1% needs to start paying their fair share of taxes >:

[Jhhnn]

Duhverted and won't answer, got it. About the only answer you could come up with though, given the position you've taken. Thanks for confirming King et al won't put their money where their mouths are. Partisan drivel on though, I'm sure you can't help yourself...

Back to deliberately obtuse, I see.

King's contention, and my own, is that rich people won't pay unless compelled to do so. There's nothing stopping King other than the same thing stopping the rest of the rich from doing what you suggest. It's human nature. To claim that he's a hypocrite is ridiculous when he calls for the govt to raise his taxes, to compel him & his peers to pay.

What's hypocritical is an offshoring tax weasel using "Believe In America" as his campaign slogan even when advocating his own taxes be cut further to, uhh, help balance the federal budget through some magical mechanism that only delusional righties seem to understand.

Maybe if the Rich just offshored all their money our problems would go away, huh? Maybe if Romney & friends could just buy up all of America's corporations, bury them under debt so that they can pay themselves for having the "expertise" to do so, put the money in the Caymans, why, everything would be comin' up roses...

 

[BoT]

this article is bogus and the numbers are completely wrong.

The top 1 percent, for instance, pay an average tax rate of more than 24 percent. The top 5 percent -- a tax rate of a little more than 20 percent. The top 10 percent -- about 18 percent.
For the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, the average rate is 1.85 percent.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...at-fair-share-taxes-looks-like/#ixzz217BZToSZ

really?
i am paying 24%, Mitt Romney pays 13.9%
how the heck do 90% pay only 1.85%

what a waste of time

 

[Jhhnn]

this article is bogus and the numbers are completely wrong.


really?
i am paying 24%, Mitt Romney pays 13.9%
how the heck do 90% pay only 1.85%

what a waste of time

The numbers are reasonably accurate, and merely show that the extremely wealthy have the ability to hide in the top 1%, or even the top .1%.

At the point where the income curve turns & goes vertical is basically the same point where the effective federal tax rate becomes regressive for guys like Mitt, whose enormous incomes are derived almost exclusively from LTCG's which are taxed at 15%.

It's also extremely dishonest to examine federal income taxes in a vacuum, as if other taxes don't take a much more significant part of middle incomes than of those at the tippy top. SS contributions top out at ~$110K of earned income, and don't apply to capital gains. neither do Medicare taxes. Uber Rich people pay the same taxes on a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of booze as poor people. Their driver's licenses cost the same. so forth & so on. Taxable expenditures on food, clothing & entertainment are an insignificant part of their incomes, and the skybox is tax deductible to the corporate entity providing it. Same with the private jet & the limo.

 

[Lithium381]

Mighty nice set of false attributions, stereotypes, & smear tactics, intended to maintain your own denial.

Median families & below have *already* made huge sacrifices to the Gods of offshoring trickledown economics over the last 30 years, and it shows in their share of national income vs the share of the top 1%. They've sacrificed even more, as a group, in the unemployment & labor force participation rates since the unfolding of the great recession.

The Bush Admin & Republican congress of the recent past are the crowning glory of that shift away from shared prosperity & towards plutocracy. It's gone far enough that aggregate demand has been greatly reduced, putting investors in the position that they see no advantage to hiring & investing, so they hoard instead, which further reduces demand in a vicious circle of greed.

Poor people aren't the cause of a broken system, but rather a symptom of it.

I agree with your closing statement.
As for my "false attributions" and stereotypes . . . my phrases apply to the appropriate group and i'm not intending to address anyone who's not in that group. There are those who legitimatly need the welfare system and the support it provides. there are also those who cheat the system. There are those who consistantly make bad decisoins and cannot blame anyone for their situation. having multiple kids when you can't afford the one you already have is an example, which i was referring to. There are also those who were "victims" of unforseen circumstances but are trying to improve their lot. Stop trying to paint me with your broad brush.

The numbers are reasonably accurate, and merely show that the extremely wealthy have the ability to hide in the top 1%, or even the top .1%.

At the point where the income curve turns & goes vertical is basically the same point where the effective federal tax rate becomes regressive for guys like Mitt, whose enormous incomes are derived almost exclusively from LTCG's which are taxed at 15%.

It's also extremely dishonest to examine federal income taxes in a vacuum, as if other taxes don't take a much more significant part of middle incomes than of those at the tippy top. SS contributions top out at ~$110K of earned income, and don't apply to capital gains. neither do Medicare taxes. Uber Rich people pay the same taxes on a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of booze as poor people. Their driver's licenses cost the same. so forth & so on. Taxable expenditures on food, clothing & entertainment are an insignificant part of their incomes, and the skybox is tax deductible to the corporate entity providing it. Same with the private jet & the limo.

