Large Majority Of Americans, Including Most Republicans, Support Raising Taxes

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/large-majority-of-americans-including-most-republicans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy.php

Large Majority Of Americans, Including Most Republicans, Support Raising Taxes On The Wealthy


As the debate about how to deal with the federal deficit heats up, two new polls show that large, bipartisan majorities of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy, as President Obama has proposed doing.

A central piece of Obama's deficit reduction plan calls for raising taxes on annual income above $250,000. Though tax hikes are generally thought to be unpopular, both a Washington Post/ABC News poll and a McClatchy-Marist survey found that a majority of Americans supported that proposal. What's more, even a majority of Republicans in the Washington Post/ABC News poll said they favored raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

In addition, both polls found Americans overwhelmingly opposed to a deficit reduction plan pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) that would ultimately privatize Medicare, the federal healthcare program for the elderly. Taken together, those findings show that in the looming deficit debate, Obama may hold an edge in public opinion.

The Washington Post/ABC News survey asked American adults whether they supported or opposed a list of proposals to reduce the deficit. Seventy-two percent of all respondents said they supported raising taxes on annual income over $250,000, including 54% of respondents who said they "strongly" supported that position. Democrats were most supportive of that proposal (91%), but so too were a majority of independents (68%) and Republicans (54%.)

Additionally, 27% said they opposed increasing taxes on income earned beyond $250,000 per year.

In the Marist poll, 64% of registered voters said they supported raising taxes above that same cutoff point, compared to 33% who opposed that plan. A majority of Republicans opposed tax hikes in the Marist poll (54% against verus 43% in favor), though larger majorities of Democrats and independents supported them. Democrats backed the tax increases 83%-15%, while independents supported them by a 63%-34% split.

As for the GOP plan to make cuts to Medicare spending, Marist found that 80% of registered voters opposed that proposal, while only 18% supported it. And in the Washington Post-ABC News poll, cutting Medicare was the least popular proposal offered as a way to reduce the deficit. In that poll, 78% of adults said they opposed that plan, compared to 21% who said they supported it. Further, that survey found that two-thirds of adults thought the structure of Medicare should remain unchanged, while just one-third supported making it into a voucher program as Rep. Ryan has proposed.

Republicans, while pushing for the Ryan plan, have said tax increases are a total non-starter. But as these two polls show, Americans would prefer if the opposite were the case.

The Washington Post poll was conducted April 14-17 among 1,001 adults nationwide. It has a margin of error of 3.5%. Marist's poll was conducted April 10-14 among 1,084 registered voters, and has a margin of error of 3.0%.


According to Darrins we should listen to the people!

[Wild Cobra]

It's just the spineless "anybody but me" attitude.

[RandomGuy]

Americans Support Higher Taxes. Really.




Contrary to Republican dogma, polls show that the American people strongly support higher taxes to reduce the deficit and improve income inequality. Following are 19 different polls since the first of the year that say so.

A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

A June 7 Pew poll found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.

A May 26 Lake Research poll of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.

A May 13 Bloomberg poll found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.

A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

A May 4 Quinnipiac poll found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin.

An April 29 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of people believe the budget deficit should be reduced only by cutting spending; 76 percent say that higher taxes must play a role.

An April 25 USC/Los Angeles Times poll of Californians found that by about a 2-to-1 margin voters favor raising taxes to deal with the state’s budget problems over cutting spending alone.

An April 22 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. It also found that 66 percent of people believe tax increases will be necessary to reduce the deficit versus 19 percent who believe spending cuts alone are sufficient.

An April 20 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin people favor a combination of higher taxes and spending cuts over spending cuts alone to reduce the deficit. It also found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit and it is far and away the most popular deficit reduction measure.

An April 20 Public Religion Research Institute poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, people believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes than the poor or middle class. Also, 62 percent of people believe that growing inequality of wealth is a serious problem.

An April 18 McClatchy-Marist poll found that voters support higher taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit by a 2-to-1 margin, including 45 percent of self-identified Tea Party members.

An April 18 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of people do not believe that corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and 59 percent believe that the rich do not pay their fair share.

On April 1, Tulchin Research released a poll showing that voters in California overwhelmingly support higher taxes on the rich to deal with the state’s budgetary problems.

A March 15 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 31 percent of voters support the Republican policy of only cutting spending to reduce the deficit; 64 percent believe higher taxes will also be necessary.

A March 2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of people would support a surtax on millionaires to help reduce the budget deficit, and 68 percent would support eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000.

A February 15 CBS News poll found that only 49 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require cuts in programs that benefit them; 41 percent do not. Also, only 37 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require higher taxes on them; 59 percent do not.

A January 20 CBS News/New York Times poll found that close to two-thirds of people would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for Social Security or Medicare in order to stabilize their finances. The poll also found that if taxes must be raised, 33 percent would favor a national sales tax, 32 percent would support restricting the mortgage interest deduction, 12 percent would raise the gasoline taxes, and 10 percent would tax health care benefits.

On January 3, a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll found that 61 percent of people would rather raise taxes on the rich to balance the budget than cut defense, Social Security or Medicare.

[ElNono]

It's just the spineless "anybody but me" attitude.

You mean your attitude towards tax increases?

[coyotes_geek]

Contrary to Republican dogma, polls show that the American people strongly support higher taxes to reduce the deficit and improve income inequality. Following are 19 different polls since the first of the year that say so.

A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

A June 7 Pew poll found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.

A May 26 Lake Research poll of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.

A May 13 Bloomberg poll found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.

A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

A May 4 Quinnipiac poll found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin.

An April 29 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of people believe the budget deficit should be reduced only by cutting spending; 76 percent say that higher taxes must play a role.

An April 25 USC/Los Angeles Times poll of Californians found that by about a 2-to-1 margin voters favor raising taxes to deal with the state’s budget problems over cutting spending alone.

An April 22 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. It also found that 66 percent of people believe tax increases will be necessary to reduce the deficit versus 19 percent who believe spending cuts alone are sufficient.

An April 20 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin people favor a combination of higher taxes and spending cuts over spending cuts alone to reduce the deficit. It also found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit and it is far and away the most popular deficit reduction measure.

An April 20 Public Religion Research Institute poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, people believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes than the poor or middle class. Also, 62 percent of people believe that growing inequality of wealth is a serious problem.

An April 18 McClatchy-Marist poll found that voters support higher taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit by a 2-to-1 margin, including 45 percent of self-identified Tea Party members.

An April 18 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of people do not believe that corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and 59 percent believe that the rich do not pay their fair share.

On April 1, Tulchin Research released a poll showing that voters in California overwhelmingly support higher taxes on the rich to deal with the state’s budgetary problems.

A March 15 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 31 percent of voters support the Republican policy of only cutting spending to reduce the deficit; 64 percent believe higher taxes will also be necessary.

A March 2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of people would support a surtax on millionaires to help reduce the budget deficit, and 68 percent would support eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000.

A February 15 CBS News poll found that only 49 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require cuts in programs that benefit them; 41 percent do not. Also, only 37 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require higher taxes on them; 59 percent do not.

A January 20 CBS News/New York Times poll found that close to two-thirds of people would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for Social Security or Medicare in order to stabilize their finances. The poll also found that if taxes must be raised, 33 percent would favor a national sales tax, 32 percent would support restricting the mortgage interest deduction, 12 percent would raise the gasoline taxes, and 10 percent would tax health care benefits.

On January 3, a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll found that 61 percent of people would rather raise taxes on the rich to balance the budget than cut defense, Social Security or Medicare.

I count 11 polls dealing specifically with taxes on the rich, 8 polls dealing with "increased tax revenue" without any specification as to who's taxes would be going up and exactly zero polls where people were specifically asked if they would support their own taxes going up.

The fact that no one seems to want to take a poll asking "do YOU support YOUR taxes going up" is pretty telling.

[Spurminator]

The Bush tax cuts were given across the board, they should expire across the board. Limiting the expiration to the rich is an unnecessary wedge. It introduces a whole host of "us vs. them" arguments that impede getting anything done at all.

[spursncowboys]

I think if you asked most Americans to explain the differences of all the tax types they are asked to say if they are for or against, they would not be able to. But if you put in in a way that the democrats do, where it is a way of leveling the playing field and making the rich put in their share-then they are in favor of it. Also if you asked the average American to add up their total they pay in taxes, they would also be unable to.

[ElNono]

What I've read so far is that the 'tax increases' being discussed ATM are both the expiration of the Bush tax cuts AND the closure of some tax loopholes. The latter being what a good chunk of both the GOP and Dems are unwilling to do seeing that it affects the companies that put them where they are.

[boutons_deux]

"It introduces a whole host of "us vs. them" arguments"

Repugs/VRWC have been polarizing and dividing Human-Americans for 30 years, why stop now?

[ducks]

democracts started the civil war why stop now even though they got their asses handed to them then

[Spurminator]

"It introduces a whole host of "us vs. them" arguments"

Repugs/VRWC have been polarizing and dividing Human-Americans for 30 years, why stop now?

Do you want progress or gamesmanship?

[Spurminator]

"It introduces a whole host of "us vs. them" arguments"

Repugs/VRWC have been polarizing and dividing Human-Americans for 30 years, why stop now?

Even if that were an exclusively Republican agenda, that means you're playing along with them, doing exactly what they want you to do. Good job. You're the Matt Bonner of Liberals.

[boutons_deux]

"that means you're playing along with them"

no problem for me if it means getting the top 5% to pay $Ts more in taxes.

America is fatally, irreparably divided now, and "divided we fall" is inevitable.

[DMX7]

DarrinS just swallows the GOP talking points whole, specifically the "This is the will of the people" thing that John Boehner always spews, but when you actually ask the people, they never seem to agree.

[DarrinS]

DarrinS just swallows the GOP talking points whole, specifically the "This is the will of the people" thing that John Boehner always spews, but when you actually ask the people, they never seem to agree.

At some point, I could get behind raising taxes. Now just doesn't seem like a good time. With unemployment as high as it is, the govt should try and create the most business-friendly environment possible. Call me crazy. If those pesky unemployment numbers don't go down? Well, obama will go down in flames like Jimmy Carter.

[Spurminator]

no problem for me if it means getting the top 5% to pay $Ts more in taxes.


You can still do that without limiting it to the rich.

[DarrinS]

What is Clinton out there preaching lately?

[ElNono]

Not how to turn the gay into straight by prayer...

[DMX7]

At some point, I could get behind raising taxes. Now just doesn't seem like a good time. With unemployment as high as it is, the govt should try and create the most business-friendly environment possible.

We're not even talking about across the board tax hikes. We're talking about targeted tax hikes on the people who can most afford to bear them.

And the whole "it will kill business" argument is bullshit. It didn't kill business in the 90's, and capital gains taxes are probably more influential on job creation than income taxes anyway, and those won't be touched.



If those pesky unemployment numbers don't go down? Well, obama will go down in flames like Jimmy Carter.

Just as the Repugs want. They want the economy to fail because power is more important to them than America, and fools like you just enable them.

[scott]

Pro-life but anti-tax increase and anti-spending cut. Irony.

[MannyIsGod]

At some point, I could get behind raising taxes. Now just doesn't seem like a good time. With unemployment as high as it is, the govt should try and create the most business-friendly environment possible. Call me crazy. If those pesky unemployment numbers don't go down? Well, obama will go down in flames like Jimmy Carter.

And yet you rail against the stimulus package? The reason the economy sucks is because no one is buying shit. The stimullus package was the government stepping in to fill that void. Tax cuts don't do shit compared to unemployment benefits in boosting the economy.

[DJ Mbenga]

Americans must be stupid because the republicans and tea party candidates made no secret of their intentions and plans. they wanted to fix the debt with cuts and cuts only. huge cuts, in fact i think they wanted to cut taxes for the wealthy once things got going again. so why all of a sudden do they want to increase taxes? why did they vote republican then. makes no sense. politics is crazy.

[Ignignokt]

DarrinS just swallows the GOP talking points whole, specifically the "This is the will of the people" thing that John Boehner always spews, but when you actually ask the people, they never seem to agree.

Iron E, a new vitamin.

[boutons_deux]

"republicans and tea party candidates made no secret of their intentions and plans"

Which, as we see now, included not one initiative to create jobs and get the bottom 95% economy moving again.

The Repubs want the jobs and economic pain to last as long and as deep as possible.

Mitch O'Connell said again a couple days ago that the Repug priority is defeating Barry. iow, fuck the people, fuck the economy, fuck the country, Repugs only play obstructionist, destructive politics, in or out of power.

"Americans must be stupid",

the lower 95% who vote Repug are because they obtain nothing from the Repugs, the top 5% gain everything.

I remember reading that the brilliance of Rove was to get the dumbfuck bubba class to vote against their own best (economic) interests. They got suckered, are suckered by "social" and "Christian" and "right to life "issues (the right to life doesn't extend to bubba soldiers themselves).

Start a bogus war and waste 1000s of bubba lives and 100s of 1000s of bubba injuries? No problemo, just keep spouting off (lying) about "born again" and abortion and Muslims.

The Repugs count on their base being stupid, emotional, anti-scientific, not being smart and rational and thinking critically.

Repugs are so pro-Human-American that they killed TANF last year and killed the plan to help employees who jobs that get exported. yes, bubba, Repugs are your BFF.

[elbamba]

If they raise taxes on everyone across the board, including those who pay no income tax, I have no problem with paying my share.

[boutons_deux]

"those who pay no income tax"

give me the punitive rate of income tax that the avg Wal-mart associate of $17K/year must pay to satisfy your thirst for "fairness"

[ManuBalboa]

Funny how Obama is too much of a pussy to raise them now.

[DarrinS]

And yet you rail against the stimulus package? The reason the economy sucks is because no one is buying shit. The stimullus package was the government stepping in to fill that void. Tax cuts don't do shit compared to unemployment benefits in boosting the economy.


Yeah, that stimulus was just the shot in the arm the economy needed.

Will taxing the 250K billionaire class get more customers in the door?

[DMX7]

How much of the stimulus package was tax cuts? You'd probably think zero if you were a republican.

[boutons_deux]

"Will taxing the 250K billionaire class get more customers in the door?"

no, but it would pay down the deficit.


Will cutting taxes on the 250K billionaire class get more customers in the door?

dubya's 2001/2003 tax cuts did fuck all to create jobs (aka, increase consumers and their expenditures).

[Winehole23]

Funny how Obama is too much of a pussy to raise them now.How do you mean?

Certainly he was last December when he assumed stewardship of the Bush tax cuts, but the bargain he's driving right now includes tax hikes and revenue enhancements.

[elbamba]

35%. Its what I pay. I work 60-70 hour weeks routinely. If you need more money work more hours. You might not make as much as someone else putting in that time, but I earn every penny I make. You can see why I am reluctant to just watch it get pissed away by my government.

[EVAY]

35%. Its what I pay. I work 60-70 hour weeks routinely. If you need more money work more hours. You might not make as much as someone else putting in that time, but I earn every penny I make. You can see why I am reluctant to just watch it get pissed away by my government.

Do you really believe that someone making the $17,000 per year that B-D quotes as a Walmart employee's salary ought to be paying in 35% in federal taxes?

Really

[EVAY]

35%. Its what I pay. I work 60-70 hour weeks routinely. If you need more money work more hours. You might not make as much as someone else putting in that time, but I earn every penny I make. You can see why I am reluctant to just watch it get pissed away by my government.

Just FWIW, I am in the 35% tax bracket, and I think my taxes ought to go up to help with this damnable deficit. I made out like crazy during the years of the Bush tax cuts, but worried constantly about how much debt we were piling up.

It is my turn now to help with some sacrifice.

