PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Are Americans "over-taxed?" Really?


Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 10:08 AM
Often lost amid all the acrimony and rancor of budget deficits and program and spending cuts, is one simple truth: Americans rank near the bottom of nearly any legitimate measure of "total tax burden" when comparing us against other industrialized nations in the world.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/the-tax-burden-around-the-developed-world/

http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

FTR, I understand there is plenty government programs and spending that should be reformed--and, yes, cut.

However, consensus on what can and should be cut is elusive, at best. It seems to me that our inability to effectively prioritize spending, and to root out real waste and fraud is the real culprit in our current financial mess.

Regardless, how anyone can seriously argue that as a nation we are "over-taxed"...is simply ludicrous. That so many people, seemingly, have accepted this lie as conventional wisdom, is the biggest symptom of the decline of this country. For me, that's a pretty depressing realization.

I mean, when our biggest goal has become: to join Korea, Turkey, and Mexico as the "least taxed" among industrialized nations....that's reason to be depressed, IMHO.

chiefsnorth
03-03-2011, 10:30 AM
It sure sucks for the minority who actually contribute more than they suck out of the system to continually be hit up for more and more. But there is no special interest for people who bargain for themselves and work in the private sector actually creating and doing things.

Cave Johnson
03-03-2011, 10:36 AM
"Facts" and "accuracy" have no place in political discourse, Kotter.

KC native
03-03-2011, 10:50 AM
Nb4 stupid bitch and teej

KC native
03-03-2011, 10:51 AM
I have been making this argument for awhile. Supply side economics is a hoax.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 10:53 AM
It sure sucks for the minority who actually contribute more than they suck out of the system to continually be hit up for more and more. But there is no special interest for people who bargain for themselves and work in the private sector actually creating and doing things.

That's something you hear often too...but IMO it's an over-simplistic perspective of our country. In what other country in the world, would a privileged elite who "create and do things" be given the opportunities and freedom to achieve what they do in this country?

Or are those opportunities and freedoms that our society affords to those folks....a God-given "right," that incurs no real obligation to support and payback the society that enabled some to acrue such vast wealth?

ClevelandBronco
03-03-2011, 10:54 AM
We don't pay as much in taxes as more socialist countries? Wow. No shit.

talastan
03-03-2011, 10:56 AM
We don't pay as much in taxes as more socialist countries? Wow. No shit.

QFT!! :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 10:57 AM
I have been making this argument for awhile. Supply side economics is a hoax.

I used to believe that there was a time and place for "trickle-down" economics--in certain circumstances. However, when the "trickle" doesn't come, again and again...it begins to appear as if it is really nothing more than an elaborate rationalization by those who are dogmatic Social Darwinists.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 10:59 AM
We don't pay as much in taxes as more socialist countries? Wow. No shit.

That's one way of looking at it. IMHO, more accurately: we pay less than nearly every other miixed economy democratic industrialized nation on the planet.

Seems to me, we get pretty good bang for our buck most of the time.

go bowe
03-03-2011, 11:00 AM
That's one way of looking at it.

More accurately, we pay less than nearly every other miixed economic democratic industrialized nation on the planet.

Seems to me, we get pretty good bang for our buck most of the time.bang a buck? nttawwt

The Mad Crapper
03-03-2011, 11:03 AM
We don't pay as much in taxes as more socialist countries? Wow. No shit.

ROFL

KC native
03-03-2011, 11:05 AM
I used to believe that there was a time and place for "trickle-down" economics--in certain circumstances. However, when the "trickle" doesn't come, again and again...it begins to appear as if it is really nothing more than an elaborate rationalization by those who are dogmatic Social Darwinists.

Yes, which is why I always challenge it's supporters t show proof and remind them that if they do show proof, they will bethe first.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 11:05 AM
bang a buck? nttawwt

What Bambi does in the privacy of her own forest, well....

;)

blaise
03-03-2011, 11:07 AM
I don't see why another country's taxes mean we are or we aren't overtaxed. I'm sure there's other countries that smoke more cigarettes, too, but that doesn't mean we should smoke more.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 11:09 AM
Yes, which is why I always challenge it's supporters t show proof and remind them that if they do show proof, they will bethe first.

To be fair, there have been times in history where trickle-down has seemed to "work," although some (you probably) would argue it was coincidental.

It is far from the great solution and policy, that rabib supporters would claim though. We are seeing strong evidence of its abysmal track record, again; even as we speak.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 11:11 AM
I don't see why another country's taxes mean we are or we aren't overtaxed. I'm sure there's other countries that smoke more cigarettes, too, but that doesn't mean we should smoke more.

Unfettered greed and narcissism has become more American than hot dogs, apple pie, or Chevrolet. :shake:

go bowe
03-03-2011, 11:12 AM
To be fair, there have been times in history where trickle-down has seemed to "work," although some (you probably) would argue it was coincidental.

It is far from the great solution and policy, that rabib supporters would clami though. We are seeing strong evidence of it's abysmal track record, again; even as we speak.babib supporters?

is rabib running for office?

Saul Good
03-03-2011, 11:14 AM
What is the employment rate of those countries? What are their GDPs? What has the innovation of their rugged individualists done to benefit humanity compared to the US? Do we piggyback off of their economies, or is it the other way around?

blaise
03-03-2011, 11:17 AM
Unfettered greed and narcissism has become more American than hot dogs, apple pie, or Chevrolet. :shake:

I agree, to keep asking for more money from people because you feel you're more capable of spending it, and because you want to decide who gets it, is very greedy and narcissistic.

Chief Faithful
03-03-2011, 11:28 AM
Yes, which is why I always challenge it's supporters t show proof and remind them that if they do show proof, they will bethe first.

Prove what, that a concept and term (trickle-down) made up by Democrat politicians for the purpose of politically demonizing a popular Republican President was legitimate? :spock: I'll bet you didn't find anyone did you. This thread is proof that trickle-down economics did a good job of creating talking points for the economically ignorant.

If you want to discuss Supply Side enconomics you may find some people who are willing to discuss merit.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 12:41 PM
I agree, to keep asking for more money from people because you feel you're more capable of spending it, and because you want to decide who gets it, is very greedy and narcissistic.

To the extent you are talking about the real problem of an out-of-control "entitlement" mentality, that is a serious affliction with some....I agree with you.

To the extent that you and reactionary types want to roll back our society to the 1930s or 1870s....and gut the social safety net, give the privileged elite and Wall Street free rein, and destroy the middle class....you are full of crap.

blaise
03-03-2011, 12:42 PM
To the extent you are talking about the real problem of an out-of-control "entitlement" mentality, that is a serious affliction with some....I agree with you.

To the extent that you and reactionary types want to roll back our society to the 1930s or 1870s....and gut the social safety net, give the privileged elite and Wall Street free rein, and destroy the middle class....you are full of crap.

You certainly read a lot into my statement.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 12:51 PM
You certainly read a lot into my statement.

Greed and social darwinism is multi-faceted and complex topic.

On one hand, conservatives are right that our "entitlement" mentality of cradle-to-grave government programs is unsustainable. However, OTOH progressives are right that Americans are not over-taxed (given the services and programs we damand of our government.)

The political quandry of demanding services that we are not willing to pay for...is nothing new.

The Mad Crapper
03-03-2011, 12:53 PM
To the extent that you and reactionary types want to roll back our society to the 1930s or 1870s....

ROFL

HonestChieffan
03-03-2011, 12:54 PM
Its just that only 40% pay the taxes to support the crap the other 60% demands.....

RubberSponge
03-03-2011, 01:39 PM
Its just that only 40% pay the taxes to support the crap the other 60% demands.....

Those numbers seem slightly incorrect. Seniors are a large part of the problem though. Realistically we need large cuts to medicare and social security for long term sustainability. Enough with the old people welfare.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/20/who-rules-america-retired-people.html

Calcountry
03-03-2011, 01:42 PM
Often lost amid all the acrimony and rancor of budget deficits and program and spending cuts, is one simple truth: Americans rank near the bottom of nearly any legitimate measure of "total tax burden" when comparing us against other industrialized nations in the world.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/the-tax-burden-around-the-developed-world/

http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

FTR, I understand there is plenty government programs and spending that should be reformed--and, yes, cut.

However, consensus on what can and should be cut is elusive, at best. It seems to me that our inability to effectively prioritize spending, and to root out real waste and fraud is the real culprit in our current financial mess.

Regardless, how anyone can seriously argue that as a nation we are "over-taxed"...is simply ludicrous. That so many people, seemingly, have accepted this lie as conventional wisdom, is the biggest symptom of the decline of this country. For me, that's a pretty depressing realization.

I mean, when our biggest goal has become: to join Korea, Turkey, and Mexico as the "least taxed" among industrialized nations....that's reason to be depressed, IMHO.I agree, teachers don't pay enough in taxes, or contribute enough in benefits and health care costs. Raise them immediately.

The Mad Crapper
03-03-2011, 01:43 PM
I agree, teachers don't pay enough in taxes, or contribute enough in benefits and health care costs. Raise them immediately.

Yeah! Get some skin in the game!

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 02:13 PM
I agree, teachers don't pay enough in taxes, or contribute enough in benefits and health care costs. Raise them immediately.

In my state, we already do--much more than they do in states like WI or CA, anyway. Thanks, though.

blaise
03-03-2011, 02:16 PM
In my state, we already do--much more than they do in states like WI or CA, anyway. Thanks, though.

Unless you pay as much as people in other countries, it's not enough.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2011, 02:16 PM
Those numbers seem slightly incorrect. Seniors are a large part of the problem though. Realistically we need large cuts to medicare and social security for long term sustainability. Enough with the old people welfare.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/20/who-rules-america-retired-people.html

Well, I'd say a more balanced approach would be....requiring folks who can't afford to retire early (I'll be among them,) to work longer to pay for their benefits--because we are all living longer.

Of course, up until now...such common sense is rejected by pandering politicians and the extortion of special interest lobbyists.

Saul Good
03-03-2011, 02:56 PM
To the extent you are talking about the real problem of an out-of-control "entitlement" mentality, that is a serious affliction with some....I agree with you.

To the extent that you and reactionary types want to roll back our society to the 1930s or 1870s....and gut the social safety net, give the privileged elite and Wall Street free rein, and destroy the middle class....you are full of crap.

Ping to remind myself to add this to the "moment of sanity" thread.

Of course this is what conservatives want. Get the 4 year olds back in the coal mines!!!

RedNeckRaider
03-03-2011, 03:00 PM
Those numbers seem slightly incorrect. Seniors are a large part of the problem though. Realistically we need large cuts to medicare and social security for long term sustainability. Enough with the old people welfare.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/20/who-rules-america-retired-people.html

Yeah people who have paid social security their whole lives are the problem :spock:

trndobrd
03-03-2011, 03:21 PM
Your figures from seven years ago (Forbes was 2004) are nice that they don't include property taxes, or consider that payroll deductions in the US (FICA, etc) don't reduce taxable income for income tax purposes.

Taxation as a percentage of GDP is interesting, but assumes all taxation is considered and that GDP capability is roughly equal.

What is missing are the taxes that haven't been collected yet. Borrowed deficit spending will have to be repaid either through higher taxes, currency inflation or a growth in private sector production. So far, the Obama administration has only shown the capability to run up the credit card.

