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

sturg33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

you were going to do that anyway
 
sturg33 said:
What would you describe it as, a reward?

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

sturg33 said:
I asked him if he sends more than he is required, I haven't gotten an answer.
Click to expand...

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?

sturg33 said:
I asked him what he would describe it as?
Click to expand...

Progressive income-taxation.
 
sturg33 said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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?
 
sturg33 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
KeithLockhart said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
thethe said:
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?
Click to expand...

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). Those guys should be taxed more for sure.

Total_Effective_Tax_Rates_2011.jpg
 
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)
 
sturg33 said:
CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers'

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.
Click to expand...

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:

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.
 
sturg33 said:
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)
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
sturg33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Metaphysicist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
sturg33 said:
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?
Click to expand...

choosing whole numbers instead of % per capita is such a poli sci 101 first day argument
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top