 

[BoT]

well if the numbers don't lie then i am sure that our federal government would not hurt too much if they lose the less then 2% that is contributed by 90% of the population and if they do miss it i am sure it would be no problem for the wealthy 10% to pick up our slack.
it would make a world of a difference to us.

 

[Jhhnn]

Stop trying to paint me with your broad brush.

Then stop using one, stop spouting the usual right wing talking points as gospel.

 

[Jhhnn]

well if the numbers don't lie then i am sure that our federal government would not hurt too much if they lose the less then 2% that is contributed by 90% of the population and if they do miss it i am sure it would be no problem for the wealthy 10% to pick up our slack.
it would make a world of a difference to us.

You misunderstood the numbers, although they're intended to be deceptive. Yes- the top 10% pay 70% of *federal income tax*, but that's only part of the total taxation picture. Regressive payroll taxes rival income taxes as a share of federal revenue, and are paid overwhelmingly by those at the 90th percentile & below. Guys like Romney pay an extremely small % of their income as payroll taxes, if at all.

A more reveling statistic is that median filers & below would be earning ~40% more if the income distribution of 1980 had been maintained... and the top 1% would be earning ~50% less. I'm confident people at the low end would gladly pay more in taxes if they did.

It's not like the Rich weren't, you know, *Rich* back in 1980, at all.

 

[Lithium381]

Then stop using one, stop spouting the usual right wing talking points as gospel.

What picture are YOU looking at? Certainly not one I've been painting. I've been saying this entire thread the "rich" need to pay more. . . i'm sure that's what the right's been advocating for right?

 

[SagaLore]

The only way this is going to be solved is to use a combination of flat taxes and caps.

Income tax, 10% across the board, income cap at 1mil per year.

Property tax, 10% across the board, property cap at 100mil total assets. Anything over is taxed 100% value.

Sales tax, 10% across the board.


So then you're taxing earnings, ownership, and purchases. Those who have a lot, pay the most, those who have little, pay almost nothing.

 

[SagaLore]

I've been saying this entire thread the "rich" need to pay more. . .

I think this is where the problem is between the 2 parties.

We keep fighting about the wrong problem. One side says the rich doesn't pay enough, because they're rich, and even if they pay a lot, the rich is still rich and the poor is still poor. So they should pay even more to balance that out. The other side says the rich earned their wealth, they are already paying the most, if they keep having to pay more then they lose their incentive to be rich in this country and they will go elsewhere, leaving the poor to fend for themselves.

Sure both sides are valid. Its a conundrum.

So we just keep fighting by looking at the problem the same way, arguing over the exact same solutions over and over until we get nowhere.

So think outside the box. What else could we do that solves this?


I think the rich should have their incentive to become and stay rich. They succeed, they develop a standard of living, they are rewarded for their hard and strategic efforts. I think the poor need help. They just can't dig themselves out of it. Their education is lacking, there isn't much opportunity, they're stuck.

Let the less than rich want to get rich. Let them be rich. But don't let them HOARD the wealth. That's the problem. Once their wealth reaches that magnitude, its like a black hole, sucking in more wealth. In a company they could be making millions of dollars just in income, while the average staff member is making hardly anything. Then, as they have far surpassed what they need to maintain their standard of living, the wealth is tied up in various ways. We need that to be limited so they are forced to keep the wealth moving in the market. If we reduce the span between first quartile and third quartile of average wealth, I think everyone in general will be happier, still get their fair share, and keep the economy and government in a healthy state.

 

[michal1980]

You misunderstood the numbers, although they're intended to be deceptive. Yes- the top 10% pay 70% of *federal income tax*, but that's only part of the total taxation picture. Regressive payroll taxes rival income taxes as a share of federal revenue, and are paid overwhelmingly by those at the 90th percentile & below. Guys like Romney pay an extremely small % of their income as payroll taxes, if at all.

A more reveling statistic is that median filers & below would be earning ~40% more if the income distribution of 1980 had been maintained... and the top 1% would be earning ~50% less. I'm confident people at the low end would gladly pay more in taxes if they did.

It's not like the Rich weren't, you know, *Rich* back in 1980, at all.

most/all poor get more back from payroll taxes then they ever pay.

Even the CBO says Social Secuity can be called a progressive tax

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-progressivity-ss.pdf

the same for medicare. People get more then they pay in. The poorer you are the more you get back.

To call the taxes regersive is just more repeating the same liberal lie, over and over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...care_benefits_for_different_worker_categories

 

[berzerker60]

I think this is where the problem is between the 2 parties.