And brother, if you are making enough money to have to pay in at the 35% level, it is your f'ing turn, too.

[elbamba]

Do you really believe that someone making the $17,000 per year that B-D quotes as a Walmart employee's salary ought to be paying in 35% in federal taxes?

Really

Why not? If 17,000 is not enough, work more hours. I do. I put in 10-12 hour days M-F and usually work on Saturdays and Sundays. I get compensated well for my work but I put in the hours.

Will the employee at Walmart make what I make? No, but they certainly can't claim that their earning capacity is capped at 17,000.

[elbamba]

Just FWIW, I am in the 35% tax bracket, and I think my taxes ought to go up to help with this damnable deficit. I made out like crazy during the years of the Bush tax cuts, but worried constantly about how much debt we were piling up.

It is my turn now to help with some sacrifice.

And brother, if you are making enough money to have to pay in at the 35% level, it is your f'ing turn, too.

Brother, I pay enough taxes. I also have the experience of working with several state and federal government agencies so I know first hand how much waste goes on with my tax dollars. People who don't pay taxes...its their f'ing turn.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, if they are going to raise taxes I hope it is to the income tax rate and not capital gains...doing away with the cap gains rates totally negates any incentive to save or invest.

[boutons_deux]

Capital gains used to be 25%, just about where middle wage earners are.

With super wealthy continuing to suck wealth out of Human-Americans while paying only 15% (for that which they self declare, the rest goes offshore), 25% capital gains would suck some of it back.

[EVAY]

Well, if they are going to raise taxes I hope it is to the income tax rate and not capital gains...doing away with the cap gains rates totally negates any incentive to save or invest.

I happen to agree with this. When people really want to talk about incenting people, capital gains are not the things to tax. Income? Okay, fine. But capital gains is where you can really come up with some negative incentives if you start taxing them too heavily.

Capital gains is where the investment dollars show up and job creation matters. Negatively incenting that by increasing that tax rate is counter-productive.

Pretending that increasing the income tax rate on millionaires from 35% to 39% is going to materially impact the employment rate is just flat wrong.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-07/249335540-12094919.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-07/249335540-12094919.jpg

Republican leaders signaled increasing pessimism about the likelihood of a deal and laid the blame for deteriorating negotiations squarely on President Obama's shoulders.

"I was one of those who had long hoped we could do something big for the country," Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said in a floor speech Tuesday. "But in my view, the president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-republicans-debt-20110712,0,5394704.story

===========

O'Connell LIES by leaving out the majority of The American People who support tax hikes.

[EVAY]

Brother, I pay enough taxes. I also have the experience of working with several state and federal government agencies so I know first hand how much waste goes on with my tax dollars. People who don't pay taxes...its their f'ing turn.

You are lucky enough to have the genetic capability to marshall your intellect and the experience to have learned to discipline yourself to work long hours. Congratulations on that. I mean it.

However, none of the above says that the guy at Wal-Mart should only have less than $12,000 per year take home pay in your scenario of everyone paying in at the same rate (35%).

Don't you realize that our society (read taxpayers) will simply have to supplement that guy's income more by taking it away and then having to give back some services in government programs because people cannot subsist on that income in this society without help. So, what you would accomplish would be more government waste by having the government take they guy's wages and then expand the services to him and his family. You have already said that you witness government inefficiency...why add to the tasks assigned to it, then?

[boutons_deux]

"then having to give back some services in government programs"

nope, the "tax everybody" crowd of sociopaths wants to kill (taxpayer) assistance to the poor. They're nothing but lazy, leeching cheaters who should be left to disease, rot, and die, the sooner the better.

[cheguevara]

"I was one of those who had long hoped we could do something big for the country," Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said in a floor speech Tuesday. "But in my view, the president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above."

http://images.seroundtable.com/t-cry-baby-1302893819.jpg

[coyotes_geek]

o'connell lies by leaving out the majority of the american people who support tax hikes on someone else.

fify.

[DarrinS]

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

[boutons_deux]

"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren."

Repugs have shifted the burden from the super wealthy and corps to the bottom 1/3, who will go without health care, chances for advancement/social mobility, access to birth control and legal aid, etc. Repugs are craven sociopaths. They hate Human-Americans, and have every intention of wreaking havoc on as many H-As as they can.

"America has a debt problem"

Govt spending as percentage of GDP is at a minimum going back decades. No "runaway spending", just Repugs cutting taxes to starve the beast has created huge revenue problem, as they always intended.

[ChumpDumper]

A politician played politics! ZOMG!

[cheguevara]

"There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world." --George W. Bush, addressing U.S. troops at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, Jan. 12, 2008


"I'm oftentimes asked, What difference does it make to America if people are dying of malaria in a place like Ghana? It means a lot. It means a lot morally, it means a lot from a -- it's in our national interest." --George W. Bush, Accra, Ghana, Feb. 20, 2008

"Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency, it is the right decision now, and it will be the right decision ever." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2008

[boutons_deux]

"Republicans care about the black vote"
-- dubya to the NAACP

... not about black people, whose "cared for votes" the Repugs try systematically to disenfranchise.

[spursncowboys]

Just as the Repugs want. They want the economy to fail because power is more important to them than America, and fools like you just enable them.
Just like the Dems with Bush? Did you complain then?

[spursncowboys]

You can't blame the repub leadership on something they know will alienate their base. they are scared, rightfully so, of pissing off the tea baggers (do yall still call them that?)

[George Gervin's Afro]

You can't blame the repub leadership on something they know will alienate their base. they are scared, rightfully so, of pissing off the tea baggers (do yall still call them that?)

so are they beholden to the tea party? Or to America?

[spursncowboys]

I'd say their constituents. Who do you think they are beholden to?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'd say their constituents. Who do you think they are beholden to?

that's why we have a problem now. you have both parties catering to their bases and flipping off the rest of the country... that is why independents (thankfully) decide elections..


the tea partiers represent.... maybe 15%- 25% of the country... what about everyone else?

[boutons_deux]

"you have both parties catering to their bases"

bullshit. Both parties cater to the UCA, VRWC, capitalists.

H-A votes don't count for shit for setting govt policy and programs.

[spursncowboys]

Our system was originally created on the idea that they do the work of their elected base. Maybe those are the true number of Tea Party membership. However, the average person who votes but doesn't really follow much politics is who they should be worried about. And I believe the Repubs are worried about them and their liking the TP people. TP have done a great job of selling themselves as average americans. That is why they have alot more power than their numbers truly show. Just like the Anti war Liberals in 06. They were small but very powerful.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you really believe that someone making the $17,000 per year that B-D quotes as a Walmart employee's salary ought to be paying in 35% in federal taxes?

Really
I say everyone should pay the same rate. If 35% is too low for the rich, then it is too low for the poor too.

[elbamba]

You are lucky enough to have the genetic capability to marshall your intellect and the experience to have learned to discipline yourself to work long hours. Congratulations on that. I mean it.

However, none of the above says that the guy at Wal-Mart should only have less than $12,000 per year take home pay in your scenario of everyone paying in at the same rate (35%).

Don't you realize that our society (read taxpayers) will simply have to supplement that guy's income more by taking it away and then having to give back some services in government programs because people cannot subsist on that income in this society without help. So, what you would accomplish would be more government waste by having the government take they guy's wages and then expand the services to him and his family. You have already said that you witness government inefficiency...why add to the tasks assigned to it, then?

I don't think that it is luck or genetics. Working hard is nothing more then putting time into your profession. I do not consider myself smarter or more gifted than others. I just had to put in the time.

If the guy at Walmart is only making 12,000.00 a year, maybe he needs to work more hours. Getting paid min. wage and working 52 weeks at 40 hours a week will earn him over $15,000.00. (less than I lived on while in school) Most Walmarts have a McDonalds next door, they are always hiring.

Why should we have to supplement the guys income? What does he possibly need that I should have to provide him? A car, tv, laptop, Ipod, a house? Call me crazy but I do not believe that I have any need or responsibility to supplement that man's income, espcially if he chooses to make less than minimum wage. If I can put in a 60 hour week so can he. If I can limit my vacation days, so can he. I congratulate you on your success, but I don't see why I should be punished because you want to give someone free handouts.

[Wild Cobra]

Why should we have to supplement the guys income? What does he possibly need that I should have to provide him? A car, tv, laptop, Ipod, a house? Call me crazy but I do not believe that I have any need or responsibility to supplement that man's income, espcially if he chooses to make less than minimum wage. If I can put in a 60 hour week so can he. If I can limit my vacation days, so can he. I congratulate you on your success, but I don't see why I should be punished because you want to give someone free handouts.
No shit.

There are cheap one room places to live. Raymen and sandwiches make for cheap eating.

Why should my tax dollars replace someone elses participation in government revenue?

[ElNono]

If the guy at Walmart is only making 12,000.00 a year, maybe he needs to work more hours. Getting paid min. wage and working 52 weeks at 40 hours a week will earn him over $15,000.00. (less than I lived on while in school) Most Walmarts have a McDonalds next door, they are always hiring.

Maybe he has a kid or two to feed. You couldn't possibly live here with 15K/year. Rent alone is 1K/mo... add food, gas, electricity, taxes and ends just don't meet.

And I'm not even going to touch if the person had a broken leg and a hospital bill to pay. Sometimes it isn't just about working hard.

[ElNono]

And ultimately Evay is right. The services the government provide ain't going away. If they can't make enough or are taxed high enough, they're going to head to the foodstamp line, and we're all going to be in the hook for it anyways.

[ElNono]

Funny how Obama is too much of a pussy to raise them now.

He can't raise anything without Congress approval. Funny how Republicans are too much of a pussy to raise them now.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe he has a kid or two to feed. You couldn't possibly live here with 15K/year. Rent alone is 1K/mo... add food, gas, electricity, taxes and ends just don't meet.

And I'm not even going to touch if the person had a broken leg and a hospital bill to pay. Sometimes it isn't just about working hard.
Why does he have a kid to feed? Did he lose a better job, or was he irresponsible having a kid before he could afford one?

[ElNono]

Why does he have a kid to feed? Did he lose a better job, or was he irresponsible having a kid before he could afford one?

Maybe he was able-bodied until he had a mental problem. And maybe a Walmart caliber job is all he can aspire to right now. Life is complicated, that's why over-simplifications and generalizations never work.

To make it more complicated, 1 in 10 Americans are without a job now. That's reality right there. It used to be 1 in 20 not that long ago, so it's not an issue of people not wanting to work.

[scott]

I say everyone should pay the same rate.

Someone making $10,000,000/yr pays exactly the same rate on the first $15,000 they make as someone making $15,000/yr as someone making $50,000/yr as someone making $200,000/yr.

Looks like everyone pays the same rate to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe he was able-bodied until he had a mental problem. And maybe a Walmart caliber job is all he can aspire to right now. Life is complicated, that's why over-simplifications and generalizations never work.

Always side stepping the point you know I intend. I have little sympathy for people who are just irresponsible breeders. If they were in the position to support a family then have bad luck, then that's when social programs should be available. Not as a way of life like so many think of it today.


To make it more complicated, 1 in 10 Americans are without a job now. That's reality right there. It used to be 1 in 20 not that long ago, so it's not an issue of people not wanting to work.

It's worse than your numbers suggest. Only about half the 5% was long term unemployed. If we assume 2% short term in both cases, then it's more like 3% vs. 8% long term unemployed.

[Wild Cobra]

Someone making $10,000,000/yr pays exactly the same rate on the first $15,000 they make as someone making $15,000/yr as someone making $50,000/yr as someone making $200,000/yr.

Looks like everyone pays the same rate to me.
I don't even know how to respond. Is that willful ignorance? If you're saying what I think you're saying...

[ElNono]

Always side stepping the point you know I intend. I have little sympathy for people who are just irresponsible breeders.

You never made a point. You just generalized.


If they were in the position to support a family then have bad luck, then that's when social programs should be available. Not as a way of life like so many think of it today.

How many are 'so many'? I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist, but I think economic realities and lack of equal opportunities also have a lot to do with it.

[ElNono]

I don't even know how to respond. Is that willful ignorance? If you're saying what I think you;'re saying...

No, he's pointing out that the way tax rates are tiered, everybody pay the same rate on the scale.

If you make up to $X then you pay rate A.
If you exceed $X but not $Y, then you pay rate B, which is equal to rate A + given percentage.

As he stated it ("pays exactly the same rate on the first $15,000 they make") it's correct.

[RandomGuy]

I say everyone should pay the same rate. If 35% is too low for the rich, then it is too low for the poor too.

Question:

Based on this principle answer the following question:

"Poor" person makes $1,000 per month, is fully taxed at 35%, and spends all of what is left on food, shelter, clothes and transportation to/from job.

"Rich" person makes $10,000 per month, is fully taxed at 35% and spends 50% of what is left on food, shelter, clothes, and transportation to/from job.

What are the consequences for each resulting from an increase in the tax rate to 40%, i.e. what do they give up?

[RandomGuy]

No, he's pointing out that the way tax rates are tiered, everybody pay the same rate on the scale.

If you make up to $X then you pay rate A.
If you exceed $X but not $Y, then you pay rate B, which is equal to rate A + given percentage.

As he stated it ("pays exactly the same rate on the first $15,000 they make") it's correct.

Yup.

With the deductions and exemptions, the first 5,700 is exempt, and a single person gets a further 3,700 personal exemption.

This makes the first $11,400 income tax free, although you still pay FICA etc.

At this point, actual income taxation begins at 10% for the first 8,375 dollars.

So someone making $19,775 will have paid $837.50 in income tax.

Someone making $10,000,000 per year will pay the same $837.50 on the first $19,775 of their income as well.

The difference is that the first person has paid an effective rate of 4% of their income.

The second has, in a similar fashion, paid .008% on that same income.

Of course, the person with $10,000,000 per year, pays a lot more than that, and ends up with a much higher effective tax rate. For that priveledge they also have the luxury of saving money instead of having to spend almost all of their income to simply sustain life.

[RandomGuy]

I happen to agree with this. When people really want to talk about incenting people, capital gains are not the things to tax. Income? Okay, fine. But capital gains is where you can really come up with some negative incentives if you start taxing them too heavily.

Capital gains is where the investment dollars show up and job creation matters. Negatively incenting that by increasing that tax rate is counter-productive.

Pretending that increasing the income tax rate on millionaires from 35% to 39% is going to materially impact the employment rate is just flat wrong.

I disagree. People with the ability to save will save regardless of whether their gains are taxed at 15% or 30%.

The only thing that will change will be the form of those savings, and the only people who will lose will be high-load mutual funds, IMO.

[EVAY]

I disagree. People with the ability to save will save regardless of whether their gains are taxed at 15% or 30%.

The only thing that will change will be the form of those savings, and the only people who will lose will be high-load mutual funds, IMO.

I think that I said what I meant incorrectly. You are right that people who intend to save (whether or not people who have the ability but not the inclination is another issue) will do so regardless of the tax rate.

What I meant was that capital gains generally occur not so much on savings but on investment. Investment is good for the economy inasmuch as it is tied to job creation FAR more directly than income. Taxing capital gains takes money out of the pool for potential re-investment, thereby much more directly impacting the economy than income.

Of course, having said all that, the fact that corporations are sitting on over $1Trillion in cash and not investing it in anything that would create jobs during this period of relatively low taxes is one of the more perverse factors about this jobless economic recovery that we are in now.

[EVAY]

I don't think that it is luck or genetics. Working hard is nothing more then putting time into your profession. I do not consider myself smarter or more gifted than others. I just had to put in the time.

