Reply With Quote
Fair? That is a decent question.
I would guess about 30-40%.
By all means then, what do we do about SS and Medicare, if they are so bloated?
What difference does it make if the provision for the needy are done through this or some other means?
Pay out $100 in taxes or $100 donation to charity, it is the same out of my pocket.
Quite frankly the US government, despite what you seem to think is a rather efficient way of getting such money to needy people.
Any private non-profit would still have the same overhead rate, if not more.
As mean as the IRS is, it is still cheaper than a "begging division" of telemarketers trying to get you to donate to a charity.
Private charity is a good thing, but is not the panacea that some seem to think it is. There are more than a few studies showing rather shockingly how little money sometimes actually gets to the people it is supposed to help, and how much is taken up in private burocracy.
One thing or another. I can make a fairly decent case that the government offers some pretty good bang for the buck in terms of alleviating some of the worst symptoms of poverty.
Fair? That is a decent question.
I would guess about 30-40%.
The U.S. govt. is efficient?
Want to compare the number of people on Medicare/Medicaid and how much those programs cost vs. what it costs the private sector?
Want to compare what I've put into my retirement account, and what I'm gonna get out of it vs. what I've put into SS and what I'm gonna get out of that?
Want to compare what I pay for a hammer or toilet seat vs. the government?
I never give to charities that call me; I freely give to several others (at least a he annually) to others that never call. I check them out on line to make sure, to the best of my ability, that my money is not being wasted:
Charity Navigator
And again, the point is moot; I have not argued that the country should be without a safety net; that is a strawman you created. My argument is that, as a society, we ALL should bear that burden. We are not - and it's trending even further away from any type of equilibrium - ultimately to a point where people will receive SS benefits, and never pay a dime into SS.
Current top rate = 35%.
Obama wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts (well, only on the top bracket; the cuts were good for every body else).
That makes the top bracket 39.6% - back to 2000 levels.
Then, Obama wants to make SS and Medicare payable for all over 250K - not payable between 100 and 250 - doesn't want to alienate those upper middle class voters, after all.
That would be 14.6 on top of the top rate, bringing the federal total to 54.2%. Now, if you live any but two states in the Union, you ALSO pay a state income tax, and many of those are also, "progressive": the highest being Vermont at 9.5% (California, our most populace state is NEARLY there - 9.3)
SO, under Obama's economic policy, if it is ratified, the highest personal income tax rate for people in this free society of ours will be:
63.7%!!!!!
Under McCain, wanting to keep the rich rich, and stick it to everybody else, that number will be: 44.5% - actually much closer to what you consider "fair", although by your own number, still a little onerous.
You should consider changing allegiances.
I would love to. Step up and show me the data that proves that medicare/medicaid is "inefficient" compared to similar private charities on an overhead percentage basis.
This oughta be good.
I have yet to see a single conservative be able to back up this most basic assertion.
You base your whole ideology on "government is inefficient", yet I have never seen the faintest attempt at providing any data or figures that might support this assertion.
I invariably get the inevitable anecdote or other about such and such, but not one single study, or verifiable figure.
Not.
One.
It is your assertion. The burden of proof is on you.
How much federal tax credit does one get to take on a federal tax return for state income taxes paid?
By the by, there are 10 states in the US that have no personal income tax, not two.
I'll answer the question:
If you itemize your deductions, then you get to reduce your AGI on a dollar per dollar basis for each dollar you paid.
This, in essence reduces your federal taxes by the amount you paid in state income taxes multiplied by your marginal tax rate.
If say you paid $5,000 in state income taxes and have a marginal tax rate of 35% then you get to reduce your ultimate federal tax paid by $1750.
So in your calculations, you don't get to take a percentage for percentage addition of state and local income taxes.
So if the state income tax is 9% you have to run that times .65 or roughly 6%
Just to be accurate...
Further, if you really get down to it, let's examine what the capital gains tax does.
Social security and medicare taxes are NOT levied on such income to my knowledge.