Jaric
03-03-2011, 03:28 PM
Well, if you base that off of what we spend, we would actually be undertaxed. However, our spending is also way out of control as is the size and scope of government.

This is America God Damnit. We started a revolution over being taxed. We should be figuring out ways to pay even less taxes. Because that's what we do here.

tmh
03-03-2011, 04:33 PM
Kotter this is how I know I pay too much in taxes, I look at my freaking paystub. And I dont give a rats ass about what other nations pay, I dont choose to live there.

RubberSponge
03-03-2011, 04:47 PM
Yeah people who have paid social security their whole lives are the problem :spock:

And the number of them that are recieving benefits that exceed many times what they paid in grows every year.

If you can't understand this is a serious problem for the future generations of this country. You don't understand the problem. How can you talk about reducing entitlements then on the other hand refuse to cut the biggest entitlement programs out there? It defies any amount of logic IMO.

RubberSponge
03-03-2011, 04:53 PM
Well, I'd say a more balanced approach would be....requiring folks who can't afford to retire early (I'll be among them,) to work longer to pay for their benefits--because we are all living longer.

Of course, up until now...such common sense is rejected by pandering politicians and the extortion of special interest lobbyists.

I have no problem working till a later stage in life. As a matter of a fact, I'll probably work till I die. Not because I may have to, but instead because I just like to work.

I would just like to secure a more postive outlook in this country for my children. I really could give a shit less about my retirement.

chiefzilla1501
03-03-2011, 05:15 PM
Kotter, your original post is spot on. I pay a shitload in taxes. I worked hard, got my MBA, and make a good salary, and I hate that I'm being punished for the hard work I put in. I hate it.

But I don't hate how much I pay. I hate the ROI of what I'm paying for. Anyone who works in the public sector knows how much money goes to lazy-ass entitled employees who've worked there for over 10 years and make a lot of money to sit around and bullshit. I would like to see the public sector take on a more private sector mentality and that's one outcome I really like seeing out of the Public Sector union negotiations. In Ohio, instead of collective bargaining, they're talking about rewarding merit increases to good teachers and doing nothing to the bad. Now, I think that's dicey because with teachers, it's hard to measure "merit" but for most public sector jobs, it's not that hard.

I'm not paying taxes for somebody to sit around and play with his dick all day. If I wanted to do that, I'd just give $1,000 to some of my good friends. If my tax dollars worked harder for me, I'd be fine with how much I pay.

Fishpicker
03-03-2011, 07:07 PM
Everything I want to say about taxes has already been stated perfectly.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Cg-X8HWAB1M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

They say if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but if you teach a man to fish.... then he's gotta get a fishing license, but he doesn't have any money. So he's got to get a job and get into the social security system and pay taxes, and now you're gonna audit the poor one who sucks the penis, cuz' he's not really good with math. So he'll pull the IRS van up to your house, and he'll take all your shit. He'll take your black velvet Elvis and your Batman toothbrush, and your penis pump, and that all goes up for auction with the burden of proof on you because you forgot to carry the one, cuz' you were just worried about eating a ****ing fish, and you couldn't even cook the fish cuz' you needed a permit for an open flame. Then the health department is going to start asking you a lot of questions about where are you going to dump the scales and the guts. 'This is not a sanitary environment', and ladies and gentlemen if you get sick of it all at the end of the day... not even legal to kill yourself in this country. Thanks again John Ashcroft you weird bible addict, can't even handle your own drug. You were born free, you got ****ed out of half of it, and you wave a flag celebrating it. The only true freedom you find, is when you realize and come to terms with the fact that you are completely and unapologetically ****ed, and then you are free to float around the system. -Doug Stanhope


I don't mind paying sales tax. I don't like paying the income tax but, I make do until tax season. the thing that bugs me is that I'm hit from every direction with taxes. I pay taxes that I'm not even aware of. Every tax that is paid in full is actually a penalty. It is a penalty on the average everyday person that isn't aware of a tax loophole to exploit.

KC native
03-03-2011, 08:28 PM
Prove what, that a concept and term (trickle-down) made up by Democrat politicians for the purpose of politically demonizing a popular Republican President was legitimate? :spock: I'll bet you didn't find anyone did you. This thread is proof that trickle-down economics did a good job of creating talking points for the economically ignorant.

If you want to discuss Supply Side enconomics you may find some people who are willing to discuss merit.

ROFL It's sad that this is a serious post.

KC native
03-03-2011, 08:30 PM
To be fair, there have been times in history where trickle-down has seemed to "work," although some (you probably) would argue it was coincidental.

It is far from the great solution and policy, that rabib supporters would claim though. We are seeing strong evidence of its abysmal track record, again; even as we speak.

The only time that it seemed to work was during Raygun. But, if you look at the demographic shift (all those boomers hitting their prime earning years) and the fact that inflation had been killed by Volcker then you see the primary reasons for the growth.

ChiTown
03-03-2011, 08:35 PM
P

Of course this is what conservatives want. Get the 4 year olds back in the coal mines!!!

:LOL:

What a dumbass

BucEyedPea
03-03-2011, 09:11 PM
I don't see why another country's taxes mean we are or we aren't overtaxed. I'm sure there's other countries that smoke more cigarettes, too, but that doesn't mean we should smoke more.

Comparing us to other countries is just as degrading as when adults compare children to others. "Why can't you be more like Johnny, David?"

HonestChieffan
03-03-2011, 09:40 PM
Those numbers seem slightly incorrect. Seniors are a large part of the problem though. Realistically we need large cuts to medicare and social security for long term sustainability. Enough with the old people welfare.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/20/who-rules-america-retired-people.html

Why not get more people to pay their fair share? We would need fewer cuts if more people who pay zero started carrying a load.

joesomebody
03-04-2011, 12:54 AM
Yeah people who have paid social security their whole lives are the problem :spock:I agree. We do need to draw the line somewhere though. Scrap these old plans that obviously don't work and come up with something better and more sustainable.

I'm fine with being the first person to have to pay into Social Security and Medicare my whole life and not receive any benefits. The line must be drawn somewhere.

I was born in 1982, let us be the first to not receive benefits and be the ones who paid into it. We have to do something for the country as a whole.

The way it stands now, there is a good chance I won't receive these benefits anyway, but if we make it official and draw the line now we can actually plan something better.

joesomebody
03-04-2011, 12:57 AM
Why not get more people to pay their fair share? We would need fewer cuts if more people who pay zero started carrying a load.
Who pays zero? I don't know a soul who pays zero. If you make any money at all, you are required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. As far as paying zero income taxes, the standard deduction is $5,800 dollars. I'm not so sure that getting the few people who make less than $5,800 to pay taxes is the answer to our prayers.

RubberSponge
03-04-2011, 01:06 AM
Why not get more people to pay their fair share? We would need fewer cuts if more people who pay zero started carrying a load.

What is your definition of paying your fair share?

You can't get more people to pay their fair share unless you expand the IRS to be able to enforce people to pay their "fair share." I'm betting you are against expanding the size of the IRS so that kinds leaves your options with between a rock and a hard place and useless rhetoric with that.

So back to our largest entitlement demographic, Seniors. Cuts for their entitlement programs still off the table? Or are you going to realize that raising your taxes is the only other option than cutting SS and Medicare spending?

Otter
03-04-2011, 07:24 AM
The cost of gas in Venezuela is 15 cents a gallon. What does that have to do with cost of gas in America you ask?

If your answer is "nothing" you are correct because there's about 10,000 variables that contribute to gas being more expensive in the US than Venezuela, taxes being higher in Denmark than in America, ostrich eggs being less expensive in Southern Africa.

Fail

2bikemike
03-04-2011, 05:13 PM
I don't mind paying some taxes. I realize that is how we fund our Govt. The problem I have is the waste that accompanies the Govt handling of the tax revenues. I read somewhere Dems think $.40 on the dollar is wasted and Repubs think its somewhere around $.55 on the dollar either way its too damn much.

As far as Social Security is concerned the program was completely short sighted. It is a Pyramid scheme plain and simple. We are currently paying to push the top out. It should have been set up to be a retirement account designated for the person paying in. Could have probably done the same thing with Medicare and set it up like the HSA's

googlegoogle
03-04-2011, 05:25 PM
Kotters dumbest post ever.

Retard.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-04-2011, 05:48 PM
It sure sucks for the minority who actually contribute more than they suck out of the system to continually be hit up for more and more. But there is no special interest for people who bargain for themselves and work in the private sector actually creating and doing things.

Those minorities are welcome to leave and try and take "advantage" of another country's system. People take for granted the fact that this is the best place in the world to get rich.

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2011, 06:47 PM
Those minorities are welcome to leave and try and take "advantage" of another country's system. People take for granted the fact that this is the best place in the world to get rich.

Amen, brother.

Yet, we are the supposed dweebs. :rolleyes:

googlegoogle
03-04-2011, 07:05 PM
Those minorities are welcome to leave and try and take "advantage" of another country's system. People take for granted the fact that this is the best place in the world to get rich.

Oh really, the people that sacrificed blood and sweat should leave?

The experiment has already been performed.Try looking at the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela-other fucked up latin countries,Africa, fucked up socialist Euros and Greece.

It's the leeches that should leave but they wont. They know how good they have it here living off others.

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2011, 07:44 PM
Oh really, the people that sacrificed blood and sweat should leave?

The experiment has already been performed.Try looking at the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela-other ****ed up latin countries,Africa, ****ed up socialist Euros and Greece.

It's the leeches that should leave but they wont. They know how good they have it here living off others.

Holy crap, is your version of history really screwed up...or what???

In THOSE country's the privileged elite were MURDERED. Killed. Dead. Gone, Mr. Douchebag.

NOT ALLOWED back into those societies; but, yeah, "our" aristocratic-plutocrats wish to stay and continue to ass-rape the rest of us...and restore their greater glory.

Man, you need some real "history" teaching, stupid-dude. :shake:

googlegoogle
03-04-2011, 09:35 PM
How did Thomas Edison ass rape you? You moron.

Jesus you're beyond hope. You should be protesting in Wisconsin.

You're dream of a pure socialist America is dying with the debt burden. You've seen the fraud in Europe.

The Mad Crapper
03-05-2011, 06:50 AM
Kotters dumbest post ever.

Retard.

I think you're just a bit premature with that assessment.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2011, 10:53 AM
How did Thomas Edison ass rape you? You moron.

Jesus you're beyond hope. You should be protesting in Wisconsin.

You're dream of a pure socialist America is dying with the debt burden. You've seen the fraud in Europe.

The teabagging reactionary right's false-dichotomy between completely unfettered free market capitalism and Marxist Socialism should be transparent to anyone who has a high school education. That it is not apparent to so many in the tea party movement says about all we need to know about those fruitcakes.

Marxist Socialism is an abject failure, but so is unregulated Laissez-faire Capitalism. Both result in gross social inequities and economic exploitation of a nation's middle class and working class by a minority privileged elite (the socialist party in Marxist societies, and over-represented business, corporate, and wealthy interests in Laissez-faire societies.) That is why, after the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and even the Great Society, Americans have embraced a mixed economic model balancing the advantages of capitalism against the security and justice of a social safety net.

