CBO: Top 40% paid 106% of income taxes...

[sturg33]

CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers' (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/cbotop-40-paid-1062-income-taxes-bottom-40-paid-91-got-average-18950)


Oooh... this one looks ugly.


Taxpayers in the top 40 percent of households were able to pay more than 100 percent of net federal income taxes in 2010 because Americans in the bottom 40 percent actually paid negative income taxes, according to the CBO study entitled, “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010.”

“When refundable tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, exceed the other federal tax liabilities of the households in an income group, those households are said to have a negative average tax rate,” said the CBO study.

“In its analysis, CBO measured individual income taxes net of refundable credits,” it said.

This one is worth the read... And it's from the CBO - so I think it's safe to assume the numbers are distorted to make them look less bad than they are.

But hey, the RICH SHOULD PAY MORE!!!!

[Julio3000]

How do these figures, absent any context, make your case? I'm certain that we're all shocked to learn that relatively wealthier people pay more taxes.

Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers'

I'd be willing to bet that 2/3 of those transfers are Medicare (not Medicaid) and Social Security. Are you really going to gripe about that? If so, you are in a tiny minority, both in America and the world.

So, two years after the financial meltdown, a lot of people were receiving unemployment benefits. Old people were getting social insurance. Neither group has much taxable income. Where's the shocker there?

[The Chosen One]

How do these figures, absent any context, make your case? I'm certain that we're all shocked to learn that relatively wealthier people pay more taxes.

Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers'

I'd be willing to bet that 2/3 of those transfers are Medicare (not Medicaid) and Social Security. Are you really going to gripe about that? If so, you are in a tiny minority, both in America and the world.

So, two years after the financial meltdown, a lot of people were receiving unemployment benefits. Old people were getting social insurance. Neither group has much taxable income. Where's the shocker there?

The burden of the rich for paying taxes is so steep, that we might as well put chains on them and call them slaves to society. We're hindering their ability to pursue happiness.

At least that's what I'm thinking sturg is thinking.

[50PoundHead]

The burden of the rich for paying taxes is so steep, that we might as well put chains on them and call them slaves to society. We're hindering their ability to pursue happiness.

At least that's what I'm thinking sturg is thinking.

And it's all based on merit. Especially for those whose hardest job in life was being born.

[sturg33]

LOL... yes. The rich don't pay enough. They should be paying 200% of taxes!!!

[jpx7]

But hey, the RICH SHOULD PAY MORE!!!!

Yep.

Glad to see you're coming around.

[sturg33]

Can someone explain to me how taxing rich people higher than non-rich people is NOT discrimination?

[jpx7]

Can someone explain to me how taxing rich people higher than non-rich people is NOT discrimination?

Why is a discriminating tax-scale that asks more of those who have (vastly) more a bad thing?

Discrimination based on superfluous traits (say, race) is bad, but "discrimination" is not an inherently bad thing.

[sturg33]

LOL wow.

So punishing one group of people more than another is fine, as long as the one group of people can afford it.

We should tax Jews more than African Americans I guess

[Julio3000]

LOL wow.

So punishing one group of people more than another is fine, as long as the one group of people can afford it.

We should tax Jews more than African Americans I guess

Participating in the monumentally stupid game you propose would be giving sanction to the idea that taxes are punishment.

[jpx7]

We should tax Jews more than African Americans I guess


Discrimination based on superfluous traits (say, race) is bad



So punishing one group of people more than another is fine, as long as the one group of people can afford it.

Taxation isn't "punishment."

[gtcway]

I think everyone should pay the same percentage. If someone making $60,000 can survive giving up lets say 25% of their income, why can't someone making $6,000,000 survive on $4,500,000 a year? Maybe they can't buy that summer cottage on the beach they always wanted this year, but I think they can survive comfortably on just $4,500,000.

[zitothebrave]

The problem isn't the top 40% its the top like 0.1% and its not all of them just a handful. Classic republican strategy is to make people in the middle and upper middle class feel like they're getting squeezed.

[50PoundHead]

I think everyone should pay the same percentage. If someone making $60,000 can survive giving up lets say 25% of their income, why can't someone making $6,000,000 survive on $4,500,000 a year? Maybe they can't buy that summer cottage on the beach they always wanted this year, but I think they can survive comfortably on just $4,500,000.

Are you keeping the same set of deductions/credits in your proposal? It may be counter-intuitive to some, but the framework of credits and deductions currently in place favor the middle and upper-middle classes. Where the rich make out like bandits is on the capital gains side of the equation, where capital gains are given a healthy preference over ordinary income. It's not quite that simple, but those at the higher end of the income scale are the ones reaping the largest capital gains both in real terms and relative to income.

[sturg33]

Taxation isn't "punishment."

What would you describe it as, a reward?

Do you send more money to the government than they force you to pay?

[sturg33]

Participating in the monumentally stupid game you propose would be giving sanction to the idea that taxes are punishment.

I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.

[CK86]

Tax more, spend more, rinse and repeat.

[yeezus]

I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.

What the...?
Why would you even use that ridiculous comparison? You don't sound rational.

[The Chosen One]

I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.

My reaction to reading this, is the same look that Ron Paul is giving in your avatar.

[goldfly]

I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[gtcway]

Are you keeping the same set of deductions/credits in your proposal? It may be counter-intuitive to some, but the framework of credits and deductions currently in place favor the middle and upper-middle classes. Where the rich make out like bandits is on the capital gains side of the equation, where capital gains are given a healthy preference over ordinary income. It's not quite that simple, but those at the higher end of the income scale are the ones reaping the largest capital gains both in real terms and relative to income.
I know as much about what you just talked about as I do about heart surgery, Nothing! Which is why I usually stay out of discussions about taxes, money, etc:Sad:

[Metaphysicist]

Can someone explain to me how taxing rich people higher than non-rich people is NOT discrimination?

I could explain it to a rational person, but no, I believe this is something you will never be able to grasp.

[Metaphysicist]

Taxation isn't "punishment."

What would you describe it as, a reward?

