PDA

View Full Version : Economics The Rich Pay More Taxes: Top 20 Percent Pay Record Share of Income Taxes


mikey23545
05-20-2009, 02:14 PM
Since the passage of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, critics have claimed incessantly that they disproportionately benefited the rich while burdening the poor. Now that the data is in, these claims have been shown to be unquestionably false.

Squeezing the Wealthy Even More

According to a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the tax cuts significantly increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest-earning 20 percent of households compared to their levels in 2000, President Clinton's final year in office.

In 2006, the latest available year from CBO, the top 20 percent of income earners paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes, an all-time high.[1] This is an increase of over 6 percent from 2000, when the top 20 percent paid 81.2 percent. During the same period, the bottom four quintiles all saw their share of the federal income tax burden fall sharply:

* The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
* The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
* The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
* The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Each of these four quintiles' shares was an all-time low.

2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts Removed Low-Income Earners from Roles

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts removed millions of taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls, leaving only those at the top to pay the bill. They lowered every federal income tax rate and created a new 10 percent bracket to further reduce taxes for low-income earners.

While these tax rate cuts lowered taxes for all taxpayers, low-income earners got the biggest cut. In addition to these rate cuts, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expanded the refundable Child Tax Credit from $500 per child to $1,000 per child. The combination of lower tax rates and an expanded Child Tax Credit meant many low-income taxpayers no longer paid any federal income taxes.

Was Greater Income the Cause?

Critics counter that the increase in tax shares for high-earners was due to income increases at the top of the income spectrum. But a closer look at the data shows this just is not the case.

The top 20 percent of earners saw their share of pre-tax income rise from 54.8 percent to 55.7 percent, from 2000 to 2006. During that same period, their share of federal income taxes increased from 81.2 percent to 86.3 percent.

The modest increase in incomes is not large enough to explain the large increase in the share of income taxes paid by the top 20 percent. Rather, the removal of substantial numbers of low-income taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls is the real culprit.

Refundable Credits Redistribute Income

The bottom 40 percent of income earners actually paid a negative share of federal income taxes in 2006. In other words, these taxpayers are actually paid money through the tax code. This happens through refundable credits like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which result in "refunds" when they are greater than the taxpayer's total income tax liability.

For instance, if a family with one child has an income tax liability of $300, it can claim the Child Tax Credit, which wipes out their tax liability, and still receive $700 from the IRS for the remainder of the $1,000 credit. On April 15, not only do the bottom 40 percent of all taxpayers pay no taxes, but they actually receive additional income from the IRS.

Refundable credits redistribute income from the top 20 percent of earners to the remaining tax filers, with the bottom 20 percent the prime beneficiaries. The bottom quintile's share of income, measured after taxes, actually increased a whopping 17 percent compared to its pre-tax levels because of the income they got from refundable credits. Comparing shares of income before taxes are paid to after, only the top quintile saw their share of income decline.

Obama's Tax Policies Widen the Gap

President Obama's tax policies would cause federal income taxes paid by the top 20 percent to increase and the shares of the remaining 80 percent to decrease even further. These policies include those passed as part of the stimulus legislation and those included in the President's Budget Blueprint.

The stimulus created the Making Work Pay Credit[2] and expanded the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. These refundable credits will knock even more taxpayers from the federal income tax rolls and send more money to low-income taxpayers.[3] With fewer low- and middle-income taxpayers paying federal income taxes, the burden will shift even further in the direction of top earners.

President Obama also proposed in his Budget Blueprint to increase income taxes on those making over $250,000 by increasing their tax rates on investment income and reducing the amount they could deduct.[4] This would dramatically increase the share of taxes paid by the top 20 percent while the remaining 80 percent of earners would not pay higher taxes as a result of these proposed tax hikes.

Stop Shifting Burden to Top 20 Percent

To stop the shifting of the tax burden to a dwindling number of taxpayers, Congress should:

* Make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers, not just those making under $250,000. This would slow the shifting of the burden to the top 20 percent.
* Stop creating and expanding refundable credits. Welfare spending and subsidies to low-income earners should be done through traditional spending programs, not hidden in the tax code. This would stop a growing portion of the population from being removed from the tax rolls.
* Cut top tax rates to return the shares of income taxes paid by each quintile to their more-sustainable 2000 levels.

On Dangerous Ground

The shifting of the tax burden to a small segment of high-income taxpayers is economically dangerous. The beneficiaries of government services are increasingly those who share little or none of the tax burden to pay for them. As they become more numerous, they put more pressure on Congress for more services. Meanwhile, those who bear most of the burden are being squeezed even more, shrinking their number. The result is a growing group of government beneficiaries clamoring for more of a shrinking group's wealth. Congress should put an end to this practice.

Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2420.cfm

SBK
05-20-2009, 02:16 PM
It's their patriotic duty to pay more taxes. In fact, they have enough money we should tax them so much that they only have enough left over for 1 meal a day.

KC native
05-20-2009, 02:22 PM
:rolleyes: The rich pay more in income taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE. Why is that so fucking hard to understand for wingers? When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%.

Feel free to carry on with your guys' echo chamber now.

SBK
05-20-2009, 02:24 PM
:rolleyes: The rich pay more in income taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE. Why is that so ****ing hard to understand for wingers? When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%.

Feel free to carry on with your guys' echo chamber now.

Welcome back from the football forum!

banyon
05-20-2009, 02:25 PM
:rolleyes: The rich pay more in income taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE. Why is that so ****ing hard to understand for wingers? When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%.

Feel free to carry on with your guys' echo chamber now.

Beat me to it. How the right suckers these guys into the populism for the billionaires propaganda is beyond me.

KC native
05-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Welcome back from the football forum!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

SBK
05-20-2009, 02:29 PM
I now have 2 socialist retards on my iggy list.

Donger
05-20-2009, 02:34 PM
:rolleyes: The rich pay more in income taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE. Why is that so ****ing hard to understand for wingers? When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%.

Feel free to carry on with your guys' echo chamber now.

2004-2005 Effective Tax Rates:

All Federal Taxes

Highest Quintile = 25.2%
Middle Quintile = 14.1%
Lowest Quintile = 4.3%

KC native
05-20-2009, 02:35 PM
2004-2005 Effective Tax Rates:

All Federal Taxes

Highest Quintile = 25.2%
Middle Quintile = 14.1%
Lowest Quintile = 4.3%

Source?

Donger
05-20-2009, 02:37 PM
Source?

CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

Hydrae
05-20-2009, 02:41 PM
So if higher earnings are taxed at a higher rate and companies do matching with regards to taxes, then the higher paid employee costs the company more money.

1 person earns $1,000,000 a year and is taxed at 40%, the company match is $400,000.
10 persons earning $100,000 a year and taxed at 25%, the company match is $250,000.

Yes, this is simplistic but the basic numbers should work out the same. So even discounting the fact that a company has to pay more base pay for their employees to have the same amount of take home pay in a high tax state, there are direct costs that should be easily accounted.

banyon
05-20-2009, 02:47 PM
I now have 2 socialist retards on my iggy list.

Seems like we've had civil discussions in the past. No idea why you're so quick tempered today, nor what has been done to so offend you.

KC native
05-20-2009, 02:47 PM
CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

So, I was wrong on the exact numbers. It still doesn't invalidate the fact that our tax structure is flatter than some here acknowledge.

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 02:49 PM
It should be a flat tax of 5 percent and no more ever.

Hydrae
05-20-2009, 02:51 PM
It should be a flat tax of 5 percent and no more ever.

And if the feds can not run things with that then they need to trim costs, not look for other ways to create taxes and continue to bleed us dry.

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 02:52 PM
It should be a flat tax of 5 percent and no more ever.

No it shouldn't.








:p

Donger
05-20-2009, 02:52 PM
So, I was wrong on the exact numbers. It still doesn't invalidate the fact that our tax structure is flatter than some here acknowledge.

You just wrote: "When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit."

You think that 4.3% compared to 25.2% is even close to being flat?

KC native
05-20-2009, 02:57 PM
You just wrote: "When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit."

You think that 4.3% compared to 25.2% is even close to being flat?

...Can you be intellectually honest for a change and look at the middle three quintiles(where the majority of people will reside) as opposed to the outliers?

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 02:57 PM
No it shouldn't.








:p

LOL

Garcia Bronco
05-20-2009, 02:58 PM
And if the feds can not run things with that then they need to trim costs, not look for other ways to create taxes and continue to bleed us dry.

Exactly. Rep

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:00 PM
...Can you be intellectually honest for a change and look at the middle three quintiles(where the majority of people will reside) as opposed to the outliers?

Intellectually honest? You JUST wrote: "When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit."

Rich and poor. Is that not the lowest and highest quintile?

You could at the very least thank me for educating you as to the facts, instead of your erroneous class warfare propaganda.

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:03 PM
Anyway, just for fun, let's look at the three middle quintiles:

Second quintile = 9.9%
Middle quintile = 14.1%
Fourth quintile = 17.3%

Or, in other words, the fourth have an effective tax rate almost double that of the second. That's "flat" for you?

BigRedChief
05-20-2009, 03:07 PM
I like IKE! Bring back IKE! 90% tax on the rich sounds good to me.:rolleyes:

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:08 PM
Intellectually honest? You JUST wrote: "When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit."

Rich and poor. Is that not the lowest and highest quintile?

You could at the very least thank me for educating you as to the facts, instead of your erroneous class warfare propaganda.

I can tell you do nothing related to numbers for a living. The worst comparisons come from using the outliers which in this case is the top quintile and the bottom quintile. If you had a background in math and statistics then you would know better than to take the extreme examples to make an argument.

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:10 PM
Anyway, just for fun, let's look at the three middle quintiles:

Second quintile = 9.9%
Middle quintile = 14.1%
Fourth quintile = 17.3%

Or, in other words, the fourth have an effective tax rate almost double that of the second. That's "flat" for you?

Is that not flatter than the "Hey they pay no income tax and they pay X amount of income tax" proponents argue?

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:10 PM
I can tell you do nothing related to numbers for a living. The worst comparisons come from using the outliers which in this case is the top quintile and the bottom quintile. If you had a background in math and statistics then you would know better than to take the extreme examples to make an argument.

I see. This coming from a guy who just acknowledged that he got his numbers wrong?

Perhaps you could define what you meant by "poor" and "rich"?

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:12 PM
Is that not flatter than the "Hey they pay no income tax and they pay X amount of income tax" proponents argue?

Well, you can see for yourself what each quintile pays in income tax on that PDF. Would you like me to report them here, or would you like the honor?

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:13 PM
I see. This coming from a guy who just acknowledged that he got his numbers wrong?

Perhaps you could define what you meant by "poor" and "rich"?

See the above post and tell me if it's not flatter than the people who only point to income tax suggest.

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:14 PM
Well, you can see for yourself what each quintile pays in income tax on that PDF. Would you like me to report them here, or would you like the honor?