If the guy at Walmart is only making 12,000.00 a year, maybe he needs to work more hours. Getting paid min. wage and working 52 weeks at 40 hours a week will earn him over $15,000.00. (less than I lived on while in school) Most Walmarts have a McDonalds next door, they are always hiring.

Why should we have to supplement the guys income? What does he possibly need that I should have to provide him? A car, tv, laptop, Ipod, a house? Call me crazy but I do not believe that I have any need or responsibility to supplement that man's income, espcially if he chooses to make less than minimum wage. If I can put in a 60 hour week so can he. If I can limit my vacation days, so can he. I congratulate you on your success, but I don't see why I should be punished because you want to give someone free handouts.

Well, the example I was using involved $12,000 left over after 35% income tax had been removed from the paycheck to make the $17K salary from Wall-Mart be taxed at the same rate that a guy making $1Million a year makes.

Look, when I was in graduate school I lived on less than $6K a year that I was paid for being a graduate assistant, and owed no money to anyone. Those times are gone!! To expect someone to raise a family or live themselves on less than 1K per month is simply ignoring the realities of America today.

Why do you see yourself as being punished? I have never understood that sentiment...I see your position as simply a different sense of entitlement. You feel that you are entitled to every dime you earn, and that someone else's good fortune is a loss to you. I don't see the world as a 'zero-sum' game.

If you really believe that everything you have is in no way tied to the benefits of living in this great country, that you owe nothing back to this country other than roads and military, or that you have the right, because of a high income level, to pick and choose which taxes you consider worthwhile paying, I believe that reflects a very sad perception of citizenship in a democracy.

I choose not to have your worldview.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, the example I was using involved $12,000 left over after 35% income tax had been removed from the paycheck to make the $17K salary from Wall-Mart be taxed at the same rate that a guy making $1Million a year makes.

Look, when I was in graduate school I lived on less than $6K a year that I was paid for being a graduate assistant, and owed no money to anyone. Those times are gone!! To expect someone to raise a family or live themselves on less than 1K per month is simply ignoring the realities of America today.

Why do you see yourself as being punished? I have never understood that sentiment...I see your position as simply a different sense of entitlement. You feel that you are entitled to every dime you earn, and that someone else's good fortune is a loss to you. I don't see the world as a 'zero-sum' game.

If you really believe that everything you have is in no way tied to the benefits of living in this great country, that you owe nothing back to this country other than roads and military, or that you have the right, because of a high income level, to pick and choose which taxes you consider worthwhile paying, I believe that reflects a very sad perception of citizenship in a democracy.

I choose not to have your worldview.


he's probably a christian

[Wild Cobra]

No, he's pointing out that the way tax rates are tiered, everybody pay the same rate on the scale.

If you make up to $X then you pay rate A.
If you exceed $X but not $Y, then you pay rate B, which is equal to rate A + given percentage.

As he stated it ("pays exactly the same rate on the first $15,000 they make") it's correct.
That's not what I mean and you know it smartass. A tax payer is already paying more in taxes at the same percentage. Why should the percentage also increase? I am also not in favor of rewarding people for having more children. Exemptions should go away.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercent-50pct.jpg (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercent.jpg)

[boutons_deux]

Why Taxes Will Rise in the End

By DAVID LEONHARDT

WASHINGTON

Polls show that most Americans are opposed to raising the federal debt ceiling. Even when the Pew Research Center included the consequences in its question — a national default that would damage the economy — slightly more people were against raising the ceiling than were for it.

How could this be? Above all, I think it reflects a desire to return to the good old days. Not so long ago, nobody was talking about tax increases or Medicare cuts, and the federal budget seemed to be in fine shape. If only we could get back to the past — get spending under control, as the cliché goes — we’d be O.K. The debt ceiling, with its harsh finality, offers the chance.

Unfortunately, this nostalgic view depends on a misunderstanding of the budget. It imagines a budget in which the United States indefinitely has the world’s highest medical costs, its largest military, an aging population and, nonetheless, taxes that are among the world’s lowest. Economists have a name for that combination: a free lunch.

Free lunchism is ultimately the problem with the no-new-taxes pledge that so many politicians have adopted. A refusal to raise taxes, no matter how principled, cannot take us back to the good old days. It would instead lead to a very different American society. For taxes to remain where they are, Washington would need to end Medicare as we know it, end Social Security as we know it, severely shrink the military — or do some combination of the above.

“We cannot repeat the past when it comes to the federal budget,” Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, recently wrote. “The aging of our population and the rising cost of health care have changed the backdrop for federal budget policy in a fundamental way.”

The most important part of the recent Republican budget plan, written by Representative Paul Ryan, was that it acknowledged this reality (in its details, if not its packaging). It called for no tax increases. To make the numbers come close to adding up, the plan also called for eliminating the current Medicare and replacing it with a system in which the elderly would buy less generous private insurance plans. Such is the price of no new taxes.

Early indications are that Americans don’t like Mr. Ryan’s plan all that much. In upstate New York this spring, a Democrat won a typically Republican House district by campaigning relentlessly against the plan. National polls show huge majorities favor keeping Medicare and Social Security in something approaching their current form — much larger majorities, tellingly, than oppose an increase in the debt ceiling.

In the near term, Congressional Republicans have decided to play down the Ryan plan. Most continue to oppose new taxes, without going so far as to explain the consequences. They will have little trouble sticking to that position through the current debt ceiling fight, because the deficit does not need to be solved immediately.

Eventually, though, drawing up a credible deficit plan with neither Ryan-like cuts nor higher taxes will be impossible. And you can already see the start of a potential Republican compromise.

It revolves around raising taxes, on net, by shrinking corporate or individual loopholes. The country’s highest-ranking Republican, John Boehner, the speaker of the House, signaled his openness to such a deal last week. (Mr. Boehner abandoned the deal under pressure from Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican and a Tea Party ally.)

Stalwart Republican economists — like Martin Feldstein, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan, and Gregory Mankiw, who held the same job under George W. Bush — also favor raising taxes by closing loopholes. So did most of the Republicans from the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles deficit commission, including Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho, former Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and David Cote, the chief executive of Honeywell.

One obvious compromise along these lines would follow the outline sketched out by the Simpson-Bowles plan. Marginal tax rates could actually fall. But the closing of loopholes would more than make up for the loss in revenue from lower tax rates.

Conservatives might accept the deal, partly because it would satisfy their longtime desire for a simpler tax code with lower rates and partly because spending cuts would still make up the bulk of any deal. Liberals might accept the deal because tax loopholes disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and a simpler code — even one with lower rates — could be more progressive.

The mortgage interest deduction, for example, saves more than $5,000 a year for the typical household in the top 1 percent of earners. Most middle-income households don’t benefit from the deduction at all, because they instead claim the standard income tax deduction. And the mortgage deduction is the second-largest tax break for individuals, costing about $80 billion a year, more than the budgets for the Education Department and Justice Department combined.

Yet despite all the substantive arguments for such plans, I still wonder whether one of them is the most likely outcome.

The truth is, closing loopholes has much stronger support among economists and columnists than it does among voters. Only 23 percent of Americans benefit from the mortgage deduction, but 93 percent support it. Other big breaks, like the exclusions for health insurance and 401(k) contributions, are popular, too. On the corporate side, Eric Toder of the Urban Institute has pointed out that the biggest breaks also tend to be popular, like the credit for research and development.

So what kind of tax increases do Americans support? The old-fashioned kind. Seventy-two percent support raising taxes on income above $250,000, according to a recent New York Times/CBS poll, and a large majority likewise favor raising Social Security taxes on the affluent.

In the end, the most likely tax increase may be the one that’s already on the books. On Jan. 1, 2013, all the Bush tax cuts — on the affluent and nonaffluent alike — are set to expire, which would solve roughly one-quarter of our long-term deficit problem. If Republicans have their way, all the tax cuts will be extended. If the Democrats have their way, most of them will be.

But if the two parties each control a branch of government after the 2012 elections, neither may be able to get their way. Instead, they would have to compromise — or a stalemate would cause the Bush tax cuts to disappear. After the last few days, a stalemate doesn’t seem like such a bad bet.

E-mail: [email protected]; twitter.com/DLeonhardt

[Wild Cobra]

Those rates look higher than they are in many or most cases. So many people making middle class wages and above have serious write-offs at times. Lets remove these. If people have money, they shouldn't need tax breaks for buying houses and other things of wealth. They are going to do it anyway.

Here is the previous chart and another with a flat tax implemented. I placed the flat tax to start at minimum wage x 2080 hours.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXdollarswithflat-50pct.jpg (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXdollarswithflat.jpg)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercentwithflat-50pct.jpg (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercentwithflat.jpg)

[coyotes_geek]

Let's just make it simple. tax = (income-poverty line) X (rate)

Seems like that would be a fair balance between the flat taxers and the progressive taxers. Stuck down around the poverty line? Very little of your income is subject to taxation. Way above the poverty line? Essentially all of your income gets taxed. Rate of taxation above poverty stays the same for everyone.

No separate capital gains rate. Warren Buffett can pay the same rate on his dividends that his secretary pays on her wages.

Very, very few deductions. Off the top of my head, charitable contributions and deductions for certain disabilities I'd definitely want to keep. Everything else, including the mortgage interest deduction, goes away. The simpler the tax code, the fewer loopholes that can be exploited.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's just make it simple. tax = (income-poverty line) X (rate)

Seems like that would be a fair balance between the flat taxers and the progressive taxers. Stuck down around the poverty line? Very little of your income is subject to taxation. Way above the poverty line? Essentially all of your income gets taxed. Rate of taxation above poverty stays the same for everyone.

No separate capital gains rate. Warren Buffett can pay the same rate on his dividends that his secretary pays on her wages.

Very, very few deductions. Off the top of my head, charitable contributions and deductions for certain disabilities I'd definitely want to keep. Everything else, including the mortgage interest deduction, goes away. The simpler the tax code, the fewer loopholes that can be exploited.
I agree with using your formula. That is what I did, though I used annual minimum wage working full time rather than the poverty line.

Unless things have changed, the poverty line is a percentage of average income, and not an actual line where things get rough.

I used the 17% number because that is what was being floated around for a flat rate back in 1992 as a viable number. I like a single tax bracket because then when people say they are for or against a tax hike, it takes the attitude "It doesn't affect me" out of the equation for so many more people.

[Wild Cobra]

The poverty line (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/10poverty.shtml) for the 48 contiguous for 2010 is $10,830 +$3,740 per additional person.

2 $14,570
3 $18,310
4 $22,050
5 $25,790
6 $29,530
7 $33,270
8 $37,010

My using annual minimum wage would be $15,080. Again, I don't think people should be rewarded with a tax break for children.

[scott]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercentwithflat-50pct.jpg (http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/2010taxscheduleXpercentwithflat.jpg)

Nice, who doesn't love a good "raise taxes for everyone making less than $40k and lower them for everyone making over $40k" (not adjusted for marriage status or number of kids) plan?

Since you think this is a good plan, why don't you also calculate the resulting federal tax revenue and present a budget of what you'd cut to be in balance given that level of revenue.

We'll all wait patiently.

[Wild Cobra]

Nice, who doesn't love a good "raise taxes for everyone making less than $40k and lower them for everyone making over $40k" (not adjusted for marriage status or number of kids) plan?

Since you think this is a good plan, why don't you also calculate the resulting federal tax revenue and present a budget of what you'd cut to be in balance given that level of revenue.

We'll all wait patiently.
The free ride needs to end sometime.

Think about how many people there are making less than that $40k who have no tax deductions other than exemptions, and think about how many people above $40k have deductibles that i am saying we take away.

Very few people in the $40k+ area end up paying that much after tax deduction.

On top of that, where it really starts splitting from the rich, at about $150k... there are so few people as a percentage to make any difference trying to get more from them.

If we want more tax revenue, you have to look at getting more tax payers, and hitting the middle class harder. That's where the money is.

Again, the percentage of rich people is too small to make a dent by raising their taxes.

[scott]

I think you misunderstood. I didn't want your thoughts based on your "life experiences", I want calculations. Get to it.

I'll start for you. To make up the loss in tax revenue from one person making $400,000 people in your example, it would take approximately 153 people making $17,000/yr. TO make up for the loss in tax revenue for one person making $10,000,000 year, it would take approximately 3,900 people making $17,000/yr.

Your turn.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The free ride needs to end sometime.

Think about how many people there are making less than that $40k who have no tax deductions other than exemptions, and think about how many people above $40k have deductibles that i am saying we take away.

Very few people in the $40k+ area end up paying that much after tax deduction.

On top of that, where it really starts splitting from the rich, at about $150k... there are so few people as a percentage to make any difference trying to get more from them.

If we want more tax revenue, you have to look at getting more tax payers, and hitting the middle class harder. That's where the money is.

Again, the percentage of rich people is too small to make a dent by raising their taxes.


but it will make a dent in the deficit..

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think you misunderstood. I didn't want your thoughts based on your "life experiences", I want calculations. Get to it.

I'll start for you. To make up the loss in tax revenue from one person making $400,000 people in your example, it would take approximately 153 people making $17,000/yr. TO make up for the loss in tax revenue for one person making $10,000,000 year, it would take approximately 3,900 people making $17,000/yr.

Your turn.

he actually created more tax payers..of course it took creating (by your numbers) 3,900 to make up for the tax breaks on someone making 10,000,000 a year. great for the economy..:rolleyes

[Wild Cobra]

I think you misunderstood. I didn't want your thoughts based on your "life experiences", I want calculations. Get to it.

I'll start for you. To make up the loss in tax revenue from one person making $400,000 people in your example, it would take approximately 153 people making $17,000/yr. TO make up for the loss in tax revenue for one person making $10,000,000 year, it would take approximately 3,900 people making $17,000/yr.

Your turn.
How about making sense first. How many families making $400k have a taxable income remotely close to that number? After all their deductions, the average probably has about $300k taxable.

Which category do you want to look at? I will assume you mean married, joint return with 2 kids.

$17,000 wage earner? Single earner would be zero tax still if both parents worked and made under the $15,080 each. Both parents could work up to a combined income of $30,160 and pay no taxes if they each had full time minimum wage jobs. I am only figuring on taxing a wage earner above $15,080. Not the family.

If a single breadwinner in each case, a stupid family of four with no deductibles will pay about $114,371 in taxes. Under the 17% flat tax, would pay $65,436. A reduction of $48,935. A single wage earner at $17k, family of 4, would pay $326.40 instead of $0. Yes, it would take close to your number of 153 (149.92) to make up the loss. However, I'll bet only 1 in 10,000 people making $400k+ have no additional deduction to reduce their taxable income.

If we can assume they write off 25% of their income, the loss changes to only $2,765. It only takes 8.47 of your $17k wage earners to make up for that.

Remember, when we hear of the rich, don't they normally only pay about 12% of their income in taxes? Above $400k, my idea has them paying at least 16.36%.

[boutons_deux]

Tax Evasion Costs The U.S. $400B To $500B Annually

http://onespot.wsj.com/taxes/2011/07/13/91334/tax-evasion-costs-the-us-400b-to-500b

[elbamba]

Well, the example I was using involved $12,000 left over after 35% income tax had been removed from the paycheck to make the $17K salary from Wall-Mart be taxed at the same rate that a guy making $1Million a year makes.

Look, when I was in graduate school I lived on less than $6K a year that I was paid for being a graduate assistant, and owed no money to anyone. Those times are gone!! To expect someone to raise a family or live themselves on less than 1K per month is simply ignoring the realities of America today.

I graduated from law school a little over three years ago. I did not incur one penny of debt. My wife and I lived in one of the worst parts of town and we lived very poorly. She worked, I went to school. Despite being well compensated during the summers, I was never tempted to purchase a new car or move to a better home. During the summer, I worked and saved money. Those times are not gone. If I can do it, anyone can.