You heard it here first, folks: Everything in life is either a reward or punishment.

Sand? Reward.
Vowels? Punishment.
The TV show version of Goosebumps? Punishment.
Transfinite numbers? mm.... Reward?

[sturg33]

I could explain it to a rational person, but no, I believe this is something you will never be able to grasp.

Funny you should say that... Because nobody can really explain it... And the answer is always "I'm not going to waste my time."

LOL

[Metaphysicist]

I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.

Why would you need to invent a lunatic baseball analogy? There is literally already a baseball tax on the rich that is funneled directly to poor teams.

What you are saying is the Yankees are the biggest victims in MLB. Do you feel dirty? I feel dirty just having written those words...

[Metaphysicist]

Funny you should say that... Because nobody can really explain it... And the answer is always "I'm not going to waste my time."

LOL

No, I'm not going to waste my time, because last time I tried to have a rational conversation with you in one these threads you said "I'll be right back" and then you just ran away. So, it truly is pointless to bother with you. But only you, specifically.

[sturg33]

You heard it here first, folks: Everything in life is either a reward or punishment.

Sand? Reward.
Vowels? Punishment.
The TV show version of Goosebumps? Punishment.
Transfinite numbers? mm.... Reward?

In your usual attempts to be clever, you obviously miss the boat once more. I didn't say it's either or, I asked him what he would describe it as? So far, I haven't gotten an answer. I asked him if he sends more than he is required, I haven't gotten an answer.

[sturg33]

No, I'm not going to waste my time, because last time I tried to have a rational conversation with you in one these threads you "said I'll be right back" and then you just ran away. So, it truly is pointless to bother with you. But only you, specifically.

If you're referring to the Rand Paul thread, I believe I was the last response in that one... You had disappeared for a while

[sturg33]

Why would you need to invent a lunatic baseball analogy? There is literally already a baseball tax on the rich that is funneled directly to poor teams.

What you are saying is the Yankees are the biggest victims in MLB. Do you feel dirty? I feel dirty just having written those words...

Of course not. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. They CHOOSE to SPEND more money. It's the equivalent of a sales tax to us. Nice try

[Metaphysicist]

If you're referring to the Rand Paul thread, I believe I was the last response in that one... You had disappeared for a while

Yeah, I'm referring now to the thread you actively ignored for three weeks. I see now you did come back after I'd said "**** it" and posted an answer that contained absolutely no content whatsoever while ignoring my points. Sure was worth the wait. DEFINITELY makes me want to have more adult conversations with you.

[Metaphysicist]

Of course not. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. They CHOOSE to SPEND more money. It's the equivalent of a sales tax to us. Nice try

Revenue sharing.

[sturg33]

Yeah, I'm referring now to the thread you actively ignored for three weeks. I see now you did come back after I'd said "**** it" and post an answer that contained absolutely no content whatsoever while ignore my points. Sure was worth the wait.

Sorry that my life doesn't revolve around "getting back to Meta"

But since you're unable and/or unwilling to explain why taxing one group of people more than a different group of people is somehow NOT discriminatory, I guess I'll go on with my life assuming I am correct.

[sturg33]

Revenue sharing.

Since MLB is not using forced tax paid money, I don't care what they do with their business.

[Metaphysicist]

Sorry that my life doesn't revolve around "getting back to Meta"

sick burn brah


I guess I'll go on with my life assuming I am correct.

Yeah, I don't think anything anyone says in this thread could possible change that one.

[Metaphysicist]

Since MLB is not using forced tax paid money, I don't care what they do with their business.

Yeah, that was the point :facepalm:

[sturg33]

sick burn brah



Yeah, I don't think anything anyone says in this thread could possible change that one.

That's not true. I started a thread saying "taxes are theft"... But some folks made a good argument saying that since we choose to work here, we are choosing to pay the taxes. So I backed off my original stance just a bit.

[sturg33]

So since Meta is out now...

Can someone tell me that % of their income the rich should be paying? Like, an actual number?

[50PoundHead]

You heard it here first, folks: Everything in life is either a reward or punishment.

Sand? Reward.
Vowels? Punishment.
The TV show version of Goosebumps? Punishment.
Transfinite numbers? mm.... Reward?

Not only punishment. Capital crime!

[50PoundHead]

I know as much about what you just talked about as I do about heart surgery, Nothing! Which is why I usually stay out of discussions about taxes, money, etc:Sad:

Your initial thoughts are valid though. I did my grad work in the 1980s on flat-tax/limited marginal rate frameworks and there's a lot of support for going to a structure like that. The credit/deduction/zero-bracket part of the discussion is where the gummy worms melt and things get sticky.

[goldfly]

I could explain it to a rational person, but no, I believe this is something you will never be able to grasp.

no doubt

[goldfly]

Sorry that my life doesn't revolve around "getting back to Meta"

But since you're unable and/or unwilling to explain why taxing one group of people more than a different group of people is somehow NOT discriminatory, I guess I'll go on with my life assuming I am correct.

you were going to do that anyway

[sturg33]

I'll wait for anyone to explain it. Seriously. Can someone explain it? Why isn't it discrimination?

[jpx7]

What would you describe it as, a reward?

Do you send more money to the government than they force you to pay?

I asked him if he sends more than he is required, I haven't gotten an answer.

Maybe because it's an inane question? If I don't pay in excess of the (fairly non-trivial) amount of income-tax I'm mandated to pay, then that means all income-tax is definitionally punishment?


I asked him what he would describe it as?

Progressive income-taxation.

[goldfly]

Of course not. The Yankees pay a luxury tax. They CHOOSE to SPEND more money. It's the equivalent of a sales tax to us. Nice try



doesn't the person choose to make more money and enter a tax bracket for having that money?

i will hang up and await your reply

[Runnin]

I'll wait for anyone to explain it. Seriously. Can someone explain it? Why isn't it discrimination?
According to that simple logic people who make less money are the ones being most discriminated against.

