Conflict between rich and poor strongest in 24 years

[cybrsage]

Agreed. I think it's unfortunate that OWS has popularized the 1% argument because it's really the .1% that have made out like bandits. Someone who makes 400k per year from wages (which puts them at the bottom of the 1%) is overtaxed while the 0.1% are undertaxed.

Yep, but "down with the 0.1%" does not easily roll off the tongue, so they had to include a lot more people to make their chants simple.

 

[J-Money]

I wasnt offended by saying our nation in shambles. I admitted so much in my response to you. I was pointing out that Cananda has had the benefit of US protection which helps Cananda at the expense of our country. Acting like that cost doesnt exist is silly on your part. Like I said, Cananda is a closer Europe. If we ceased to exist today. Canada would be forced to shell out more money for guns and less for butter.

ok ok I'll give you that.

But you gotta admit Londo was offended. He started the whole thing.

 

[soundforbjt]

Someone who makes 400k per year from wages (which puts them at the bottom of the 1%) is overtaxed while the 0.1% are undertaxed.

No they're not. If you can't make it on 400K/year with the current tax rates, you are living way beyond your means.

 

[SamurAchzar]

No they're not. If you can't make it on 400K/year with the current tax rates, you are living way beyond your means.

What does living within your means have to do with taxation?

 

[soundforbjt]

What does living within your means have to do with taxation?

You have the lowest tax rates in 50-60 years right now, How can you say you're taxed too much now?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

What does living within your means have to do with taxation?

Yeah that's a complete non-sequitor. I didn't realize the goal of the tax code was to leave everyone with just enough to get by. A doctor or lawyer who makes 400k per year has very little in common with a hedge fund manager making 20 million per year.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You have the lowest tax rates in 50-60 years right now, How can you say you're taxed too much now?

Because effective tax rates are different than statutory tax rates.

 

[soundforbjt]

Because effective tax rates are different than statutory tax rates.

And? Show me how it's worse now tax rate wise for a person making 400K now vs then.

 

[Slew Foot]

You have the lowest tax rates in 50-60 years right now, How can you say you're taxed too much now?

Lowest tax rates applies to douchebags in the 0.1% like warren buffet who get their cap gains taxed at 15% as opposed to the guy drawing a 350k salary whose getting slammed with 36% fed and up to 10% state

 

[hal2kilo]

Lowest tax rates applies to douchebags in the 0.1% like warren buffet who get their cap gains taxed at 15% as opposed to the guy drawing a 350k salary whose getting slammed with 36% fed and up to 10% state

Please don't tell me you think that all of the 350K is being taxed at the 36% rate.

 

[SamurAchzar]

You have the lowest tax rates in 50-60 years right now, How can you say you're taxed too much now?

Where I am right now in life you can count on making more money than I do. It's just that I don't think other people should sponsor me.

 

[soundforbjt]

Where I am right now in life you can count on making more money than I do. It's just that I don't think other people should sponsor me.

So, I take it you're for making corps pay their actual tax rates instead of the "sponsored" rate they pay now, which for a third of them is 0 or worse yet a negative rate.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

And? Show me how it's worse now tax rate wise for a person making 400K now vs then.

I have been trying to find a study like that for years but I don't think anyone has broken down the data that way going back more than 10 or 20 years. This site has the median effective tax rate over time but that's not what you asked for.

http://www.freeby50.com/2009/04/history-of-effective-tax-rate-for.html

edit: Here's something close. This is from 1979-2002. See the bottom right graph.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/03/b397907.html

 

[soundforbjt]

I have been trying to find a study like that for years but I don't think anyone has broken down the data that way going back more than 10 or 20 years. This site has the median effective tax rate over time but that's not what you asked for.

http://www.freeby50.com/2009/04/history-of-effective-tax-rate-for.html

Well, inflation would probably have the biggest influence, but that hurts the poor more than those better off.

 

[SamurAchzar]

So, I take it you're for making corps pay their actual tax rates instead of the "sponsored" rate they pay now, which for a third of them is 0 or worse yet a negative rate.

I don't have any concrete data but I would assume the majority of the companies that you discuss are multinationals that use heavy tax planning; this begs the question, HOW do you make them pay more tax without having them relocate their HQ and operations? It's impossible.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Please don't tell me you think that all of the 350K is being taxed at the 36% rate.