Why do you see yourself as being punished? I have never understood that sentiment...I see your position as simply a different sense of entitlement. You feel that you are entitled to every dime you earn, and that someone else's good fortune is a loss to you. I don't see the world as a 'zero-sum' game.

Asking me to pay a different amount than my fellow citizens is a penalty as far as I am concerned. If I choose to give more, then that should be my choice, I should not be compelled. If I decide not to pay, I get penalized, fined and possibly thrown in jail.

I work for my money, of course I should be entitled to it. I certainly would not stop you from paying extra to the government if you feel so inclined. I personally would rather be able to keep my money and donate the excess to charities that I know and trust. Then I can see for myself that it is someone else's good fortunes. This would not be a loss to me. However, seeing how our governments at the local, state and federal level waste money, I don't feel rosey and confident knowing that it is going to a good place.



If you really believe that everything you have is in no way tied to the benefits of living in this great country, that you owe nothing back to this country other than roads and military, or that you have the right, because of a high income level, to pick and choose which taxes you consider worthwhile paying, I believe that reflects a very sad perception of citizenship in a democracy.

I choose not to have your worldview.

Your understanding of my opinion is wrong. I believe that I should pay my taxes and that I have a duty to do so. But I think that everyone should pay taxes, especially income tax. Do they all have to pay my percentage, no, but most Americans pay no income tax, why should I pay 35%? If you have no problem handing checks to your government without worry about how it is spent, I congratulate you and have no worry about your worldview. I feel differently.

[vy65]

Why do you see yourself as being punished? I have never understood that sentiment...I see your position as simply a different sense of entitlement. You feel that you are entitled to every dime you earn, and that someone else's good fortune is a loss to you. I don't see the world as a 'zero-sum' game.

The punishment is being compelled to subsidize another person's livelihood with the dollars and cents you, individually, amassed via hard work. Your absolutely right to call it entitlement -- but -- what's the problem with being entitled to income you earn from working?


If you really believe that everything you have is in no way tied to the benefits of living in this great country, that you owe nothing back to this country other than roads and military, or that you have the right, because of a high income level, to pick and choose which taxes you consider worthwhile paying, I believe that reflects a very sad perception of citizenship in a democracy.

I choose not to have your worldview.

I don't think anyone here is advocating that those in the top bracket not pay anything. Nor is anyone saying that they ought to have the right to cherry-pick which tax burdens to shoulder. This little diatribe is simple histrionics.

[elbamba]

Let's just make it simple. tax = (income-poverty line) X (rate)

Seems like that would be a fair balance between the flat taxers and the progressive taxers. Stuck down around the poverty line? Very little of your income is subject to taxation. Way above the poverty line? Essentially all of your income gets taxed. Rate of taxation above poverty stays the same for everyone.

No separate capital gains rate. Warren Buffett can pay the same rate on his dividends that his secretary pays on her wages.

Very, very few deductions. Off the top of my head, charitable contributions and deductions for certain disabilities I'd definitely want to keep. Everything else, including the mortgage interest deduction, goes away. The simpler the tax code, the fewer loopholes that can be exploited.

This I can live with. Too many people want to assume the very worst for reasons why people cannot afford to pay income tax. Single parent working at walmart with two kids living off of 1,000.00 a month.

What people don't seem to care about is the countless stories of people who reject promotion because they would lose the ability to live in section 8 housing, people who get paid as much to collect an unemployment check as they would get paid to have a job, people who purchase their groceries with food stamps and then lottery tickets with cash.

This didn't have much to do with your comment but I agree that we could simplify the tax code, reduce deductions and incorporate an income tax that would have most American's contribting in some way to our federal government. I don't see this as heartless, I see this as the only way our government prevents becoming Italy.

[Wild Cobra]

What people don't seem to care about is the countless stories of people who reject promotion because they would lose the ability to live in section 8 housing, people who get paid as much to collect an unemployment check as they would get paid to have a job, people who purchase their groceries with food stamps and then lottery tickets with cash.

LOL...

I recently rejected a promotion at work because it would have changed my days off, and I would have lost my Sunday premium pay and night differential. The promotion would have been a demotion of pay!

Besides... Who wants to work day shift in the summer?

[scott]

How about making sense first. How many families making $400k have a taxable income remotely close to that number? After all their deductions, the average probably has about $300k taxable.

It's using your chart, with your assumptions. Don't change them now that they don't work for you.



Which category do you want to look at? I will assume you mean married, joint return with 2 kids.

$17,000 wage earner? Single earner would be zero tax still if both parents worked and made under the $15,080 each. Both parents could work up to a combined income of $30,160 and pay no taxes if they each had full time minimum wage jobs. I am only figuring on taxing a wage earner above $15,080. Not the family.

If a single breadwinner in each case, a stupid family of four with no deductibles will pay about $114,371 in taxes. Under the 17% flat tax, would pay $65,436. A reduction of $48,935. A single wage earner at $17k, family of 4, would pay $326.40 instead of $0. Yes, it would take close to your number of 153 (149.92) to make up the loss. However, I'll bet only 1 in 10,000 people making $400k+ have no additional deduction to reduce their taxable income.

If we can assume they write off 25% of their income, the loss changes to only $2,765. It only takes 8.47 of your $17k wage earners to make up for that.

Remember, when we hear of the rich, don't they normally only pay about 12% of their income in taxes? Above $400k, my idea has them paying at least 16.36%.

I was using single, since you said do away with marriage and children exemptions. (Which I also used in my post previous to the last one).

The rest of your post is conjecture and nonsense. Real numbers with real calculations please.

[scott]

Hint: when you are using phrases like "I bet..." and "If we can assume...", you are faililng.

[Wild Cobra]

It's using your chart, with your assumptions. Don't change them now that they don't work for you.

I'm not. I already mentioned the difference between tax deductions and not using them under a revised tax system.


I was using single, since you said do away with marriage and children exemptions. (Which I also used in my post previous to the last one).

Well, a single person earning $17k would have their taxes go from $765 to $326.40. How are they going to make up for the loss you assume?


The rest of your post is conjecture and nonsense. Real numbers with real calculations please.

That can only be done on an individual basis. Averages are had to do.

Try this. Take your last tax return and figure the difference. Subtract $15,080 from your earnings and multiply that by 17% for your owed taxes for 2010.

Is it better or worse for you?

If I take my wages looking only at the chart, I would expect to pay over $15k in federal tax. However, with the few write-offs I have, I pay just over $11k. I would pay more than $12k at the 17% flat rate.

[Wild Cobra]

Hint: when you are using phrases like "I bet..." and "If we can assume...", you are faililng.
Stop nit-picking asshole.

I did mention the deductions. This just goes to prove too many people like you really don't understand how the tax system works. You can count on most people making decent incomes to pay well under the lines on the graph. Those lines represent the incomes with no additional deductions other than the standard deduction and exemptions.

I made that clear from the start.

[scott]

I guess I'll do it for you.

National Income: 14.6 T
Labor Force: 153.4 Million
Unemployed: 14.1 Million
Employed: 139.3 Million
WC Plan Exempt from Taxes: 139,300,000 * 15,080 = 2.1 T
Income Subject To Taxes: $12.5T
Federal Tax Revenue under WC Plan: (12.5T x. 0.17) = 2.13T
2010 Estimated Federal Tax Revenue: 2.10T

So, you've accomplished nothing other than shift the tax burden from those currently playing less than your flat tax scheme to those paying greater than your flat tax scheme. There might be a "fairness" arguement to be made if the people carrying the increased burden could afford it. Guess they should just work more hours at Wal-Mart.

[scott]

Stop nit-picking asshole.

I did mention the deductions. This just goes to prove too many people like you really don't understand how the tax system works. You can count on most people making decent incomes to pay well under the lines on the graph. Those lines represent the incomes with no additional deductions other than the standard deduction and exemptions.

I made that clear from the start.

Stop being an obtuse dumbshit, obtuse dumbshit.

[ElNono]

That's not what I mean and you know it

I don't care what you mean/said. Frankly, reading about your fantasy world amounts to a waste of time.
I was merely explaining that scott was correct in what he was pointing out, which seemed to escape you.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess I'll do it for you.

You cannot make it that simple.


National Income: 14.6 T

Not all is individual tax, besides, it's $14.5082 T.

Labor Force: 153.4 Million
Unemployed: 14.1 Million
Employed: 139.3 Million

Maybe, I'll go along with that for now.

WC Plan Exempt from Taxes: 139,300,000 * 15,080 = 2.1 T

Bullshit.

You cannot deduct the whole $15,080 for those making less than that number.

Income Subject To Taxes: $12.5T

Wrong again. I don't know the number subject to Individual tax collection, but that is definitely not it.

2010 receipts are $2,162,724 million. Receipts from Individual Income tax was only $898,549 million.

Federal Tax Revenue under WC Plan: (12.5T x. 0.17) = 2.13T
2010 Estimated Federal Tax Revenue: 2.10T

Not correct because you are not using a number that represents Individual Income.


So, you've accomplished nothing other than shift the tax burden from those currently playing less than your flat tax scheme to those paying greater than your flat tax scheme. There might be a "fairness" arguement to be made if the people carrying the increased burden could afford it. Guess they should just work more hours at Wal-Mart.

You again sir, have proven you have no understanding of taxes.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Just one more professional WC wants to tell that they are ignorant of something in their field. Just another day for WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Just one more professional WC wants to tell that they are ignorant of something in their field. Just another day for WC.
If he's a professional, how can he compound such a simple mistake?

Besides. Professional only means you get paid to do it. It doesn't mean you're any good at it.

[scott]

You cannot make it that simple.

Not all is individual tax, besides, it's $14.5082 T.

Maybe, I'll go along with that for now.

Bullshit.

You cannot deduct the whole $15,080 for those making less than that number.

Wrong again. I don't know the number subject to Individual tax collection, but that is definitely not it.

2010 receipts are $2,162,724 million. Receipts from Individual Income tax was only $898,549 million.

Not correct because you are not using a number that represents Individual Income.

You again sir, have proven you have no understanding of taxes.

You sir, have once again proven to be a stupid twat.

You essentially agreed to the income number (14.6 vs. 14.5), you told me I need to exempt LESS from taxes, then you tell me that the amount subject to income tax under your plan is less?

It's pretty simple math, dipshit. 14.6 - 2.1 = 12.5. Try to follow along.

[Wild Cobra]

You sir, have once again proven to be a stupid twat.

You essentially agreed to the income number (14.6 vs. 14.5), you told me I need to exempt LESS from taxes, then you tell me that the amount subject to income tax under your plan is less?

It's pretty simple math, dipshit. 14.6 - 2.1 = 12.5. Try to follow along.
My entire work is clearly on individual tax returns. You cannot include corporate taxes, Social Security, tariffs, fees, etc.

You are definitely an over paid professional.

The GDP of $14.5T is not all individual income moron.

[scott]

I'm not a tax professional, but I am a Professional Able to Perform Arithmetic-er.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not a tax professional, but I am a Professional Able to Perform Arithmetic-er.
Well, if you want to argue the point of individual taxation, find the gross income of all individuals rather than using the gross national product.

[scott]

My entire work is clearly on individual tax returns. You cannot include corporate taxes, Social Security, tariffs, fees, etc.

You are definitely an over paid professional.

Wasn't this whole plan on doing away with corporate taxation? Aren't payroll taxes still going to deducted from the gross figure before your multiplier anyway? Aren't tariffs and fees a relatively irrelevant part of federal receipts?

You are right about one thing. I am an overpaid professional. I work like two days a week, mountain bike the rest, and pay more in taxes every year than you probably will make in ten. And I don't complain about my taxes. How does that make you feel?

[scott]

Well, if you want to argue the point of individual taxation, find the gross income of all individuals rather than using the gross national product.

What do you think GDP is supposed to measure?

Anyway, if you want to get technical, personal income was 12.9T at the end of Q12011.

So good, you've dug an even deeper hole for fantasy spending cuts to get us out of.

[Wild Cobra]

Wasn't this whole plan on doing away with corporate taxation?
That's a different idea.

Aren't payroll taxes still going to deduced from the gross figure before your multiplier anyway?
Not at all. That's a separate deduction i didn't even address.

Aren't tariffs and fees a relatively irrelevant part of federal receipts?

Yes and no. Besides, I am talking about individual taxes. Not everything. I was pointing out they are part of the gross revenue that I wasn't touching.


You are right about one thing. I am an overpaid professional. I work like two days a week, mountain bike the rest, and pay more in taxes every year than you probably will make in ten. And I don't complain about my taxes. How does that make you feel?

Earned or inherited?

I say good for you. Must be nice not to have to worry. I wouldn't complain about my taxes if others didn't expect to eat out of the government trough like pigs.

I have no idea what type of deductions you have, but wouldn't you prefer to pay less in taxes and shell out what you feel appropriate to charities of your choice?

You may make 50 times what I do or so, but it wouldn't surprise me if I give more in charity than you do. I give a few thousand ever year. Since you make so much, I hope you give at least 10%.

[coyotes_geek]

The poverty line (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/10poverty.shtml) for the 48 contiguous for 2010 is $10,830 +$3,740 per additional person.

2 $14,570
3 $18,310
4 $22,050
5 $25,790
6 $29,530
7 $33,270
8 $37,010

My using annual minimum wage would be $15,080. Again, I don't think people should be rewarded with a tax break for children.

I think you've got to make an allowance for size of the family. Is it a "reward" for having a bigger family? I guess if you just wanted to look at what you'd end up paying in income taxes you could make that case, but kids certainly cost more than whatever tax savings you'd be realizing. There's no financial incentive to crank out kids solely for the tax savings. (as far as taxes go, not welfare, which would be a separate discussion)

[scott]

That's a different idea.

So you still want to double tax?


Not at all. That's a separate deduction i didn't even address.

So I was wrong in assuming something you didn't address wouldn't be changing?


Yes and no. Besides, I am talking about individual taxes. Not everything. I was pointing out they are part of the gross revenue that I wasn't touching.

So what was your point?


Earned or inherited?

I say good for you. Must be nice not to have to worry. I wouldn't complain about my taxes if others didn't expect to eat out of the government trough like pigs.

I have no idea what type of deductions you have, but wouldn't you prefer to pay less in taxes and shell out what you feel appropriate to charities of your choice?

You may make 50 times what I do or so, but it wouldn't surprise me if I give more in charity than you do. I give a few thousand ever year. Since you make so much, I hope you give at least 10%.

The only thing I've ever inherited was Male Pattern Baldness.

I'd prefer for us to pay for our expenditures rather than pawning it off to future generations like we've been so eager to do on an increasingly record pace since 2001.

You hope I give at least 10%? Why would you hope that? Why do you place a specific tax rate on my giving? Why not 8%? Why not 20%? Why not 0%? Why not WhyDoYouCare%?

[MannyIsGod]

Reel Classey Scoot

[ElNono]

You are definitely an over paid professional.

Do you know scott at all?

[RandomGuy]

Asking me to pay a different amount than my fellow citizens is a penalty as far as I am concerned.

Asking someone at the poverty level to pay the same amount than someone in the upper 5% of the income distribution is a penalty as far as I am concerned.

Is it fair to ask someone to give up paying their utilities every other month so you can have a rate that doesn't "penalize" you?

Sorry I just don't buy this tired, immoral argument.

[ElNono]

Sorry I just don't buy this tired, immoral argument.

Well, he's a lawyer... <rimshot>

(I kid! I kid! :lol)

[Wild Cobra]

What do you think GDP is supposed to measure?

It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.


Anyway, if you want to get technical, personal income was 12.9T at the end of Q12011.