[Julio3000]

Sturg, buddy. My inflexible worldview will only allow me to consider so many ideas simultaneously. In order for me to understand, you've got to boil this down in a way that is both incredibly simple and also unerringly doctrinaire. Sort it out for me, ok? Are taxes theft, or are they punishment? Otherwise I may blow a fuse or something while trying to figure it out.

[sturg33]

I have backed off of my "taxes are theft" stance… But they are taken by force and people (or most people) don't like paying them. That's why I see it as a negative… Is that unreasonable?

[The Chosen One]

I have backed off of my "taxes are theft" stance… But they are taken by force and people (or most people) don't like paying them. That's why I see it as a negative… Is that unreasonable?

I don't think it's unreasonable.

I just think you're naive if you actually think lowering taxes on the rich will create more jobs, or that cutting assistance programs is going to stimulate the economy.

We find value in taxes, you don't.

Taxation has been a key ingredient to our country's success the last 80 years.

[sturg33]

I don't think it's unreasonable.

I just think you're naive if you actually think lowering taxes on the rich will create more jobs, or that cutting assistance programs is going to stimulate the economy.

We find value in taxes, you don't.

Taxation has been a key ingredient to our country's success the last 80 years.

Well I disagree. I think 80% of what taxes are spent on is a waste. Let that money stay in the hands of the people. It is, after all, their money.

Considering that if we just had the 2006 federal budget, the income tax could be 0% on every American, and we would not have single dollar more debt than we will in 2013... That's how out of control spending has become.

[thethe]

I dont' get it. So those that make more money should pay more than is already paid and the people that don't make money should get what....more refunds?

[Metaphysicist]

I dont' get it. So those that make more money should pay more than is already paid and the people that don't make money should get what....more refunds?

Pretty much, yes -- to the first part, at least. In terms of overall tax incidence (so, not just federal income, but payroll, state income, sales, etc.) we have a gentle progressive curve... except at the very tip top, where it goes regressive, as super rich people end up with a lower tax burden than the upper middle class (link (http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2012.pdf)). Those guys should be taxed more for sure.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Total_Effective_Tax_Rates_2011.jpg

[sturg33]

I would think someone as analytical as you understands WHY the graph looks like that when you consider ALL tax (especially the inclusion of sales tax)

[Metaphysicist]

CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers' (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/cbotop-40-paid-1062-income-taxes-bottom-40-paid-91-got-average-18950)

This one is worth the read... And it's from the CBO - so I think it's safe to assume the numbers are distorted to make them look less bad than they are.

The CBO report is fine, but the righty site you linked to put a lot of spin on it. This is selectively ignoring 3 of the 4 federal income taxes (payroll, corporate, excise) that the report covers. Additionally, that -9% is NOT a transfer payment, but comes in the form of a personal income tax refund on other taxes paid. I mean, you don't even have to read the report. This chart is on the f'ing cover, showing that the top 40% make 72% of the income and pay 85% of the taxes:

http://i.imgur.com/WVPgmdS.png

Hardly extreme, ESPECIALLY when you consider this is only including the federal tax burden, not the highly regressive state taxes that everyone is also paying.

[Metaphysicist]

I would think someone as analytical as you understands WHY the graph looks like that when you consider ALL tax (especially the inclusion of sales tax)

Of course I understand why it looks like that. It is still the correct picture of what people actually pay in total taxes.

[sturg33]

Of course I understand why it looks like that. It is still the correct picture of what people actually pay in total taxes.

But % of total wealth is always going to be skewed because the top 1% could not possibly spend enough to keep their % high. I would be interested in seeing the chart in dollars paid.

[Metaphysicist]

But % of total wealth is always going to be skewed because the top 1% could not possibly spend enough to keep their % high. I would be interested in seeing the chart in dollars paid.

Right, sales tax is regressive. The reasons for this (it's too "difficult" for the rich to spend all their money) do not make it less important. In fact, that's exactly why it is important. Poor people necessarily see a much higher percentage of their income turned into sales and excise taxes, so it is inaccurate to exclude those from the total tax burden.

[sturg33]

Right, sales tax is regressive. The reasons for this (it's too "difficult" for the rich to spend all their money) do not make it less important. In fact, that's exactly why it is important. Poor people necessarily see a much higher percentage of their income turned into sales and excise taxes, so it is inaccurate to exclude those from the total tax burden.

Sure... but sales taxes and excise taxes are mostly choice driven. If I want to avoid paying a lot of them, I can find ways to do so.

No escaping the fed. Which is highly progressive.

[Metaphysicist]

Sure... but sales taxes [...]are mostly choice driven. If I want to avoid paying a lot of them, I can find ways to do so.

Horse****. And irrelevant.

[sturg33]

I would be interested in seeing that chart in actual dollars paid... Do you think you'd be able to scale it correctly and still fit on the page?

[goldfly]

I would be interested in seeing that chart in actual dollars paid... Do you think you'd be able to scale it correctly and still fit on the page?

choosing whole numbers instead of % per capita is such a poli sci 101 first day argument

[sturg33]

choosing whole numbers instead of % per capita is such a poli sci 101 first day argument

Not when using % is horribly skewed when looking at entire tax contributions.

We've already established that they pay a bigger % on income... Now let's look at the dollars contributed.

[sturg33]

Goldy, Meta, yeezus, 57, jpx, others...

what % of personal income should wealthy be taxed at? Just give me a number.

[goldfly]

Goldy, Meta, yeezus, 57, jpx, others...

what % of personal income should wealthy be taxed at? Just give me a number.

you're a microcosm of everything wrong with this country

keep changing the subject over and over and make sure the conversation gets nowhere and gets nothing done

if one question is answered, quickly divert to a different question

[sturg33]

So... you won't give a number?

What a shock.

[sturg33]

Also, who diverted anything?

[sturg33]

you're a microcosm of everything wrong with this country

keep changing the subject over and over and make sure the conversation gets nowhere and gets nothing done

if one question is answered, quickly divert to a different question

Also, how am I changing the subject? The subject is *literally* how much taxes the wealthiest people pay.

The conversation has led to (as usual) you crying they don't pay enough.