It is understandable in each case that the privileged elite would fight to promote their interests above those of others in society--understandable, but not acceptable. It is why Marxist Socialism ultimately failed; it is why in a democratic society...eventually the middle-class will wake-up to what is happening, and put a stop to the abuses and excesses of a society that values preserving privilege for the elite above the economic and social interests of the middle and working classes.

Unfortunately, Americans are slow to recognize what is happening under their own noses. Lower and lower, and lower, taxes....at the expense of a war on the middle class though, will not stand. And, yes, that is precisely what is going on at the moment: a war against the middle class by the privileged elite.

If teabaggers want to demagogue and cover-up what is going on, by calling this "class warfare." Fine, because that is an argument they will lose. In time, those representing the interests of the middle and working classes will eventually figure out the correct rhetoric. And then we'll once again re-establish a balance of the interests of Main Street and Wall Street. And the Tea-Party will go the way of the Whigs, the Dixiecrats, and Ross Perot's revolution as a footnote in American history.

FD
03-05-2011, 11:06 AM
Unfortunately, Americans are slow to recognize what is happening under their own noses. Lower and lower, and lower, taxes....at the expense of a war on the middle class though, will not stand. And, yes, that is precisely what is going on at the moment: a war against the middle class by the privileged elite.

If teabaggers want to demagogue and cover-up what is going on, by calling this "class warfare." Fine, because that is an argument they will lose. In time, those representing the interests of the middle and working classes will eventually figure out the correct rhetoric. And then we'll once again re-establish a balance of the interests of Main Street and Wall Street. And the Tea-Party will go the way of the Whigs, the Dixiecrats, and Ross Perot's revolution as a footnote in American history.

Well if the elites are fighting a war on the middle-class, and income taxes represent your evidence for this, they are badly losing:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/blog20090729-chart2.jpg

Chief Henry
03-05-2011, 11:43 AM
Well if the elites are fighting a war on the middle-class, and income taxes represent your evidence for this, they are badly losing:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/blog20090729-chart2.jpg

Facts...don't show facts to these clowns. They will end up calling you a racist at some point like the douche rocket Ed Schultz on msnbc.

The Mad Crapper
03-05-2011, 11:55 AM
Facts...don't show facts to these clowns. They will end up calling you a racist at some point like the douche rocket Ed Schultz on msnbc.

That guy always looks like he's got a big fat turd in the chamber.

orange
03-05-2011, 12:15 PM
Facts...don't show facts to these clowns.

Here's a FACT for you.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_4.gif

Note: In the "Actual" line, the bottom two quintiles are not visible because the lowest quintile owns just 0.1% of all wealth, and the second-lowest quintile owns 0.2%.
Source: Norton & Ariely, 2010.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

orange
03-05-2011, 12:20 PM
And another:
Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_5.gif

The people with the money are going to pay the taxes. It's really rather simple.

The Mad Crapper
03-05-2011, 12:48 PM
Oh look everybody! Orange posted a picture of a graph! It doesn't explain anything, but you're not supposed to notice!

Here's a FACT for you.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_4.gif

Note: In the "Actual" line, the bottom two quintiles are not visible because the lowest quintile owns just 0.1% of all wealth, and the second-lowest quintile owns 0.2%.
Source: Norton & Ariely, 2010.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Here's another one!

And another:
Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_5.gif

The people with the money are going to pay the taxes. It's really rather simple.

KC native
03-05-2011, 02:57 PM
Well if the elites are fighting a war on the middle-class, and income taxes represent your evidence for this, they are badly losing:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/blog20090729-chart2.jpg

That chart completely ignores the tremendous gains in income and wealth that the top 1% have. It's inevitable that they are going to pay more and more in tax as they reap more and more of the pie.

Bewbies
03-05-2011, 03:25 PM
I bet if I showed a chart that showed what "ideal" meant it would be different if it was created by Karl Marx or George Washington. Probably, maybe "ideal" is determined to be the exact same by all people?

The Mad Crapper
03-05-2011, 03:40 PM
That chart completely ignores the tremendous gains in income and wealth that the top 1% have. It's inevitable that they are going to pay more and more in tax as they reap more and more of the pie.

Like it's a zero sum game. :rolleyes:

donkhater
03-05-2011, 04:59 PM
The hypocrisy of the liberal argument is always on isn't it? Trickle-down economics doesn't work as a valid economic theory, but when the argument was to bail out GM, then trickle down economics was obvious. It wasn't just GM workers that would be hurt, they said, but all the parts suppliers, dealerships, etc associated with GM. In essence, GM's bankruptcy would trickle-down the economic food chain. Hypocrites.

FD
03-05-2011, 05:10 PM
That chart completely ignores the tremendous gains in income and wealth that the top 1% have. It's inevitable that they are going to pay more and more in tax as they reap more and more of the pie.

You were using taxes to argue that the elites are waging "war" on the "middle class." I was just pointing out the evidence suggests that they are losing that particular war, and pretty bad.

I agree their share of taxes has gone up because their share of income has, but you had seemingly been arguing the opposite, that their share of income had gone up because they were paying less taxes. That is just plainly false.

Personally, I look at the fact that the incomes of those at the very top of the distribution have grown compared to the rest of the population and I see almost no political causes, just economic ones.

petegz28
03-05-2011, 07:23 PM
So I am getting ready to flip out $4k to $5k in taxes for 2010. Nevermind I was unemployed for 7 months of the year. Yes, I did receive severance and yes, it was taxed and at the high rate (bonus rate).

Meanwhile 47% of the country will get a refund.

Yes, I think some of us are overtaxed and some are not paying their fair share or even close to it.

googlegoogle
03-05-2011, 07:38 PM
The teabagging reactionary right's false-dichotomy between completely unfettered free market capitalism and Marxist Socialism should be transparent to anyone who has a high school education. That it is not apparent to so many in the tea party movement says about all we need to know about those fruitcakes.

Marxist Socialism is an abject failure, but so is unregulated Laissez-faire Capitalism. Both result in gross social inequities and economic exploitation of a nation's middle class and working class by a minority privileged elite (the socialist party in Marxist societies, and over-represented business, corporate, and wealthy interests in Laissez-faire societies.) That is why, after the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and even the Great Society, Americans have embraced a mixed economic model balancing the advantages of capitalism against the security and justice of a social safety net.

It is understandable in each case that the privileged elite would fight to promote their interests above those of others in society--understandable, but not acceptable. It is why Marxist Socialism ultimately failed; it is why in a democratic society...eventually the middle-class will wake-up to what is happening, and put a stop to the abuses and excesses of a society that values preserving privilege for the elite above the economic and social interests of the middle and working classes.

Unfortunately, Americans are slow to recognize what is happening under their own noses. Lower and lower, and lower, taxes....at the expense of a war on the middle class though, will not stand. And, yes, that is precisely what is going on at the moment: a war against the middle class by the privileged elite.

If teabaggers want to demagogue and cover-up what is going on, by calling this "class warfare." Fine, because that is an argument they will lose. In time, those representing the interests of the middle and working classes will eventually figure out the correct rhetoric. And then we'll once again re-establish a balance of the interests of Main Street and Wall Street. And the Tea-Party will go the way of the Whigs, the Dixiecrats, and Ross Perot's revolution as a footnote in American history.

Kotter needs to visit Hong Kong.

And then take a trip to Greece. <-you're ideal state.

RubberSponge
03-05-2011, 08:33 PM
So I am getting ready to flip out $4k to $5k in taxes for 2010. Nevermind I was unemployed for 7 months of the year. Yes, I did receive severance and yes, it was taxed and at the high rate (bonus rate).

Meanwhile 47% of the country will get a refund.

Yes, I think some of us are overtaxed and some are not paying their fair share or even close to it.

Hmm, I'm guessing you didn't have any federal income taxes taken out of your unemployment then. That can be the only logical explanation based on what you presented.

I know another fella in the same situation. He made the same mistake you did, and has to pay about the same amount. He thought taxes were already taken out of his unemployment. Of course this is a guy who wants a consumption tax because he thinks the tax code is unfair. But if you ask him if he knows what a progressive tax is, he will answer with "what's that?"

My wife, who was out of work for 11mos. last year did have taxes taken out of her unemployment and we recieved a refund.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2011, 08:52 PM
Kotter needs to visit Hong Kong.

And then take a trip to Greece. <-you're ideal state.

In Other Words....I'll continue to choke down whatever bullshit I need to, in order to rationalize/justify/or-somehow-make-sense-of the complete BS that the tea party feeds me...because I aspire and have ambition to become one of the Super Elite Master-race and Privileged Classs, ruling plutocrats....so, I'll carry their water, even though, in reality, I'm a douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. NTTAWWT.

UNLESS, of course...you are a PUBLIC douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. Then, well....your life and existence, needs to just end. Permanently. And, for the purpose of our privileged-elite "tax" and "income" status....the sooner, well....the better. Just sayin'....

To be perfectly, well, honest. Heh. :thumb: Heh....

Bewbies
03-05-2011, 09:02 PM
In Other Words....I'll continue to choke down whatever bullshit I need to, in order to rationalize/justify/or-somehow-make-sense-of the complete BS that the tea party feeds me...because I aspire and have ambition to become one of the Super Elite Master-race and Privileged Classs, ruling plutocrats....so, I'll carry their water, even though, in reality, I'm a douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. NTTAWWT.

UNLESS, of course...you are a PUBLIC douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. Then, well....your life and existence, needs to just end. Permanently. And, for the purpose of our privileged-elite "tax" and "income" status....the sooner, well....the better. Just sayin'....

To be perfectly, well, honest. Heh. :thumb: Heh....

You are to the DC forum what Saccopoo is to the Draft forum.

HonestChieffan
03-05-2011, 09:05 PM
In Other Words....I'll continue to choke down whatever bullshit I need to, in order to rationalize/justify/or-somehow-make-sense-of the complete BS that the tea party feeds me...because I aspire and have ambition to become one of the Super Elite Master-race and Privileged Classs, ruling plutocrats....so, I'll carry their water, even though, in reality, I'm a douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. NTTAWWT.

UNLESS, of course...you are a PUBLIC douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. Then, well....your life and existence, needs to just end. Permanently. And, for the purpose of our privileged-elite "tax" and "income" status....the sooner, well....the better. Just sayin'....

To be perfectly, well, honest. Heh. :thumb: Heh....



Have you looked into a career change where you can earn more, have advancement, not have a cap on what you make, be your own boss? Be the man, dont work for the man.

Mr. Kotter
03-05-2011, 09:31 PM
Have you looked into a career change where you can earn more, have advancement, not have a cap on what you make, be your own boss? Be the man, dont work for the man.

Of course, I have. What if I LOVE what I do??? Am I supposed to just say, "well, hell...I just need to sell my soul to Satan, and forget that I don't like/hate my job....and move on."

I mean, money and riches is everything; liking your job, doing-something-rewarding should mean....well, NOTHING: then you will take a pledge of poverty!!!

I don't, personally, think that is what we really want--if we want public schoools to succeed. Of course, we don't. We want to DESTROY those abominations.

Which, of course, is the point: we HOPE public schools fail--even, if they are succeeding in many parts of the country; they can't, because it invalidates our silly-shit "progress" despite the challenges, that PRIVATE and PAROCHIAL schools don't face.