We keep fighting about the wrong problem. One side says the rich doesn't pay enough, because they're rich, and even if they pay a lot, the rich is still rich and the poor is still poor. So they should pay even more to balance that out. The other side says the rich earned their wealth, they are already paying the most, if they keep having to pay more then they lose their incentive to be rich in this country and they will go elsewhere, leaving the poor to fend for themselves.

Sure both sides are valid. Its a conundrum.

So we just keep fighting by looking at the problem the same way, arguing over the exact same solutions over and over until we get nowhere.

So think outside the box. What else could we do that solves this?


I think the rich should have their incentive to become and stay rich. They succeed, they develop a standard of living, they are rewarded for their hard and strategic efforts. I think the poor need help. They just can't dig themselves out of it. Their education is lacking, there isn't much opportunity, they're stuck.

Let the less than rich want to get rich. Let them be rich. But don't let them HOARD the wealth. That's the problem. Once their wealth reaches that magnitude, its like a black hole, sucking in more wealth. In a company they could be making millions of dollars just in income, while the average staff member is making hardly anything. Then, as they have far surpassed what they need to maintain their standard of living, the wealth is tied up in various ways. We need that to be limited so they are forced to keep the wealth moving in the market. If we reduce the span between first quartile and third quartile of average wealth, I think everyone in general will be happier, still get their fair share, and keep the economy and government in a healthy state.

Taxing wealth rather than income is actually an idea that makes a lot of sense, though it would be a nightmare for the IRS to keep track of in any kind of halfway meaningful way.

The general principle that's applicable is the "veil of ignorance." Imagine you're a fetus about to be born and you have no idea what family you'll be born into. Now design a tax system that will give you the best shot at maximum happiness. I'd bet you don't decide that there won't be enough incentive to get rich if you know that you'll only get 50% of that next million dollars once you're already earning $10million/year. I'd also bet that as long as there are pretty good odds you'll end up in a family struggling to get you food, education, and housing, you'll want families in that situation to not have to pay taxes until those expenses are handled, even if it does mean giving up that precious precious extra 'incentive to get rich.' Can you honestly imagine not bothering to get rich because once you hit enough income to live comfortably you pay a higher percentage of the next money you get on top of that?

Flat taxes, since they'll hit the vast majority of people much much much much harder than the rich, give you one of the worst scenarios.

 

[Jhhnn]

most/all poor get more back from payroll taxes then they ever pay.

Even the CBO says Social Secuity can be called a progressive tax

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-progressivity-ss.pdf

the same for medicare. People get more then they pay in. The poorer you are the more you get back.

To call the taxes regersive is just more repeating the same liberal lie, over and over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medica...care_benefits_for_different_worker_categories

Nice spin. SS taxes are progressive, up to the contribution limit, currently ~$110K earned income/ yr. They are *not* progressive, but rather highly regressive as applied to the investor class, who never pay more than than a guy earning $110K/yr, if they pay anything at all. Medicare? the program is progressive to a point, the taxes used to maintain it are not. Those taxes are highly regressive wrt the investor class, ho pay noe on LTCG's & dividends. The $3800 donut hole in current prescription drug coverage isn't progressive in the slightest, particularly not for people who live entirely on SS payments that average $1230/mo- 26% of their rather meager incomes if their drug expenses exceed $6730 & the $972 they already spent to get there...

 

[michal1980]

Nice spin. SS taxes are progressive, up to the contribution limit, currently ~$110K earned income/ yr. They are *not* progressive, but rather highly regressive as applied to the investor class, who never pay more than than a guy earning $110K/yr, if they pay anything at all. Medicare? the program is progressive to a point, the taxes used to maintain it are not. Those taxes are highly regressive wrt the investor class, ho pay noe on LTCG's & dividends. The $3800 donut hole in current prescription drug coverage isn't progressive in the slightest, particularly not for people who live entirely on SS payments that average $1230/mo- 26% of their rather meager incomes if their drug expenses exceed $6730 & the $972 they already spent to get there...

did you read anything i posted? or just repeat the same liberal talking points you have on your pc?

 

[Jhhnn]

What picture are YOU looking at? Certainly not one I've been painting. I've been saying this entire thread the "rich" need to pay more. . . i'm sure that's what the right's been advocating for right?

These are right wing attributions & talking points- or variations on them-

Ask the poor people to do the same thing. make sacrafices. Have 3 kids instead of 4. Go read a book at the library and educate yourself and not watch TV all day. . . .

Some people aren't worth minimum wage, they're simply not.

there is a strong equivalency between the child credit and a "loophole" allowing a "rich" person to deduct the cost of maintenance on his yacht when traveling overseas you just want to deny it because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Rich people get the child credit same as everybody else, very few get the yacht credit.