Did I not say ALL TAXES earlier? Quit trying to twist my words. I've never said we have a flat tax system but the reality of the matter is that it is much flatter than many here suggest.

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:16 PM
Alrighty then:

Effective Tax Rate, Individual Income Tax (Percent)

Second quintile = -0.9%
Middle quintile = 3.0%
Fourth quintile = 5.9%

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:17 PM
Did I not say ALL TAXES earlier? Quit trying to twist my words. I've never said we have a flat tax system but the reality of the matter is that it is much flatter than many here suggest.

Yes, you did. And I provided you with the correct number for effective tax rates based on all taxes.

We've now moved on to your second defensive position, which is income taxation rates. See above.

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:18 PM
Yes, you did. And I provided you with the correct number for effective tax rates based on all taxes.

We've now moved on to your second defensive position, which is income taxation rates. See above.

Um, please show me where I said that income taxation was flat.

Can you not admit that I'm right?

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Um, please show me where I said that income taxation was flat.

Can you not admit that I'm right?

Post #25

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:25 PM
Post #25

I guess I have to give you an English lesson huh? There is a big difference between tax system being flattER than someone else says and being flat.

Go back and read the post again.

RNR
05-20-2009, 03:33 PM
:rolleyes: The rich pay more in income taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE. Why is that so ****ing hard to understand for wingers? When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%.

Feel free to carry on with your guys' echo chamber now.

And you are not a winger as in left winger?

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:34 PM
I guess I have to give you an English lesson huh? There is a big difference between tax system being flattER than someone else says and being flat.

Go back and read the post again.

I've educated you as to what the actual numbers are, both total effective tax rates and individual income tax. Are you surprised to learn what they really are? In other words, are they a lot less flat than you thought?

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:39 PM
I've educated you as to what the actual numbers are, both total effective tax rates and individual income tax. Are you surprised to learn what they really are? In other words, are they a lot less flat than you thought?

I said that they were flatter than the OP and subsequent posts said they were. I will take this as your concession that I'm right seeing as how you're trying to go off on a different tangent now.

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:46 PM
I said that they were flatter than the OP and subsequent posts said they were. I will take this as your concession that I'm right seeing as how you're trying to go off on a different tangent now.

You've already acknowledged that you were wrong with regard to the class warfare numbers you had floating around in your head (15 to 21%).

Now, you know that in reality, the effective total tax rate for the "poor" (the lowest quintile) is 4.6% and the effective total tax rate for the "rich" (the highest quintile) is 25.2%

Not even close to what you thought, was it?

Therefore, I don't see how you can posit now that it is flatter at all. In fact, it proves that the rich do indeed pay a vastly higher total effective tax rate than the poor.

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:49 PM
You've already acknowledged that you were wrong with regard to the class warfare numbers you had floating around in your head (15 to 21%).

Now, you know that in reality, the effective total tax rate for the "poor" (the lowest quintile) is 4.6% and the effective total tax rate for the "rich" (the highest quintile) is 25.2%

Not even close to what you thought, was it?

Therefore, I don't see how you can posit now that it is flatter at all. In fact, it proves that the rich do indeed pay a vastly higher total effective tax rate than the poor.

Ok, I'm going to make this really simple for you.

0-35% (highest marginal tax rate) is steeper than 4.6% to 25.2%.

Is that clear enough for you or do you need to attend some remedial algebra classes to review the slope equation for a line?

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:52 PM
Ok, I'm going to make this really simple for you.

0-35% (highest marginal tax rate) is steeper than 4.6% to 25.2%.

Is that clear enough for you or do you need to attend some remedial algebra classes to review the slope equation for a line?

Answer the question: are you surprised or not at what the actual rates are?

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:53 PM
Answer the question: are you surprised or not at what the actual rates are?

Quit trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong. Which is flatter 0 to 35% or 4 to 25%?

Donger
05-20-2009, 03:55 PM
Quit trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong. Which is flatter 0 to 35% or 4 to 25%?

ROFL

Me distract? Good lord, that is hilarity.

RNR
05-20-2009, 03:58 PM
Answer the question: are you surprised or not at what the actual rates are?

Donger you should set realistic goals, like throwing pennies in the Grand Cannon and filling it up. You will attain that goal long before you get this KC Naive to grasp a realistic view point.

KC native
05-20-2009, 03:59 PM
Donger you should set realistic goals, like throwing pennies in the Grand Cannon and filling it up. You will attain that goal long before you get this KC Naive to grasp a realistic view point.

So maybe you'll answer the question. Which is flatter 0-35% or 4-25%?

MagicHef
05-20-2009, 03:59 PM
...Can you be intellectually honest for a change and look at the middle three quintiles(where the majority of people will reside) as opposed to the outliers?

I'm not sure 40% of the population really qualifies as "outliers."

SBK
05-20-2009, 04:02 PM
Seems like we've had civil discussions in the past. No idea why you're so quick tempered today, nor what has been done to so offend you.

I'm not equating socialists with retards, I'm calling KC Native and Boyceofsummer retards. They just also happen to be socialists.

Posting some rap video about shining your dick or whatever as your standard response, you clearly bring nothing to the table.

I got no problem with you. ;)

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:02 PM
I'm not sure 40% of the population really qualifies as "outliers."

In a strict sense no but when you're working with quintiles you go with what you have. To be more illustrative the data should be broken into deciles so you can really see the dispersion.

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:04 PM
So maybe you'll answer the question. Which is flatter 0-35% or 4-25%?

Gee let me grab my calculator :rolleyes: I have heard the term "useful idiots", you require the removal of the word "useful"

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:05 PM
I'm not equating socialists with retards, I'm calling KC Native and Boyceofsummer retards. They just also happen to be socialists.

Posting some rap video about shining your dick or whatever as your standard response, you clearly bring nothing to the table.

I got no problem with you. ;)

I post that video because you don't contribute dick to the discussion. You're more concerned with me as an individual as opposed to my arguments. When you argue like an adult and leave the ad hominems at the door then you won't get that response until then

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Edit: also the video the hook of the song says Get off my dick, not shine. I don't want your hands anywhere near my junk.

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:06 PM
Gee let me grab my calculator :rolleyes: I have heard the term "useful idiots", you require the removal of the word "useful"

So which one is flatter? You want to add something to the discussion or just be part of the echo chamber?

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:11 PM
So which one is flatter? You want to add something to the discussion or just be part of the echo chamber?

Sorry dipship I would rather throw pennies in the Grand Cannon. banyon and like minded posters I will debate with you on the other hand no thanks.

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:11 PM
So maybe you'll answer the question. Which is flatter 0-35% or 4-25%?

I'll answer it, even though you won't answer mine: the latter is flatter.

What's your point?

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:12 PM
Sorry dipship I would rather throw pennies in the Grand Cannon. banyon and like minded posters I will debate with you on the other hand no thanks.

?

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:12 PM
Sorry dipship I would rather throw pennies in the Grand Cannon. banyon and like minded posters I will debate with you on the other hand no thanks.

I hope that banyon comes back to this thread, too. I suspect that he'll have the courage to acknowledge the facts.

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:13 PM
I'll answer it, even though you won't answer mine: the latter is flatter.

What's your point?

Now, we're getting somewhere. My original claim was that the tax structure was flatter than the OP and subsequent post claimed. So, if the latter is flatter my original claim is validated. Thanks for playing.

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:14 PM
Now, we're getting somewhere. My original claim was that the tax structure was flatter than the OP and subsequent post claimed. So, if the latter is flatter my original claim is validated. Thanks for playing.

Not so, grasshopper. I presume you posted the 0 and 35% to show the minimum and maximum rates, correct?

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:15 PM
?

Sorry dipship I would rather throw pennies in the Grand Cannon. banyon and like minded posters I will debate with, "you on the other hand no thanks".
Better?..........bye!

MagicHef
05-20-2009, 04:16 PM
Now, we're getting somewhere. My original claim was that the tax structure was flatter than the OP and subsequent post claimed. So, if the latter is flatter my original claim is validated. Thanks for playing.

Neither of those posts say anything about 0-35%.

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:16 PM
Neither of those posts say anything about 0-35%.

Sssshhhhhhh!

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:17 PM
LMAO

Scoreboard:
Donger-150
KCFrijole-0

I haven't seem a smackdown this bad since the US-Mexico "War".

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:18 PM
I hope that banyon comes back to this thread, too. I suspect that he'll have the courage to acknowledge the facts.

Yeah because right now you look like the guy picking on the criple kid :)

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:18 PM
Neither of those posts say anything about 0-35%.

Sssshhhhhhh!

...I love the intellectual dishonesty that goes on in here. If you read critically the assumption is built into the post because they are trying to paint a worse picture than reality by only looking at income taxes.

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:20 PM
Yeah because right now you look like the guy picking on the criple kid :)

Only to dipshits that can't grasp reality and hang onto winger talking points like they're the word of god.

MagicHef
05-20-2009, 04:20 PM
...I love the intellectual dishonesty that goes on in here. If you read critically the assumption is built into the post because they are trying to paint a worse picture than reality by only looking at income taxes.

You're the one that pulled numbers out of thin air to argue against, and you're accusing us of intellectual dishonesty?

SBK
05-20-2009, 04:22 PM
You're the one that pulled numbers out of thin air to argue against, and you're accusing us of intellectual dishonesty?

Here comes the shine my dick video. ROFL

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Only to dipshits that can't grasp reality and hang onto winger talking points like they're the word of god.

Here's a talking point for you:
So, I was wrong on the exact numbers. It still doesn't invalidate the fact that our tax structure is flatter than some here acknowledge.

Did anyone ever tell you that in a debate you aren't allowed to make up facts? Now bring on one of those clever videos for us.

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:22 PM
...I love the intellectual dishonesty that goes on in here. If you read critically the assumption is built into the post because they are trying to paint a worse picture than reality by only looking at income taxes.

There's intellectual dishonesty again. I'll offer you one last chance: are you or are you not surprised at the actual total effective tax rates of the "poor" and the "rich"?

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:23 PM
You're the one that pulled numbers out of thin air to argue against, and you're accusing us of intellectual dishonesty?

Go look up marginal income tax rates. The top rate around 35%. The fact that lower income people pay no income tax is brought up in here all the time hence the 0. I didn't pull any numbers out of thin air. It's not my fault that you lack they ability to pull in outside pieces of information without it being spoonfed to you.

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 04:23 PM
* The bottom 20 percent of income earners' share of federal income taxes fell from -1.6 percent in 2000 to -2.8 percent in 2006;
* The next 20 percent's share declined from 1.1 percent to -0.8 percent;
* The middle quintile's share dropped from 5.7 percent to 4.4 percent; and
* The fourth quintile's share decreased from 13.5 percent to 12.9 percent.

Each of these four quintiles' shares was an all-time low.

I don't have time to read this entire thread, or to engage in an extended debate. Or any debate really.

I will note that the above, in isolation, doesn't necessarily prove anything. If the top quintile is making more in relation to the bottom four quintiles than has historically been the case, then automatically, without any change in the tax code (assuming all else is equal) they would be paying hte most in history.