Just Sayin'.... :hmmm:

Bewbies
03-05-2011, 09:44 PM
Of course, I have. What if I LOVE what I do??? Am I supposed to just say, "well, hell...I just need to sell my soul to Satan, and forget that I don't like/hate my job....and move on."

I mean, money and riches is everything; liking your job, doing-something-rewarding should mean....well, NOTHING: then you will take a pledge of poverty!!!

I don't, personally, think that is what we really want--if we want public schoools to succeed. Of course, we don't. We want to DESTROY those abominations.

Which, of course, is the point: we HOPE public schools fail--even, if they are succeeding in many parts of the country; they can't, because it invalidates our silly-shit "progress" despite the challenges, that PRIVATE and PAROCHIAL schools don't face.

Just Sayin'.... :hmmm:

There are more than 300,000 teachers in this country that are millionaires. They spent less than they made, invested, and grew rich.

In this country, there are very few jobs you can have where proper money management and investment won't produce enough for you to become very, very wealthy.

chiefzilla1501
03-05-2011, 10:09 PM
In Other Words....I'll continue to choke down whatever bullshit I need to, in order to rationalize/justify/or-somehow-make-sense-of the complete BS that the tea party feeds me...because I aspire and have ambition to become one of the Super Elite Master-race and Privileged Classs, ruling plutocrats....so, I'll carry their water, even though, in reality, I'm a douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. NTTAWWT.

UNLESS, of course...you are a PUBLIC douche-bag middle-class and working-class dreg. Then, well....your life and existence, needs to just end. Permanently. And, for the purpose of our privileged-elite "tax" and "income" status....the sooner, well....the better. Just sayin'....

To be perfectly, well, honest. Heh. :thumb: Heh....

As a member of the middle class, I have little problem with the rich getting richer. I wish they'd have certain caps on executive compensation, etc... I believe in free enterprise where people are rewarded for a job well done. While plenty of executives prove to be incompetent, most of them got there through working their tail off. And it's not like that money disappears into the ether. The rich use that money to consume more products, which helps middle classers like me stay at work. They spend about 40% of the dollars and currently, they're spending a lot more than they're saving. At least a lot of the tax money not spent is being pumped into the economy.

So what really bothers me more? The rich not paying taxes, or the lower to middle class public sector that very often forces me to pay for shitty services? If my tax dollars are going to a government worker, I don't want to hear about the guy who sits and watches TV for 40 hours a week and then gets a payraise. I don't want to hear about inefficient construction projects that are double the amount contracted for. I don't want to hear about people abusing medicare, cheating welfare and food stamps, etc... on my dime.

There's two ways to fix this mess. On the one hand, you can increase tax rates to the rich, which they'll probably find creative ways to dodge those taxes anyway, or we can demand that we get more for the tax dollars we spend. I'd much rather focus on the latter right now than the former.

2bikemike
03-05-2011, 10:21 PM
There are more than 300,000 teachers in this country that are millionaires. They spent less than they made, invested, and grew rich.

In this country, there are very few jobs you can have where proper money management and investment won't produce enough for you to become very, very wealthy.

I have argued this point before on here. Many refuse to believe it. They prefer to wallow in their own self pity and whine how the government or whatever demographic is screwing them over and holding them down.

petegz28
03-05-2011, 11:03 PM
Hmm, I'm guessing you didn't have any federal income taxes taken out of your unemployment then. That can be the only logical explanation based on what you presented.

I know another fella in the same situation. He made the same mistake you did, and has to pay about the same amount. He thought taxes were already taken out of his unemployment. Of course this is a guy who wants a consumption tax because he thinks the tax code is unfair. But if you ask him if he knows what a progressive tax is, he will answer with "what's that?"

My wife, who was out of work for 11mos. last year did have taxes taken out of her unemployment and we recieved a refund.

I got all of $11k worth of unemployment.

RubberSponge
03-05-2011, 11:26 PM
I got all of $11k worth of unemployment.

So you didn't pay federal income taxes on your unemployment benefits you recieved? If that's the case, I'm still failing to see how any other reason that you owe money is none other than your own fault.

I mean, no one knows your income status better than yourself. You know fairly well from year to year what your deductions and other tax breaks you recieve. It's not like this all of sudden just changed for you. Gotta plan better, I guess.

CrazyPhuD
03-06-2011, 12:05 AM
Well if the elites are fighting a war on the middle-class, and income taxes represent your evidence for this, they are badly losing:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/blog20090729-chart2.jpg

Let me quote this because we're on the second page and my comment may not make as much sense if we don't.

So one thing that people don't realize about this is that it's doubly bad for everyone. The obvious comment that's made is that if too much of the tax burden is paid by those at the top then those at the bottom will have no reason not to demand additional services because they aren't paying for them.

The other semi unsaid factor is that if say 80-90% of your tax base is being paid by 1% of your population, then a decent fraction of that 1% is likely to leave for greener pastures. When that happens your system collapses likely worse than the recession we just went through and very possibly worse than the great depression.

As to those who say oh no that would never happen. Well I'm sure there are plenty of countries that would bend over backwards to attract the top 1% of the nation and would offer very advantageous tax structures. It happens today with corporations, it can very easily happen with people too. A 'small' number of very high net worth people becoming citizens of say, ireland for instance would substantially increase their tax roles without adding huge burdens on the country. We live in a globally connected world, you can live and work from anywhere.

The issue of economic disparity is a significant concern, the country is founded upon the principle that everyone can make it big if they work hard enough. To lose that is a major concern. It will always be easier for some but there has to be 'new money'. I suspect wall street is one of the leading causes for this distortion and we do need to figure out some way to address this. BUT you don't want to overtax small business and those hyper creative people. That would seriously affect our ability to be competitive for new and future technologies. Why? Big risk requires big reward, if you reduce the potential for big rewards then you will affect people trying new and novel things. It will markedly affect invention and that is a bad thing.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_4.gif

Heh this graph is a lot more misleading than the original representation because that 'ideal' is what people think not economists. Personally I suspect that that ideal would be very bad for this country in terms of relevancy and creativity. Where we are now is not good but that would be an overshoot. The current people's estimate of where we are is actually probably a much better place. Say adjust it so that ~50% of the nations wealth is owned by the top 20% and adjust the remaining brackets proportionally.

Personally I'm a fan of an estate tax because money that crosses generations makes people lazy but I understand some of people's dislike with it from the point of view of breaking up farms and companies and the question of people dying young. But if they can make reasonable compromises/accounting for those concerns I would be a fan of a very high estate tax. That combined with addressing wall street concerns should go a fairly log way to fixing our current situation.

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 06:29 AM
I have argued this point before on here. Many refuse to believe it. They prefer to wallow in their own self pity and whine how the government or whatever demographic is screwing them over and holding them down.

I agree.

As well, we all make choices. If your motivation is simply doing something you love knowing there are pay limits then dont complain about the pay limits. Job satisfaction is a huge part of being happy in life. But you have to understand what makes a job satisfying. And if low pay pisses you off, then I question if you can be really happy in that job.

If money is your motivation, then working in a low paying job or industry is a poor decision. Just because some guy took the risk to start a business and is wildly successful is no reason to want to confiscate his rewards because you choose a different path.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 07:19 AM
So you didn't pay federal income taxes on your unemployment benefits you recieved? If that's the case, I'm still failing to see how any other reason that you owe money is none other than your own fault.

I mean, no one knows your income status better than yourself. You know fairly well from year to year what your deductions and other tax breaks you recieve. It's not like this all of sudden just changed for you. Gotta plan better, I guess.

Um do the math, $5k on $11k is 45%. The same rate I was taxed on my severance.

RubberSponge
03-06-2011, 08:18 AM
Um do the math, $5k on $11k is 45%. The same rate I was taxed on my severance.

So you as a homeowner with maybe a kid or 2, after all deductions and other cuts/credits your federal tax burden is 45%?

My wife and I made together last year about 95K. Our federal tax burden after all deductions/cuts/credits was just slightly over 15%. If yours isn't close to that. It's you that is doing something wrong. No one in this country has a federal tax burden anywhere close to 45% on the first 100K of income. No one.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 08:25 AM
So you as a homeowner with maybe a kid or 2, after all deductions and other cuts/credits your federal tax burden is 45%?

My wife and I made together last year about 95K. Our federal tax burden after all deductions/cuts/credits was just slightly over 15%. If yours isn't close to that. It's you that is doing something wrong. No one in this country has a federal tax burden anywhere close to 45% on the first 100K of income. No one.

My tax burden initially was $8k. Point is I am shelling out several thousand $'s while people who get money back bitch that they are overtaxed. That's $5k on top of the $20k or so I have already paid via withholding, etc.

RubberSponge
03-06-2011, 08:33 AM
My tax burden initially was $8k. Point is I am shelling out several thousand $'s while people who get money back bitch that they are overtaxed.

You're shelling it out because you didn't have anything taken out.

As far as your point goes. So you dont think you aren't overtaxed?

RubberSponge
03-06-2011, 08:36 AM
My tax burden initially was $8k. Point is I am shelling out several thousand $'s while people who get money back bitch that they are overtaxed. That's $5k on top of the $20k or so I have already paid via withholding, etc.

...adding to your edit...

Your withholding isn't your tax burden.

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 09:12 AM
...adding to your edit...

Your withholding isn't your tax burden.

LMAO

Who's burden is it?

petegz28
03-06-2011, 10:16 AM
You're shelling it out because you didn't have anything taken out.

As far as your point goes. So you dont think you aren't overtaxed?

I guess it just flies right over your head.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 10:20 AM
LMAO

Who's burden is it?

apparently not the person paying the taxes

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 10:45 AM
...adding to your edit...

Your withholding isn't your tax burden.



????? lots of wtf here

KC native
03-06-2011, 12:41 PM
You were using taxes to argue that the elites are waging "war" on the "middle class." I was just pointing out the evidence suggests that they are losing that particular war, and pretty bad.

I agree their share of taxes has gone up because their share of income has, but you had seemingly been arguing the opposite, that their share of income had gone up because they were paying less taxes. That is just plainly false.

Personally, I look at the fact that the incomes of those at the very top of the distribution have grown compared to the rest of the population and I see almost no political causes, just economic ones.

Except there are numerous political causes. The tax code has been continuously tinkered with to move the burden off the wealthy onto lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. David Cay Johnston's work on this is fantastic (he has two books that cover this and are awesome).

Also, who do you think capital gains tax cuts and a reduction of dividend taxes really benefit?

Edit: Also, only looking at income taxes paints an incomplete picture. Looking at one measure in a vacuum doesn't reflect reality.

Saul Good
03-06-2011, 12:53 PM
Which, of course, is the point: we HOPE public schools fail--even, if they are succeeding in many parts of the country; they can't, because it invalidates our silly-shit "progress" despite the challenges, that PRIVATE and PAROCHIAL schools don't face.

Kotter nails it again. Conservatives WANT public schools to fail.

It's not that conservatives recognize that public schools HAVE failed and that we want an alternative. It's that we want private and parochial schools just because we do and that we want public schools to fail so that we can reach our dream of having more private schools.

The Mad Crapper
03-06-2011, 01:16 PM
Of course, I have. What if I LOVE what I do??? Am I supposed to just say, "well, hell...I just need to sell my soul to Satan, and forget that I don't like/hate my job....and move on."