So I ask once again, how much should they pay?

[goldfly]

a higher % than the middle class in this country

[sturg33]

Well they do that already (please understand the question before dumbly answering).

Now give me a damn number, coward.

[goldfly]

Well they do that already (please understand the question before dumbly answering).

Now give me a damn number, coward.

such strong words and courage

refer to post 51

[sturg33]

The original question:


what % of personal income should wealthy be taxed at? Just give me a number.

Quit being a coward. Say a number. Stick to it.

[sturg33]

Just so everyone is on the same page. Note that this is on "taxable income" not total income... We all know the free loaders don't get taxed at all.

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $400,000.


So goldy, what should those numbers read before you're happy.

[Julio3000]

I dont' get it. So those that make more money should pay more than is already paid and the people that don't make money should get what....more refunds?

The public seems to think so. That's what the polling data says, even a majority of people making six-figure incomes say that the top marginal rates should be higher. It's been the public consensus for years, and that consensus was reflected in US tax policy, too, for the most part. The best PR that money can buy, however, has had some success at chipping away at both public perception and government policy. Actually, that's an understatement. It has essentially purchased one political party, and at least rented the other.

I agree that the government spends unwisely—the Iraq War being the best recent example, or Bush's Medicare Part D plan, or some of the truly rotten things Obama did to get the insurance companies and the AMA on board with the ACA. But, yes, I think we absolutely should tax the rich more. I think we ought to have real family leave; I want better access to affordable higher ed. I want more and better subsidized housing. I want single-payer HC. You know what, though? I'm a capitalist. Shoot, I run a small business. But these are things that I think make for a better society, and they are things that a Club For Growth tax regime is just not going to deliver. So, given the choice between doing this on the backs of the upwardly-striving middle class or the investor class, I know which I'd prefer.

Warren Buffett was absolutely right when he said that class warfare exists, and that his class has won.

Sturg, quit trying to make me feel sorry for the super-wealthy. Quit demonizing the poor, the unemployed, or senior citizens. Show me how giving even more favorable tax accommodations to the very rich will lead to meaningful economic growth and widespread prosperity.

[sturg33]

The public seems to think so. That's what the polling data says, even a majority of people making six-figure incomes say that the top marginal rates should be higher. It's been the public consensus for years, and that consensus was reflected in US tax policy, too, for the most part. The best PR that money can buy, however, has had some success at chipping away at both public perception and government policy. Actually, that's an understatement. It has essentially purchased one political party, and at least rented the other.

I agree that the government spends unwisely—the Iraq War being the best recent example, or Bush's Medicare Part D plan, or some of the truly rotten things Obama did to get the insurance companies and the AMA on board with the ACA. But, yes, I think we absolutely should tax the rich more. I think we ought to have real family leave; I want better access to affordable higher ed. I want more and better subsidized housing. I want single-payer HC. You know what, though? I'm a capitalist. Shoot, I run a small business. But these are things that I think make for a better society, and they are things that a Club For Growth tax regime is just not going to deliver. So, given the choice between doing this on the backs of the upwardly-striving middle class or the investor class, I know which I'd prefer.

Warren Buffett was absolutely right when he said that class warfare exists, and that his class has won.

Sturg, quit trying to make me feel sorry for the super-wealthy. Quit demonizing the poor, the unemployed, or senior citizens. Show me how giving even more favorable tax accommodations to the very rich will lead to meaningful economic growth and widespread prosperity.

The public thinks so because the majority of them are not talking about their own money.

Everyone was all upset about the Bush tax cuts, but yet, when they were set to expire, the middle class up roared that they were about to get a tax increase. Surprise surprise, people want to keep their own money, and they want the government to take from others. How noble.

You know what I want. I want EVERYONE to pay a zero percent personal income tax. It's not necessary to run a sensible government. But no, we have to subsidize, invade, insure, and take over everything - and yes, that needs money. But I look at our economy as the government has gotten more involved and it has done nothing but float thanks to a huge flux of cash from the Fed.

[goldfly]

Just so everyone is on the same page. Note that this is on "taxable income" not total income... We all know the free loaders don't get taxed at all.

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,925, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,925 to $36,250, plus
25% on taxable income over $36,250 to $87,850, plus
28% on taxable income over $87,850 to $183,250, plus
33% on taxable income over $183,250 to $398,350, plus
35% on taxable income over $398,350 to $400,000, plus
39.6% on taxable income over $400,000.


So goldy, what should those numbers read before you're happy.


i would change the categories and the %s that go with them

i wouldn't start the top bracket at 400k

[sturg33]

Let's get specifics

[Julio3000]

The public thinks so because the majority of them are not talking about their own money.

Everyone was all upset about the Bush tax cuts, but yet, when they were set to expire, the middle class up roared that they were about to get a tax increase. Surprise surprise, people want to keep their own money, and they want the government to take from others. How noble.

You know what I want. I want EVERYONE to pay a zero percent personal income tax. It's not necessary to run a sensible government. But no, we have to subsidize, invade, insure, and take over everything - and yes, that needs money. But I look at our economy as the government has gotten more involved and it has done nothing but float thanks to a huge flux of cash from the Fed.

Thumbnail for me how America runs without an income tax.

[Julio3000]

The public thinks so because the majority of them are not talking about their own money.

Everyone was all upset about the Bush tax cuts, but yet, when they were set to expire, the middle class up roared that they were about to get a tax increase. Surprise surprise, people want to keep their own money, and they want the government to take from others. How noble.

You know what I want. I want EVERYONE to pay a zero percent personal income tax. It's not necessary to run a sensible government. But no, we have to subsidize, invade, insure, and take over everything - and yes, that needs money. But I look at our economy as the government has gotten more involved and it has done nothing but float thanks to a huge flux of cash from the Fed.

Perhaps. You want the government to take from others, too. I'd prefer to see them taking from people who can afford it.

Oddly enough, Americans have been historically resistant to the idea of being governed by a hereditary aristocracy.

[sturg33]

Thumbnail for me how America runs without an income tax.