Stated differently, if wealth accumulation is increasingly concentrated in a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans, then they will correspondingly carrying an increasingly large share of the tax burden.

This doesn't say a damn thing about whether the tax code is or isn't fair, or whether changes in it are required.

And, in fact, the increasing concentration of wealth and income is not merely a hypothetical that I throw out there, it is a fact of life in America in 2009.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>Table 6: Distribution of income in the <NOBR>United States, 1982-2000</NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=allrules style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=4> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" rowSpan=2> </TH><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=3>Income</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1982</TD><TD class=smaller>12.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>39.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>48.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1988</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>38.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>44.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1991</TD><TD class=smaller>15.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1994</TD><TD class=smaller>14.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>44.9%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1997</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>39.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.8%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2000</TD><TD class=smaller>20.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>38.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>41.4%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=4> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the <NOBR>United States, 1983-2004</NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=allrules style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" rowSpan=2> </TH><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=3>Total Net Worth</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>33.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>47.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>18.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>37.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>37.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.2%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>38.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>38.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>33.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>34.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.3%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=4> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" rowSpan=2> </TH><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=3>Financial Wealth</TD></TR> <TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TH></TD><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>42.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>48.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>46.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>6.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>45.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>47.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.0%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>47.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>9.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>39.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>42.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.5%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:24 PM
Here's a talking point for you:


Did anyone ever tell you that in a debate you aren't allowed to make up facts?

So what did I make up Grand Wizard? I was wrong on the dispersion which I admitted however the reality of the tax situation is closer to what I said than any other argument that's been posted.

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:24 PM
Go look up marginal income tax rates. The top rate around 35%. The fact that lower income people pay no income tax is brought up in here all the time hence the 0. I didn't pull any numbers out of thin air. It's not my fault that you lack they ability to pull in outside pieces of information without it being spoonfed to you.

Errr....

"When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%"

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:25 PM
I don't have time to read this entire thread, or to engage in an extended debate. Or any debate really.

I will note that the above, in isolation, doesn't necessarily prove anything. If the top quintile is making more in relation to the bottom four quintiles than has historically been the case, then automatically, without any change in the tax code (assuming all else is equal) they would be paying hte most in history.

Stated differently, if wealth accumulation is increasingly concentrated in a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans, then they will correspondingly carrying an increasingly large share of the tax burden.

This doesn't say a damn thing about whether the tax code is or isn't fair, or whether changes in it are required.

And, in fact, the increasing concentration of wealth and income is not merely a hypothetical that I throw out there, it is a fact of life in America in 2009.


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>Table 6: Distribution of income in the <NOBR>United States, 1982-2000</NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=allrules style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=4> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" rowSpan=2> </TH><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=3>Income</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1982</TD><TD class=smaller>12.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>39.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>48.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1988</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>38.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>44.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1991</TD><TD class=smaller>15.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1994</TD><TD class=smaller>14.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>40.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>44.9%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1997</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>39.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.8%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2000</TD><TD class=smaller>20.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>38.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>41.4%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=4> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=middle>Table 1: Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the <NOBR>United States, 1983-2004</NOBR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=allrules style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3><TBODY><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" rowSpan=2> </TH><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=3>Total Net Worth</TH></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>33.8%</TD><TD class=smaller>47.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>18.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>37.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.5%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>37.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.2%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>38.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>38.1%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>16.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>33.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.0%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>34.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>15.3%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=4> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" rowSpan=2> </TH><TH class=smaller style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none" colSpan=3>Financial Wealth</TD></TR> <TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller>Top 1 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Next 19 percent</TD><TD class=smaller>Bottom 80 percent</TH></TD><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1983</TD><TD class=smaller>42.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>48.4%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1989</TD><TD class=smaller>46.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>6.6%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1992</TD><TD class=smaller>45.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>46.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1995</TD><TD class=smaller>47.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>45.9%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.0%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>1998</TD><TD class=smaller>47.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>43.6%</TD><TD class=smaller>9.1%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2001</TD><TD class=smaller>39.7%</TD><TD class=smaller>51.5%</TD><TD class=smaller>8.7%</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top align=middle><TD class=smaller align=left>2004</TD><TD class=smaller>42.2%</TD><TD class=smaller>50.3%</TD><TD class=smaller>7.5%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Good data Amno. IMO you illustrate nicely the need for a flat tax. We could replace the entire table above with one number, say a 5 or a 6. Streamline the IRS and have fairness for all.

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:26 PM
Only to dipshits that can't grasp reality and hang onto winger talking points like they're the word of god.

Last reply: look scooter I have stated several times I am not right wing or left wing. You on the other hand are a LEFT WINGER and you are calling someone else a WINGER the irony should be funny but it is not.

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:26 PM
Errr....

"When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%"

I already admitted I was wrong on the dispersion however my point is still valid.

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:27 PM
So what did I make up Grand Wizard? I was wrong on the dispersion which I admitted however the reality of the tax situation is closer to what I said than any other argument that's been posted.

ROFL I knew you people were good at digging ditches but I've never seen anyone dig themselves into this deep a hole. Do you have a video of a guy and a shovel you want to show now?

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:27 PM
Last reply: look scooter I have stated several times I am not right wing or left wing. You on the other hand are a LEFT WINGER and you are calling someone else a WINGER the irony should be funny but it is not.

Stating something doesn't make it true. When you side on the winger side in every post, I believe the phrase is walk like a duck, talk like a duck, quack like a duck....

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:28 PM
Here comes the shine my dick video. ROFL

ROFL

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 04:28 PM
Good data Amno. IMO you illustrate nicely the need for a flat tax. We could replace the entire table above with one number, say a 5 or a 6. Streamline the IRS and have fairness for all.

We differ significantly as to what the word "fair" means, I'm afraid.

I do agree, however, that the internal revenue code has become far too complex and onerous and needs to be significantly simplified. Not flattened, or even flatter, but simplified.

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:28 PM
ROFL I knew you people were good at digging ditches but I've never seen anyone dig themselves into this deep a hole. Do you have a video of a guy and a shovel you want to show now?

Damn, I give you a second chance to contribute and you fuck it up. Go back to the kiddie pool Grand Wizard

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:31 PM
We differ significantly as to what the word "fair" means, I'm afraid.

I do agree, however, that the internal revenue code has become far too complex and onerous and needs to be significantly simplified. Not flattened, or even flatter, but simplified.

The code in it's current state is a disgrace IMHO. There is no way the tax rules can be applied fairly and consistently, and no way for the taxpayer to know each and every rule that applies to him.

As to fairness, of course reasonable minds can disagree. For the life of me I can't see what is more fair than each paying the same percentage regardless of their means. Every man pulls his own weight, no more and no less.

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:31 PM
I already admitted I was wrong on the dispersion however my point is still valid.

Good boy! You get a treat!

"When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%"

Now, since you acknowledge that the 15-21% is a complete fabrication not based on any semblance of reality, and the reality is that the "poor" pay an effective total tax rate of 4.3% and the "rich" pay an an effective total tax rate of 25.2%, would you agree that your assessment above is incorrect and that the tax rate between the two groups is actually much less flat than you asserted?

PS: I already know the answer, I just want to see if you are intellectual dishonest or not.

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:32 PM
Damn, I give you a second chance to contribute and you **** it up. Go back to the kiddie pool Grand Wizard

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ROFL the day you are in a position to give me anything more than a shoeshine is a day that will never come. I commend you on your use of vulgarian videos to communicate your thoughts. What's next, spraypaint on the walls?

MagicHef
05-20-2009, 04:34 PM
Go look up marginal income tax rates. The top rate around 35%. The fact that lower income people pay no income tax is brought up in here all the time hence the 0. I didn't pull any numbers out of thin air. It's not my fault that you lack they ability to pull in outside pieces of information without it being spoonfed to you.

Cool. Perhaps you should respond to the people posting in this thread, rather than arguments made in the past in different threads. By the way, if the reality is 4-25%, 0-35% is closer to reality than your 15-21%.

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:34 PM
Stating something doesn't make it true. When you side on the winger side in every post, I believe the phrase is walk like a duck, talk like a duck, quack like a duck....

You caught me in a lie :eek: Not that I said I am middle of the road which I am, but that I would not reply to you again. I side with the side that is correct be it the left or the right. You on the other hand blow the left horn and only the left horn. BTW I guess this is the post where I will get the shine my dick reply. The fact you even know who that is or that he does that song speaks to what kind of idiot you are.

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 04:34 PM
The code in it's current state is a disgrace IMHO. There is no way the tax rules can be applied fairly and consistently, and no way for the taxpayer to know each and every rule that applies to him.

As to fairness, of course reasonable minds can disagree. For the life of me I can't see what is more fair than each paying the same percentage regardless of their means.

Their ability to carry the burden, and the societal uselessness, indeed coutnerproductiveness, of increasing concentration of wealth.


Every man pulls his own weight, no more and no less.

Some men are built like Arnold Swartzeneggar, while others are built like Danny DeVito. If they each were part of a team doing a move, would they carry the same weight?

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:35 PM
Good boy! You get a treat!

"When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%"

Now, since you acknowledge that the 15-21% is a complete fabrication not based on any semblance of reality, and the reality is that the "poor" pay an effective total tax rate of 4.3% and the "rich" pay an an effective total tax rate of 25.2%, would you agree that your assessment above is incorrect and that the tax rate between the two groups is actually much less flat than you asserted?

PS: I already know the answer, I just want to see if you are intellectual dishonest or not.

Did the middle effective rate not fall right below 15% and the 4th quintile not fall right at 17%? Beyond that 21% is not far from 25%. So the fact of the matter is I was wrong on the low end however my numbers were pretty close to reality. Nice try though.

My original point still stands despite your feeble attempt.

I'm done with this for now. Time to go home.

KC native
05-20-2009, 04:36 PM
Cool. Perhaps you should respond to the people posting in this thread, rather than arguments made in the past in different threads. By the way, if the reality is 4-25%, 0-35% is closer to reality than your 15-21%.

Ok, you the thread police now? I should limit what I write based upon whatever narrow point is brought up in the op?

Donger
05-20-2009, 04:37 PM
Did the middle effective rate not fall right below 15% and the 4th quintile not fall right at 17%? Beyond that 21% is not far from 25%. So the fact of the matter is I was wrong on the low end however my numbers were pretty close to reality. Nice try though.

My original point still stands despite your feeble attempt.

I'm done with this for now. Time to go home.

Ho

Lee

Shit

And you had the audacity to attempt to label me intellectually dishonest?

MagicHef
05-20-2009, 04:37 PM
Ok, you the thread police now? I should limit what I write based upon whatever narrow point is brought up in the op?

I'm not policing you, just giving suggestions on ways to have fruitful conversations.

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:39 PM
Some men are built like Arnold Swartzeneggar, while others are built like Danny DeVito. If they each were part of a team doing a move, would they carry the same weight?