If you are correct on that number (but you are wrong again,) and 2010 was similar, then the average tax burden of federal income taxes was only 6.97%. However, the 2010 number I find calculates to be $7.1T if I use your 153.1 million workforce times $46,326 average income. At $7.1T, the average individual tax burden becomes 12.6% The 12.6% is reached at an income of just over $58K with the 17% flat tax.

Big difference.


So good, you've dug an even deeper hole for fantasy spending cuts to get us out of.

If that's what you want to believe. You still prove you don't understand. This is far more complicated than one simple calculation. You would have to calculate several different filing statuses and deductions, then add them together. Besides, the 17% is the magic number for 1992. It may need to be a little more today.

[RandomGuy]

What people don't seem to care about is the countless stories of people who reject promotion because they would lose the ability to live in section 8 housing, people who get paid as much to collect an unemployment check as they would get paid to have a job, people who purchase their groceries with food stamps and then lottery tickets with cash.


"Countless stories" mean less to me than, say, actual data.

I have zero doubt that there is some abuse any given program. I am prepared to accept that the cost of actually getting some aid to people that need it is that some of that will be abused, and that someone will game the system.

I think the benefits of such safety nets far exceeds the cost for a lot of reasons, although some programs can be very poorly designed and have costs that exceed benefits. Granted. Controls and audits to prevent abuse should be designed into any system. Granted.

But

If you want to tell me that all such programs should be scrapped because of "countless stories", I will call bullshit, and ask for some measure of data that supports the assertion that the abuse is so rampant as to outweigh the benefits.

Don't give me any feelgood egostroking bullshit about how bad poor people are and how they should be as industrious as you are. Serve your ego on your own dime.

I want some reasonable data on abuse, costs and benefits.

Bullshit has been called. "countless stories" is not sufficient to warrant a major policy shift. Provide some solid data on the costs of abuse relative to the benefits

[Wild Cobra]

I think you've got to make an allowance for size of the family. Is it a "reward" for having a bigger family? I guess if you just wanted to look at what you'd end up paying in income taxes you could make that case, but kids certainly cost more than whatever tax savings you'd be realizing. There's no financial incentive to crank out kids solely for the tax savings. (as far as taxes go, not welfare, which would be a separate discussion)
I'll admit, it's nice to pay less when having dependents, but it's not fair to make a single person pay more for his hard earned money than it is for someone with kids.

Please...

Tell me you aren't a Marxist.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

[Wild Cobra]

You hope I give at least 10%? Why would you hope that? Why do you place a specific tax rate on my giving? Why not 8%? Why not 20%? Why not 0%? Why not WhyDoYouCare%?
You are one who obviously believe in giving the government a larger percentage of income at higher income levels. I would think the same applies to charity. If fact, that's where I believe people should have more flexibility. I only give about 4% or 5%, but I would give far more if I could afford to. I would give more if I were taxed less. I picked 10% arbitrarily as a minimum. I see is as a reasonable number that is not excessive.

[spursncowboys]

Asking someone at the poverty level to pay the same amount than someone in the upper 5% of the income distribution is a penalty as far as I am concerned.

Is it fair to ask someone to give up paying their utilities every other month so you can have a rate that doesn't "penalize" you?

Sorry I just don't buy this tired, immoral argument.
Below poverty level would never pay taxes. But the point is most people wouldn't be agreeing to these socialist notions and failed experiements if their money was being used.

[RandomGuy]

It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.

If you are correct on that number (but you are wrong again,) and 2010 was similar, then the average tax burden of federal income taxes was only 6.97%. However, the 2010 number I find calculates to be $7.1T if I use your 153.1 million workforce times $46,326 average income. At $7.1T, the average individual tax burden becomes 12.6% The 12.6% is reached at an income of just over $58K with the 17% flat tax.

Big difference.

If that's what you want to believe. You still prove you don't understand. This is far more complicated than one simple calculation. You would have to calculate several different filing statuses and deductions, then add them together. Besides, the 17% is the magic number for 1992. It may need to be a little more today.

To help a bit:

You are trying to get at the difference between the book rate, and the effictive rate of tax.

The book rate on income might be 35% on income over $250,000, but if the tax codes provide different difinitions of "income" and tax sheltering methods like house deductions and so forth that reduce both Adjusted Gross Income, Taxable Income and so forth, the *effective* rate of taxation could be much lower for the population at large.

You are trying to get to this, I think, with what you are saying.

Some economists reverse engineer this "effective" rate from the data, and perhaps you should ask scott if he can expand on that.

From what I understand there is a large disconnect between the marginal "book" rate and the overall effective rates of tax on income. On this, I think you would agree.

I used to be somewhat opposed to a flat tax, simply because the changeover costs would be more than some proponents would admit to, but I have come to believe that simplifying the tax code would be enormously beneficial in the long run.

The ultimate rate would be closer to the 17% you are talking about, although I have heard it would go as high as 26%, if memory serves.

In any event, we could probably easily tweak that % if we get it wrong for a year or two, and borrow if we undershoot.

[ElNono]

giving the government a larger percentage of income at higher income levels. I would think the same applies to charity.

Actually, they're nothing alike. Like Apples and Tomatoes.

[Wild Cobra]

Below poverty level would never pay taxes. But the point is most people wouldn't be agreeing to these socialist notions and failed experiements if their money was being used.
That's why I would prefer to see everyone pay at least something in income tax. Damn...

These people are freaking out over a 17% flat tax with the first $15,080 excluded. They might have a heart attack if i proposed what I really think is right.

[scott]

It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.

Actually, it's not.




If you are correct on that number (but you are wrong again,) and 2010 was similar, then the average tax burden of federal income taxes was only 6.97%. However, the 2010 number I find calculates to be $7.1T if I use your 153.1 million workforce times $46,326 average income. At $7.1T, the average individual tax burden becomes 12.6% The 12.6% is reached at an income of just over $58K with the 17% flat tax.

Lucky for me I know where to look for real data, instead of just pulling it out of my ass.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=58



Big difference.

Indeed.


If that's what you want to believe. You still prove you don't understand. This is far more complicated than one simple calculation. You would have to calculate several different filing statuses and deductions, then add them together. Besides, the 17% is the magic number for 1992. It may need to be a little more today.

It's not really that complicated, you're just not that smart.

[spursncowboys]

I'll admit, it's nice to pay less when having dependents, but it's not fair to make a single person pay more for his hard earned money than it is for someone with kids.

Please...

Tell me you aren't a Marxist.
That reminds me of the story in Atlas Shrugged where the two children take over their father's company and start paying everyone what they wanted and people with children more than single and wouldn't dictate a work schedule. anywho...

[RandomGuy]

Below poverty level would never pay taxes. But the point is most people wouldn't be agreeing to these socialist notions and failed experiements if their money was being used.

I agree about the poverty level being the attachment point for taxes.

I disagree about the second part, but do think that things should be a bit more transparent. "most" people pay taxes through indirect means. Your spending on tires is income for the manufacturer, and they could offer those tires for less than they do now if that were not the case. Tax costs are buried in everything.

The statement "more than 50% of the people don't pay income taxes" is misleading to the point of lying because of this.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, they're nothing alike. Like Apples and Tomatoes.
Yes, I agree. A higher tax rate should not be mandatory, as it isn't fair. However, especially for those who advocate higher percentages for those who make more, I think we have the right to demand they practice what they preach for charity.

[ElNono]

It's not really that complicated, you're just not that smart.

You need to put it in parts-changer terms: If you have 2.1 trillion parts, and you subtract 22 million solenoids, you end up with.... you get the idea.

[ElNono]

Yes, I agree.

So why even attempt to equate them?

[coyotes_geek]

"Countless stories" mean less to me than, say, actual data.

I have zero doubt that there is some abuse any given program. I am prepared to accept that the cost of actually getting some aid to people that need it is that some of that will be abused, and that someone will game the system.

I think the benefits of such safety nets far exceeds the cost for a lot of reasons, although some programs can be very poorly designed and have costs that exceed benefits. Granted. Controls and audits to prevent abuse should be designed into any system. Granted.

But

If you want to tell me that all such programs should be scrapped because of "countless stories", I will call bullshit, and ask for some measure of data that supports the assertion that the abuse is so rampant as to outweigh the benefits.

Don't give me any feelgood egostroking bullshit about how bad poor people are and how they should be as industrious as you are. Serve your ego on your own dime.

I want some reasonable data on abuse, costs and benefits.

Bullshit has been called. "countless stories" is not sufficient to warrant a major policy shift. Provide some solid data on the costs of abuse relative to the benefits

The GAO actually puts out a report on this each year. FY 2010 abuse was about $125 billion.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11443r.pdf

[RandomGuy]

socialist notions

:rolleyes

I might find the "socialist notions" schtick a bit more credible or worry about it, if someone could actualy define what it means.

The thing about libertarianism of the kind pushed by Rand is that it is just as removed from reality as communism. Sounds good on paper, but when you try to construct a society around its ideals, you end up with the same kinds of inefficiencies and unintended consequences that leave of people less well off than they would be otherwise.

[scott]

You are one who obviously believe in giving the government a larger percentage of income at higher income levels. I would think the same applies to charity. If fact, that's where I believe people should have more flexibility. I only give about 4% or 5%, but I would give far more if I could afford to. I would give more if I were taxed less. I picked 10% arbitrarily as a minimum. I see is as a reasonable number that is not excessive.

Did you pick it arbitrarily, or as a reasonable number that is not excessive?

Do you know what the words you type mean? You see, I'm kind of a stickler about words having discrete meanings and using them properly to communicate.

In any event, my grandchildren won’t have to pay if I, or anyone else, fail to give to charity. I'll pay more in taxes, or I'll pay less. It depends on what we want to spend. I have an opinion on what we should spend, but that isn't the topic of this thread and I don't want to put you in the position of once again playing the thankless role of topic police.

But the notion that somehow "isn't fair" that I only get $0.65 of the millionth dollar I earn when someone else is getting 100% of the 5,000th dollar they've earned is hollow, trite and dishonest. Because guess what, I got to keep 100% of the 5,000th dollar I earned too.

[ElNono]

The GAO actually puts out a report on this each year. FY 2010 abuse was about $125 billion.[/url]

Something that definitely needs to be tackled. Does the GAO also puts out a report of how much money corps gamed the system with by using tax loopholes? $125 billion sound like a drop in the bucket against those numbers, tbh.

[spursncowboys]

I agree about the poverty level being the attachment point for taxes.

I disagree about the second part, but do think that things should be a bit more transparent. "most" people pay taxes through indirect means. Your spending on tires is income for the manufacturer, and they could offer those tires for less than they do now if that were not the case. Tax costs are buried in everything.

The statement "more than 50% of the people don't pay income taxes" is misleading to the point of lying because of this.
Right. I disagree that prices wouldn't change from a flat tax for businesses. Especially price differentiating companies and commodities who's only difference in product for the most part is price. They would definitely be spending less in taxes(from actual taxes to preparation to tax lawyers). Average person does not realize how much of a price comes from the taxes the company has to pay into it.

[RandomGuy]

The GAO actually puts out a report on this each year. FY 2010 abuse was about $125 billion.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11443r.pdf

It's a start, but "improper" payments aren't quite "abuse".


3IPIA defines an improper payment as any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. It includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible service, any duplicate payment, payment for services not received, and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. OMB’s guidance also instructs agencies to report payments for which insufficient or no documentation was found as improper payments.

It includes amounts made in error, for example paying $75 for something, when the payment schedule for a contract says $74, or simple duplication payments.

It is a good chunk of money, and a fair start, but not really quite speaking to whether or not an eligible recipient is lying or blatantly abusing the process, as their methodology was not constructed to detect that.

The other thing to bear in mind is the ultimate error rate:

This estimate represents about 5.5 percent of the $2.3 trillion of reported outlays for the related programs in fiscal year 2010.

I can hang with a 5% error rate as not being wildly out of control, although it would seem there is room for improvment, and that should be something to work for.

Gotta get going for now.

[coyotes_geek]

I'll admit, it's nice to pay less when having dependents, but it's not fair to make a single person pay more for his hard earned money than it is for someone with kids.

Please...

Tell me you aren't a Marxist.

You got me. I'm a marxist. You elitist non-breeders need to pay more taxes so that economically deprived Brady Bunches can afford LED lightbulbs.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, it's not.

LOL...

I suggest you look up how GDP is calculated.


Lucky for me I know where to look for real data, instead of just pulling it out of my ass.

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=58

That has little relevance to this discussion, and is not GDP. Are you thinking of GDI?

The "Personal Income" is not the income we are discussing. If you look closely, it comprises of adding

1) Compensation of employees, received
2) Proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments
3) Rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment
4) Personal income receipts on assets
5) Personal current transfer receipts
6) Less: Contributions for government social insurance, domestic

Now if you like, we can and should include many of the items. If we look at 2010 annual, the number is $12,541B. Close to your $12.9B Still, it has compensations in it that are not used for individual taxation.

Now if you look at "Compensation of employees, received," you find it includes things not taxed, and should be $6,393.9B rather than $7,984.5B Remember now, I am dealing with gross paid income. Not compensations also. For the gross personal income of the nation, we can include the other items except for #6. Some items under #5 aren't to be counted either.

I get a total of $11,074.3B if I filtered those correctly.

It says $1,166.3B was paid in taxes, but that will also include state and local taxation. Just the same, that averages 10.53%. That seems pretty low until you realize the size of the tax free transfers in item 5.

If I take that $11,074.3B divided by revenue received by the federal government for individual income taxes of $898,549 million, I get an average tax rate of 8.11%

8.11% is realized with the 17% flat tax at an income of about $29k.

Why is it the revenue for $11 trillion is under $0.9 trillion? This again shows I have to be right that tax deductions for the rich make them effectively pay a very low rate compared to what 17% would be.

To set things strait. 2010 revenue of $2,162,724 million consisted of:

$898,549 Individual Income Tax
$191,437 Corporate Income Tax
$864,814 Social Security and other retirements
$066,909 Excise taxes
$141,015 Other


It's not really that complicated, you're just not that smart.

Right... from a guy who keeps misrepresenting everything and confusing GDP with GDI.

[scott]

LOL...

I suggest you look up how GDP is calculated.

I suggest you try a dictionary. Or a text book. Or even just the internet.

Here's the one you'll find in every Introduction to Macroeconomics Textbook in the World:


Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period.


GDP measures production. It doesn't measure "spending". It's also referred to as "National Income" for a reason. I know you've read a bunch of blogs and think you are an expert, but these terms have discrete definitions that are important, even if beyond the capacity of simpletons like you.


That has little relevance to this discussion, and is not GDP. Are you thinking of GDI?

No you stupid backwoods fuck, I'm thinking of PERSONAL INCOME. Which is why I gave you the table for PERSONAL INCOME when you said:


Not correct because you are not using a number that represents Individual Income

So you are now telling me that the BEA's statistic called "PERSONAL INCOME" does not represent "INDIVIDUAL INCOME"?



The "Personal Income" is not the income we are discussing. If you look closely, it comprises of adding

1) Compensation of employees, received
2) Proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments
3) Rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment
4) Personal income receipts on assets
5) Personal current transfer receipts
6) Less: Contributions for government social insurance, domestic

Actually, that's exactly what we are talking about and you'd know that if you weren't too busy fucking sheep in the woods.


Now if you like, we can and should include many of the items. If we look at 2010 annual, the number is $12,541B. Close to your $12.9B Still, it has compensations in it that are not used for individual taxation.

Wow, the number in the column to the left of my number is close to my number? You don't say? You're a real genius aren't you?



Right... from a guy who keeps misrepresenting everything and confusing GDP with GDI.