I already mentioned earlier... simply using the 2006 federal budget (we're talking about just 7 years ago, while 2 massive wars were happening)... we could have a 0% personal income tax and not have a single more dollar of debt than we are taking on in 2013

[zitothebrave]

Sure... but sales taxes and excise taxes are mostly choice driven. If I want to avoid paying a lot of them, I can find ways to do so.

No escaping the fed. Which is highly progressive.

Yeah like you can choose not to eat or wear clothes Or fix your house. So true.

[sturg33]

Yeah like you can choose not to eat or wear clothes Or fix your house. So true.

I can choose not to eat out. I can choose not to shop at Jos A Bank. I can choose not to buy the new xbox. I can choose not to buy an iPhone. And so on so forth.

[jpx7]

what % of personal income should wealthy be taxed at? Just give me a number.

The upper-most tax-bracket? Let's go historical: 70%.

[The Chosen One]

The public thinks so because the majority of them are not talking about their own money.

Everyone was all upset about the Bush tax cuts, but yet, when they were set to expire, the middle class up roared that they were about to get a tax increase. Surprise surprise, people want to keep their own money, and they want the government to take from others. How noble.

You know what I want. I want EVERYONE to pay a zero percent personal income tax. It's not necessary to run a sensible government. But no, we have to subsidize, invade, insure, and take over everything - and yes, that needs money. But I look at our economy as the government has gotten more involved and it has done nothing but float thanks to a huge flux of cash from the Fed.

You'd be upset too if you felt you were getting shafted by the rich.

Notice how this wasn't a huge deal when Gingrich and the GOP helped raise taxes with Clinton that created the budget surplus.

It was Tea Party Mania and fear that made everyone up in arms about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

The GOP's playbook for that, was to actually protect the rich's tax cuts, and use the middle class as the face for their argument. It sickens me they used middle class and poor as the shield for the rich friends they were protecting.

[zitothebrave]

Honestly I'm fine with lowering taxes. If you close basically every single deduction. For sure the charitable one is a baffling. Also switch capital gains to a progressive system. Insane that someone making 100 bucks on the market and someone making 100 mill on the market get taxed at the same rate

[sturg33]

You'd be upset too if you felt you were getting shafted by the rich.

Notice how this wasn't a huge deal when Gingrich and the GOP helped raise taxes with Clinton that created the budget surplus.

It was Tea Party Mania and fear that made everyone up in arms about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire.

The GOP's playbook for that, was to actually protect the rich's tax cuts, and use the middle class as the face for their argument. It sickens me they used middle class and poor as the shield for the rich friends they were protecting.


LOL I was upset because I didn't want my taxes raised

[sturg33]

The upper-most tax-bracket? Let's go historical: 70%.

Well thanks for the number, but holy ****.

So, someone makes $400K… You want to start by taking $280K of that? That's before state, local, sales, excise, social security, medicare taxes, etc.

Would that type of a tax rate result in a tax cut for everyone else? Or is that in addition to the current revenues? Is there ever a plan to CUT spending?

[sturg33]

Do people understand why I am opposed to most taxes? It's not about making the rich richer. It's about people having a right to what they earn. Since almost all government spending is (in my opinion) unconstitutional, I don't like that they take money from me by force and use to send troops over to Iraq. Income taxes have been around for 100 years now. We didn't always have them. But now that we do, we spend spend spend spend. That's all we do. We can never cut. We can only spend. Most of the spending is waste.

Our taxes go to things like wars, war on drugs, corporate subsidies, a ridiculous defense budget, a horrifying DHS, TSA, a complete and utter failure of the DOE, and so on and so forth. It's a joke. Let the people keep what they earn, rich or poor or middle class. Shrink the size of the government to a fathomable level.

I'll say it again, because people keep ignoring it… If we spent what we did just 7 years ago, during two massive wars, the income tax could be 0% on EVERYONE, and our deficit would be the same (likely much better due to better economy).

[acesfull86]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2012/02/Tax-Rates-and-Revenue.jpg

[Metaphysicist]

I would be interested in seeing that chart in actual dollars paid... Do you think you'd be able to scale it correctly and still fit on the page?

That would not be a useful thing to look at. "People who make more money pay more taxes" is not a shocking piece of information. That would obviously be true even with a flat tax. It is the rate that is important if you are concerned about "fairness," as you claim.

[Metaphysicist]

Not when using % is horribly skewed when looking at entire tax contributions.

What does this mean? How is the concept of a percentage "skewed"?


We've already established that they pay a bigger % on income...

We didn't establish that. The chart I posted shows that total taxes on the 1% are actually regressive when compared to income.

[Metaphysicist]

Goldy, Meta, yeezus, 57, jpx, others...

what % of personal income should wealthy be taxed at? Just give me a number.

I couldn't possibly give you a specific number, as I am not an economist. But it should be noticeably progressive in terms of total tax burden. So to pull something out of thin air, take that 2011 total effective tax chart and draw a line using the slope of the first 4 columns and that's where we should put the other columns. So:

1st quintile: 17%
2nd quintile: 21%
3rd quintile: 25%
4th quintile: 29%
80-90%: 33%
90-95%: 37%
95-99%: 41%
99-100%: 45%

The top marginal rate and capital gains taxes would definitely have to be higher to make that happen.

[Metaphysicist]

Also, how am I changing the subject? The subject is *literally* how much taxes the wealthiest people pay.

You changed the subject because we were trying to get you to recognize how much they currently pay. Instead of admitting that point, you spun off and started asking questions that no one here is really qualified to answer about how much they should pay.

It's a pretty common, and obnoxious, debating tactic.

[Metaphysicist]

We all know the free loaders don't get taxed at all.

We've been over this before. People who don't pay personal federal income tax still pay payroll, sales, and state income taxes. Their tax burden is hardly "nothing."

[The Chosen One]

Must be hard for Meta to have to constantly go back and forth in multiple threads with sturg and zito.

I think a pay raise is in order to adjust for inflation. I'm thinking bumping you up to actual federal minimum wage now.