Uh..... Devito gets fired :)

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 04:40 PM
Uh..... Devito gets fired :)

Exactly. Just as the DeVito's of the income-producing world get relieved of most or all of their need to pay taxes based on their meager income.

Thank you for making my point...

















:p :evil:

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:40 PM
Their ability to carry the burden, and the societal uselessness, indeed coutnerproductiveness, of increasing concentration of wealth.




Some men are built like Arnold Swartzeneggar, while others are built like Danny DeVito. If they each were part of a team doing a move, would they carry the same weight?

Are you advocating that the higher income individual pay a lower percentage than those in the brackets below him?

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 04:41 PM
Are you advocating that the higher income individual pay a lower percentage than those in the brackets below him?


errr....no. That would be regressive.

RNR
05-20-2009, 04:42 PM
Exactly. Just as the DeVito's of the income-producing world get relieved of most or all of their need to pay taxes based on their meager income.

Thank you for making my point...

















:p :evil:
It would be easier to.......nevermind ;)

vailpass
05-20-2009, 04:43 PM
errr....no. That would be regressive.

Yet not without merit. Political suicide though.

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 04:45 PM
Yet not without merit. Political suicide though.

Actually, completely without merit or logic, and destructive of society as a whole, in my opinion.

Basically, a stupid policy in every conceivable way. Heck, you might as well go back to feudalism, serfdom or slavery as your economic model, because i"m not sure how else you're going to control all those outraged peasants that you're trying to ensure never advance much in real economic terms.

MagicHef
05-20-2009, 04:48 PM
Ok, you the thread police now? I should limit what I write based upon whatever narrow point is brought up in the op?

Now that I think about it, this makes sense, and makes it easier to understand why you post videos like that. I think I'll take your advice.

http://www.buttercupfestival.com/57vol5.gif

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 04:56 PM
A big part of this debate, of course, revolves (whether consciously or subconsciously) around the redistribution of wealth. A progressive tax, just like social security, "welfare" (whatever it means and in most of its various incarnations), involves a degree of redistribution of wealth, whether it's overt (social security) or mostly concealed (progressive tax).

And some, of course, have a philosophical objection over ANY redistribution of wealth on the theory that it is inherently unfair because in theory at least it is not by choice. When you give to charity, that's redistribution of wealth also, but that is by choice. Taxes are ultimately not paid by free choice, are ultimately coerced, and therefore the redistribution is involuntary and, to some, highly objectionable.

I dispute none of this.

And of all the socio-economic models throughout history, Capitalism has fared the best. By far. It has, where practiced with reasonable rigor, produced and maintained the most stable and economically and politically free societies in the history of mankind.

I am an ardent capitalist.

And yet, capitalism is not without its costs. It is, in fact, the most stressful economic model this side of slavery. The more capitalistic the society, the more "creative destruction" of jobs and redistribution of capital, with little or no warning, exists. Except for a lucky few, most working citizens and their dependents will have little to no job or income security, and little to no negotiating power with the captains of industry. Tremendous segments of society will earn very little so that a few will earn an extraordinary amount. To these chosen few, chosen by some combination of luck and skill that is impossible to identify, will aggregate the vast majority of the society's wealth and power, including political power. Sufficient political power, indeed, to safeguard their own position atop the economic leaderboard.

Far better, I think, to soften the harshness that is unadulterated capitalism. For the vast majority of the population, policies that de-aggreagate (is that a word) wealth and provide a societal safety net produces a healthier, more productive, and far happier society.

Out of the free-for-all of the late 1800s and early 1900s were born unions, worker's/labor laws, environmental laws (much later), unemployment compensation methods, inheritance taxes and a progressive income tax.

I could go on and on, but regrettably, my own capitalistic instincts are kicking in, and I must return to my chosen profession. :D

HonestChieffan
05-20-2009, 05:15 PM
This just demonstrates why Obummer continues his hate the rich class war.

Amnorix
05-20-2009, 05:23 PM
This just demonstrates why Obummer continues his hate the rich class war.


Deep analysis there. Thanks for your contribution...



:p

LOCOChief
05-20-2009, 07:23 PM
:rolleyes: The rich pay more in income taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE. Why is that so ****ing hard to understand for wingers? When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%.

Feel free to carry on with your guys' echo chamber now.


Flatter? Here's and idea, get off the wagon and pull your own weight.

87359

Saul Good
05-20-2009, 07:46 PM
I already admitted I was wrong on the dispersion however my point is still valid.

I believe the term you are searching for is "fake but accurate."

KC native
05-20-2009, 08:04 PM
I believe the term you are searching for is "fake but accurate."

I'd rather be approximately right than precisely wrong.

Guru
05-20-2009, 11:39 PM
I'll answer it, even though you won't answer mine: the latter is flatter.

What's your point?Nice!!!!LMAO

Donger
05-21-2009, 09:08 AM
I'd rather be approximately right than precisely wrong.

I'm sure you would. Too bad it's the latter.

Radar Chief
05-21-2009, 09:16 AM
Now that I think about it, this makes sense, and makes it easier to understand why you post videos like that. I think I'll take your advice.

http://www.buttercupfestival.com/57vol5.gif

:LOL: :thumb:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-wYmq2Vz5yM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-wYmq2Vz5yM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KC native
05-21-2009, 09:50 AM
I'm sure you would. Too bad it's the latter.

:shake: Too bad you don't understand math and how to analyze numbers because you would realize that you're wrong but after that Biden thread I should have known you're like BEP in that you will never admit you're wrong.

Donger
05-21-2009, 10:03 AM
:shake: Too bad you don't understand math and how to analyze numbers because you would realize that you're wrong but after that Biden thread I should have known you're like BEP in that you will never admit you're wrong.

Perhaps you could define "poor" and "rich" for us?

KC native
05-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Perhaps you could define "poor" and "rich" for us?

Irrelevant. Nice try though.

Donger
05-21-2009, 10:23 AM
Irrelevant. Nice try though.

Your own words are irrelevant?

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 10:26 AM
Your own words are irrelevant?

I think that has already been shown quite thoroughly.

KC native
05-21-2009, 10:27 AM
Your own words are irrelevant?

Sorry if my use of generic terms confused your simple mind but generally when you look tax data those at the higher end are referred to as rich and those at the lower end are poor. An arbitrary definition from you or me does nothing to change my point.

Saggysack
05-21-2009, 10:31 AM
I'd have to see what is the income and wealth distribution of the top 20%, compared to the bottom 80% is to make a determination. All other figures are meaningless.

Last #'s I saw were that the top 20% acquired over 80% of income distribution. But that was a from a few years ago. The numbers sound about right IMO. I doubt they have moved much either way.

Donger
05-21-2009, 10:31 AM
Sorry if my use of generic terms confused your simple mind but generally when you look tax data those at the higher end are referred to as rich and those at the lower end are poor. An arbitrary definition from you or me does nothing to change my point.

Could you acquaint each with a specific quintile?

KC native
05-21-2009, 10:39 AM
Could you acquaint each with a specific quintile?

No, I'll let your simple mind have that task.

Donger
05-21-2009, 10:40 AM
No, I'll let your simple mind have that task.

You are an amazing coward. What a shame.

KC native
05-21-2009, 10:44 AM
You are an amazing coward. What a shame.


This has nothing to do with bravery. I refuse to play your game because my point is still valid. I'm not going to play along so you can find another way to twist my words into something they're not.

Donger
05-21-2009, 10:50 AM
This has nothing to do with bravery. I refuse to play your game because my point is still valid. I'm not going to play along so you can find another way to twist my words into something they're not.

I'm just trying to understand what you meant, in your own words, in relation to the data I provided.

vailpass
05-21-2009, 10:50 AM
Somebody call a cop. Donger is beating KC Frijole so badly the poor sap can't even tap out. When confronted with a direct question or point of logic Frijole repeatedly responds "I don't have to answer that" or he posts a video clip in an effort to veil his inaccuracies and ignorance.
Thanks for the laughs, this thread is comedy gold.

KC native
05-21-2009, 10:54 AM
I'm just trying to understand what you meant, in your own words, in relation to the data I provided.

No, you are trying to twist my words in a lame attempt to invalidate my point which isn't working. You still haven't shown that my point of the tax system being flatter than the OP and subsequent post implied. What you have done is shown that you want to engage in word games to try and distract from the fact that I was right and you were wrong. First it was my overstatement of the lower brackets and now you're hung up on an arbitrary definition of rich and poor which isn't related to my point.

KC native
05-21-2009, 10:55 AM
Somebody call a cop. Donger is beating KC Frijole so badly the poor sap can't even tap out. When confronted with a direct question or point of logic Frijole repeatedly responds "I don't have to answer that" or he posts a video clip in an effort to veil his inaccuracies and ignorance.
Thanks for the laughs, this thread is comedy gold.

So, you still want to claim you're not racist?

vailpass
05-21-2009, 11:00 AM
So, you still want to claim you're not racist?

Nice try. If I was getting beat down as badly as you are I'd try to change the subject too. Although I would never falsely play the race card.

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 11:00 AM
No, you are trying to twist my words in a lame attempt to invalidate my point which isn't working. You still haven't shown that my point of the tax system being flatter than the OP and subsequent post implied. What you have done is shown that you want to engage in word games to try and distract from the fact that I was right and you were wrong. First it was my overstatement of the lower brackets and now you're hung up on an arbitrary definition of rich and poor which isn't related to my point.

Exactly how slanted do those two posts imply the tax system to be?

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:01 AM
No, you are trying to twist my words in a lame attempt to invalidate my point which isn't working. You still haven't shown that my point of the tax system being flatter than the OP and subsequent post implied. What you have done is shown that you want to engage in word games to try and distract from the fact that I was right and you were wrong. First it was my overstatement of the lower brackets and now you're hung up on an arbitrary definition of rich and poor which isn't related to my point.

It has worked. The numbers are there for everyone to see. YOU decided to throw out the fictitious 15-21% number between "poor" and "rich" as a example of how the effective tax rate is flatter than we class warfare types state. I then presented you with the fact that the "poor" pay 4.6% and the "rich" pay 25.2%

In other words, the "rich" pay a vastly higher tax rate than the "poor."

I don't care about the OP. In fact, I haven't even read it. All this started with YOUR words and your false numbers.

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:12 AM
It has worked. The numbers are there for everyone to see. YOU decided to throw out the fictitious 15-21% number between "poor" and "rich" as a example of how the effective tax rate is flatter than we class warfare types state. I then presented you with the fact that the "poor" pay 4.6% and the "rich" pay 25.2%

In other words, the "rich" pay a vastly higher tax rate than the "poor."

I don't care about the OP. In fact, I haven't even read it. All this started with YOUR words and your false numbers.

Ah so you are caught up on magnitude and semantic descriptions. Glad to know that you still haven't invalidated my point that 4-25% is flatter than 0-35%. Keep trying there buddy.

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:13 AM
Nice try. If I was getting beat down as badly as you are I'd try to change the subject too. Although I would never falsely play the race card.