I didn't go back very far in this thread, at all, and haven't even brought in your contributions to others.

Obviously, taxes need to go up, I think we can agree on that. If we need to do that, then we need to start at the top for it to be politically palatable, and we need to remember that you can't get blood out of a turnip, the lower 50% of tax filers.

Despite what Grover Norquist & Steve Schwarzman have contended, progressive taxes are not equivalent to the holocaust or the invasion of Poland, at all. There was a time not too long ago that many among the wealthy felt proud & fortunate to pay big taxes on big money, believing it was highly patriotic to do so, highly beneficial to their own real interests as well. As it turns out, the greater their share of national income, the less they feel that way, having been overcome by greed.

 

[Jhhnn]

did you read anything i posted? or just repeat the same liberal talking points you have on your pc?

Heh. I read it, such as it is- dishonest & obfuscational, a desperate attempt to maintain rather smug denial, your usual position.

 

[Lithium381]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lithium381

What picture are YOU looking at? Certainly not one I've been painting. I've been saying this entire thread the "rich" need to pay more. . . i'm sure that's what the right's been advocating for right?

These are right wing attributions & talking points- or variations on them-

Quote:

Ask the poor people to do the same thing. make sacrafices. Have 3 kids instead of 4. Go read a book at the library and educate yourself and not watch TV all day. . . .

Are you going to argue that that's a bad idea? That if you can't afford two kids, you should have two more? It's a poor decision and it's an easy way to stay impovershed. I'm just saying take SOME responsibility for your situation. I'm not trying to stereotype all "poor" into the same boat. Admittedly 6 months ago i probably would have.



Quote:

Some people aren't worth minimum wage, they're simply not.

As someone who's been a hiring manager at a pizza place and a large retail chain i can say this is a true statement, not a talking point. Besides I don't think raising the Min.Wage is the solution to our countrys problem.


Quote:

there is a strong equivalency between the child credit and a "loophole" allowing a "rich" person to deduct the cost of maintenance on his yacht when traveling overseas you just want to deny it because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Rich people get the child credit same as everybody else, very few get the yacht credit.

I didn't go back very far in this thread, at all, and haven't even brought in your contributions to others.

Obviously, taxes need to go up, I think we can agree on that. If we need to do that, then we need to start at the top for it to be politically palatable, and we need to remember that you can't get blood out of a turnip, the lower 50% of tax filers.

Despite what Grover Norquist & Steve Schwarzman have contended, progressive taxes are not equivalent to the holocaust or the invasion of Poland, at all. There was a time not too long ago that many among the wealthy felt proud & fortunate to pay big taxes on big money, believing it was highly patriotic to do so, highly beneficial to their own real interests as well. As it turns out, the greater their share of national income, the less they feel that way, having been overcome by greed.

I was actually unaware of the depth of the Norquist "pledge" until last week when i read my Bruce Bartlet book 'the benefit and the burden'. . . very eye opening!! Progressive tax system makes a lot of sense. I think we'd be better off without the deductions for the rich. The 35% rate seems "fair" on the top bracket. LTCG needs work too. Elimitating the AMT would help the upper middle class out a bit.

 

[Veliko]

tax "loopholes" are typically not put there on accident. someone in congress has to put it there.

Irrelevant, and you are once again dodging the point.

Why would I try and defend the rich? my lifetime earnings don't even add up to 250k

Because you think that if you rub up against them enough, they might give you a few table scraps.

there is a strong equivalency between the child credit and a "loophole" allowing a "rich" person to deduct the cost of maintenance on his yacht when traveling overseas you just want to deny it because it doesn't fit your agenda. You don't want it in there, petition congress to take it out.

No, there is no equivalancy at all between child credits, and rich people dodging millions in taxes through clever accounting.

 

[michal1980]

Heh. I read it, such as it is- dishonest & obfuscational, a desperate attempt to maintain rather smug denial, your usual position.

LOL, stop projecting.

There was nothing smug, its just reality. The poorer you are the more benefit you get from payroll taxes. And in you get more returned to you then you ever pay in.


Sorry if facts get in the way of your reality. Whats next your going to call water dry?

 

[chucky2]

Back to deliberately obtuse, I see.

King's contention, and my own, is that rich people won't pay unless compelled to do so. There's nothing stopping King other than the same thing stopping the rest of the rich from doing what you suggest. It's human nature. To claim that he's a hypocrite is ridiculous when he calls for the govt to raise his taxes, to compel him & his peers to pay.