There are no misrepresentations, there is just you failing to keep up with the conversation. Par for the course.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

I explained that, and you still twist it?

You really are a twisted shithead.

[ElNono]

:lmao Wild Cobra owned again

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me Scott...

Using the BEA link line numbers, are lines 7 and 8 included as employee taxable income? How about line 21.

You are telling me that line 1 is the number, I say it's not. I explained how I got a lower number and agreed most those numbers are valid. Just not the line 1 total.

You are wrong about so many things, yet you are not willing to admit to one of the several mistakes I uncovered.

Now...

Take a breath and compose yourself.

Maybe wait a few hours and let those drugs dissipate, then maybe you can think clearly.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao Wild Cobra owned again
LOL...

No fucking way.

I agreed most the numbers from the site were valid, and included them. That's not being owned, yet Scott is constantly fucking up. If anything, I've been owning him!

[Wild Cobra]

I suggest you try a dictionary. Or a text book. Or even just the internet.

Here's the one you'll find in every Introduction to Macroeconomics Textbook in the World:


Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period.


GDP measures production. It doesn't measure "spending". It's also referred to as "National Income" for a reason. I know you've read a bunch of blogs and think you are an expert, but these terms have discrete definitions that are important, even if beyond the capacity of simpletons like you.

From your precious BEA (http://www.bea.gov/national/pdf/nipa_primer.pdf), page 8:

Specifically, GDP is the sum of:

Personal consumption expenditures consist of purchases of goods and services by households and by nonprofit institutions serving households (NPISHs). These goods and services include imputed expenditures on items such as the services of housing by a homeowner (the equivalent of rent), financial and insurance services for which there is no explicit charge, and medical care provided to individuals and financed by government or by private insurance.

Gross private domestic investment consists of purchases of fixed assets (equipment, software, and structures) by private businesses that contribute to production and have a useful life of more than one year, of purchases of homes by households, and of private business investment in inventories. Inventory investment, which is shown as “change in private inventories,” includes the value of goods produced during a period but not sold, less sales of goods from inventories that were produced in previous periods. It is measured as ending period less beginning period inventories valued at current prices (and is equivalent to additions to, less withdrawals from, inventories), Intermediate inputs, which become an integral part of the final product and do not contribute to future production, are not included in investment.

Exports consists of goods and services that are sold or transferred by U.S. residents to residents of the rest of the world.

Imports, which is deducted in the calculation of GDP, consists of goods and services that are sold or transferred by the rest of the world to U.S. residents. The value of imports is already included in the other expenditure components of GDP, because market transactions do not distinguish the source of the goods and services. Therefore, imports must be deducted in order to derive a measure of total domestic output. Deducting total imports purchased by all sectors from total exports, rather than deducting each sector’s imports from its total expenditures, provides an analytically useful measure—net exports—that enables one to examine the effects of foreign trade on the economy.

Government consumption expenditures and gross investment measures final expenditures by Federal, state, and local governments. “Government consumption expenditures” represents the value of goods and services provided to the public by governments (such as defense or education). “Gross investment” consists of government purchases of equipment, software, and structures to use in producing those goods and services. These expenditures do not include government spending for social benefit programs (such as Medicaid), interest payments, and subsidies.


What I said, when referring to GDP:

It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.
Please notice what I placed in bold in the BEA definition.

[scott]

It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.

Yes, those are the individual components of GDP. That isn't what I was saying what you are wrong about. What you are wrong about is how these components are added together which is what makes it not equal spending. Y = C + I + G + X where X = Exports - Imports. We sell exports, we buy imports. You can't get to spending by subtracting stuff you purchase.

Where am I "fucking up"? You keep moving the target, not realizing that the point isn't whether or not GDP is $14.5 or $14.6 trillion, or Personal Income is the same as Individual Income or if the number is $900B or $1.1T.

The point, that you are missing, is that there are three scenarios in any flat tax proposal:

1) You keep tax revenues constant, which means that some people get a tax break (those who pay more than the proposed rate, i.e. "the rich") and others get a tax increase (those who pay less than the proposed rate, i.e. "everyone else")

2) You generate more tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the top of the tax scale and even more people (or even potentially everyone) get a tax increase and only the very wealthy (or no one at all) gets a tax break. Even then, the bulk of the new tax burden falls on the lower side of the tax spectrum

3) You generate less tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the bottom of the tax scale and some people (ranging from a few to most or even all) get tax breaks and only those on the very bottom (or no one at all) gets tax increases. Even then, the bulk of the benefits are concentrated in the hands of the highest earners.

So, here is your homework:

1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.

[Spurminator]

Progressive taxation makes sense to me because it is much harder for someone making $20,000 per year to make an additional $5,000 than it is for someone making $200,000. That's what creates widening income gaps.

[ElNono]

I just find it hilarious that when people mention taxing the rich more, WC yells 'class warfare'. But applying his tax dogma basically amount to the same revenue (still not enough to offset spending), shifting the burden to the poor, and we should consider that 'fair', not 'class warfare'. :lol

[Spurminator]

Unfortunately though, a lot of the conversation around increasing taxation on the rich HAS amounted to class warfare, which undercuts a lot of perfectly reasonable arguments in its favor. Which is why I still fall in the camp of letting the cuts expire across the board. After that, we'll see.

[ElNono]

I'm in the camp of cutting spending + raising taxes on everyone. That might include reducing some of the caps on exceptions.

I'm just realistic that politicians don't really want a solution nor give a shit about it.

[scott]

i'm in the camp of cutting spending + raising taxes on everyone. That might include reducing some of the caps on exceptions.

I'm just realistic that politicians don't really want a solution nor give a shit about it.

+1

[LnGrrrR]

You got me. I'm a marxist. You elitist non-breeders need to pay more taxes so that economically deprived Brady Bunches can afford LED lightbulbs.

:lmao

CG, were you aware that the right has shifted so right you're now an independent? :lol

[MannyIsGod]

I'm in the camp of cutting spending + raising taxes on everyone. That might include reducing some of the caps on exceptions.

I'm just realistic that politicians don't really want a solution nor give a shit about it.

Its so bad that they're ignoring their damn constituants too. Another poll came out today saying exactly what the OP said. The one today was from Gallup.

Why didn't the GOP take Obama's offer? 4 trillion in cuts and they turn it down to avoid something most people want. Fucking insane.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, those are the individual components of GDP. That isn't what I was saying what you are wrong about. What you are wrong about is how these components are added together which is what makes it not equal spending. Y = C + I + G + X where X = Exports - Imports. We sell exports, we buy imports. You can't get to spending by subtracting stuff you purchase.

No shit Sherlock, and that is not what your intent read as. We are talking income, and you shift to the GDP. When I explain that doesn't matter, you then say my definition is wrong. You said "GDP measures production. It doesn't measure "spending"." My saying trade does not mean I count both side. I know there is a trade deficit. You need to stop being an intellectual liar by making up what you think I can be wrong about. Maybe you should stop acting as if others don't know and can be flim-flammed.

Please try to follow:

I guess I'll do it for you.

National Income: 14.6 T
Labor Force: 153.4 Million
Unemployed: 14.1 Million
Employed: 139.3 Million
WC Plan Exempt from Taxes: 139,300,000 * 15,080 = 2.1 T
Income Subject To Taxes: $12.5T
Federal Tax Revenue under WC Plan: (12.5T x. 0.17) = 2.13T
2010 Estimated Federal Tax Revenue: 2.10T

So, you've accomplished nothing other than shift the tax burden from those currently playing less than your flat tax scheme to those paying greater than your flat tax scheme. There might be a "fairness" arguement to be made if the people carrying the increased burden could afford it. Guess they should just work more hours at Wal-Mart.


<I guess I'll do it for you.>
You cannot make it that simple.

<National Income: 14.6 T>
Not all is[n't] individual tax, besides, it's $14.5082 T.

<Labor Force: 153.4 Million>
<Unemployed: 14.1 Million>
<Employed: 139.3 Million>
Maybe, I'll go along with that for now.

<WC Plan Exempt from Taxes: 139,300,000 * 15,080 = 2.1 T>
Bullshit.

You cannot deduct the whole $15,080 for those making less than that number.

<Income Subject To Taxes: $12.5T>
Wrong again. I don't know the number subject to Individual tax collection, but that is definitely not it.

2010 receipts are $2,162,724 million. Receipts from Individual Income tax was only $898,549 million.

<Federal Tax Revenue under WC Plan: (12.5T x. 0.17) = 2.13T>
<2010 Estimated Federal Tax Revenue: 2.10T>
Not correct because you are not using a number that represents Individual Income.

You again sir, have proven you have no understanding of taxes.

You sir, have once again proven to be a stupid twat.

You essentially agreed to the income number (14.6 vs. 14.5), you told me I need to exempt LESS from taxes, then you tell me that the amount subject to income tax under your plan is less?

It's pretty simple math, dipshit. 14.6 - 2.1 = 12.5. Try to follow along.

My entire work is clearly on individual tax returns. You cannot include corporate taxes, Social Security, tariffs, fees, etc.

You are definitely an over paid professional.

The GDP of $14.5T is not all individual income moron.

I'm not a tax professional, but I am a Professional Able to Perform Arithmetic-er.

Well, if you want to argue the point of individual taxation, find the gross income of all individuals rather than using the gross national product.

What do you think GDP is supposed to measure?

It's not individual income. It's spending. It comprises of private consumption, gross investment, government spending, and trade.

Actually, it's not.
In the above, you speak of national income which is not individual Income. It closely matched the GDP number. You clearly used $15080 as a deduction for all workers, even though a substantial number of them would make less than that, meaning you cannot use that calculation. When I point out GDP and individual are not the same, you indicate I am wrong. You later say this:

Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period.
I then back up my claim which clearly shows I was right, and you were claiming otherwise.

Where am I "fucking up"? You keep moving the target, not realizing that the point isn't whether or not GDP is $14.5 or $14.6 trillion, or Personal Income is the same as Individual Income or if the number is $900B or $1.1T.

You keep bringing up wrong numbers to what I am referring to, and acting as if I am wrong. You keep bringing up wrong ideas like every employed worker makes at least $15,080.

Look at the $12.9T you bring up. That included all non taxable compensations also. You are just a jackass throwing shit out to see what sticks. That's why I say you are constantly wrong.


The point, that you are missing, is that there are three scenarios in any flat tax proposal:

1) You keep tax revenues constant, which means that some people get a tax break (those who pay more than the proposed rate, i.e. "the rich") and others get a tax increase (those who pay less than the proposed rate, i.e. "everyone else")

2) You generate more tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the top of the tax scale and even more people (or even potentially everyone) get a tax increase and only the very wealthy (or no one at all) gets a tax break. Even then, the bulk of the new tax burden falls on the lower side of the tax spectrum

3) You generate less tax revenue, which means you set the proposed rate more heavily skewed towards the bottom of the tax scale and some people (ranging from a few to most or even all) get tax breaks and only those on the very bottom (or no one at all) gets tax increases. Even then, the bulk of the benefits are concentrated in the hands of the highest earners.

It could be said these happen with any tax system change. the 17% does not need to be set in stone, and one key point is that if there is a rate change, everyone is affected. Not just one class.


So, here is your homework:

1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.

Stupid assumptions. I have repeatedly indicated that many people don't fall under such high income classes. Most the filers that fall under these tables at such high rates are small business owners. Should these businesses be taxed at such high rates? I say not. In prior threads, maybe earlier in this one, I point out that many people make money on capital gains, and other money that doesn't fall under the income tax tables. You are either ignorant to the various taxing that could be consolidated, or you are intentionally ignoring these factors.

You get all huffy puffy, like a committed sacrilege against your God, when I point out the numbers you use as personal income from the BEA are incorrect. The BEA wasn't wrong, but the way you look at the numbers is.

I have owned you during all of this, and you don't even realize it.

[boutons_deux]

"4 trillion in cuts and they turn it down to avoid something most people want. Fucking insane."

It's a bad deal, which isn't the reason Repugs rejected it. They are intent on destroying country, starving the beast, and see that the Banksters Great Depression has delivered blood in the water.

$4T in cuts without $4T in increased revenue through tax raises and cutting tax expenditures IS a bad deal.

[coyotes_geek]

:lmao

CG, were you aware that the right has shifted so right you're now an independent? :lol

:lol

Apparently WC thinks it's shifted so far right that I'm now a marxist.

[elbamba]

Well, he's a lawyer... <rimshot>

(I kid! I kid! :lol)

Touché

[scott]

I then back up my claim which clearly shows I was right, and you were claiming otherwise.

No, you backed up your claim which in fact showed you were wrong. You debunked yourself. GDP isn't spending. It's production. It's also a measure of income. You send it was a measure of spending, WHICH IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT. You said it was spending, I said it wasn't. There is no intellectual dishonesty, there is just you - not able to comprehend basic ideas.

It doesn't matter if it's the exact number of income you are looking for - it's a measure of income. It doesn't matter what measure of income you use in this case, because the exact numbers are irrelevent since this is a message board and none of the shit that gets discussed here will ever see its way to actual policy.



You keep bringing up wrong numbers to what I am referring to, and acting as if I am wrong. You keep bringing up wrong ideas like every employed worker makes at least $15,080.

Look at the $12.9T you bring up. That included all non taxable compensations also. You are just a jackass throwing shit out to see what sticks. That's why I say you are constantly wrong.

Let me repeat for you, since you missed the first time, and the second time as you were even quoting it:


You keep moving the target, not realizing that the point isn't whether or not GDP is $14.5 or $14.6 trillion, or Personal Income is the same as Individual Income or if the number is $900B or $1.1T.

The exact numbers don't matter. in discussing the philosophical merits of a proposed flax tax scheme.


It could be said these happen with any tax system change. the 17% does not need to be set in stone, and one key point is that if there is a rate change, everyone is affected. Not just one class.

No, we can't say that about every proposed tax system, because it's not true about every proposed tax system. We can implement a tax system that doesn't affect everyone. We can implement a tax system change that does affect everyone. We can implment a system that affects everyone evenly, or we can implement one that affects everyone different.

You happen to be proposing one that elminated your perceived inequity of the current system where the top earners carry the bulk of the tax burden.

So which of the 3 scenarios do you prefer? There is a 4th scenario:

4) You don't really care what happens to tax revenue, you just want top earners to have less of a tax burden and everyone else to have more.


Stupid assumptions.

Which assumptions are stupid? It doesn't look like I've made ANY assumptions. I've pointed out the arithetic FACT, that in order to implement a flat tax you are, by mathematical definition, shifting the burden from the top of the income scale to the bottom. Even if you set the flat tax rate at LESS than the rate that ANYONE pays (so every gets a tax break), still the bulk of the break will be concentrated in the wallets of the highest earners, not the lowest, and a larger share of the tax burden will now fall on the lower earners.


I have repeatedly indicated that many people don't fall under such high income classes.

Then they would be in the "everyone else" category, now wouldn't they?


Most the filers that fall under these tables at such high rates are small business owners. Should these businesses be taxed at such high rates? I say not.

No, most of the filers that fall under these tables at high rates are people with income at those high rates. "Small business owners" are always some old couple selling trinkets out of their little shop in a rural town. Sometimes they are dudes who make a lot of money working a few days a week, mountain biking the rest. The "small business owner" argument is a week one and is designed to get sympathy for a group that doesn't need it.


In prior threads, maybe earlier in this one, I point out that many people make money on capital gains, and other money that doesn't fall under the income tax tables. You are either ignorant to the various taxing that could be consolidated, or you are intentionally ignoring these factors.

The discussion in all threads by others, including yourself, would be to do away with capital gains tax and treat it like normal income. Which, in the shorthand we've been doing, is essentially what we are doing. Still doesn't change the arithmetic facts of the 4 scenarios.