It's not false when you continue to exhibit racist behaviors. Also, my original point still stands so I wouldn't classify this as a beatdown. It's donger's word games backed up by the echo chamber.

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:15 AM
Exactly how slanted do those two posts imply the tax system to be?

Again, you lack the ability to bring in outside experiences. If you only look at income tax 0-35% as many people don't pay income tax. So, that would imply a very slanted tax system which isn't reality.

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 11:16 AM
Again, you lack the ability to bring in outside experiences. If you only look at income tax 0-35% as many people don't pay income tax. So, that would imply a very slanted tax system which isn't reality.

Again, you refer to those two posts when you are really talking about something completely different.

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:18 AM
Again, you refer to those two posts when you are really talking about something completely different.

No, if you pay attention to the taxation arguments that get thrown around here then it's a continuation of other threads.

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:22 AM
Again, you lack the ability to bring in outside experiences. If you only look at income tax 0-35% as many people don't pay income tax. So, that would imply a very slanted tax system which isn't reality.

We already went over that. But, again, let's deal with what people ACTUALLY pay, versus what the min and max are, shall we? You know, reality?

So, do you or do you not acknowledge that the "poor" pay a total effective tax rate of 4.6%?

vailpass
05-21-2009, 11:24 AM
It's not false when you continue to exhibit racist behaviors. Also, my original point still stands so I wouldn't classify this as a beatdown. It's donger's word games backed up by the echo chamber.

Not even smart enough to know when you are beaten? Not man enough to admit you were wrong? Why don't you crawl back to DC Underground?

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 11:24 AM
No, if you pay attention to the taxation arguments that get thrown around here then it's a continuation of other threads.

It's fine (weird, but fine) if you want to argue against things that people have said in other threads rather than what people are saying in this thread, but if you are going to, stop saying you are arguing against what was said in the first two posts.

Now, we're getting somewhere. My original claim was that the tax structure was flatter than the OP and subsequent post claimed. So, if the latter is flatter my original claim is validated. Thanks for playing.

No, you are trying to twist my words in a lame attempt to invalidate my point which isn't working. You still haven't shown that my point of the tax system being flatter than the OP and subsequent post implied. What you have done is shown that you want to engage in word games to try and distract from the fact that I was right and you were wrong. First it was my overstatement of the lower brackets and now you're hung up on an arbitrary definition of rich and poor which isn't related to my point.

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:24 AM
We already went over that. But, again, let's deal with what people ACTUALLY pay, versus what the min and max are, shall we? You know, reality?

So, do you or do you not acknowledge that the "poor" pay a total effective tax rate of 4.6%?

So, tell me how that's relevant to my original point. If you can't post a good justification as to how that's relevant to my original point I'm done with this thread and you can continue your little circle jerk with the echo chamber.

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 11:27 AM
So, tell me how that's relevant to my original point. If you can't post a good justification as to how that's relevant to my original point I'm done with this thread and you can continue your little circle jerk with the echo chamber.

I think you're right. I doubt that anyone will be able to post anything that shows that your original point has anything to do with reality.

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:27 AM
So, tell me how that's relevant to my original point. If you can't post a good justification as to how that's relevant to my original point I'm done with this thread and you can continue your little circle jerk with the echo chamber.

Sure, your words:

"When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%."

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:27 AM
Not even smart enough to know when you are beaten? Not man enough to admit you were wrong? Why don't you crawl back to DC Underground?

hey
http://carbolicsmoke.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/grand.jpg

Adults are talking so

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuYrhZxHGPs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

KC native
05-21-2009, 11:28 AM
Sure, your words:

"When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%."

Have fun with your circle jerk. We already covered this.

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:30 AM
Have fun with your circle jerk. We already covered this.

I'm just trying to ascertain how you define "poor" in relation to the data I provided. You made the claim. Back it up with facts or retract it.

vailpass
05-21-2009, 11:31 AM
[QUOTE=KC native;5783099]hey

Adults are talking so

QUOTE]



You aren't an adult. You have to be tall enough to ride the big rides at Disney to be an adult. I'm guessing you go about 5 foot nothing and a buck-0-five. You could illegally cross the border by hiding in the glove compartment.

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:35 AM
Still no banyon? Darn.

King_Chief_Fan
05-21-2009, 11:36 AM
Again, you lack the ability to bring in outside experiences. If you only look at income tax 0-35% as many people don't pay income tax. So, that would imply a very slanted tax system which isn't reality.

How is it not slanted?

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 11:37 AM
How is it not slanted?

It's not as slanted as numbers that he apparently got from some other undefined conversation, that's how.

vailpass
05-21-2009, 11:38 AM
It's not as slanted as numbers that he apparently got from some other undefined conversation, that's how.

ROFL Watch out MH you might get a youtube video posted at you.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 11:48 AM
A big part of this debate, of course, revolves (whether consciously or subconsciously) around the redistribution of wealth. A progressive tax, just like social security, "welfare" (whatever it means and in most of its various incarnations), involves a degree of redistribution of wealth, whether it's overt (social security) or mostly concealed (progressive tax).

And some, of course, have a philosophical objection over ANY redistribution of wealth on the theory that it is inherently unfair because in theory at least it is not by choice. When you give to charity, that's redistribution of wealth also, but that is by choice. Taxes are ultimately not paid by free choice, are ultimately coerced, and therefore the redistribution is involuntary and, to some, highly objectionable.

I dispute none of this.

And of all the socio-economic models throughout history, Capitalism has fared the best. By far. It has, where practiced with reasonable rigor, produced and maintained the most stable and economically and politically free societies in the history of mankind.

I am an ardent capitalist.

And yet, capitalism is not without its costs. It is, in fact, the most stressful economic model this side of slavery. The more capitalistic the society, the more "creative destruction" of jobs and redistribution of capital, with little or no warning, exists. Except for a lucky few, most working citizens and their dependents will have little to no job or income security, and little to no negotiating power with the captains of industry. Tremendous segments of society will earn very little so that a few will earn an extraordinary amount. To these chosen few, chosen by some combination of luck and skill that is impossible to identify, will aggregate the vast majority of the society's wealth and power, including political power. Sufficient political power, indeed, to safeguard their own position atop the economic leaderboard.

Far better, I think, to soften the harshness that is unadulterated capitalism. For the vast majority of the population, policies that de-aggreagate (is that a word) wealth and provide a societal safety net produces a healthier, more productive, and far happier society.

Out of the free-for-all of the late 1800s and early 1900s were born unions, worker's/labor laws, environmental laws (much later), unemployment compensation methods, inheritance taxes and a progressive income tax.

I could go on and on, but regrettably, my own capitalistic instincts are kicking in, and I must return to my chosen profession. :D



I see nobody knows quite what to say to all this. Too many words in one post, no doubt.


:D :p

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 11:51 AM
Hey Donger and Vail and the rest of the flat tax crowd.

Do you dispute the simple statement that, all else being equal, if our economy is, for whatever reason, concentrating greater and greater percentage of total income into the top quintile of earners, then the percentage of the federal tax burden that they carry will automatically go up as well.

And that this is actually a GOOD THING from their point of view (i.e. they are making more money).

And that, in fact, unless you have a regressive scheme, this is the same effect you will get whether you have a flat or a progressive tax system?

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 11:52 AM
I see nobody knows quite what to say to all this. Too many words in one post, no doubt.


:D :p

I can dig it.

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:53 AM
Hey Donger and Vail and the rest of the flat tax crowd.

Do you dispute the simple statement that, all else being equal, if our economy is, for whatever reason, concentrating greater and greater percentage of total income into the top quintile of earners, then the percentage of the federal tax burden that they carry will automatically go up as well.

And that this is actually a GOOD THING from their point of view (i.e. they are making more money).

And that, in fact, unless you have a regressive scheme, this is the same effect you will get whether you have a flat or a progressive tax system?

I don't understand the question. I can't. According to KC Native, thje tax structure is already a lot flatter than we class warfare types say it is.

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:54 AM
Amno, are you surprised at the difference between the total effective tax rate between the lowest and highest quintiles? Is the difference greater than you thought it was?

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 11:56 AM
I don't understand the question. I can't. According to KC Native, thje tax structure is already a lot flatter than we class warfare types say it is.

Nice dodge. :p

vailpass
05-21-2009, 11:58 AM
I see nobody knows quite what to say to all this. Too many words in one post, no doubt.


:D :p

Sorry Amno I read it and didn't respond. Very well thought out post. you and I fundamentally disagree when it comes to forced wealth redistribution.

Donger
05-21-2009, 11:58 AM
Nice dodge. :p

:)

We all know you're a pinko, but thanks for the re-affirmation!

vailpass
05-21-2009, 11:59 AM
Hey Donger and Vail and the rest of the flat tax crowd.

Do you dispute the simple statement that, all else being equal, if our economy is, for whatever reason, concentrating greater and greater percentage of total income into the top quintile of earners, then the percentage of the federal tax burden that they carry will automatically go up as well.

And that this is actually a GOOD THING from their point of view (i.e. they are making more money).

And that, in fact, unless you have a regressive scheme, this is the same effect you will get whether you have a flat or a progressive tax system?

I can't get past the belief that it is inherently wrong to punish success.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 12:02 PM
Amno, are you surprised at the difference between the total effective tax rate between the lowest and highest quintiles? Is the difference greater than you thought it was?

Surprised? Now that I think about it, yes a bit. I probably would have guessed that the bottom quintile had a negative effective tax rate, though I detest that our tax code includes that. I'd rather keep income tax to payments and have welfare programs be welfare, rather than baking in "refunds" even when no tax is paid, but that's a minor point.

I doubt I would have guessed that the second quintile also has a negative tax rate.

And I doubt I would have guessed that 80+% of the tax burden falls on the top 20% of earners, though if I had known they make 55% of all the money, then I probably would have come close.

So am I a bit surprised. Yes. Disappointed or thinking it needs to change? No, not really, though I've done no extensive study of the matter.

Even on a flat tax system then the top quintile would pay 55% of the total income taxes paid, right? If they make 55% of the money. Perhaps a bit more if you have some deductions for a few things.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 12:04 PM
I can't get past the belief that it is inherently wrong to punish success.

It's Taxes = punishment that's wrong.

They may be an evil, but they are a NECESSARY evil. We can all argue for smaller, more efficient government, but there must be SOME government, and someone must pay for it. So there must be taxes in soem form or another. And the question becomes how to divide up the responsibility for paying for it.

And the rich still come out far better off than the poor. FAR better off.

Donger
05-21-2009, 12:10 PM
Surprised? Now that I think about it, yes a bit. I probably would have guessed that the bottom quintile had a negative effective tax rate, though I detest that our tax code includes that. I'd rather keep income tax to payments and have welfare programs be welfare, rather than baking in "refunds" even when no tax is paid, but that's a minor point.

I doubt I would have guessed that the second quintile also has a negative tax rate.