I mean, money and riches is everything; liking your job, doing-something-rewarding should mean....well, NOTHING: then you will take a pledge of poverty!!!

I don't, personally, think that is what we really want--if we want public schoools to succeed. Of course, we don't. We want to DESTROY those abominations.

Which, of course, is the point: we HOPE public schools fail--even, if they are succeeding in many parts of the country; they can't, because it invalidates our silly-shit "progress" despite the challenges, that PRIVATE and PAROCHIAL schools don't face.

Just Sayin'.... :hmmm:

http://www.rightsidenews.com/images/stories/March_2011/Life_and_Science/Health_and_Education/Illiteracy_in_America.jpg

RubberSponge
03-06-2011, 02:24 PM
LMAO

Who's burden is it?

ROFL

The amount of your income you have withheld isn't your tax burden. It's no wonder you guys owe thousands in taxes.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 02:36 PM
Often lost amid all the acrimony and rancor of budget deficits and program and spending cuts, is one simple truth: Americans rank near the bottom of nearly any legitimate measure of "total tax burden" when comparing us against other industrialized nations in the world.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/the-tax-burden-around-the-developed-world/

http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

FTR, I understand there is plenty government programs and spending that should be reformed--and, yes, cut.

However, consensus on what can and should be cut is elusive, at best. It seems to me that our inability to effectively prioritize spending, and to root out real waste and fraud is the real culprit in our current financial mess.

Regardless, how anyone can seriously argue that as a nation we are "over-taxed"...is simply ludicrous. That so many people, seemingly, have accepted this lie as conventional wisdom, is the biggest symptom of the decline of this country. For me, that's a pretty depressing realization.

I mean, when our biggest goal has become: to join Korea, Turkey, and Mexico as the "least taxed" among industrialized nations....that's reason to be depressed, IMHO.

That's because 20% of "we" think that we're in the top 1% of wage earners, and another 19% think we one day will be. Thus, when taking about top marginal tax rates, you're just insulting what "we" will become and taking away the future earnings we will make since 39% easily fits into 1%.

Of course, it's not like those people pay much in taxes anyway, since the majority of their earnings comes from capital gains, which is taxed at a pathetic 15% rate.

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 02:42 PM
ROFL

The amount of your income you have withheld isn't your tax burden. It's no wonder you guys owe thousands in taxes.

:LOL:

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 02:43 PM
Of course, it's not like those people pay much in taxes anyway, since the majority of their earnings comes from capital gains, which is taxed at a pathetic 15% rate.

What would be a less pathetic rate?

FD
03-06-2011, 02:51 PM
Except there are numerous political causes. The tax code has been continuously tinkered with to move the burden off the wealthy onto lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. David Cay Johnston's work on this is fantastic (he has two books that cover this and are awesome).

Also, who do you think capital gains tax cuts and a reduction of dividend taxes really benefit?

Edit: Also, only looking at income taxes paints an incomplete picture. Looking at one measure in a vacuum doesn't reflect reality.

Its fine if you disagree with those tax policies, but your argument blaming them for the rising income inequality doesn't hold up. Pre-tax income inequality has risen just as much as after-tax.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 02:55 PM
Its fine if you disagree with those tax policies, but your argument blaming them for the rising income inequality doesn't hold up. Pre-tax income inequality has risen just as much as after-tax.

The Gini coefficient, which measures financial inequality, correlates perfectly with tax changes. The more taxes are cut (and they are always cut more for the upper classes), the more unequal the distribution of wealth becomes.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 02:56 PM
What would be a less pathetic rate?

The amount your income is taxed at.

Also, removing caps on regressive taxes like SS would help.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 04:23 PM
ROFL

The amount of your income you have withheld isn't your tax burden. It's no wonder you guys owe thousands in taxes.

Yeah,a ll that hoopla of them taxing money out of my paycheck doesn't count towards my taxes. WTF was I thinking?

petegz28
03-06-2011, 04:25 PM
The amount your income is taxed at.

Also, removing caps on regressive taxes like SS would help.

47% of this country gets a refund. A percentage of that gets back more than what was taken out of their check for the year.

How about those people up some money before we start blasting those who do pay for not payin enough? Just sayin

BucEyedPea
03-06-2011, 04:47 PM
Income taxes should be abolished. All Federal social and welfare spending should eventually be abolished too. Kotter put out on the street.

Gary
03-06-2011, 05:21 PM
Income taxes should be abolished. All Federal social and welfare spending should eventually be abolished too. Kotter put out on the street.

Based on this thread, it looks like we are heading to be a country-sized version of the donner party.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 05:27 PM
47% of this country gets a refund. A percentage of that gets back more than what was taken out of their check for the year.

How about those people up some money before we start blasting those who do pay for not payin enough? Just sayin

80% of people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, but you never hear conservatives talk about cutting those, do you?

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 05:31 PM
80% of people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, but you never hear conservatives talk about cutting those, do you?

something like 50% pay zero in income taxes and a big old pile get more back than they have in withholding....so cry me a damn river Jack. Its time every wage earner gets into the game and stop riding on the backs of the rest. Payroll taxes you refer to is SS and they get every dime and more back in the future.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 05:50 PM
80% of people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, but you never hear conservatives talk about cutting those, do you?

Think about what you just said and what I said. Over half of those 80% get money back. Some get back more than they even paid. So you have people actually making a profit for themselves by filing their taxes. Yes, that is a fact. Yet we hear how those who actually do pay aren't paying enough.

The Mad Crapper
03-06-2011, 05:55 PM
80% of people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, but you never hear conservatives talk about cutting those, do you?

And they get an EIC check which more than compensates for any payroll deductions for medicaid/medicare (which most of them get as well).

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 05:58 PM
something like 50% pay zero in income taxes and a big old pile get more back than they have in withholding...

Incorrect.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 06:03 PM
Think about what you just said and what I said. Over half of those 80% get money back. Some get back more than they even paid. So you have people actually making a profit for themselves by filing their taxes. Yes, that is a fact. Yet we hear how those who actually do pay aren't paying enough.

This is not true either. That's only true for the first bracket, unless you have tons of exotic deductions and/or children.

The Mad Crapper
03-06-2011, 06:16 PM
This is not true either. That's only true for the first bracket, unless you have tons of exotic deductions and/or children.

So then it is true. LMAO

And why are convicts in prison filing (fraudelent) returns?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-15/justice/inmate.tax.scam_1_inmates-social-security-numbers-jail-cell?_s=PM:CRIME

Psyko Tek
03-06-2011, 06:55 PM
Unfettered greed and narcissism has become more American than hot dogs, apple pie, or Chevrolet. :shake:

the dogs and chevys are imported from china
the apple pie comes from canada

petegz28
03-06-2011, 07:10 PM
This is not true either. That's only true for the first bracket, unless you have tons of exotic deductions and/or children.

The stats showed last year 47% of people ended up paying net-net 0 in taxes. Meaing they got a refund.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 07:12 PM
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 07:16 PM
The bigger question is, how is your income "too low" to pay taxes? Bush did that for the first bracket and all we heard was the rich got tax breaks. And then again when Obama extended the Bush tax cuts all we heard was the rich got tax breaks. Almost half this ****ing country paid $0 in federal taxes last year. So who really is getting the tax breaks?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 07:20 PM
The stats showed last year 47% of people ended up paying net-net 0 in taxes. Meaing they got a refund.

Getting a refund does not mean you pay nothing in federal taxes. Not even close.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 07:25 PM
Getting a refund does not mean you pay nothing in federal taxes. Not even close.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009

Does that not register? That means 53% of the country is paying 100% of the Fed tab. You see nothing wrong with that?

chris
03-06-2011, 07:28 PM
The amount your income is taxed at.

Also, removing caps on regressive taxes like SS would help.


Probably the silliest post in this entertaining thread. :(

Low capital gains rate is the REWARD for taking the capital risk!

Why does the looters always look to take from the producers first?

A flat tax removes all political and class warfare.

But no.....progressives believe that your money is their money.

Mr. Kotter
03-06-2011, 07:29 PM
The stats showed last year 47% of people ended up paying net-net 0 in taxes. Meaing they got a refund.

Did they get a refund of their FICA and Medicare too?

If not, S.T.F.U. Mr. Princeess-of-the-Douchebag Teabaggers.

Just sayin'.... :hmmm:

chris
03-06-2011, 07:31 PM
80% of people pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes, but you never hear conservatives talk about cutting those, do you?

Amazing clear thinking!

Duh! if you don't pay taxes, your payroll taxes will be higher.

chris
03-06-2011, 07:37 PM
Did they get a refund of their FICA and Medicare too?

If not, S.T.F.U. Mr. Princeess-of-the-Douchebag Teabaggers.

Just sayin'.... :hmmm:

Apples and oranges.

BTW, its easy to throw insults when your logic is flawed.

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 08:59 PM
Incorrect.

Bullshit. Prove its not correct.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:05 PM
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009

Does that not register? That means 53% of the country is paying 100% of the Fed tab. You see nothing wrong with that?

If you actually read the article, you'd see that they pay none when they file. Even if you get a refund, and many do, the refund does not outpace your withholdings.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:07 PM
Bullshit. Prove its not correct.

Learn how to read a W2

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 09:12 PM
Learn how to read a W2


Learn facts. You called it, so show it. People who earn under 50 grand for the most part pay zero Fed Income tax.

Go run from your statement. W2 has nothing to do with net taxes paid .

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:14 PM
W2 has nothing to do with net taxes paid .

Yeah, but it does list some interesting stuff, like how much of your salary went into various forms of taxation.

If 50% paid no federal income taxes, then their federal withholdings (line 2) would be equal to or lesser than their refund after appropriate filings, tax credits, deductions, etc.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:14 PM
Did they get a refund of their FICA and Medicare too?

If not, S.T.F.U. Mr. Princeess-of-the-Douchebag Teabaggers.

Just sayin'.... :hmmm:

OMG, they had to pay into medicare and FICA????? Be still my fucking heart. So did everyone else!

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:17 PM
If you actually read the article, you'd see that they pay none when they file. Even if you get a refund, and many do, the refund does not outpace your withholdings.

In some cases, Mr. Hammas, it does outpace. And I liek getting a refund as mucha s the next guy, but it's hard to explain how you deserve even a bigger refund to someone who is paying out so you can get your refund.

I mean, think about it, I am paying taxes so someone else can get a refund. Do I use more of the road, military, or any fed services than they do? No. In fact, they probably use more than me and on my dime.

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 09:18 PM
Yeah, but it does list some interesting stuff, like how much of your salary went into various forms of taxation.

If 50% paid no federal income taxes, then their federal withholdings (line 2) would be equal to or lesser than their refund after appropriate filings, tax credits, deductions, etc.

The point that you are now trying to avoid is that many pay zero except for FICA. And a ton get not only withholding back, they get more. So stop running away from what you said.

We have far too many wage earners who pay zero or less. Carry your part of the load. Freeloading is not a good thing unless you are running for office and you like confiscation from others to gain a vote.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:20 PM
Yeah, but it does list some interesting stuff, like how much of your salary went into various forms of taxation.