What's hypocritical is an offshoring tax weasel using "Believe In America" as his campaign slogan even when advocating his own taxes be cut further to, uhh, help balance the federal budget through some magical mechanism that only delusional righties seem to understand.

Maybe if the Rich just offshored all their money our problems would go away, huh? Maybe if Romney & friends could just buy up all of America's corporations, bury them under debt so that they can pay themselves for having the "expertise" to do so, put the money in the Caymans, why, everything would be comin' up roses...

He's a hypocrite. He has a means to pay, feels he should pay more, but won't because he's not forced to? Only a Progressive would use brain dead mind F'd logic like this.

Let me sum up your posts: Rant, whine, Progessive whining talking points, drop the dishonest & obfuscational words to make it sound like you have an educated post (they're not, just usual drivel), then double down when called on it.

Rage on bro, rage on...

Chuck

P.S. Still no reason why King et al aren't paying their fair share they so strongly believe they should be paying. 'Why aren't the firemen at the fire putting it out???' " Well, the firecrew in the next town isn't putting their fire out." 'WTF does that have to do with this fire crew and this fire???" 'Dishonest & obfuscational!!! They're not putting out their fair share of fire!!! Wahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!' LOL, next you'll be saying people need training to pick garbage up off the ground...

 

[berzerker60]

P.S. Still no reason why King et al aren't paying their fair share they so strongly believe they should be paying. 'Why aren't the firemen at the fire putting it out???' " Well, the firecrew in the next town isn't putting their fire out." 'WTF does that have to do with this fire crew and this fire???" 'Dishonest & obfuscational!!! They're not putting out their fair share of fire!!! Wahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!' LOL, next you'll be saying people need training to pick garbage up off the ground...

I don't think anyone should use nuclear weapons, but damned if I want to give up mine as "a show of good faith" or something without even a vague promise from other countries that they'll get rid of theirs too. Maybe that's slightly hypocritical, but it's also realistic.

None of the states under the Articles of Confederation wanted to be the first to donate money to support a national army, and none was willing to be the first to raise their tariffs since the other states would just take their business, but then they got together under the Constitution and were able to do both in a fair manner.

In the 1800s no mill owner wanted to be the first to get rid of child labor, because it was really cheap and anyone who 'went first' voluntarily would make no real difference in the market and would be much much worse off. So we passed a law making everyone stop using underage labor, and we're better off for it.

If you're in a noisy room and want to get people to hush, sitting down and 'setting an example' probably isn't going to do the trick. It's hypocritical to stand up and yell "quiet!" but just doing your part alone doesn't solve the problem.

This isn't that hard to understand.

 

[shadow9d9]

If you make the most, you pay the most, even if it is at lower percentages. The argument is about percentage paid. Overall amount means little. Of course billionaires will pay a ton overall. The argument is that they are paying much lower percentages and therefore not their fair share.

Seriously? Is that the best you got.

 

[blackangst1]

The only way this is going to be solved is to use a combination of flat taxes and caps.

Income tax, 10% across the board, income cap at 1mil per year.

Property tax, 10% across the board, property cap at 100mil total assets. Anything over is taxed 100% value.

Sales tax, 10% across the board.


So then you're taxing earnings, ownership, and purchases. Those who have a lot, pay the most, those who have little, pay almost nothing.

What? How would middle income families afford to pay $10,000-$30,000 in property taxes?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

What? How would middle income families afford to pay $10,000-$30,000 in property taxes?

Housing prices would have to be readjusted to appropriate levels.

 

[chucky2]

I don't think anyone should use nuclear weapons, but damned if I want to give up mine as "a show of good faith" or something without even a vague promise from other countries that they'll get rid of theirs too. Maybe that's slightly hypocritical, but it's also realistic.

None of the states under the Articles of Confederation wanted to be the first to donate money to support a national army, and none was willing to be the first to raise their tariffs since the other states would just take their business, but then they got together under the Constitution and were able to do both in a fair manner.

In the 1800s no mill owner wanted to be the first to get rid of child labor, because it was really cheap and anyone who 'went first' voluntarily would make no real difference in the market and would be much much worse off. So we passed a law making everyone stop using underage labor, and we're better off for it.

If you're in a noisy room and want to get people to hush, sitting down and 'setting an example' probably isn't going to do the trick. It's hypocritical to stand up and yell "quiet!" but just doing your part alone doesn't solve the problem.

This isn't that hard to understand.

What's hard to understand is why you used examples that have nothing in common with King et al giving their personal money to the Gov like they want to happen. That affects no one but them, making all your analogies.....fail.

Still waiting...one would think for such an important and clear cut issue in the minds of Progressives, the answer would be readily available. So far, just dishonesty & obfuscation. Who'd have thunk it...