Assume 1/2 of your income is from capital gains, and the other half is from work income.
Let's go with your figure of 63.7% of your work income is taxed, and 15% of your capital gains income is taxed at that rate.
(63.7+15)/2= 39% marginal tax rate. Egads. That is well within the region that I consider fair.
Of course if you earn, say 9/10 of your economic/taxable income from capital gains, then let's see how that pans out.
(63.7*1/10) + (15*9/10)= 19.8
So a couple with 1,000,000 of earned work income and 9,000,000 in capital gain income would end up paying a smaller percentage of his overall income than a guy earning $100,000 of work income per year.
We provide a system of laws, protections, and a free-market in order to allow people to reach their potential.
Is it really unreasonable to ask people to support that system if they are successful?
Conservatives call taxes "punishing success".
I call not doing it stealing. If you benefit from something, you are morally and ethically bound to support that system in a reasonable fashion. You benefited from the ability to make and enforce contracts, educated labor, infrastructure of all kinds. Is it fair to not pay back into that system?
I read the article, it essentially is an opinion piece that contradicts itself. First they try to make the argument that he's not a liberal, but a proponent of free-markets, and then support that argument by discussing two of his policies to redistribute wealth. What I find funny is how the article essentially states that liberals tend to be anti free-markets and try to paint Obama as somewhat the opposite. My question would be, my such a disconnect between what he "supposedly believes" and his proposals. They are obviously trying to put lipstick on a pig and the libs on this board are trying to reach for anything to try to prove their candidate isn't a marxist. The best I could maybe say for Obama is that the people pulling his strings are marxist.
Sure it's fair; and, fine, I'll use your math: 61% top marginal rate as opposed to 64 - but it's flawed; states don't let you deduct federal insurance; you get to deduct your state taxes from the fed. Therrefore, with the top rate being 9% - well you do the math, it's 63 instead of 64% BFD.
Great.
You said the rate should be 35 - 40. Change your mind?
Capital gains tax, you are correct, is much lower than income; and is not subject to payroll.
It certainly helps those who derive income from investments (my guess would be many of them are SERIOUS donors and friends of all politicians, or politicians themselves). You know who DOESN'T make "half their income" from capital gains? Doctors, Lawyers, Small business owners, mid level executives, etc... Now, eventually, people build nest eggs, portfolios, etc....but with a 55 - 60% chunk being taken out of their incomes, the capital to do that with is SERIOUSLY being curtailed. TOMORROW'S investors get hamstrung by ridiculous taxation today. Except for the people who have already made it, that is.
Do you not realize that by putting onerous taxation on income, but not on investments, you are supporting the status-quo, class stagnation, etc.?
40% was the tops three days ago, but now that you understand Obama wants over 55, your cool with that?
Just so we understand each other.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/bu...dJ8oZzUGAqHzsg
This CAN"T be! The richest are the ones who enjoyed the LEAST income increase. WHAT????Average Income Rises Above ’00 Level
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: August 25, 2008
Americans enjoyed higher average income in 2006 for the first time since 2000, when the last economic expansion ended, the latest tax data show.
Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006 averaged $58,029. In 2006 dollars that was an increase of $739, or 1.2 percent, from the $57,289 average in 2000, analysis of Internal Revenue Service data showed.
Average income fell sharply in 2001 and again in 2002, when it dropped to $51,870, off nearly 10 percent from 2000, tax data show. The average grew slightly in 2003.
Average income grew significantly in 2004, rising $2,291, and again in 2005, when the average increased by $2,210. Income growth continued in 2006, but at a much slower pace, increasing by $1,369 over the 2005 average once inflation is taken into account.
Salaries and wages, by far the largest source of income, nearly returned to the 2000 average in 2006. However, among the highest-paid workers, both total and average wages fell, an indication of how the Internet bubble had concentrated gains among a relatively few workers.
The average wage in 2006 was $46,996, down $101, or a fraction of 1 percent, from $47,097 in 2000. Average wages in this decade hit a low of $45,956 in 2003, the I.R.S. data show.