And I doubt I would have guessed that 80+% of the tax burden falls on the top 20% of earners, though if I had known they make 55% of all the money, then I probably would have come close.

So am I a bit surprised. Yes. Disappointed or thinking it needs to change? No, not really, though I've done no extensive study of the matter.

Even on a flat tax system then the top quintile would pay 55% of the total income taxes paid, right? If they make 55% of the money. Perhaps a bit more if you have some deductions for a few things.

Thank you for your feedback.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 12:11 PM
I can't get past the belief that it is inherently wrong to punish success.


Just to make 100% sure, and I suspect you know this already, but you know that (putting various deductions aside) that under the progressive tax system the same net dollar of income is taxed at the same rate for everyone, right?

Stated better -- everyone pays A percent on the first X dollars of income. Then they pay B percent on income between X and Y. Then they pay C percent on income between Y and Z.

As you make more, you pay more as you march up the tiers of the income tax brackets.

So Bob and Joe both pay, say, 10% of the first 25,000 of income. But that's all Bob makes so he stops there. Joe is lucky enough to make $100K/year, so he pays 15% on the next whatever, then 25% on the next whatever, and then pays 25% on income from, say, 90,000 to 100,000.

(note, I'm not bothering ot look up what the brackets actually ARE, this is just made up numbers expressing the methodology).

Stated differently, Joe does NOT pay 25% on EVERY dollar of income he makes. He paid the same 10% on those first $25,000 that Bob paid.

Donger
05-21-2009, 12:13 PM
Just to make 100% sure, and I suspect you know this already, but you know that (putting various deductions aside) that under the progressive tax system the same net dollar of income is taxed at the same rate for everyone, right?

Stated better -- everyone pays A percent on the first X dollars of income. Then they pay B percent on income between X and Y. Then they pay C percent on income between Y and Z.

As you make more, you pay more as you march up the tiers of the income tax brackets.

So Bob and Joe both pay, say, 10% of the first 25,000 of income. But that's all Bob makes so he stops there. Joe is lucky enough to make $100K/year, so he pays 15% on the next whatever, then 25% on the next whatever, and then pays 25% on income from, say, 90,000 to 100,000.

(note, I'm not bothering ot look up what the brackets actually ARE, this is just made up numbers expressing the methodology).

Stated differently, Joe does NOT pay 25% on EVERY dollar of income he makes. He paid the same 10% on those first $25,000 that Bob paid.

Sounds like a great definition of punishing success.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 12:16 PM
Sounds like a great definition of punishing success.



punˇish<SCRIPT>play_w2("P0661600")</SCRIPT><OBJECT style="MARGIN: 1px" codeBase=http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0 height=21 width=13 classid=clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000>
























</p>&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
<embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" FlashVars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/P0661600.mp3" menu="false" width="13" height="21" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></OBJECT>(phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifsh)
v. punˇished, punˇishˇing, punˇishˇes
v.tr. 1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
3. To handle roughly; hurt:


There is no offense, sin or fault.

There is no penalty

Nobody is hurt. The higher income earner still has every incentive to earn the extra income, and profits vastly from his additional income (keeping, under the federal code, no less than 65 cents for every additional dollar of income at the top rate).

Stated differently, you're not going to turn down a raise... Not even close.

Donger
05-21-2009, 12:24 PM
v. punˇished, punˇishˇing, punˇishˇes
v.tr. 1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
3. To handle roughly; hurt:


There is no offense, sin or fault.

There is no penalty

Nobody is hurt. The higher income earner still has every incentive to earn the extra income, and profits vastly from his additional income (keeping, under the federal code, no less than 65 cents for every additional dollar of income at the top rate).

Stated differently, you're not going to turn down a raise... Not even close.

You're right. There is no offense in making more than others, but some certainly view it as so.

I actually don't have an issue with the wealthy being taxed at a higher rate. I DO have an issue with people who claim that the rich don't pay enough, or people like KC native who willingly claim (erroneously) that they pay even close to what the lower income earners earn.

Clearly, they do not. "They need to pay their fair share!" Right, they already do.

Amnorix
05-21-2009, 12:27 PM
You're right. There is no offense in making more than others, but some certainly view it as so.

I actually don't have an issue with the wealthy being taxed at a higher rate. I DO have an issue with people who claim that the rich don't pay enough, or people like KC native who willingly claim (erroneously) that they pay even close to what the lower income earners earn.

Clearly, they do not. "They need to pay their fair share!" Right, they already do.

They do, with the notation that our federal budget is GROSSLY out of whack, and that systemic changes may be needed, especially on the spending side but perhaps somewhat on the income side, to close that gap.

I, for example, wouldn't object to a higher bracket on a much larger income figure. Say 50% on $5MM+ or something. There are several problems iwth such an approach, of course, and someone would need to make sure it would even earn enough additional money to be worth the trobule, but we need to figure something out. I would want a sunset provision for it as well.

And then somehow we've got to get a framework in place so that politicians don't run up our tab like drunken sailors again.

Donger
05-21-2009, 12:30 PM
They do, with the notation that our federal budget is GROSSLY out of whack, and that systemic changes may be needed, especially on the spending side but perhaps somewhat on the income side, to close that gap.

I, for example, wouldn't object to a higher bracket on a much larger income figure. Say 50% on $5MM+ or something. There are several problems iwth such an approach, of course, and someone would need to make sure it would even earn enough additional money to be worth the trobule, but we need to figure something out. I would want a sunset provision for it as well.

And then somehow we've got to get a framework in place so that politicians don't run up our tab like drunken sailors again.

I don't think you and I are in disagreement when it comes to fiscal responsibility, government or personal.

Chief Henry
05-21-2009, 12:33 PM
This week the taxpayers in Califoria just said NO to HIGHER taxs... What should we learn from that vote ?

Stewie
05-21-2009, 01:01 PM
It's not rich/poor, it's the Federal Government's ridiculous assumptions. An April budget (tons of taxpayer money coming in) that is way under budget? It's sad. Very, very, sad.

macdawg
05-21-2009, 01:02 PM
kc native = owned

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 01:05 PM
punˇish<SCRIPT>play_w2("P0661600")</SCRIPT><OBJECT style="MARGIN: 1px" codeBase=http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0 height=21 width=13 classid=clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000>
























</p>&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
&nbsp
<embed src="http://img.tfd.com/m/sound.swf" FlashVars="sound_src=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/P0661600.mp3" menu="false" width="13" height="21" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></OBJECT>(phttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifsh)
v. punˇished, punˇishˇing, punˇishˇes
v.tr. 1. To subject to a penalty for an offense, sin, or fault.
2. To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
3. To handle roughly; hurt:


There is no offense, sin or fault.

There is no penalty

Nobody is hurt. The higher income earner still has every incentive to earn the extra income, and profits vastly from his additional income (keeping, under the federal code, no less than 65 cents for every additional dollar of income at the top rate).

Stated differently, you're not going to turn down a raise... Not even close.

How is being forced to pay more not a penalty? That's what the penalty is for a lot of different things, like parking illegally, or not paying your bills on time.

Stewie
05-21-2009, 01:06 PM
This week the taxpayers in Califoria just said NO to HIGHER taxs... What should we learn from that vote ?

Everyone wants free stuff sitting on their asses. "WE'RE CALIFORNIA!!! WE'RE THE 8TH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD! BRING US OUR SHIT, BITCHES!"

Velvet_Jones
05-21-2009, 01:16 PM
...Can you be intellectually honest for a change and look at the middle three quintiles(where the majority of people will reside) as opposed to the outliers?

KC Native said intellectually honest!!! hehehehehe-lol. Give it a break knucklehead.

Velvet_Jones
05-21-2009, 01:17 PM
I like IKE! Bring back IKE! 90% tax on the rich sounds good to me.:rolleyes:

Glad to know you don't have aspirations of being rich. Well, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Velvet_Jones
05-21-2009, 01:19 PM
Anyway, just for fun, let's look at the three middle quintiles:

Second quintile = 9.9%
Middle quintile = 14.1%
Fourth quintile = 17.3%

Or, in other words, the fourth have an effective tax rate almost double that of the second. That's "flat" for you?

Hmmmmm - in a bumpy sort of way.

Velvet_Jones
05-21-2009, 01:31 PM
I'm not sure 40% of the population really qualifies as "outliers."

Don't **** with KC Native while he's sphering the plane of the angle of the 0-35% change of subject distraction which can't be wrong because he said its so and if it is wrong he will re-change the numbers and deny that the numbers he used before were the numbers he used before because he read a website with numbers around the same values of the numbers he didn't use. I think I got you caught up to post 75 or so.

Also - KC Native thinks he is more gooder at English than Donger. I forgot that part.

vailpass
05-21-2009, 01:31 PM
It's Taxes = punishment that's wrong.

They may be an evil, but they are a NECESSARY evil. We can all argue for smaller, more efficient government, but there must be SOME government, and someone must pay for it. So there must be taxes in soem form or another. And the question becomes how to divide up the responsibility for paying for it.

And the rich still come out far better off than the poor. FAR better off.

No question we need taxes. I"m not one of those who think public services, infrastructure, defense, etc. fall from the sky.

I don't think taxes are punishment, they are the price of admission to live in the greatest country in the world.

To me the punishment is in making someone pay a higher percentage of their earnings somply becasue they earn more. Why be penalized for success? Not fair. Not American.

banyon
05-21-2009, 03:12 PM
How is being forced to pay more not a penalty? That's what the penalty is for a lot of different things, like parking illegally, or not paying your bills on time.

Because youre arguing that you're being penalized for working harder, but in fact, it's easily a net gain and positive (a reward), which is why people don't refuse the extra income.

If I got paid $100 for every time I parked illegally and then fined $50, then I would park illegally every time.

Donger
05-21-2009, 03:27 PM
Because youre arguing that you're being penalized for working harder, but in fact, it's easily a net gain and positive (a reward), which is why people don't refuse the extra income.

If I got paid $100 for every time I parked illegally and then fined $50, then I would park illegally every time.

Hi banyon. What about you? Are you surprised to learn about the tax rates?

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 03:53 PM
Because youre arguing that you're being penalized for working harder, but in fact, it's easily a net gain and positive (a reward), which is why people don't refuse the extra income.

If I got paid $100 for every time I parked illegally and then fined $50, then I would park illegally every time.

That would be a flat tax.

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 03:55 PM
Because youre arguing that you're being penalized for working harder, but in fact, it's easily a net gain and positive (a reward), which is why people don't refuse the extra income.

If I got paid $100 for every time I parked illegally and then fined $50, then I would park illegally every time.

What if the first time you got fined $50, the second $75, the third $87.5, etc.? Oh, and also, it's not just parking illegally, it's something that actually is difficult and takes your time and effort.

banyon
05-21-2009, 04:42 PM
What if the first time you got fined $50, the second $75, the third $87.5, etc.? Oh, and also, it's not just parking illegally, it's something that actually is difficult and takes your time and effort.