If 50% paid no federal income taxes, then their federal withholdings (line 2) would be equal to or lesser than their refund after appropriate filings, tax credits, deductions, etc.

and in many cases it is just that. My best friend knows exactly how much he will get each year when he gets his W2 by looking at what the Fed withheld. He gets that amount every year back in his pocket like clockwork.

A girl he dated actually got almost $2k back + what they withheld.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:24 PM
Then riddle me this:

If 50% of US taxpayers pay no federal at all, then why is it that the bottom quintile pays a tax burden of +2.3% (they get 2.3% of all federal taxes paid in back) and the second quintile pays .3% of income taxes.

See, here's the thing: if it really were 50%, then the bottom half would pay no share of the federal income tax, but that's not the case. Even the second-to-bottom quintile pays in a portion of the federal burden, as does the middle quintile, and progressively greater until the top 20%.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:26 PM
The point that you are now trying to avoid is that many pay zero except for FICA. And a ton get not only withholding back, they get more. So stop running away from what you said.

We have far too many wage earners who pay zero or less. Carry your part of the load. Freeloading is not a good thing unless you are running for office and you like confiscation from others to gain a vote.

No, an overwhelming majority of citizens pay into the system, but many do pay more into FICA than they do into Federal withholding.

I'm not running away from anything, you just lack reading comprehension. I'm not going to apologize for your failings. If you believe in personal responsibility, you need to take it upon yourself to learn about the topics you wish to debate.

chris
03-06-2011, 09:33 PM
No, an overwhelming majority of citizens pay into the system, but many do pay more into FICA than they do into Federal withholding.

I'm not running away from anything, you just lack reading comprehension. I'm not going to apologize for your failings. If you believe in personal responsibility, you need to take it upon yourself to learn about the topics you wish to debate.

You are really clueless. Amazing.

This very fact alone shows that our tax system is broken.

Why should others pay your taxes?

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:33 PM
Then riddle me this:

If 50% of US taxpayers pay no federal at all, then why is it that the bottom quintile pays a tax burden of +2.3% (they get 2.3% of all federal taxes paid in back) and the second quintile pays .3% of income taxes.

See, here's the thing: if it really were 50%, then the bottom half would pay no share of the federal income tax, but that's not the case. Even the second-to-bottom quintile pays in a portion of the federal burden, as does the middle quintile, and progressively greater until the top 20%.

I'd like to see your source so I could better understand the numbers and what all is being included. DO you ahve a link? By tax burden are they including FICA and Medicare, sales tax, etc?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:35 PM
The CBO:

<table class="wikitable" style="width: 75%; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Percentile
(2001 CBO data)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Earnings</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Federal Tax Share</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Federal Tax Share
(incl. Social Security)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Federal Tax Rate
(incl. Social Security)</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Top 1%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">52.4%</td> <td>34.4%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">82.5%</td> <td>22.7%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">65.3%</td> <td>33.0%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">26.8%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>95%–98%</td> <td>12.7%</td> <td>20.8%</td> <td>15.8%</td> <td>na</td> </tr> <tr> <td>90%–94%</td> <td>10.1%</td> <td>12.5%</td> <td>11.5%</td> <td>na</td> </tr> <tr> <td>80%–89%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td>15.3%</td> <td>na</td> </tr> <tr> <td>60–79%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">20.7%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">14.3%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">18.5%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">19.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>40–59%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">14.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 5.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">10.0%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">15.2%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>20–39%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 9.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 0.3%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 4.9%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">11.6%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>0–19%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 4.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">−2.3%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 1.0%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">5.4%</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="wikitable" style="width: 90%; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Percentile
(1991 to 2004 Tax Foundation data)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Income
(incl. govt. transfers)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Federal Tax Share
(incl. Social Security)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">State and Local Tax Share</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Total Tax Share
(incl. Fed, State, Local)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Total Tax Rate
(incl. Fed, State, Local)</th> </tr> <tr> <td>80%–100%</td> <td>41.5%</td> <td>52.8%</td> <td>41.4%</td> <td>48.8%</td> <td>34.5%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>60–79%</td> <td>21.0%</td> <td>22.2%</td> <td>22.7%</td> <td>22.4%</td> <td>31.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>40–59%</td> <td>15.4%</td> <td>14.1%</td> <td>16.3%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td>28.2%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>20–39%</td> <td>12.2%</td> <td>8.3%</td> <td>12.2%</td> <td>9.6%</td> <td>23.2%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>0–19%</td> <td>9.8%</td> <td>2.6%</td> <td>7.5%</td> <td>4.3%</td> <td>13.0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:37 PM
You are really clueless. Amazing.

This very fact alone shows that our tax system is broken.

Why should others pay your taxes?

What I'm clueless to is how you could draw that conclusion based on the evidence given.

If you want to make a philosophical assertion that the tax system should be different, then go ahead, but you can't state falsities like the fact that half of people pay no federal taxes and expect that claim to go unchallenged. It's specious bullshit.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:37 PM
You are really clueless. Amazing.

This very fact alone shows that our tax system is broken.

Why should others pay your taxes?

The simple and fucked up fact of it all is others will always pay the taxes of others. Even at a flat tax, 20% of $100k is still greater than 20% of $50k.

Where I get pissy is when a bunch of people who get refunds every year bitch about someone else who actually pays getting a tax cut. I would argue that my tax bill should be offset by the amount of your refund. But that will never happen.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:38 PM
The CBO:

<table class="wikitable" style="width: 75%; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Percentile
(2001 CBO data)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Earnings</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Federal Tax Share</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Federal Tax Share
(incl. Social Security)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;" colspan="2">Federal Tax Rate
(incl. Social Security)</th> </tr> <tr> <td>Top 1%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">52.4%</td> <td>34.4%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">82.5%</td> <td>22.7%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">65.3%</td> <td>33.0%</td> <td rowspan="4" align="right">26.8%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>95%98%</td> <td>12.7%</td> <td>20.8%</td> <td>15.8%</td> <td>na</td> </tr> <tr> <td>90%94%</td> <td>10.1%</td> <td>12.5%</td> <td>11.5%</td> <td>na</td> </tr> <tr> <td>80%89%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td>15.3%</td> <td>na</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6079%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">20.7%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">14.3%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">18.5%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">19.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4059%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">14.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 5.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">10.0%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">15.2%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2039%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 9.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 0.3%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 4.9%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">11.6%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>019%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 4.2%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">−2.3%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right"> 1.0%</td> <td colspan="2" align="right">5.4%</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="wikitable" style="width: 90%; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Percentile
(1991 to 2004 Tax Foundation data)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Income
(incl. govt. transfers)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Federal Tax Share
(incl. Social Security)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">State and Local Tax Share</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Total Tax Share
(incl. Fed, State, Local)</th> <th style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(224, 224, 224); width: 15%;">Total Tax Rate
(incl. Fed, State, Local)</th> </tr> <tr> <td>80%100%</td> <td>41.5%</td> <td>52.8%</td> <td>41.4%</td> <td>48.8%</td> <td>34.5%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6079%</td> <td>21.0%</td> <td>22.2%</td> <td>22.7%</td> <td>22.4%</td> <td>31.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4059%</td> <td>15.4%</td> <td>14.1%</td> <td>16.3%</td> <td>14.8%</td> <td>28.2%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2039%</td> <td>12.2%</td> <td>8.3%</td> <td>12.2%</td> <td>9.6%</td> <td>23.2%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>019%</td> <td>9.8%</td> <td>2.6%</td> <td>7.5%</td> <td>4.3%</td> <td>13.0%</td></tr></tbody></table>

I appreciate the link but that was 2001 data. The article I posted was in relation to 2009.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:40 PM
The simple and fucked up fact of it all is others will always pay the taxes of others. Even at a flat tax, 20% of $100k is still greater than 20% of $50k.

Where I get pissy is when a bunch of people who get refunds every year bitch about someone else who actually pays getting a tax cut. I would argue that my tax bill should be offset by the amount of your refund. But that will never happen.

Pete, we both go to the grocery store and buy a can of Coke. It's $1.50

You make 100K a year, I make 20K a year. Who pays a higher percentage of their income for the tax on that can of Coke?

chris
03-06-2011, 09:40 PM
The simple and ****ed up fact of it all is others will always pay the taxes of others. Even at a flat tax, 20% of $100k is still greater than 20% of $50k.

Where I get pissy is when a bunch of people who get refunds every year bitch about someone else who actually pays getting a tax cut. I would argue that my tax bill should be offset by the amount of your refund. But that will never happen.

I have no problem with a flat tax.

15% would be heaven.

Of course, never happen. Poli can't offer bribes to their bases.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:40 PM
I appreciate the link but that was 2001 data. The article I posted was in relation to 2009.

And the 2004 data (from which the tax rates have not changed) that is in the very thing you are quoting is....

chris
03-06-2011, 09:41 PM
Pete, we both go to the grocery store and buy a can of Coke. It's $1.50

You make 100K a year, I make 20K a year. Who pays a higher percentage of their income for the tax on that can of Coke?

Go make more $$.

Poor comparison.

Looter mentality.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:42 PM
Pete, we both go to the grocery store and buy a can of Coke. It's $1.50

You make 100K a year, I make 20K a year. Who pays a higher percentage of their income for the tax on that can of Coke?

That's not a good analogy because we are both paying the same for the same product. My arugment would be that if you were to apply our tax code to your analogy, you might pay $1.50 for a coke because you earn $20k but since I earn $100k I would have to pay $3 for the same coke.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:42 PM
Go make more $$.

Poor comparison.

.

So maybe instead of bitching about your tax rates, you should just make less money. It follows the same logic.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:43 PM
That's not a good analogy because we are both paying the same for the same product. My arugment would be that if you were to apply our tax code to your analogy, you might pay $1.50 for a coke because you earn $20k but since I earn $100k I would have to pay $3 for the same coke.

No, that's a red herring.

If you want to talk about the merits of a flat tax, it needs to take into account the fact that people of lower incomes are charged more of their income for basic goods and services.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:44 PM
And the 2004 data (from which the tax rates have not changed) that is in the very thing you are quoting is....

That was 1991-2004. Show me the #'s from 2009. There were additional tax credits added, such a "make work pay", or whatever it was called.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:46 PM
No, that's a red herring.

If you want to talk about the merits of a flat tax, it needs to take into account the fact that people of lower incomes are charged more of their income for basic goods and services.

See, this is where you want it both ways. On one hand you want to say x% is too much, on the other hand you want to say x$'s is too much.

And flat tax or not, no one is charged more for anything based on their income except for their tax bill.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:47 PM
So maybe instead of bitching about your tax rates, you should just make less money. It follows the same logic.

There is a small amount of logic to that. But the effects of such would be stifiling to the productivity of our economy.

In fact, I would add that this proves how much you actually need people to be rich. If everyone made less money the Fed Gov would take in less and eventually be forced to tax more.

chris
03-06-2011, 09:53 PM
That's not a good analogy because we are both paying the same for the same product. My arugment would be that if you were to apply our tax code to your analogy, you might pay $1.50 for a coke because you earn $20k but since I earn $100k I would have to pay $3 for the same coke.

well said.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:55 PM
That was 1991-2004. Show me the #'s from 2009. There were additional tax credits added, such a "make work pay", or whatever it was called.

Making Work Pay was like $400 bucks. That's not nearly enough to offset 40% of the population.