A person making 350k in wages would likely have an effective Federal tax rate of about 25%. They would also pay about 8k into SS which uses a formula with built in wealth redistribution so a portion of that can be viewed as a tax as well. They will likely 5-8% in state taxes as well. All in their effective rate is probably in the low 30s. Where do you think it should be?

 

[Anarchist420]

Consumption based tax. The more you consume, the more tax you pay. The more expensive, the more tax you pay. Same rate for everyone.

The Fair Tax is such a tax.

The FairTax isn't really a good idea. Cutting the budget to under $500Bn would be tolerable.

 

[soundforbjt]

A person making 350k in wages would likely have an effective Federal tax rate of about 25%. They would also pay about 8k into SS which uses a formula with built in wealth redistribution so a portion of that can be viewed as a tax as well. They will likely 5-8% in state taxes as well. All in their effective rate is probably in the low 30s. Where do you think it should be?

They would also likely have some capital gains income being taxed @ 15%, which would lower their effective rate even more.

I think it should be back to the Clinton levels.

 

[senseamp]

Romney was getting taxed at 15% on carried interest on other peoples capital, while he people whose lives he ruined were paying income and payroll taxes until he canned them.

 

[blackangst1]

Question: Has there been a strong movement by either party to tax cap gains as normal income? I suspect not. Therefore, this isnt a DvsR issue. BOTH sides have benefited from 15% taxation. Equally. And BOTH sides are responsible for allowing it to continue.

The OWS movement is directing their anger in the wrong place. Should be Occupy My Senetor's House.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Question: Has there been a strong movement by either party to tax cap gains as normal income? I suspect not. Therefore, this isnt a DvsR issue. BOTH sides have benefited from 15% taxation. Equally. And BOTH sides are responsible for allowing it to continue.

The OWS movement is directing their anger in the wrong place. Should be Occupy My Senetor's House.

This. You hear almost nothing about raising the capital gains tax even from the Dems. Both parties are in the pockets of the rich. Having high income taxes and low capital gains basically permanently separates the wealthy from everyone else.

This is what Warren Buffet was talking about with his comments about how his secretary pays more taxes then him. He later came out and said he does not support the so called "Buffett Rule" in it's current form.

 

[artikk]

Question: Has there been a strong movement by either party to tax cap gains as normal income? I suspect not. Therefore, this isnt a DvsR issue. BOTH sides have benefited from 15% taxation. Equally. And BOTH sides are responsible for allowing it to continue.

The OWS movement is directing their anger in the wrong place. Should be Occupy My Senetor's House.

They're not directing their anger in the wrong place. They're skipping the middleman Congress and going right to the ones writing and lobbying the laws ie controlling Congress through money - Wall Street and major corporations.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I don't have any concrete data but I would assume the majority of the companies that you discuss are multinationals that use heavy tax planning; this begs the question, HOW do you make them pay more tax without having them relocate their HQ and operations? It's impossible.

What people have always done for the past 500 years history against similar things. Tariff the hell out of them if they do.

 

[blackangst1]

They're not directing their anger in the wrong place. They're skipping the middleman Congress and going right to the ones writing and lobbying the laws ie controlling Congress through money - Wall Street and major corporations.

But they are. As much influence as Wall Street and corporations have influence, ultimately its WADC that makes law. Just as the DRIZZLE posted, people like Buffett on one hand trumpet about wanting to pay higher taxes, yet ultimately dont support legislation to change it. Why? Because they KNOW neither party really will. So its a safe trumpet that makes them appear to care.

 

[senseamp]

Question: Has there been a strong movement by either party to tax cap gains as normal income? I suspect not. Therefore, this isnt a DvsR issue. BOTH sides have benefited from 15% taxation. Equally. And BOTH sides are responsible for allowing it to continue.

The OWS movement is directing their anger in the wrong place. Should be Occupy My Senetor's House.

Democrats are for taxing hedge fund and private equity guys income at income tax rates that working Americans pay on their income instead of capital gains rates they currently pay. Republicans think they should continue paying 15% capital gains rate while not putting their own capital at risk.