[Metaphysicist]

Since almost all government spending is (in my opinion) unconstitutional,

This is why nobody takes you seriously. Your opinion on what is constitutional does not matter in the slightest. You should not use it as part of your argument.


If we spent what we did just 7 years ago, during two massive wars, the income tax could be 0% on EVERYONE, and our deficit would be the same (likely much better due to better economy).

This could be true, but I'd like for you to show me the math on that claim. You aren't very reliable on these matters.

[Metaphysicist]

Must be hard for Meta to have to constantly go back and forth in multiple threads with sturg and zito.

I think a pay raise is in order to adjust for inflation. I'm thinking bumping you up to actual federal minimum wage now.

I do it for the kids.

And those sweet, sweet chop country groupies.

[goldfly]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1484117_10152046573102908_1695748198_n.jpg

[kendiz]

What would you describe it as, a reward?

Do you send more money to the government than they force you to pay?

Do you understand that most of the tax money goes to defense, doctors and hospitals, and the social safety net AND is dropped right back into an economy run by the rich? Poor people have no money, and when they get it, they spend it. Middle class people earn money, they might save a bit, but according to most reports are one months pay away from being in deep trouble. So they too spend most of their money on things that are costing more and more every year, while their pay is stagnant. The only folks getting rich are the wealthy, and their incomes are rising every year. So I'm not sure why you are so sad for them. They run the entire show. Let's take food stamps for an example. Food stamps are paid with SNAP cards that come from banks who get paid fees to issue them. They are given to poor people so they can eat during their lunch breaks at Walmart...if they get lunch breaks. Okay, but they still spend them there, because the worker's can't make a living wage for their families and need all the cheap unhealthy food they can get. So....Walmart gets tax breaks when they build a store, they drive out Mom and Pop places, they get other tax breaks for years to come, they hire workers at a non-living wage, which they can deduct from their taxes, they have tons of other tax loopholes, AND the SNAP money goes right to their coffers in food purchases while they buy most of their goods manufactured in other countries. The military? Okay..we take crappy care of our soldiers, but defense contractors and their money can't even be audited. Hmmmmm... Are you worried about doctors and hospitals that are now turning into mega corporations? I don't think you need to worry about those folks. My husband works for plenty of doctors who whine about the cost of his service, but have luxury cars in their garages, vacation plans in Europe, vacation homes in Florida.....and lots of other toys. They don't spread their money around very much....they all shop at Costco. LOL

[The Chosen One]

Do you understand that most of the tax money goes to defense, doctors and hospitals, and the social safety net AND is dropped right back into an economy run by the rich? Poor people have no money, and when they get it, they spend it. Middle class people earn money, they might save a bit, but according to most reports are one months pay away from being in deep trouble. So they too spend most of their money on things that are costing more and more every year, while their pay is stagnant. The only folks getting rich are the wealthy, and their incomes are rising every year. So I'm not sure why you are so sad for them. They run the entire show. Let's take food stamps for an example. Food stamps are paid with SNAP cards that come from banks who get paid fees to issue them. They are given to poor people so they can eat during their lunch breaks at Walmart...if they get lunch breaks. Okay, but they still spend them there, because the worker's can't make a living wage for their families and need all the cheap unhealthy food they can get. So....Walmart gets tax breaks when they build a store, they drive out Mom and Pop places, they get other tax breaks for years to come, they hire workers at a non-living wage, which they can deduct from their taxes, they have tons of other tax loopholes, AND the SNAP money goes right to their coffers in food purchases while they buy most of their goods manufactured in other countries. The military? Okay..we take crappy care of our soldiers, but defense contractors and their money can't even be audited. Hmmmmm... Are you worried about doctors and hospitals that are now turning into mega corporations? I don't think you need to worry about those folks. My husband works for plenty of doctors who whine about the cost of his service, but have luxury cars in their garages, vacation plans in Europe, vacation homes in Florida.....and lots of other toys. They don't spread their money around very much....they all shop at Costco. LOL

Need to see more posts from you.

Bigger the Liberal Elite Army we have the better. :Alone:

[Julio3000]

Well thanks for the number, but holy ****.

So, someone makes $400K… You want to start by taking $280K of that? That's before state, local, sales, excise, social security, medicare taxes, etc.

Would that type of a tax rate result in a tax cut for everyone else? Or is that in addition to the current revenues? Is there ever a plan to CUT spending?

For someone who obsesses about taxes, certainly you know that nobody pays their highest marginal rate on all of their income. If the top rate were 70%, effective at $400K for a single filer, this person would pay 70% on taxable income above $400K.

[Julio3000]

We've been over this before. People who don't pay personal federal income tax still pay payroll, sales, and state income taxes. Their tax burden is hardly "nothing."

Also, a not-inconsiderable number of "freeloaders" are retirees or others who don't have income that is subject to federal income tax.

[Oklahomahawk]

We've been over this before. People who don't pay personal federal income tax still pay payroll, sales, and state income taxes. Their tax burden is hardly "nothing."

Just so I am clear on this, as I don't normally get involved in serious economics discussions but normally discussions that are more "socio-economic trends", sturg, does the term you used "free loaders" apply to the wealthy freeloaders who hide much of their income in offshore accounts, etc. or does it only apply to the poor freeloaders, whether they are truly just lazy jagoffs or really are trying and legitimate victims of an ever increasingly effed up system?

[50PoundHead]

Well thanks for the number, but holy ****.

So, someone makes $400K… You want to start by taking $280K of that? That's before state, local, sales, excise, social security, medicare taxes, etc.

Would that type of a tax rate result in a tax cut for everyone else? Or is that in addition to the current revenues? Is there ever a plan to CUT spending?

I think someone else pointed it out, but the marginal rate is only applied to the increment of income affected, not the entire income. In other words, the first $X of income would be taxed at a given percentage, the second increment above $X would be taxed at the next highest rate, and so on. The marginal rate reductions (the highest I remember was 90% and it wasn't because my parents were paying it) were accompanied by a broadening of the tax base in the 1980s so lower rates were assessed against incomes that weren't reduced as much for tax purposes. A lot of folks here are too young to remember, but you used to be able to write off interest on your credit cards up until the 1986 changes. Pretty much the only interest you can write off now is first/second mortgages and interest paid if you run your own business. You could also deduct sales taxes paid to your state.