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 09:56 PM
So maybe instead of bitching about your tax rates, you should just make less money. It follows the same logic.

You are the Frankie of Tax discussions.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 09:56 PM
See, this is where you want it both ways. On one hand you want to say x% is too much, on the other hand you want to say x$'s is too much.

And flat tax or not, no one is charged more for anything based on their income except for their tax bill.

No, I want it one way: a progressive tax system without loopholes.

This isn't hard to understand.

chris
03-06-2011, 09:56 PM
No, that's a red herring.

If you want to talk about the merits of a flat tax, it needs to take into account the fact that people of lower incomes are charged more of their income for basic goods and services.

And why shouldn't they? If they want more, go make more!!!!!!!!!

When I was 18, I was broke and had to work my way thru college.

Then years after years of 80 hour weeks.

I should have more that the ones who chose not to work as hard.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:57 PM
Making Work Pay was like $400 bucks. That's not nearly enough to offset 40% of the population.

Thus my wanting to see the #'s. There were all kinds of tax credits. For cars, windows, applicances, etc. Anyway, I will have to take up this discussion at another time. I have some poo-nay-nay waiting for me in the bedroom.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 09:59 PM
No, I want it one way: a progressive tax system without loopholes.

This isn't hard to understand.

So you essentially want to penalize financial success.

chris
03-06-2011, 10:00 PM
No, I want it one way: a progressive tax system without loopholes.

This isn't hard to understand.

Does Hamas actually work for a living?

When I was college student, I was liberal and believed in helping others. When I got out in the real world, I observed the looter mentality and grew up.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 10:02 PM
Hamas, I will make my final point and tap into your previous analogy. You wouldn't pay 2$ for something on the $1 menu at McDonald's simply because you make more than the customer in front of you, would you? So theoretcially speaking, why should someone pay more in taxes than someone else simply on the basis of them making more money? Are they getting a bonus in services provided by the Fed Gov? No. In fact the people who pay the least in taxes are one of the biggest draws on our federal services.

When it comes to taxes, it is the only thing in this country where you can get more by paying less.

If I pay $5k in taxes and someone pays $1k, am I entitled to take up 2 lanes on the federal highways to his 1? After all, I paid more than he did to drive on the same highway, didn't I?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 10:03 PM
So you essentially want to penalize financial success.

If it was so penalizing to financial success, people would have just said "fuck the tech bubble, I'm staying home" in the 90s when the tax rates for the upper earners were 6% higher, and no one would have done anything in the 50s-70s when the top rate ranged from 91%-70%.

Your claim does not match up with history.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 10:04 PM
Hamas, I will make my final point and tap into your previous analogy. You wouldn't pay 2$ for something on the $1 menu at McDonald's simply because you make more than the customer in front of you, would you? So theoretcially speaking, why should someone pay more in taxes than someone else simply on the basis of them making more money? Are they getting a bonus in services provided by the Fed Gov? No. In fact the people who pay the least in taxes are one of the biggest draws on our federal services.

When it comes to taxes, it is the only thing in this country where you can get more by paying less.

Because they are benefiting more from the system. You know that whole philosophical idea, "of those who have been given much, much will be required"? They also wield far more clout because of their income, which also allows them to affect policy in a disproportionate manner to someone who makes less money.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 10:05 PM
Does Hamas actually work for a living?

When I was college student, I was liberal and believed in helping others. When I got out in the real world, I observed the looter mentality and grew up.

Because you can't support a progressive tax system unless you are unemployed.

T-post Tom
03-06-2011, 10:06 PM
The problem with our tax system is that it's been hijacked by the extremely rich. Corporate welfare and welfare for the mega-rich is an inherent part of our tax code.

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 10:07 PM
The problem with our tax system is that it's been hijacked by the extremely rich. Corporate welfare and welfare for the mega-rich is an inherent part of our tax code.


OK then

chris
03-06-2011, 10:10 PM
The problem with our tax system is that it's been hijacked by the extremely rich. Corporate welfare and welfare for the mega-rich is an inherent part of our tax code.


47% don't pay taxes.

"Here's your Sign."

petegz28
03-06-2011, 10:13 PM
Because they are benefiting more from the system. You know that whole philosophical idea, "of those who have been given much, much will be required"? They also wield far more clout because of their income, which also allows them to affect policy in a disproportionate manner to someone who makes less money.

Well, not to shoot a hole in your argument but in this case, those who have been given much are not expected to do anything more. We hand out money and services and expect little if anything in return. That is the problem. I am not naive enough to think the socialistic aspects of our tax code will ever go away. I do not have a problem with my tax $'s helping those who are truly in need. By that I mean a handicaped person or a single mom who is working her ass off to better her situation and needs help making ends meet in the meantime.

Having said that we know for every legit person that I have mentioned above there are 3-4 who just are lazy and want their way paid for by others. That is where I have a problem. I have a problem with someone who wants to sit on their ass and pay dick for taxes bitching about those who pay a lot in taxes getting a tax cut or not being taxed enough. Which is why I favor a flat tax. Those truly in need of help will still receive the help and those looking for a free ride or choosing to be lazy will be either forced to deal with paying higher taxes and doing with less or getting off their ass to make something of their life.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 10:14 PM
The problem with our tax system is that it's been hijacked by the extremely rich. Corporate welfare and welfare for the mega-rich is an inherent part of our tax code.

LMAO.....oh that was funny

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 10:15 PM
Well, not to shoot a hole in your argument but in this case, those who have been given much are not expected to do anything more. We hand out money and services and expect little if anything in return. That is the problem. I am not naive enough to think the socialistic aspects of our tax code will ever go away. I do not have a problem with my tax $'s helping those who are truly in need. By that I mean a handicaped person or a single mom who is working her ass off to better her situation and needs help making ends meet in the meantime.

Having said that we know for every legit person that I have mentioned above there are 3-4 who just are lazy and want their way paid for by others. That is where I have a problem. I have a problem with someone who wants to sit on their ass and pay dick for taxes bitching about those who pay a lot in taxes getting a tax cut or not being taxed enough. Which is why I favor a flat tax. Those truly in need of help will still receive the help and those looking for a free ride or choosing to be lazy will be either forced to deal with paying higher taxes and doing with less or getting off their ass to make something of their life.

You really think that of the bottom section of society (by income) that 75-80% are just leeches and only 20-25% actually work hard?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2011, 10:16 PM
47% don't pay taxes.

"Here's your Sign."

The real number is about 10, but keep using those Blue Collar sound bites, they become your intelligence level.

HonestChieffan
03-06-2011, 10:17 PM
The real number is about 10, but keep using those Blue Collar sound bites, they become your intelligence level.

Frankie 2x.

Eject while you can.

petegz28
03-06-2011, 10:22 PM
You really think that of the bottom section of society (by income) that 75-80% are just leeches and only 20-25% actually work hard?

I think there is a good portion of that who are, yes. I think there is a good portion of that who feel they don't need to do much to better themselves because they fed gov or the state will take care of them and they are content to live as such. We have more grants and low interest loans and etc for people who want to go to school and learn a trade. So no one can claim they don't have an opportunity to better themselves.

I grew up in the inner-city and worked there for several years. I saw the people who chose to be content living off the fed gov instead of getting off their ass and doing something to better their situation. Instead of going to school at night or workin a second job or doing whatever it is they had to do, they chose to punch the clock at 5:00, come into the liquor store, try to sell me their food stamps for .50 on the $ and buy beer or alcohol. I also saw several elderly and handicapped people who actually needed help. Unfortuantely they were outnumbered by the lazy people 5-1. The handicapped customers never tried to sell me their food stamps, never tried to get booze on credit and such. In fact a few were going to school after they got off work.

chris
03-06-2011, 10:28 PM
Frankie 2x.

Eject while you can.

You're right.

I'm wasting time; but having fun.

Time to punch out! Remember what Abe said about arguing with an idiot.

T-post Tom
03-06-2011, 11:12 PM
LMAO.....oh that was funny

Funny? Really? I don't think so. You should educate yourself. When you have companies saving tens of millions of dollars in taxes by simply maintaining an international post office box (ex. Ingersoll-Rand, Google, et.al.--Bermuda), the honest taxpayers pick up the burden. When CEOs/Executives use company jets for PERSONAL use, they are taxed the cost as personal income. Great, right? WRONG. The rate, set up by a bill introduced by Sen. Robert Packwood, is taxed with a formula that allows the CEOs/executives to pay pennies on the dollar (less than 1/2 of a penny on the dollar if you're Jack Welch & his wife flying on a custom 737) in taxes. Shareholders and the rest of the tax payers pick up the burden. Not to mention the tens of thousands of employees that are often "laid off" by the high flying executives. Companies like Boeing get government contracts and make $10B in pre-tax profits over two years and yet pay no taxes. Here's a recent example for you: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/boeing0211.pdf The examples of the super wealthy profiteering off of our tax code are endless. Their ability to manipulate the system is astounding. Lobbyists, politicians, former IRS officials, high-priced tax attorneys and accountants are the tools they use. There are some among the uber rich that still have integrity, people like Warren Buffett & Bill Gates SR. But they're in the tiny minority.

Seriously, people need to put the partisan rhetoric aside and look at the facts.

The Mad Crapper
03-07-2011, 06:15 AM
Did they get a refund of their FICA and Medicare too?

If not, S.T.F.U. Mr. Princeess-of-the-Douchebag Teabaggers.

Just sayin'.... :hmmm:

50 million functional illiterates in the US--- they can't even read the cooking directions on a box of macaroni and cheese. Why?

How does someone get past 1st grade without being able to read? 2nd grade? 3rd grade?

Answer: They had a public school teacher.

HonestChieffan
03-07-2011, 06:26 AM
50 million functional illiterates in the US--- they can't even read the cooking directions on a box of macaroni and cheese. Why?

How does someone get past 1st grade without being able to read? 2nd grade? 3rd grade?

Answer: They had a public school teacher.


Lets be fair.

1) If you cannot read, you can learn. Its not someone elses job to get you out of bed and actually try on your own and seek help.

2) If a kid cannot read, blame his or her parents long before you blame the teacher

3) Teachers have to know who can and cannot read and they should never, ever, ever pass the student on upward if they cannot achieve the minimum requirements of mastery in the grade they are in.

Illiteracy is not only owned by teachers, they share it with the parents and the school.

The Mad Crapper
03-07-2011, 06:27 AM
The real number is about 10, but keep using those Blue Collar sound bites, they become your intelligence level.

ROFL

The Mad Crapper
03-07-2011, 06:31 AM
Lets be fair.

1) If you cannot read, you can learn. Its not someone elses job to get you out of bed and actually try on your own and seek help.

2) If a kid cannot read, blame his or her parents long before you blame the teacher

3) Teachers have to know who can and cannot read and they should never, ever, ever pass the student on upward if they cannot achieve the minimum requirements of mastery in the grade they are in.Illiteracy is not only owned by teachers, they share it with the parents and the school.

Exactly. Hence 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade....

A red flag has to go up but the teachers just keep passing the buck. Why? To keep their numbers up so they keep getting the federal funds (our money).

They don't care about the kid they just want the job security and the money.

The parent(s?) doesn't care either, the kid is more or less a meal ticket to stay on welfare, but that doesn't absolve the public school system from the fraud it's perpetuating.