You get all huffy puffy, like a committed sacrilege against your God, when I point out the numbers you use as personal income from the BEA are incorrect. The BEA wasn't wrong, but the way you look at the numbers is.

LOL, getting "huffy". I call you a stupid backwoods sheep fucker, because you CONSTANTLY COME OFF AS ONE IN ALL OF YOUR THREADS and I await all opportunity to point it out. The bottom line is none of your lamebrain ideas will never come to fruition, despite your delusions of granduer that you rule of some imaginary internet Amerika Kingdom. You're just like boutons in that respect. And it's hilarious.

I don't care what numbers are the "right ones" because IT DOESN'T MATTER. Pick any measure of income you want - the point is not the exact result of that math - the point is how it illustrated the 4 scenarios above.


I have owned you during all of this, and you don't even realize it.

The idea of you "owning" anyone on this board is a fantasy, probably much like you dream about years gone by when it would been legal for you to own black people.

Now, answer the questions:

1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.

I'm off for awhile. Mountain biking. Have fun at your job, where you obviously don't accomplish much work.

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, you backed up your claim which in fact showed you were wrong. You debunked yourself. GDP isn't spending. It's production. It's also a measure of income. You send it was a measure of spending, WHICH IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT. You said it was spending, I said it wasn't. There is no intellectual dishonesty, there is just you - not able to comprehend basic ideas.

It doesn't matter if it's the exact number of income you are looking for - it's a measure of income. It doesn't matter what measure of income you use in this case, because the exact numbers are irrelevent since this is a message board and none of the shit that gets discussed here will ever see its way to actual policy.




Let me repeat for you, since you missed the first time, and the second time as you were even quoting it:



The exact numbers don't matter. in discussing the philosophical merits of a proposed flax tax scheme.



No, we can't say that about every proposed tax system, because it's not true about every proposed tax system. We can implement a tax system that doesn't affect everyone. We can implement a tax system change that does affect everyone. We can implment a system that affects everyone evenly, or we can implement one that affects everyone different.

You happen to be proposing one that elminated your perceived inequity of the current system where the top earners carry the bulk of the tax burden.

So which of the 3 scenarios do you prefer? There is a 4th scenario:

4) You don't really care what happens to tax revenue, you just want top earners to have less of a tax burden and everyone else to have more.



Which assumptions are stupid? It doesn't look like I've made ANY assumptions. I've pointed out the arithetic FACT, that in order to implement a flat tax you are, by mathematical definition, shifting the burden from the top of the income scale to the bottom. Even if you set the flat tax rate at LESS than the rate that ANYONE pays (so every gets a tax break), still the bulk of the break will be concentrated in the wallets of the highest earners, not the lowest, and a larger share of the tax burden will now fall on the lower earners.



Then they would be in the "everyone else" category, now wouldn't they?



No, most of the filers that fall under these tables at high rates are people with income at those high rates. "Small business owners" are always some old couple selling trinkets out of their little shop in a rural town. Sometimes they are dudes who make a lot of money working a few days a week, mountain biking the rest. The "small business owner" argument is a week one and is designed to get sympathy for a group that doesn't need it.



The discussion in all threads by others, including yourself, would be to do away with capital gains tax and treat it like normal income. Which, in the shorthand we've been doing, is essentially what we are doing. Still doesn't change the arithmetic facts of the 4 scenarios.



LOL, getting "huffy". I call you a stupid backwoods sheep fucker, because you CONSTANTLY COME OFF AS ONE IN ALL OF YOUR THREADS and I await all opportunity to point it out. The bottom line is none of your lamebrain ideas will never come to fruition, despite your delusions of granduer that you rule of some imaginary internet Amerika Kingdom. You're just like boutons in that respect. And it's hilarious.

I don't care what numbers are the "right ones" because IT DOESN'T MATTER. Pick any measure of income you want - the point is not the exact result of that math - the point is how it illustrated the 4 scenarios above.



The idea of you "owning" anyone on this board is a fantasy, probably much like you dream about years gone by when it would been legal for you to own black people.

Now, answer the questions:

1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.

I'm off for awhile. Mountain biking. Have fun at your job, where you obviously don't accomplish much work.

Did you know that WC is in the top 1% on the intelligence scale? He said so himself... of course you would have had to be around a while to know that about him. He is REAL smart.

[TeyshaBlue]

LOL...

No fucking way.

I agreed most the numbers from the site were valid, and included them. That's not being owned, yet Scott is constantly fucking up. If anything, I've been owning him!

Translated: I am pathalogically unable to be incorrect.:rolleyes

[LnGrrrR]

:lol

Apparently WC thinks it's shifted so far right that I'm now a marxist.

That's a hard swerve there. :) I like how he couched it like he was just asking a friendly question.

"Oh by the way, are you a Marxist? And would you grab me a coffee if you're stepping out?"

[coyotes_geek]

That's a hard swerve there. :) I like how he couched it like he was just asking a friendly question.

"Oh by the way, are you a Marxist? And would you grab me a coffee if you're stepping out?"

His delivery was indeed flawless.

Why, yes, apparantely I am a marxist. Cream and sugar?

[TeyshaBlue]

Marxists make the best coffee roasters, btw.

[coyotes_geek]

Marxists make the best coffee roasters, btw.

From each according to his full pot of coffee, to each according to his empty cup.

[Agloco]

I don't think that it is luck or genetics.

Didn't read past this tbh.

You chose not to take into account your social standing and circumstances when recounting your story. That's ok, but you don't get to do that for everyone else. Context matters. It's an inconvenient truth, but it does.

Someone making 12k/year is the product of more than someone simply "choosing" to do so. Boiling it down to just that is an egregious oversimplification.

Having been on both sides of this fence, I can see why arguments would be posed such as they are. The only thing I can think of is that people either forget where they came from, or were never in such a predicament/social standing to begin with.

You, me, and anyone else who pays at the 35% rate or above has a vested interest in helping the small guy out. The endgame is quite ugly otherwise.

[EVAY]

Didn't read past this tbh.

You chose not to take into account your social standing and circumstances when recounting your story. That's ok, but you don't get to do that for everyone else. Context matters. It's an inconvenient truth, but it does.

Someone making 12k/year is the product of more than someone simply "choosing" to do so. Boiling it down to just that is a egregious oversimplification.

Having been on both sides of this fence, I can see why arguments would be posed such as they are. The only thing I can think of is that people either forget where they came from, or were never in such a predicament/social standing to begin with.

You, me, and anyone else who pays at the 35% rate or above has a vested interest in helping the small guy out. The endgame is quite ugly otherwise.

Well said.:toast

[Agloco]

The free ride needs to end sometime.

What about corporate free rides? Shouldn't we close those loopholes first?


If we want more tax revenue, you have to look at getting more tax payers, and hitting the middle class harder. That's where the money is.

:lol

Yes there's some, but there's substantially more at the top no?


Again, the percentage of rich people is too small to make a dent by raising their taxes.

By number of people yes. But that's really not the correct figure to go by. What percentage of the money do "rich people" own? Doesn't a hike, however small, on that amount go a longer distance than a hike on someone making 40k? Just asking.

[Wild Cobra]

What about corporate free rides? Shouldn't we close those loopholes first?

Close them at the same time for all I care. Get rid of subsidies too.


:lol

Yes there's some, but there's substantially more at the top no?

The numbers of the middle class times a small increase I think is far more than the few who pay at higher rates times the extra money we can get. Removing most the deductions of all wage earners will net us greater receipts, and we can lower tax rates at the same time. When I refereed to the middle class, that's who gets screwed when both sides of congress agree on something. They know that's where they can easily such a small amount up and not piss anyone off too much. Again, that small amount times the number...


By number of people yes. But that's really not the correct figure to go by. What percentage of the money do "rich people" own? Doesn't a hike, however small, on that amount go a longer distance than a hike on someone making 40k? Just asking.

The problem is the way taxes are treated. Income taxes and capital gains are treated differently. Most people who are really well off don't have as much in income taxable as high as the 35%/39.6% as they do other forms of income.

I don't know what percentage of money the rich "own" but wealth and income are not one in the same either.

A tax hike on the 40k earner? Are you suggesting 10.59% is too much for them to pay? A single tax filer at $40k already pays 10.45%. That only $57.40 more with no additional deductions. If it right to let someone pay less in taxes because they decide to have children?

[Agloco]

The problem is the way taxes are treated. Income taxes and capital gains are treated differently. Most people who are really well off don't have as much in income taxable as high as the 35%/39.6% as they do other forms of income.

I don't know what percentage of money the rich "own" but wealth and income are not one in the same either.

A tax hike on the 40k earner? Are you suggesting 10.59% is too much for them to pay? A single tax filer at $40k already pays 10.45%. That only $57.40 more with no additional deductions. If it right to let someone pay less in taxes because they decide to have children?

Ya, I didn't use the proper term there. I meant income. I'd be interested in the numbers though. We're talking about at least two orders of magnitude difference there.

As for hiking from 10.45 to 10.59, I guess you need to ask if the rate in place is too much already. $57.40 is a tank of gas chief. The underlying problem is that people know any tax hike is likely to be pissed away on something that likely won't benefit them anyway, hence the resistance on the part of the middle class.

[Wild Cobra]

Ya, I didn't use the proper term there. I meant income. I'd be interested in the numbers though. We're talking about at least two orders of magnitude difference there.

As for hiking from 10.45 to 10.59, I guess you need to ask if the rate in place is too much already. $57.40 is a tank of gas chief. The underlying problem is that people know any tax hike is likely to be pissed away on something that likely won't benefit them anyway, hence the resistance on the part of the middle class.
17% is the number I started with because it was the magic number for around 1992 when a flat tax was discussed. It was also suggesting a $30 personal deduction at the time instead of my $15k. It could possible work fine being a lower percentage, or maybe a higher deduction. Today's equivalent would be somewhere around $50k. Now the problem I have with this is we need more tax payers, even at minimal tax burdens. I say this so more people have a dog in the fight when it comes to politicians wanting to raise taxes.

[scott]

1) Which one of these scenarios do you advocate?
2) Why do you really want to pay more taxes so people like me can pay less? I honestly don't need your assistance in living a happy life.

You ever going to get around to this, WC?

[RandomGuy]

I have owned you [scott] during all of this, and you don't even realize it.

Respectfully:

I don't think either of you has really "owned" the other.

From what I can gather you are both talking past each other, as can happen on complex subjects.

Communication involving these topics can be hampered by subtle turns in phrasing and so forth, and that is what is happening here.

Try backing up a bit, paring things down, and explaining them as simply as you can.

I don't think y'all are as far apart on this as you both think you are.

My $.02, freely given, and well meant.

[RandomGuy]

Didn't read past this tbh.

You chose not to take into account your social standing and circumstances when recounting your story. That's ok, but you don't get to do that for everyone else. Context matters. It's an inconvenient truth, but it does.

Someone making 12k/year is the product of more than someone simply "choosing" to do so. Boiling it down to just that is an egregious oversimplification.

Having been on both sides of this fence, I can see why arguments would be posed such as they are. The only thing I can think of is that people either forget where they came from, or were never in such a predicament/social standing to begin with.

You, me, and anyone else who pays at the 35% rate or above has a vested interest in helping the small guy out. The endgame is quite ugly otherwise.

I agree completely.

The thing that libertarians seem to miss, in the relentless pursuit of the most individualistic policy answer possible to any given problem, is that we are all to a great extent, dependent on each other in ways we usually don't think about, and many don't realize.

[elbamba]

Didn't read past this tbh.

You chose not to take into account your social standing and circumstances when recounting your story. That's ok, but you don't get to do that for everyone else. Context matters. It's an inconvenient truth, but it does.

Someone making 12k/year is the product of more than someone simply "choosing" to do so. Boiling it down to just that is an egregious oversimplification.

Having been on both sides of this fence, I can see why arguments would be posed such as they are. The only thing I can think of is that people either forget where they came from, or were never in such a predicament/social standing to begin with.

You, me, and anyone else who pays at the 35% rate or above has a vested interest in helping the small guy out. The endgame is quite ugly otherwise.

If you want to hand out your money without any accountability then there is nothing I can say nor am I really interested in changing your mind. Social standing should not impact equality. All I am asking for is that many americans who pay nothing in income tax pay something in income tax. You want to focus on the $15,000 a year individual. I am more interested in focusing on the people who make in the $30-50,000 who get away without paying income taxes.

I think we can both agree that implementing a tax on the "rich" which arbitraily throw people who earn $250,000 a year in with Mark Cuban , is not going to solve the financial woes are country currently faces.

I too have been on both sides of the fence econmically speaking. I made sacrifices when I needed to so that I can be where I am today. It wasn't easy but I do not consider myself special or especially talented. I just put in the hours, which started long before I ever made any real money.

I don't believe handing out entitlements helps out the small guy. I think it keeps him a prisoner to poverty and entitlement and creates nothing more than a continued burden on society. We see things differently and obviously my opinion is not carried by the majority in this country.

I can assure you I am not going to do anything more than voice my complaint on a fan forum webpage.

[ElNono]

Can't speak for everybody, but I certainly paid taxes when my income was circa $32K...

[elbamba]

I agree completely.

The thing that libertarians seem to miss, in the relentless pursuit of the most individualistic policy answer possible to any given problem, is that we are all to a great extent, dependent on each other in ways we usually don't think about, and many don't realize.

I am no libertarian. I don't really associate myself with any party b/c there are few differences between them.

Just because we might depend on one another does not mean that we should just throw money at problems without seeking real solutions. That is what happens all too frequently with our tax dollars. If I didn't see the waste first hand it might not matter to me as much. But I have, so it bothers me.

[elbamba]

Can't speak for everybody, but I certainly paid taxes when my income was circa $32K...

THis is really my last response for the day at least. I am not saying that some people making those numbers do not pay income taxes. But many do not.

I think it was in 2009 something like 47% of the people earning between 30-40 paid no income tax

It gets higher as you move down the list

20-30 is in the 60%

10-20 in the 80%

Under 10 is like 99.9%

I think 50-75 was in the 20%

[RandomGuy]

If you want to hand out your money without any accountability then there is nothing I can say nor am I really interested in changing your mind.

http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/straw_man.jpg

Please show where anyone, anywhere, in this thread, or any other here, has EVER advocated such a thing.









Since I know you can't:

Fallacy: Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:




Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


Person A has position X
Agloco: "we should help people with low incomes"

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
elbama: "you want to hand out your money without any accountability"

Person B attacks position Y.
elbambas implied attack: "helping people with low incomes is irresponsible"

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
"we should not help people with low incomes because it is irresponsible".


No one says hand out money willy nilly without any accountability or oversight.

The fact there may be abuse in entitlement programs is not, to me, a valid argument against helping people with entitlement programs.

I am sure there are people that abuse the system. I can accept that cost, when the benefits are just as clear.

If you can't quantify the "countless stories" of abuse, then you are not giving me anything logical or quantifiable, but asking me to change policy based on your hunch.

Sorry, I prefer having say, actual data, before changing that many people's lives.

[RandomGuy]

THis is really my last response for the day at least. I am not saying that some people making those numbers do not pay income taxes. But many do not.

Already debunked. Sorry you will have to read to find out why.

Everybody pays income taxes directly or indirectly.

This whole "50% of people don't pay income taxes" is simply a misleading half-truth that is, in essence, a lie.

Do you base all of your beliefs on misleading half-truths, or just this one?

[ElNono]

THis is really my last response for the day at least. I am not saying that some people making those numbers do not pay income taxes. But many do not.

