"Fair Share"

[CADsortaGUY]

Their Fair Share

Seems our system is MORE "progressive" after Bush's taxcuts. The bottom 50% make 12% of the income yet only pay 3% of the taxes. I'm not sure how BHO can really lessen the "burden" when there isn't much of one to begin with.


Now before I get the usual "why not cut all if Bush's were good" crap from you libs - I don't think we need MORE tax-cuts, we just need to keep the current tax structure instead of raising it like BHO and the dems want to do(by letting Bush's cuts expire).

 

[Deudalus]

Flame on!

 

[CycloWizard]

The use of the word "fair" in economic debate is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements. What I consider fair is likely not what anyone else in this forum would consider fair, so how can we use that as a basis for a tax code?

 

[Engineer]

I need more tax cuts....for me.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I need more tax cuts....for me.

'Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.'

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Engineer
I need more tax cuts....for me.

'Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree.'

I've come to the conclusion that nobody cares for me better than me...not my company (fuck them) and not the government (fuck them too). I want more of my money, regardless of who pays more for me (or has less spent on them).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The use of the word "fair" in economic debate is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements. What I consider fair is likely not what anyone else in this forum would consider fair, so how can we use that as a basis for a tax code?

This.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The use of the word "fair" in economic debate is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements. What I consider fair is likely not what anyone else in this forum would consider fair, so how can we use that as a basis for a tax code?

This.

Wow, I agree.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Their Fair Share

Seems our system is MORE "progressive" after Bush's taxcuts. The bottom 50% make 12% of the income yet only pay 3% of the taxes. I'm not sure how BHO can really lessen the "burden" when there isn't much of one to begin with.

Now before I get the usual "why not cut all if Bush's were good" crap from you libs - I don't think we need MORE tax-cuts, we just need to keep the current tax structure instead of raising it like BHO and the dems want to do(by letting Bush's cuts expire).

Somebody listened to Rush today. :roll:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


Somebody listened to Rush today. :roll:

Not stating that CSG listened to Rush or not, but if I were Rush, I would want taxes frozen at current levels or lowered too. He's a rich ole bastard now (er...well, he was always a rich ole bastard but only richer now! )

I would trade with him (jobs and money) if I could...taxes or not!!!

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The use of the word "fair" in economic debate is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements. What I consider fair is likely not what anyone else in this forum would consider fair, so how can we use that as a basis for a tax code?

This.

Wow, I agree.

crud I never thought I'd agree with these three guys...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The use of the word "fair" in economic debate is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements. What I consider fair is likely not what anyone else in this forum would consider fair, so how can we use that as a basis for a tax code?

This.

Wow, I agree.

crud I never thought I'd agree with these three guys...

/thread (best stop while we're ahead)!

 

[Rainsford]

I don't want to wade hip deep into tax return data, but that article (and CSG's commentary on it) has the potential to be pretty misleading. The year to year comparison is done on income percentiles without doing a comparison on how much actual income is accounted for in each percentile. A single data point comparing the two is given on the included graph on the page, demonstrating that the tax structure is indeed progressive, but no proof is offered to show that it's MORE progressive than it was before the Bush tax cuts, which is the implication of the article.

If someone else wants to look this up, they're more than welcome to, but I'm suspicious of this article because it looks like funny math to get the desired outcome. A very simple way to prove (or disprove) their point would have been to compare percentage of total income to percentage of income tax burden. If it went up for higher percentile groups, that would indicate an increase in how progressive the tax system is. But instead the article compares income percentiles to tax burden, which is an unbelievably clumsy way of doing it unless they're trying to fudge the numbers.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Their Fair Share

Seems our system is MORE "progressive" after Bush's taxcuts. The bottom 50% make 12% of the income yet only pay 3% of the taxes. I'm not sure how BHO can really lessen the "burden" when there isn't much of one to begin with.

Now before I get the usual "why not cut all if Bush's were good" crap from you libs - I don't think we need MORE tax-cuts, we just need to keep the current tax structure instead of raising it like BHO and the dems want to do(by letting Bush's cuts expire).