Hell, Dexter Manley got a Bachelors degree and he couldn't read or write. ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-07-2011, 12:42 PM
Exactly. Hence 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade....

A red flag has to go up but the teachers just keep passing the buck. Why? To keep their numbers up so they keep getting the federal funds (our money).

They don't care about the kid they just want the job security and the money.

The parent(s?) doesn't care either, the kid is more or less a meal ticket to stay on welfare, but that doesn't absolve the public school system from the fraud it's perpetuating.

Hell, Dexter Manley got a Bachelors degree and he couldn't read or write. ROFL

If you honestly think the vast majority of teachers don't care about kids....and still put up with the crap they do for their jobs, I doubt we'll ever have a more clear indicator of how friggin' clueless you really are.

Most teachers I know hate social promotion; however, social promotion is something society has imposed on the profession. How dare some teacher "flunk" Johnny....his poor little self-esteem would suffer too great a blow, and you know we can't have that.

:shake:

KC Dan
03-07-2011, 12:46 PM
Most teachers I know hate social promotion; however, social promotion is something society has imposed on the profession. How dare some teacher "flunk" Johnny....his poor little self-esteem would suffer too great a blow, and you know we can't have that.

:shake:
If teachers participate in this, they have ZERO integrity and don't deserve their job. IMHO

Amnorix
03-07-2011, 12:53 PM
So you essentially want to penalize financial success.

That's not what a progressive tax system is about.

mnchiefsguy
03-07-2011, 01:09 PM
If teachers participate in this, they have ZERO integrity and don't deserve their job. IMHO

I would agree with this. Many teachers pass kids no matter what, they don't want to look bad...after all, a class with a high failure rate would reflect bad on the teacher, no? So the teacher, by nature, is going to lean towards passing as many as they possibly can. Given their job security, which procured by the unions, the teachers should be worried about that, should they?

The Mad Crapper
03-07-2011, 01:52 PM
If you honestly think the vast majority of teachers don't care about kids....and still put up with the crap they do for their jobs, I doubt we'll ever have a more clear indicator of how friggin' clueless you really are.

Most teachers I know hate social promotion; however, social promotion is something society has imposed on the profession. How dare some teacher "flunk" Johnny....his poor little self-esteem would suffer too great a blow, and you know we can't have that.

:shake:

I see. I was only following orders.

Where have I heard that before?

Fishpicker
03-07-2011, 04:25 PM
If teachers participate in this, they have ZERO integrity and don't deserve their job. IMHO

this. excuses like "its been imposed on us" don't wash.

BucEyedPea
03-07-2011, 04:47 PM
I see. I was only following orders.

Where have I heard that before?

Nuremberg?

BucEyedPea
03-07-2011, 04:47 PM
That's not what a progressive tax system is about.

Yes it is.

Jaric
03-07-2011, 06:00 PM
Yet even more evidence of Godwin's Law in action.

petegz28
03-07-2011, 07:23 PM
That's not what a progressive tax system is about.

Sure it is. The more you make, the more they take.

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2011, 07:32 AM
If teachers participate in this, they have ZERO integrity and don't deserve their job. IMHO
Philosophically, I agree with that. I'm fortunate to work in a district where we are still allowed to hold kids accountable; in many districts teachers don't have that luxury, if they wish to keep a job. In some districts social promotion isn't a choice, it's a mandate from administrators, school boards, and parents.

The Mad Crapper
03-08-2011, 07:41 AM
Philosophically, I agree with that. I'm fortunate to work in a district where we are still allowed to hold kids accountable

Probably because you work in a district where the kids don't need it. Social promotion is exclusive for districts where the out of wedlock birth rate is over 50%.

KC Dan
03-08-2011, 09:01 AM
Philosophically,
Really? Philosophically? That is ridiculous

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2011, 09:10 AM
Really? Philosophically? That is ridiculous

Agreed, but try telling that to the administrators, school boards, and communities who write. those policies. (The same folks who fire teachers who refuse--and, yes, it can be done)

mnchiefsguy
03-08-2011, 12:07 PM
Agreed, but try telling that to the administrators, school boards, and communities who write. those policies. (The same folks who fire teachers who refuse--and, yes, it can be done)

It is very tough to fire a teacher, especially when the union is involved. Sounds more like an excuse to pass the buck.

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2011, 12:54 PM
It is very tough to fire a teacher, especially when the union is involved. Sounds more like an excuse to pass the buck.

No, "tenure makes it impossible to fire teachers," is nothing but an excues for administrators who refuse to do their job.

"Gosh, this firing teachers thing is hard...it requires evaluations, due process, and documentation. That's hard. Can't I just fire people who I don't like, or who some whiney parent complained about....because, well, that makes my job hard too!"

mnchiefsguy
03-08-2011, 12:57 PM
No, "tenure makes it impossible to fire teachers," is nothing but an excues for administrators who refuse to do their job.

And who aggressively advocated the tenure system? Who is it most vocal advocate? That would be the union. A teacher could steal a student's car, but if they had tenure, the union would fight tooth and nail to make sure they did not get fired.

HonestChieffan
03-08-2011, 01:05 PM
And who aggressively advocated the tenure system? Who is it most vocal advocate? That would be the union. A teacher could steal a student's car, but if they had tenure, the union would fight tooth and nail to make sure they did not get fired.


Please. Its redistribution of wheels not stealing.

Mr. Kotter
03-08-2011, 03:40 PM
And who aggressively advocated the tenure system? Who is it most vocal advocate? That would be the union. A teacher could steal a student's car, but if they had tenure, the union would fight tooth and nail to make sure they did not get fired.

FWIW, I'm in a right to work state, that doesn't have binding arbitration. The tenure you are describing only exists in extremely liberal states--not most places. Not here.

Me and many teachers I know, don't support tenure. However, until there has to be a reasonable system of due process in place--to avoid administrative abuses....and, in most places, administrators who do their job, can get rid of dregs.

The whole tenure "debate" is largely a red-herring.

Amnorix
03-08-2011, 03:46 PM
Sure it is. The more you make, the more they take.


The statement you made is a non-starter for discussion purposes. That's true in a flat tax environment also.

What you really mean is that the more you make, the more they take as a percentage for each additional dollar of income as you climb the income brackets of the progressive tax system.

Subject, of course, to all the deductions that are available, and phaseouts, and to the types of income earned, and to appliable offsets.

All of which can leave a very wealthy person paying less, as a percentage of gross income, than their receptionist.

He told Brokaw: "I'll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 (http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/richest-americans-forbes-lists-richlist07-cx_mm_0920rich_land.html) who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."

So if, hypothetically, you implement a flat tax, but then keep the caps on things like Social Security taxes, then you're going to end up with an even lower average tax rate on the wealthy than the working poor, or middle class. Is that what you want? Perhaps so.

We already tax passive income at a lower rate than the sweat of the laborer. We thereby make the profit of each dollar earned by the investor to be subject to less tax than the profit of each dollar earned by the coal miner -- above certain rates of income.

There's alot to think about when you go tinkering with the tax code.

mnchiefsguy
03-08-2011, 04:09 PM
FWIW, I'm in a right to work state, that doesn't have binding arbitration. The tenure you are describing only exists in extremely liberal states--not most places. Not here.

Me and many teachers I know, don't support tenure. However, until there has to be a reasonable system of due process in place--to avoid administrative abuses....and, in most places, administrators who do their job, can get rid of dregs.

The whole tenure "debate" is largely a red-herring.

Can you provide a link for such administrative abuse? You make sound as if it is very common and widespread, and that does not seem realistic to me.

petegz28
03-08-2011, 05:57 PM
The statement you made is a non-starter for discussion purposes. That's true in a flat tax environment also.

What you really mean is that the more you make, the more they take as a percentage for each additional dollar of income as you climb the income brackets of the progressive tax system.

Subject, of course, to all the deductions that are available, and phaseouts, and to the types of income earned, and to appliable offsets.

All of which can leave a very wealthy person paying less, as a percentage of gross income, than their receptionist.



So if, hypothetically, you implement a flat tax, but then keep the caps on things like Social Security taxes, then you're going to end up with an even lower average tax rate on the wealthy than the working poor, or middle class. Is that what you want? Perhaps so.

We already tax passive income at a lower rate than the sweat of the laborer. We thereby make the profit of each dollar earned by the investor to be subject to less tax than the profit of each dollar earned by the coal miner -- above certain rates of income.

There's alot to think about when you go tinkering with the tax code.

Well here we go....you want it both ways. WTF cares if the wealthy have a lower "rate"? They are still paying in more real $'s than some poor person at a higher rate. And the poor person isn't creating any jobs for anyone.

So a poor person pays 15% of $20k=$3000
A rich person pays 10% of $1,000,000=$100,000

I guess the argument is the difference of $97,000 doesn'at matter because their rate was 5% less, right? Is that your argument?

See, on one hand people want to argue that the poor pay too much in real $'s regardless of rate. But on the other hand those same people focus squarley on the % paid by the rich and somehow aren't worried about the real $'s anymore.

chris
03-08-2011, 06:23 PM
Well here we go....you want it both ways. WTF cares if the wealthy have a lower "rate"? They are still paying in more real $'s than some poor person at a higher rate. And the poor person isn't creating any jobs for anyone.

So a poor person pays 15% of $20k=$3000
A rich person pays 10% of $1,000,000=$100,000

I guess the argument is the difference of $97,000 doesn'at matter because their rate was 5% less, right? Is that your argument?

See, on one hand people want to argue that the poor pay too much in real $'s regardless of rate. But on the other hand those same people focus squarley on the % paid by the rich and somehow aren't worried about the real $'s anymore.

Rep!

KC native
03-08-2011, 08:36 PM
Well here we go....you want it both ways. WTF cares if the wealthy have a lower "rate"? They are still paying in more real $'s than some poor person at a higher rate. And the poor person isn't creating any jobs for anyone.

So a poor person pays 15% of $20k=$3000
A rich person pays 10% of $1,000,000=$100,000

I guess the argument is the difference of $97,000 doesn'at matter because their rate was 5% less, right? Is that your argument?

See, on one hand people want to argue that the poor pay too much in real $'s regardless of rate. But on the other hand those same people focus squarley on the % paid by the rich and somehow aren't worried about the real $'s anymore.

JFC That's not how a progressive taxation system works.

Second, when you are comparing things of different size and you want to analyze the impact then you are forced to use %'s.

petegz28
03-09-2011, 07:23 AM
JFC That's not how a progressive taxation system works.

Second, when you are comparing things of different size and you want to analyze the impact then you are forced to use %'s.

No Sir, and you know better than this shit. The Left always references $'s in one case and then %'s in the other. You know this, Native. You know that when it comes down to brass tacks, the rich are dumping in more real $'s than anyone else regardless of the "rate". Therein lies the problem. The Left, typicaly, goes back and forth between using $'s and %'s depending on which suits their argument at the time. In one instance we hear how poor people pay X $'s but when they talk about the other end of the spectrum they want to focus on X % because they know to use a $ figure would shed a more accurate light on the subject and hurt their argument for raising the tax rate.


In other words people are bound to be more sympathetic to someone if they are told a person paid $100k in taxes as opposed to "they only paid 35%".

And I know you are smart enough to understand that and do understand it.