Sure, I would keep parking illegally, though for your analogy to be accurate, the payment (reward) would have to go up as well (which it does in real life).

Donger
05-21-2009, 04:51 PM
Hmmm. Does banyon have me on ignore?

banyon
05-21-2009, 04:53 PM
Hi banyon. What about you? Are you surprised to learn about the tax rates?

Knowing the percentage of income and wealth that they hold and the accelerated rate at which that is occurring, no. not really. I was pretty familiar with those rates.

banyon
05-21-2009, 04:54 PM
Hmmm. Does banyon have me on ignore?

simmah down now!

Donger
05-21-2009, 04:57 PM
Knowing the percentage of income and wealth that they hold and the accelerated rate at which that is occurring, no. not really. I was pretty familiar with those rates.

So, you still agree with KC native's assessment, to which you were responding?

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:02 PM
So, you still agree with KC native's assessment, to which you were responding?

Of course. Didn't I already indicate that I agreed with his initial post?

When you hear things in this forum like "people who don't pay taxes" repeatedly and the moaning about how oppressed the uper percentile is when the rates are at relative historical lows, it's difficult not to agree with the sentiment in the post.

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 05:03 PM
Sure, I would keep parking illegally, though for your analogy to be accurate, the payment (reward) would have to go up as well (which it does in real life).

I was referring more to this model:

Just to make 100% sure, and I suspect you know this already, but you know that (putting various deductions aside) that under the progressive tax system the same net dollar of income is taxed at the same rate for everyone, right?

Stated better -- everyone pays A percent on the first X dollars of income. Then they pay B percent on income between X and Y. Then they pay C percent on income between Y and Z.

As you make more, you pay more as you march up the tiers of the income tax brackets.

So Bob and Joe both pay, say, 10% of the first 25,000 of income. But that's all Bob makes so he stops there. Joe is lucky enough to make $100K/year, so he pays 15% on the next whatever, then 25% on the next whatever, and then pays 25% on income from, say, 90,000 to 100,000.

(note, I'm not bothering ot look up what the brackets actually ARE, this is just made up numbers expressing the methodology).

Stated differently, Joe does NOT pay 25% on EVERY dollar of income he makes. He paid the same 10% on those first $25,000 that Bob paid.

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:05 PM
I was referring more to this model:

So was I. Again, to analogize the increased wealth in your parking ticket analogy, the parking "reward" would have to go up as well. Otherwise, it's disanalagous.

Donger
05-21-2009, 05:05 PM
Of course. Didn't I already indicate that I agreed with his initial post?

When you hear things in this forum like "people who don't pay taxes" repeatedly and the moaning about how oppressed the uper percentile is when the rates are at relative historical lows, it's difficult not to agree with the sentiment in the post.

I'm just making sure. I find it hard to believe that an intellectually honest person can review the actual effective tax rates and argue that it is even remotely flat (or flat-like). The "rich" clearly pay vastly more than the "poor."

You acknowledge that fact, right?

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:08 PM
I'm just making sure. I find it hard to believe that an intellectually honest person can review the actual effective tax rates and argue that it is even remotely flat (or flat-like). The "rich" clearly pay vastly more than the "poor."

You acknowledge that fact, right?

You acknowledge the distinction between a superlative and an absolute term, correct?

I mean, If I say, "the Dead Sea sure is saltier than the ocean." That doesn't mean that I think the ocean isn't salty.

Donger
05-21-2009, 05:11 PM
You acknowledge the distinction between a superlative and an absolute term, correct?

I mean, If I say, "the Dead Sea sure is saltier than the ocean." That doesn't mean that I think the ocean isn't salty.

Sure. What is your point in reference to this thread?

MagicHef
05-21-2009, 05:12 PM
So was I. Again, to analogize the increased wealth in your parking ticket analogy, the parking "reward" would have to go up as well. Otherwise, it's disanalagous.

No, you are doing the action "parking illegally" multiple times. You can choose how many times. If you do it 3 times, you do get more money than if you do it twice, but you do not get more money the third time.

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:18 PM
Sure. What is your point in reference to this thread?

Well, the post I agreed to was a superlatve and not an absolutely termed statement, correct?

When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit

Does that help you to understand my agreement? I thought I already stated my reason here:

When you hear things in this forum like "people who don't pay taxes" repeatedly and the moaning about how oppressed the uper percentile is when the rates are at relative historical lows, it's difficult not to agree with the sentiment in the post.

It's a given that our system has a progressive taxation scheme. To deny that would just represent a suspension of reality. As I explained, though, the superlative "flatter" is in relation to you guys' (i.e., righties and ultra libertarians on this message board) sentiments, and not to an objective and non-relational standard, which is where you seem to want to take the discussion, even though I never made that argument or point.

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:20 PM
No, you are doing the action "parking illegally" multiple times. You can choose how many times. If you do it 3 times, you do get more money than if you do it twice, but you do not get more money the third time.

Then, as I stated, your analogy isn't relevant, since it is unlike our progressive taxation in which you would continue to receive a reward at a nearly 2 to 1 ratio to the perceived "penalty", whether it was your first, seond, third, or fiftieth time earning extra income.

Donger
05-21-2009, 05:22 PM
Well, the post I agreed to was a superlatve and not an absolutely termed statement, correct?



Does that help you to understand my agreement? I thought I already stated my reason here:



It's a given that our system has a progressive taxation scheme. To deny that would just represent a suspension of reality. As I explained, though, the superlative "flatter" is in relation to you guys' (i.e., righties and ultra libertarians on this message board) sentiments, and not to an objective and non-relational standard, which is where you seem to want to take the discussion, even though I never made that argument or point.

"We" acknowledge that the "rich" already pay the vast tax burden in this country, with regard to total revenue taken and with regard to total effective tax rate (percent). It seems that some people (KC native) weren't aware of that fact. If you are saying you were aware of those facts, fine. It just makes me wonder why you were so quick to agree with his assessment.

Donger
05-21-2009, 05:24 PM
One more question, banyon: do you think that the wealthy should be paying more taxes than they are now? That they aren't "paying their fair share"?

Okay, two more.

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:24 PM
"We" acknowledge that the "rich" already pay the vast tax burden in this country, with regard to total revenue taken and with regard to total effective tax rate (percent). It seems that some people (KC native) weren't aware of that fact. If you are saying you were aware of those facts, fine. It just makes me wonder why you were so quick to agree with his assessment.

I gave my reason. A couple of times. Why don't you try commenting on that instead of leaving yourself mystified and wondering?

Donger
05-21-2009, 05:28 PM
I gave my reason. A couple of times. Why don't you try commenting on that instead of leaving yourself mystified and wondering?

So, you were not agreeing with his erroneous figures, but his overall "the rich don't pay enough" rant, correct?

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:33 PM
So, you were not agreeing with his erroneous figures, but his overall "the rich don't pay enough" rant, correct?

No, I'm agreeing with the post I already cited. There was nothing in there about "the rich don't pay enough", but I would agree with that statement too if he had made it.

Just for reference again, it was this post:

The rich pay more in income taxes BECAUSE THEY MAKE MORE. Why is that so ****ing hard to understand for wingers? When you look at total taxes paid by rich and poor our tax system is much flatter than you class warriors like to admit. When you look at effective tax rates (which is the actual % of taxes you paid versus the income you made) it ends up being between 15-21%.

Feel free to carry on with your guys' echo chamber now.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=207909

banyon
05-21-2009, 05:56 PM
So, you were not agreeing with his erroneous figures, but his overall "the rich don't pay enough" rant, correct?

Also, I'm not convinced those figures are erroneous (not that my agreement with the post was in any way hinged to that minutae).

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:13 AM
So, I was wrong on the exact numbers. It still doesn't invalidate the fact that our tax structure is flatter than some here acknowledge.

The numbers Donger posted aren't flat at all.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:22 AM
Now, we're getting somewhere. My original claim was that the tax structure was flatter than the OP and subsequent post claimed. So, if the latter is flatter my original claim is validated. Thanks for playing.

You're not getting anywhere. You just don't recognize it when you've been owned.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:38 AM
Yet not without merit. Political suicide though.

Actually, completely without merit or logic, and destructive of society as a whole, in my opinion.

Basically, a stupid policy in every conceivable way. Heck, you might as well go back to feudalism, serfdom or slavery as your economic model, because i"m not sure how else you're going to control all those outraged peasants that you're trying to ensure never advance much in real economic terms.

Some economists believe that it's the formula that would maximize revenues and some believe that it would be the tax scheme most stimulative of economic growth. It's the subjective "fairness" argument that does the idea in which goes back to the "political suicide" and "outraged peasants" concepts.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 07:51 AM
A big part of this debate, of course, revolves (whether consciously or subconsciously) around the redistribution of wealth. A progressive tax, just like social security, "welfare" (whatever it means and in most of its various incarnations), involves a degree of redistribution of wealth, whether it's overt (social security) or mostly concealed (progressive tax).

And some, of course, have a philosophical objection over ANY redistribution of wealth on the theory that it is inherently unfair because in theory at least it is not by choice. When you give to charity, that's redistribution of wealth also, but that is by choice. Taxes are ultimately not paid by free choice, are ultimately coerced, and therefore the redistribution is involuntary and, to some, highly objectionable.

I dispute none of this.

And of all the socio-economic models throughout history, Capitalism has fared the best. By far. It has, where practiced with reasonable rigor, produced and maintained the most stable and economically and politically free societies in the history of mankind.

I am an ardent capitalist.

And yet, capitalism is not without its costs. It is, in fact, the most stressful economic model this side of slavery. The more capitalistic the society, the more "creative destruction" of jobs and redistribution of capital, with little or no warning, exists. Except for a lucky few, most working citizens and their dependents will have little to no job or income security, and little to no negotiating power with the captains of industry. Tremendous segments of society will earn very little so that a few will earn an extraordinary amount. To these chosen few, chosen by some combination of luck and skill that is impossible to identify, will aggregate the vast majority of the society's wealth and power, including political power. Sufficient political power, indeed, to safeguard their own position atop the economic leaderboard.

Far better, I think, to soften the harshness that is unadulterated capitalism. For the vast majority of the population, policies that de-aggreagate (is that a word) wealth and provide a societal safety net produces a healthier, more productive, and far happier society.

Out of the free-for-all of the late 1800s and early 1900s were born unions, worker's/labor laws, environmental laws (much later), unemployment compensation methods, inheritance taxes and a progressive income tax.

I could go on and on, but regrettably, my own capitalistic instincts are kicking in, and I must return to my chosen profession. :D

Nice post and extremely reasonable for a lefty (which, of course, means I don't completely agree :D ). I'd prefer to take care of softening the harshness on the up and up by doing it on the spending side of the equation where it gets more ongoing scrutiny than the arcana of the tax code typically gets. In fact, I wouldn't mind having built in sunset provisions so that these redistributive issues would have to be revisited from time to time.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 08:04 AM
Because youre arguing that you're being penalized for working harder, but in fact, it's easily a net gain and positive (a reward), which is why people don't refuse the extra income.