[weso1]

I think the current income tax rates are fine. I actually think most liberals would be just fine with 36-39%. I think the question really should be what should the cap gain tax rates be and the like and what should the tax shelters be? Unfortunately there isn't a simple answer. I understand everyone wants fairness, but fairness isn't necessarily the best thing for the economy and thus the best for the country as a whole. Liberals get way too caught up in their contempt for rich people in this argument. The argument always gets turned into the big bad evil rich people, when it really shouldn't be about that.

[Julio3000]

I think the current income tax rates are fine. I actually think most liberals would be just fine with 36-39%. I think the question really should be what should the cap gain tax rates be and the like and what should the tax shelters be? Unfortunately there isn't a simple answer. I understand everyone wants fairness, but fairness isn't necessarily the best thing for the economy and thus the best for the country as a whole. Liberals get way too caught up in their contempt for rich people in this argument. The argument always gets turned into the big bad evil rich people, when it really shouldn't be about that.

The wealthiest Americans are paying historically low tax rates. Many of us believe that should be changed, and the equation be balanced as it was before. That's not punishing the rich, or bringing morality into the equation at all.

[weso1]

The wealthiest Americans are paying historically low tax rates. Many of us believe that should be changed, and the equation be balanced as it was before. That's not punishing the rich, or bringing morality into the equation at all.

I'm just saying that it might not necessarily be the smartest thing to do. It's not as simple as some make it out to be.

[sturg33]

Wasn't it Obama, who was asked why he would raise capital gains when history concluded it that economic conditions got better when they were lower… He said he didn't care, that he would do it out of fairness?

[BedellBrave]

The wealthiest Americans are paying historically low tax rates. Many of us believe that should be changed, and the equation be balanced as it was before. That's not punishing the rich, or bringing morality into the equation at all.


"Should" is a moral term in this case. "The wealthiest Americans should pay a higher rate" is a moral statement, expressing a moral standard. Not saying it is wrong. But let's not think it is morally neutral.

[zitothebrave]

Wasn't it Obama, who was asked why he would raise capital gains when history concluded it that economic conditions got better when they were lower… He said he didn't care, that he would do it out of fairness?

I feel like this statement is made often without looking at historical context. You know with your certainty, you'd think that the economy would have exploded when the cap dropped in 2003.

[Metaphysicist]

Wasn't it Obama, who was asked why he would raise capital gains when history concluded it that economic conditions got better when they were lower… He said he didn't care, that he would do it out of fairness?

That definitely sounds like a direct quote.

[Julio3000]

Wasn't it Obama, who was asked why he would raise capital gains when history concluded it that economic conditions got better when they were lower… He said he didn't care, that he would do it out of fairness?

History concludes that?

[sturg33]

That definitely sounds like a direct quote.

Considering I did quote him, no it wasn't a direct quote. Thanks.

Here is the direct quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jr3Ceu894

[Metaphysicist]

Considering I did quote him, no it wasn't a direct quote. Thanks.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Julio3000]

So, sturg, does history conclude that?

[sturg33]

So, sturg, does history conclude that?

The one time the capital gains tax rate was increased since 1981 was in 1987, from 20% to 28%. From 1987-90, capital gains revenue fell from $33.7 billion to $27.8 billion, with an average annual decline of -12.8%.

Capital gains tax rates were cut from 28% to 20% in 1981, again from 28% to 20% in 1997, and from 20% to 15% in 2003. Capital gains tax revenues grew by an annual average of 15.8% from 1981-84, 17.8% from 1997-2000, and 25.5% from 2003-06.

But hey, then it wouldn't be fair.

[zitothebrave]

And the increased capital gains increases of 97and 2003 sure have helped make the the economy so much better today. Lulz.

[sturg33]

And the increased capital gains increases of 97and 2003 sure have helped make the the economy so much better today. Lulz.

Is this a serious post?

Tax revenues went UP when rates went DOWN. That means that the investments were much more successful and/or there were a lot more investments made.

[zitothebrave]

So you think the economy today is the best in the history of America? Lulz.

[sturg33]

So you think the economy today is the best in the history of America? Lulz.

No I don't think that all... But if you want them paying more taxes, that's exactly what happened.

It literally is impossible to please you people. When actual data shows that rich people paid more taxes, that's still not good enough for you.

Do you think less investments are good for the economy? Do you understand why the economy sucks right now? It has nothing to do with frickin capital gains taxes.

[zitothebrave]

I think that the investor class is the problem with the economy now. Yes. Not all of them of course. But all the investor class is out there to do is to make money on the backs of other companies. And then ditch those companies.

For example, Carl Icahn wants Apple to buyback a healthy chunk of their stock, the only people that benefits are the people with tons of stock in Apple. Doesn't help Apple or their employees, just the richest. If Apple took their cash and invested it in the company that benefits Apple and their employees it works out for everyone but the evestros. That's what needs to happen, not the foolish stock buy back that's what ultimately led Blackberry to their doom.

[sturg33]

I think that the investor class is the problem with the economy now. Yes. Not all of them of course. But all the investor class is out there to do is to make money on the backs of other companies. And then ditch those companies.

For example, Carl Icahn wants Apple to buyback a healthy chunk of their stock, the only people that benefits are the people with tons of stock in Apple. Doesn't help Apple or their employees, just the richest. If Apple took their cash and invested it in the company that benefits Apple and their employees it works out for everyone but the evestros. That's what needs to happen, not the foolish stock buy back that's what ultimately led Blackberry to their doom.

So you don't want private companies to be able to make decisions they see fit? Who cares if it's for them to make money, that's why they are in business.

[sturg33]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2012/02/Tax-Rates-and-Revenue.jpg

Re-posting this for fun

[zitothebrave]

The investor class is the problem, you're right it's on the businesses to do but a change in Capital Gains coudl stop short trading and other issues.

