taken. I think that point also makes a perfect illustration of why the tax code should be simplified, so that one doesn't have to be an accountant to understand it. To what degree that goal is achievable, I will have to defer to those who know more about the subject than I.

[TeyshaBlue]

Define "income".



(welcome to the swampy, murky marsh of tax reform, be sure to address whether capital gains meet this definition, and remember, the instant you define it, there will be some high dollar accountants looking for loopholes)


Ok. Can't income simply be...ummm...income?

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the model I like.

(total income - poverty level) x flat tax rate = tax owed
If we want a simple method, I can go with that idea. Back in 1993, it was calculated that taxes would sustain this nation at (income - $30,000) x 17%. I personally thought the $30,000 was to much of a standard deduction, but in theory, this panned out.

Makes sense to me that 17% would be the right number for everyone to pay if the rich only pay that much. Afterall, they make up the majority of the tax revenues.