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

[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.

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

[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 about it.

Its so bad that they're ignoring their damn cons uants 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. ing 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 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>
Bull .

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 .

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, dip . 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 " ing 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 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. ing 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]

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

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! )

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 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 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 er, 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 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 er, 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 ing way.

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

Translated: I am pathalogically unable to be incorrect.

[LnGrrrR]

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 cir stances 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 cir stances 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.

[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.

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.

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 cir stances 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 cir stances 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 en lements helps out the small guy. I think it keeps him a prisoner to poverty and en lement 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.