I think it was in 2009 something like 47% of the people earning between 30-40 paid no income tax

It gets higher as you move down the list

20-30 is in the 60%

10-20 in the 80%

Under 10 is like 99.9%

I think 50-75 was in the 20%

Well it's obviously difficult to live with that kind of money depending on the situation. $32K alone probably pays. $32K with two dependents I can see where it would be difficult to make ends meet.

[spursncowboys]

Respectfully:

I don't think either of you has really "owned" the other.

From what I can gather you are both talking past each other, as can happen on complex subjects.

Communication involving these topics can be hampered by subtle turns in phrasing and so forth, and that is what is happening here.

Try backing up a bit, paring things down, and explaining them as simply as you can.

I don't think y'all are as far apart on this as you both think you are.

My $.02, freely given, and well meant. Well said. However you do realize that it is the internet where everyone is a nazi, or racist?

[ElNono]

Well said. However you do realize that it is the internet where everyone is a nazi, or racist?

or both :lol

[spursncowboys]

:lol yeah i guess a racist nazi would be redundant.

[ElNono]

:lol yeah i guess a racist nazi would be redundant.

Never underestimate the interwebs :lol

[Agloco]

If you want to hand out your money without any accountability then there is nothing I can say nor am I really interested in changing your mind. Social standing should not impact equality. All I am asking for is that many americans who pay nothing in income tax pay something in income tax. You want to focus on the $15,000 a year individual. I am more interested in focusing on the people who make in the $30-50,000 who get away without paying income taxes.

I agree on this. It still begs the question though, how much is enough? I believe in a previous post you deemed 35% to be fair since , of course, you pay 35%. Should everyone pay your rate? It's ok to tax the small guy at your rate but not ok to do this..........


I think we can both agree that implementing a tax on the "rich" which arbitraily throw people who earn $250,000 a year in with Mark Cuban , is not going to solve the financial woes are country currently faces.

You see? Now you're the small guy, and it's all of a sudden a problem. Persepctive is kinda like a swift kick in the nuts.

For the record though, I agree with your point in principle.


I too have been on both sides of the fence econmically speaking. I made sacrifices when I needed to so that I can be where I am today. It wasn't easy but I do not consider myself special or especially talented. I just put in the hours, which started long before I ever made any real money.

:tu

You're a testament to what hard work can do.....but don't think for a moment that luck or any of lifes circumstances didn't play a part in your ability to execute that vision.

For some, the opportunities are masked by personal trials and pass them by. Ever try to pay off a back surgery after a car accident while making 30k/year for a family of 4? I'd like to hear your perspective after trying that shoe on.


I don't believe handing out entitlements helps out the small guy. I think it keeps him a prisoner to poverty and entitlement and creates nothing more than a continued burden on society. We see things differently and obviously my opinion is not carried by the majority in this country.

What exactly do you expect to happen when you take away those entitlements?


We see things differently and obviously my opinion is not carried by the majority in this country.

I can assure you I am not going to do anything more than voice my complaint on a fan forum webpage.

Friendly discussion, nothing more. I'd urge you to consider what awaits a population that leaves it's working middle class behind though.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree completely.

The thing that libertarians seem to miss, in the relentless pursuit of the most individualistic policy answer possible to any given problem, is that we are all to a great extent, dependent on each other in ways we usually don't think about, and many don't realize.

The problem with libertarians is that they seem to think all people are robots, and won't ever overthrow the king is he's "fair" enough.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd urge you to consider what awaits a population that leaves it's working middle class behind though.

I think the proper term for this situation is "Asshole utopia".

[Winehole23]

I think the proper term for this situation is "Asshole utopia".Pardon me, but I happen to live there. There is no doubt in my mind that asshole utopia already exists.

[Winehole23]

In fact, this forum is one of its kindergartens.

[LnGrrrR]

Pardon me, but I happen to live there. There is no doubt in my mind that asshole utopia already exists.

It can't be a proper Asshole Utopia unless you have some Randians or Calvinists for neighbors :)

[Winehole23]

Agreed, but those are only two of the possible shades of the rainbow.

[LnGrrrR]

Agreed, but those are only two of the possible shades of the rainbow.

They are required members for my Asshole Utopia. YMMV :)

[Winehole23]

There are many others. More than could ever be named, probably.

There's know it all, troll, ankle biter, cranky guy, lonely guy, drunk/stoned guy, crazy guy, neurotic guy, all purpose clown guy

[Winehole23]

propaganda guy, fake outrage guy

[Winehole23]

profane guy

[Winehole23]

cuck-baiting guy

[Winehole23]

gay baiting guy

[Winehole23]

race baiting guy

[Winehole23]

xenophobic guy

[Winehole23]

Oklahoma

[coyotes_geek]

This whole "50% of people don't pay income taxes" is simply a misleading half-truth that is, in essence, a lie.


Actually it's this statement that is a lie. What's a half truth is the whole "people who don't pay income taxes are paying income taxes" gimmick. Everybody pays those "transitive" taxes. Not everybody gets to pretend that satisfies their tax burden. 50% is simply too high a percentage of the population to be exempted from DIRECTLY having to pay income taxes.

[boutons_deux]

"50% is simply too high a percentage of the population to be exempted from DIRECTLY having to pay income taxes."

what's too high, or too low a percentage?

You very probably underestimate the percentage of Real America (not the bullshit Palin one) lives from week to week. And you're typically a vengeful asshole, anyway.

We could really fuck them hard by closing all the taxpayer-funded medical services. That'll show them to dare pissing off CG for not paying income taxes.

I was in Sears the other day. The middle-aged guy, very friendly and knew his mattresses, worked 5 days/week as Allstate insurance salesman, and 2 days week flogging Sears mattresses. There are 10s of millions holding down 2 or 3 shitty jobs. aka, The American Dream Reamed.





Something like 40M now qualify for food stamps, a record.

Long term unemployed lose about $20B assistance at the end of 2011.

Some 3rd world countries have less wealth inequality than UCA.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What amazes me about the " 50% don't pay" crowd is that they are silent when corporations ( now viewed as persons courtesy of the Supreme Court) use every loophole available to skirt paying taxes... yet when middle class income earners do the same it's evil/wrong..

"they need skin in the game"...

[coyotes_geek]

And you're typically a vengeful asshole, anyway.

Coming from you, that sound like a term of endearment.

[coyotes_geek]

What amazes me about the " 50% don't pay" crowd is that they are silent when corporations ( now viewed as persons courtesy of the Supreme Court) use every loophole available to skirt paying taxes... yet when middle class income earners do the same it's evil/wrong..

"they need skin in the game"...

We should close corporate tax loopholes. I support Obama's stance of including the closure of corporate tax loopholes in the debt ceiling talks.

There.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We should close corporate tax loopholes.

There.

that would be great..but the tea potties wan't offseting tax cuts for these to be closed... if you do that, you are right back where you started..


This would be the sames as the dems agreeing to 2 trillion dollars in spending program cuts but wanted to increase spending on other programs by 2 trillion dollars

[boutons_deux]

I support cutting $4T in cuts if there is $4T in increased revenue

[George Gervin's Afro]

I support cutting $4T in cuts if there is $4T in increased revenue

that's exactly it..
:lmao

[boutons_deux]

that's an $8T swing. :)

[Wild Cobra]

Let me ask a question to anyone willing to answer.

Are you sure that raising taxes on the rich will give the government more revenue beyond the first quarter tax cycle?

[ElNono]

Let me ask a question to anyone willing to answer.

Are you sure that raising taxes on the rich will give the government more revenue beyond the first quarter tax cycle?

You don't need to raise taxes. Just close loopholes. Which in a way the rich will bitch it's a tax hike.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't even need to raise taxes. Just close loopholes.
I agree. Let me specify. Why people are certain that raising tax rates on the rich will increase revenue, past the first quarter taxed, or tax year, depending on how people file. Simple enough question, isn't it?

[ElNono]

I agree. Let me specify. Why people are certain that raising tax rates on the rich will increase revenue.

Depends on what the 'rich' are. Over what amount of income?
Not every 'rich' can afford to use loopholes.

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on what the 'rich' are. Over what amount of income?
Not every 'rich' can afford to use loopholes.
Give me a scenario then.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course it will. Does WC think they're all going to pick up and leave? Thats laughable.

[coyotes_geek]

Let me ask a question to anyone willing to answer.

Are you sure that raising taxes on the rich will give the government more revenue beyond the first quarter tax cycle?

Of course not. The 2 yr extension on the Bush tax cuts for >$250k households "only" cost $81.5 billion (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm). The current defecits we're running would burn that up in one month.

[ElNono]

Give me a scenario then.

For example, to do what mega corps do to avoid taxes, you need a subsidiary company in the Netherlands, and another subsidiary in a tax heaven like Bermuda ("Dutch Sandwich"). For Euro / Middle East sales, they also need another subsidiary in Ireland ("Double Irish"). Obviously, these schemes are reserved for companies that sell worldwide and make a lot of millions to support that structure.

For the rich, but not so rich, revenue from them was higher when the Clinton tax rates were in place. That's no disputable. There's no reason revenue wouldn't increase if going back to those rates.

[ElNono]

Of course not. The 2 yr extension on the Bush tax cuts for >$250k households "only" cost $81.5 billion (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm). The current defecits we're running would burn that up in one month.

I think he's arguing that removing those tax cuts wouldn't increase the revenue. I don't think he's correct in most cases.

[ElNono]

If you want to talk about what companies like GE does, you would need to talk about both "Double Irish", "Dutch Sandwich", and add up that they manipulate the earnings from their investment/capital subdivision to offset the earnings from their other divisions. That's how they end up with a tax bill that actually gives them money from the government.

[Wild Cobra]

I see no one can give an answer as to why they are certain. Just repeating hyperbole.

Consider this. If we are certain that raising tax rates increase revenue, then why not tax to top marginal rate at 100%?

You guys seem to think they don't need to keep their money past a certain point, so why not 100%?

[Wild Cobra]

Well?

If increasing taxes increases revenue, why not just tax the rich at 100% past say $500,000?

[MannyIsGod]

Of course not. The 2 yr extension on the Bush tax cuts for >$250k households "only" cost $81.5 billion (http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm). The current defecits we're running would burn that up in one month.

Revenue would still be up though.

[boutons_deux]

dubya's 2003 estate tax cut cost $800B+, (much of which went into private investment funds that led, dominated the sub-prime toxic mortgage in numbers of shit mortgages written.)

There's $500B/year that could be could out of MIC/DoState Empire Expansion and maintenance. That's $5T in 10 years.

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't anyone man enough to answer my simple question?

Manny...

El Know no...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Isn't anyone man enough to answer my simple question?

Manny...

El Know no...

because it's a stupid question

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe if you didn't propose stupid questions. Obviously taxing the rich at 100% would be stupid but of course you have to make a ridiculous argument that no one has proposed in order to make your otherwise non salient point.

Increasing the taxes on everyone - especially the rich - is needed but no one has said you should tax them at 100%.

[MannyIsGod]

Somehow prior to the Bush tax cuts we had huge expansion in the 90s. Roll those fucking tax cuts back. Do it for everyone. There's a big portion of the deficit gone.

[MannyIsGod]

Really - the solution is so fucking simple that its disgusting that its made out to be this much of a problem.

[LnGrrrR]

Well?

If increasing taxes increases revenue, why not just tax the rich at 100% past say $500,000?

If lowering taxes improves out economy, why not just take in no taxes?

After all, most conservatives say they need the extra money to donate to charity, so I'm sure people would donate enough to keep vital functions like the military and highways running.

[boutons_deux]

"Somehow prior to the Bush tax cuts we had huge expansion in the 90s"

We had huge REAL economic expansion AND widespread increase in middle class wealth, AND huge increases in jobs, between 1946-1975, and taxes were much higher on individuals, capital gains, corporations.

conclusion: VRWC/Repugs are lying to us about tax cuts and big govt and govt-is-the-problem to satisfy their greed and mop up the wealth they don't already own.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If lowering taxes improves out economy, why not just take in no taxes?

After all, most conservatives say they need the extra money to donate to charity, so I'm sure people would donate enough to keep vital functions like the military and highways running.



less taxes coming in = increased revenues....

makes perfect sense

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe if you didn't propose stupid questions. Obviously taxing the rich at 100% would be stupid but of course you have to make a ridiculous argument that no one has proposed in order to make your otherwise non salient point.

Increasing the taxes on everyone - especially the rich - is needed but no one has said you should tax them at 100%.
What would happen if we did?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What would happen if we did?

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao
Serious. Someone humor me and answer my stupid question. What would happen?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Serious. Someone humor me and answer my stupid question. What would happen?

why don't you just tell us..

[Wild Cobra]

why don't you just tell us..

I want to see what you guys think without my thoughts.

You afraid of the question?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I want to see what you guys think without my thoughts.

You afraid of the question?

because it's a STUPID question..

jesus christ you are oblivious to the obvious

[boutons_deux]

The New Class War: In 12 years, the 400 richest Americans have seen their taxes cut by half

New data released by the IRS reveals that, over a period of 12 years, tax rates for the richest 400 Americans were effectively cut in half. In 1995, the richest 400 Americans paid, on average, 29.93% of their income in federal taxes. In 2007, the last year for which the IRS has released data, the richest 400 Americans paid just 16.63%.

In 1995, just 12 of the 400 richest Americans paid an effective tax rat of between zero and 15%. By 2007, that number skyrocketed to over 150. The massive reduction is due to both Bush-era tax reductions for the wealthy and the aggressive exploitation of tax dodges and shelters.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/14/994635/-The-New-Class-War:-In-12-years,-the-400-richest-Americans-have-seen-their-taxes-cut-by-half?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

==========

and of course there is still TAX EVASION using UBS, Credit Suisse, etc to hide "self declared" capital gains overseas. UBS had 50K US accounts, only 5000 were released to IRS to get the IRS off their backs.

[Wild Cobra]

because it's a STUPID question..

jesus christ you are oblivious to the obvious
Humor me, or is the question too hard for you?

[MannyIsGod]

The question is too ridiculous for a serious conversation. Then again, look at who I'm trying to have a conversation with.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Humor me, or is the question too hard for you?

it's an unrealistic question with an even more unrealistic answer... knock yourself out..

[George Gervin's Afro]

The question is too ridiculous for a serious conversation. Then again, look at who I'm trying to have a conversation with.

Manny..answer my questions:

If we fired every teacher in every school district on the first day of the school year, what would happen? How about if Santa Clause were real...how much money would he be making annually?... what if we taxed his earnings at 100%?

[Blake]

Serious. Someone humor me and answer my stupid question. What would happen?

Duncan would be taking home the same as Bonner.

The Spurs forum would erupt in furious fury.

[baseline bum]

What if we made everyone 18 and up pay a flat $20,000 per year?

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

I never realized the question was that difficult. I figured at least 2 or 3 people would be able to give a cogent answer.

[Wild Cobra]

What if we made everyone 18 and up pay a flat $20,000 per year?
You would have my vote if I was selfish. That would be a tax break for me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow...

I never realized the question was that difficult. I figured at least 2 or 3 people would be able to give a cogent answer.

are you stupid?

[Wild Cobra]

are you stupid?
Not at all.

I have a reason for asking. Humor me.

[Th'Pusher]

Here is a simple little char from the WSJ showing who pays what

http://http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BB564_ENTITL_NS_20110712174803.jpg (http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BB564_ENTITL_NS_20110712174803.jpg)

And the corresponding article: http://http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories)

[Wild Cobra]

because it's a STUPID question..

jesus christ you are oblivious to the obvious
What is obvious then?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I'm going to take a short trip to Gresham. Hopefully someone can give me an intelligent answer to my stupid question by the time I get back.