[50PoundHead]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2012/02/Tax-Rates-and-Revenue.jpg

But this is just simple math. We don't know the taxable income base adjustments that accompanied rate changes. The bottom line of any tax system is to raise government revenue at a level that reaches the budgeted amounts. So if Rate Structure A times Tax Base B equals the amount of revenue you seek, it only follows that Rate Structure A - x times Tax Base B + y could raise the same amount of aggregate revenue. The other issue that still remains, however, is how you want to distribute the tax burden.

[Julio3000]

The one time the capital gains tax rate was increased since 1981 was in 1987, from 20% to 28%. From 1987-90, capital gains revenue fell from $33.7 billion to $27.8 billion, with an average annual decline of -12.8%.

Capital gains tax rates were cut from 28% to 20% in 1981, again from 28% to 20% in 1997, and from 20% to 15% in 2003. Capital gains tax revenues grew by an annual average of 15.8% from 1981-84, 17.8% from 1997-2000, and 25.5% from 2003-06.

But hey, then it wouldn't be fair.

And how does that track with economic conditions? That was the verbiage, right? And you see how that's not the most meaningful number, absent context, right? If there's a big split between the cap gains rate and the top rate on income, you're just going to see a ton of money moving from one bucket to the other.

I'll preface this by saying that this graph doesn't tell the whole story, but here is another interesting data point:
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff511/poinsett/capital-gains-and-growth-998x1024_zps36a8535c.png
Correlation of .12.

OK, this is not supposed to be some kind of showstopper. I'm not trying to prove that there is no relationship between the cap gains rate and economic growth. I'm saying that the big picture is complex and hard for anyone to grasp and speak authoritatively about. What I'm getting from you, in this thread and all of the others, is a lot of absolutes: taxes are always bad, lower is always better, and there is no societal benefit to a tax regime that redistributes wealth.

[Julio3000]

"Should" is a moral term in this case. "The wealthiest Americans should pay a higher rate" is a moral statement, expressing a moral standard. Not saying it is wrong. But let's not think it is morally neutral.

OK, noted. I was trying to answer a specific challenge, without being too long-winded. I meant that the tax regime is not, in practice or intent, punishment for the fact of affluence.

Upthread, I stated specifically what kind of a tax regime is my preference. Do I think I have the right of the argument? Sure. Am I arguing that my opinion reflects deeper moral truths? No. Not here, anyway.

[FreemanFan]

I think that the investor class is the problem with the economy now. Yes. Not all of them of course. But all the investor class is out there to do is to make money on the backs of other companies. And then ditch those companies.

For example, Carl Icahn wants Apple to buyback a healthy chunk of their stock, the only people that benefits are the people with tons of stock in Apple. Doesn't help Apple or their employees, just the richest. If Apple took their cash and invested it in the company that benefits Apple and their employees it works out for everyone but the evestros. That's what needs to happen, not the foolish stock buy back that's what ultimately led Blackberry to their doom.

Apple employees don't own any Apple stock? If they do then a rise in the stock price benefits them. What is a stock buyback if not an investment in the company?

[zitothebrave]

Higher ups may but I don't think the geek squad or whatever can afford 400 bucks for one tiny share. Apple has an employee stock purchase. But that dilutes the value of the stock. Which is the opposite of what Icahn wants.

[FreemanFan]

How does Apple employees buying the stock dilute share value? They are buying shares already outstanding.

[zitothebrave]

That not how typical ESPP work. I can't say how Apple does it since I don't care to research it, but typically what happens is a company creates stock. Lets say Apple creates 1000 shares for the ESPP. Then they offer it to employees for a discount, say of like 15%. Now you can either have stock saved up (most companies do) that goes to ESPP, or you can actively create (way too much work) but regardless the creation of stock dilutes the value.

Apple about 2 years ago started a stock repurchasing plan of 45 billion dollars where basically they'll scoop up all outstanding shares. This was done to appease the investor class because of the dilution that was occurring because of the ESPP. This allows Apple to stock up on stocks for their employees without creating stocks and pissing off their shareholders.

Stock buybacks are appeasements to shareholders. They sureup the value of the stock because the company is less likely to need to add more stock for benefits paid out to it's employees. Less stocks out there more value for the investor.

[thethe]

Stock buybacks can be much more than just appeasements to shareholders.

Also, based on minimal research apple has an ESPP for substantially all their employees at 85%.

[zitothebrave]

That's more or less common. Again the ESPP usually comes from an allotted set of stocks. The company doesn't want to pay the going rate for stocks. Instead they usually have some horded away. Altough I can't speak for the inner workings of Apple.

[thethe]

Typically, companies will have treasury stock that are used for these employee plans.

[zitothebrave]

Typically, companies will have treasury stock that are used for these employee plans.

Correct, but what was happening with Apple from what I understand was the stock giveouts were happening too much for the investors or something along those lines and so to appease them Apple started their buyback.

[thethe]

Correct, but what was happening with Apple from what I understand was the stock giveouts were happening too much for the investors or something along those lines and so to appease them Apple started their buyback.

I don't know anything about that but normally the #1 reason for a stock buyback is if the company believes its stock is undervalued. It sends a positive message to the market that the company is confident moving forward.

[Krgrecw]

The apple stock buy back happened because Apple has so much cash on hand that they used that cash to buy back shares to appease stock holders. The big share holders all wanted apple to do something with all their money whether it be buy netflix, buy hulu, buy TWC, buy ATT and many big apple holders just wanted stock buy backs to raise their value. The buy back is the easiest thing to do

[zitothebrave]

I don't know anything about that but normally the #1 reason for a stock buyback is if the company believes its stock is undervalued. It sends a positive message to the market that the company is confident moving forward.

Well Apple's was many fold. They probably believe they were undervalued. But it realy had a lot to do with Employee Stock. Both through purchasing and through rewards to executives, etc. Apple was sitting on a mountain of cash and decided to sure up their stock profile. Apple doesnt really need them, they just help.