Among workers with salaries of less than $1 million, the average wage in 2006 was up $170 from 2000.
Salaries fell noticeably, however, among the tiny slice of taxpayers whose total income was $1 million or more, a threshold that the I.R.S. does not adjust for inflation.
The number of wage earners in this high-income group soared over six years, up 42.9 percent, to 285,759 of the 116.4 million taxpayers reporting wages in 2006. A taxpayer can be an individual or a married couple.
Despite this increase in the number of high-wage earners, their total wages declined by $2.4 billion, or almost 1 percent, to $313.3 billion.
The decline in total wages at the top was solely among the narrow segment of wage earners with total income of $5 million or more, the same group that was the big winner from dot-com era stock options, which are reported as wages on tax returns. The average wage of these 33,309 workers fell almost 37 percent, to $3.5 million in 2006 from $5.5 million in 2000, analysis of the tax data showed.
Oh , tax 'em at 60% + anyway!!!! THE BAS S!!!!
Come on, RG, where'd you go?
101A is cute. The propensity for some poor sclubs to defend the downtrodden rich always makes me laugh. It's a delusional projection: they think they'll be rich some day. Like yipping Chihuahuas thinking they'll get to be big dogs if they bark loud enough.
So, you're saying our federal government is efficient?
You want proof of government inefficiency?
This country is going to go bankrupt due to social security, and yet our politicians a) continue to write IOU checks out of the SS fund and b) do nothing to address the looming insolvency.
Yep, model of efficiency right thereKeep spending, even if it will bankrupt us and turn us into a third world country!
Last edited by Aggie Hoopsfan; 08-25-2008 at 11:19 PM.
this is an adult forum thank you.
I said it in my adult voice.
Better than 'the world is mean to the poor widdle oligarchs!' loser above. Hey, the rich have been infiltrating the government for long enough to help start wars and bomb our economy to smithereens. Time to pay for it, you mincing nincompoops. I won't have anymore bridges collapsing.
the evil united states, we make terrorize the world. The world without the United States is a freakin hole.
I said it in my adult voice.
Better than 'the world is mean to the poor widdle oligarchs!' loser above. Hey, the rich have been infiltrating the government for long enough to help start wars and bomb our economy to smithereens. Time to pay for it, you mincing nincompoops. I won't have anymore bridges collapsing.
Public education and the continuing black hole that it is?You base your whole ideology on "government is inefficient", yet I have never seen the faintest attempt at providing any data or figures that might support this assertion.
Social Security?
The government is an inefficient cesspool.
governments are more efficient, that's why communism works so well.
I think it's worth noting too, that we're currently running a $500 billion dollar budget defecit, so don't act like all the revenue this taxation brings in is just going to be handed right back out into the slums of America.
The extremely wealthy have run amok in their earnings and uniformly supported Bush as he's been draining the national coffers at an astronomical rate for the past 8 years. So what, under Obama, these top earners pull down 7.2 million dollars per year as opposed to 8 million? Phhhhh, I could give a less if Obama puts the burden of cleaning up Bush's national bankruptcy on them.
Typical communistic thinking.
Screw them, they have money, therefore they are evil!
No.
I THOUGHT I'd be rich one day 15 years ago.
By most standards, now, I do pretty well.
I sign 32 pay checks on the 15th and the last day of the month with my own name.
The SINGLE biggest check I sign each pay cycle is to Uncle Sam.
O.K., RG won't play anymore.
What do YOU think is a good, top, tax bracket.
How much of ones own earnings ought one be allowed to keep?
Hilarious.
I won't have anymore bridges collapsing.
A bridge collapses. People die.
The bridge was built by the govt. "maintained" by the govt......and yet; you CANNOT blame the govt!!! Govt = Good in your naive little immature, unable to assimilate knowledge brain, therefore, well, the bridge must have collapsed because of the rich!!!!
Priceless.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