If I got paid $100 for every time I parked illegally and then fined $50, then I would park illegally every time.

1) You get paid $100 every time you park your car.

2) If you park in an illegal spot, you have to pay a $50 fine.

3) You can park in either a legal spot or an illegal spot if your car is not red, but red cars are not allowed in the legal spots.

4) Your car is red.

Have you been penalized?

KC native
05-22-2009, 08:28 AM
The numbers Donger posted aren't flat at all.

I guess you need an English lession too. FlattER does not mean flat.

stevieray
05-22-2009, 08:31 AM
FlattER does not mean flat.

...like the top of your head.

KC native
05-22-2009, 08:34 AM
...like the top of your head.

Running low on benzos Elvis?

***SPRAYER
05-22-2009, 08:35 AM
...like the top of your head.

ROFL

stevieray
05-22-2009, 08:41 AM
Running low on benzos Elvis?

are you getting tired of people trying to sit drinks on your head?

KC native
05-22-2009, 08:45 AM
are you getting tired of people trying to sit drinks on your head?

ROFL this is funny coming from a grown man who plays dress up for Chiefs' games.

stevieray
05-22-2009, 08:48 AM
ROFL this is funny coming from a grown man who plays dress up for Chiefs' games.

why is it funny, Herrman?

vailpass
05-22-2009, 09:20 AM
are you getting tired of people trying to sit drinks on your head?

ROFL Ever notice some people don't know when to quit no matter how bad their ass is showing?

patteeu
05-22-2009, 10:03 AM
I guess you need an English lession too. FlattER does not mean flat.

For "flatter" to have meaning you have to be comparing them to something. You compared it to what "class warriors like to admit" whatever that is. That's a pretty fucking ambiguous baseline. From my perspective, the class warriors on this topic are people like you. By your own actions in post #3, you showed that you only liked to admit that the range was between 15-21%. The actual numbers are clearly LESS FLAT than a class warrior like yourself actually admitted.

Since you associated "class warriors" with Donger, it's clear to me that you and I have different ideas of who belongs in that category. Fine, I'll deal with it on your terms. Nowhere have I ever seen Donger show any reluctance to admit numbers like these. In fact, DONGER VOLUNTEERED THE NUMBERS IN THIS THREAD. Speaking for myself, I'm amazed at how unflat the actual numbers are. I think you're FOS when you claim that some unidentified group has made some unspecified comments that show that they are reluctant to admit the degree of actual progressivity of our overall tax scheme. You, OTOH, have proven that you thought the system was flatter than it actually is.

KC native
05-22-2009, 10:09 AM
For "flatter" to have meaning you have to be comparing them to something. You compared it to what "class warriors like to admit" whatever that is. That's a pretty ****ing ambiguous baseline. From my perspective, the class warriors on this topic are people like you. By your own actions in post #3, you showed that you only liked to admit that the range was between 15-21%. The actual numbers are clearly LESS FLAT than a class warrior like yourself actually admitted.

Since you associated "class warriors" with Donger, it's clear to me that you and I have different ideas of who belongs in that category. Fine, I'll deal with it on your terms. Nowhere have I ever seen Donger show any reluctance to admit numbers like these. In fact, DONGER VOLUNTEERED THE NUMBERS IN THIS THREAD. Speaking for myself, I'm amazed at how unflat the actual numbers are. I think you're FOS when you claim that some unidentified group has made some unspecified comments that show that they are reluctant to admit the degree of actual progressivity of our overall tax scheme. You, OTOH, have proven that you thought the system was flatter than it actually is.

JFC I swear there is a stupid virus going on with the echo chamber the last week or so.

Please show me where I associated class warriors with Donger. I replied to the OP and then the subsequent post and then Donger got involved.

As for the bolded statement I was comparing effective rates to income tax rates which are flatter. Try again jackass.

***SPRAYER
05-22-2009, 10:35 AM
are you getting tired of people trying to sit drinks on your head?

Or an ashtray.

Ultra Peanut
05-22-2009, 10:38 AM
face
palm

patteeu
05-22-2009, 11:27 AM
JFC I swear there is a stupid virus going on with the echo chamber the last week or so.

Please show me where I associated class warriors with Donger. I replied to the OP and then the subsequent post and then Donger got involved.

As for the bolded statement I was comparing effective rates to income tax rates which are flatter. Try again jackass.

My mistake. It was SBK, not Donger. The analysis of your foolishness remains the same though.

If that was the comparison you were trying to make, you fumbled the communication part of the project. And then you followed up by demonstrating that the effective rates were much more progressive than you were willing to admit. You said 15% - 21% when the reality ended up being 4.3% - 25.2%. That's a steeper curve than I would have guessed so in that sense I can understand your mistake. But it also undermines your theory that us conservative, flat-tax proponents think (or at least are unwilling to admit otherwise) that the progressiveness inherent in our system is greater than it actually is.

Amnorix
05-22-2009, 11:58 AM
Some economists believe that it's the formula that would maximize revenues and some believe that it would be the tax scheme most stimulative of economic growth. It's the subjective "fairness" argument that does the idea in which goes back to the "political suicide" and "outraged peasants" concepts.

You fail to understand human nature, in my opinion. People aren't interestted in stimulating economic growth if a massively disproportionate share of the proceeds of the stimulated economy continues to be concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people.

Obviously concentraiton of wealth can't, and SHOULDN'T, be eliminated. Capitalism is all about using human nature to spur productivity. And yet, unrestrained capitalism goes too far.

Amnorix
05-22-2009, 12:00 PM
Nice post and extremely reasonable for a lefty (which, of course, means I don't completely agree :D ). I'd prefer to take care of softening the harshness on the up and up by doing it on the spending side of the equation where it gets more ongoing scrutiny than the arcana of the tax code typically gets. In fact, I wouldn't mind having built in sunset provisions so that these redistributive issues would have to be revisited from time to time.

Your'e at least 80 years too late. Redistribution of wealth was quickly adopted once it become clear that the industrial revolution was going to overconcentrate wealth into the hands of the "captains of industry".

Note "OVERconcentrate". I dont' try to eliminate all concentraiton. Hell, I spend many hours a day trying to concentrate more and more wealth into my own hands... :D

Amnorix
05-22-2009, 12:01 PM
1) You get paid $100 every time you park your car.

2) If you park in an illegal spot, you have to pay a $50 fine.

3) You can park in either a legal spot or an illegal spot if your car is not red, but red cars are not allowed in the legal spots.

4) Your car is red.

Have you been penalized?

What difference does it make? Your question isn't analogous or representative of anything at all.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 12:10 PM
You fail to understand human nature, in my opinion. People aren't interestted in stimulating economic growth if a massively disproportionate share of the proceeds of the stimulated economy continues to be concentrated in the hands of a very small number of people.

Obviously concentraiton of wealth can't, and SHOULDN'T, be eliminated. Capitalism is all about using human nature to spur productivity. And yet, unrestrained capitalism goes too far.

You said the idea was "completely without merit or logic". I'm just pointing out that you've overlooked some merit. Whether that merit is enough to outweigh the inherent drawbacks is another question.

I agree with vailpass that it would be politically suicidal to propose an obviously regressive tax scheme and I can even agree with you that people could get riled up about such a system even if it were actually a better system in terms of non human nature factors. (Note that I'm not saying it IS a better system if these human nature factors are ignored, just that it might be, but that wouldn't save it from the human nature element).

patteeu
05-22-2009, 12:14 PM
Your'e at least 80 years too late. Redistribution of wealth was quickly adopted once it become clear that the industrial revolution was going to overconcentrate wealth into the hands of the "captains of industry".

Note "OVERconcentrate". I dont' try to eliminate all concentraiton. Hell, I spend many hours a day trying to concentrate more and more wealth into my own hands... :D

Yes, I'm sure I'm too late. But note that, like you, I'm not taking an extreme position here by trying to abolish all forms of redistribution. I'm just saying I would have preferred for it to be done in a more transparent and accountable format on the spending side of the equation instead of being built into the tax code where it largely flies under the radar. I'm sure you'd agree that most people in the sub-35% tax brackets don't recognize that they're receiving redistributional benefits from those in the top bracket (or at least they tend not to think of it in those terms).

I wish you all the luck in the world at concentrating that wealth as long as you're doing it on the up and up, which I'm sure you are.

Amnorix
05-22-2009, 01:09 PM
Yes, I'm sure I'm too late. But note that, like you, I'm not taking an extreme position here by trying to abolish all forms of redistribution. I'm just saying I would have preferred for it to be done in a more transparent and accountable format on the spending side of the equation instead of being built into the tax code where it largely flies under the radar. I'm sure you'd agree that most people in the sub-35% tax brackets don't recognize that they're receiving redistributional benefits from those in the top bracket (or at least they tend not to think of it in those terms).

Not sure everyone south of 35% is a beneficiary of redistribution. I imagine some of the higher, but not the HIGHEST, brackets are also having wealth redistributed away from them.

And at best it's an inefficient method for redistributing wealth. It's obviously not a 1:1 situation like social security. I wouldn't say the primary purpose fo the progressiveness of the tax code is wealth redistribution. It's an indirect feature of it, but not the purpose or goal of it, IMHO.

King_Chief_Fan
05-23-2009, 03:48 PM
flat tax time:
All tax payers must pay 10-15% of their income.
Problem solved. No tax breaks, no games, no loop holes.

prhom
05-23-2009, 04:37 PM
Not sure everyone south of 35% is a beneficiary of redistribution. I imagine some of the higher, but not the HIGHEST, brackets are also having wealth redistributed away from them.

And at best it's an inefficient method for redistributing wealth. It's obviously not a 1:1 situation like social security. I wouldn't say the primary purpose fo the progressiveness of the tax code is wealth redistribution. It's an indirect feature of it, but not the purpose or goal of it, IMHO.

You've really hit on my primary objection to increasing the progressiveness of the tax code. You're saying it's not the primary purpose of progressive taxes to redistribute wealth, which is probably true. However, since it does serve that purpose it becomes a very convenient way of financing entitlement programs that benefit people on the lower end of the income spectrum.

Deciding how much of a tax rate disparity is "fair" is a distinct issue, and one that shouldn't be discussed in terms of how to close a budget gap. If congress wants to increase the tax roll they should do so across the board. If you don't like having your taxes raised then you should not re-elect the people who are increasing them. I consider it poor policy when taxes are raised on one group who cannot affect the results of an election, but not on those who CAN control the election. It's an old, and successful trick, but creates a textbook moral hazard.

googlegoogle
06-09-2009, 01:51 AM
Beat me to it. How the right suckers these guys into the populism for the billionaires propaganda is beyond me.

Yeah, it was never their money to begin with!

They should pay for all of Banyan's welfare and his relatives too.

Bunyon and KC commie native should go over to their houses and load up!

googlegoogle
06-09-2009, 01:56 AM
JIMMY ! Where you at ! Banyan has ideas!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/05/25/carter/story.jpg