Somebody listened to Rush today. :roll:

Nope, I was working all day today, didn't turn the radio on at all. I got home and did my usual rounds of news reading. That, plus the fact I don't listen to his show...

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The use of the word "fair" in economic debate is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements. What I consider fair is likely not what anyone else in this forum would consider fair, so how can we use that as a basis for a tax code?

Actually, the use of the word "fair" in economic debate is very relevant. In economic debate, "fair" means the solution with the least waste or cost to society.

I believe what you mean was: The use of the word "fair" is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements when we start projecting moral choices into an economic discussion.

 

[ElFenix]

tax 'fairness' means that people having the same amount of whatever is taxed pay the same in taxes (our system fails here), that people having less of whatever is taxed pay less than people with more, and vice versa (at the extreme top our system fails here as well).

other than that it's class warfare.

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The use of the word "fair" in economic debate is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements. What I consider fair is likely not what anyone else in this forum would consider fair, so how can we use that as a basis for a tax code?

Actually, the use of the word "fair" in economic debate is very relevant. In economic debate, "fair" means the solution with the least waste or cost to society.

I believe what you mean was: The use of the word "fair" is absolutely meaningless and the root of most of the disagreements when we start projecting moral choices into an economic discussion.

in 5 or 6 years of studying economics i don't recall the word "fair" used to describe the solution with the least waste.




economics has no answers to normative questions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to wade hip deep into tax return data, but that article (and CSG's commentary on it) has the potential to be pretty misleading. The year to year comparison is done on income percentiles without doing a comparison on how much actual income is accounted for in each percentile. A single data point comparing the two is given on the included graph on the page, demonstrating that the tax structure is indeed progressive, but no proof is offered to show that it's MORE progressive than it was before the Bush tax cuts, which is the implication of the article.

If someone else wants to look this up, they're more than welcome to, but I'm suspicious of this article because it looks like funny math to get the desired outcome. A very simple way to prove (or disprove) their point would have been to compare percentage of total income to percentage of income tax burden. If it went up for higher percentile groups, that would indicate an increase in how progressive the tax system is. But instead the article compares income percentiles to tax burden, which is an unbelievably clumsy way of doing it unless they're trying to fudge the numbers.

Uhh... the numbers aren't fudged.

Total incomes to "burden" percent(income tax) increase per the bracket you are in. The problem with your scenario is that the "rich"(highest bracket) include the mildly rich to the insanely rich. Obviously the lower you are in the bracket the higher the "burden" vs income. It'll be that way until they get rid of the bracketed system and replace it with an analog system that ususes a calculated percentage based on AGI. The problem with that is you'll still have to cap it otherwise you could have someone pay 100% potentially. So the basic jist is that your types will whine about total vs burden no matter what the tax brackets are since the insanely rich will have a lower ratio...ignoring the fact the lowest bracket was elimnated with Bush's cuts and the other brackets were lowered as well.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to wade hip deep into tax return data, but that article (and CSG's commentary on it) has the potential to be pretty misleading. The year to year comparison is done on income percentiles without doing a comparison on how much actual income is accounted for in each percentile. A single data point comparing the two is given on the included graph on the page, demonstrating that the tax structure is indeed progressive, but no proof is offered to show that it's MORE progressive than it was before the Bush tax cuts, which is the implication of the article.

If someone else wants to look this up, they're more than welcome to, but I'm suspicious of this article because it looks like funny math to get the desired outcome. A very simple way to prove (or disprove) their point would have been to compare percentage of total income to percentage of income tax burden. If it went up for higher percentile groups, that would indicate an increase in how progressive the tax system is. But instead the article compares income percentiles to tax burden, which is an unbelievably clumsy way of doing it unless they're trying to fudge the numbers.

Uhh... the numbers aren't fudged.

Total incomes to "burden" percent(income tax) increase per the bracket you are in. The problem with your scenario is that the "rich"(highest bracket) include the mildly rich to the insanely rich. Obviously the lower you are in the bracket the higher the "burden" vs income. It'll be that way until they get rid of the bracketed system and replace it with an analog system that ususes a calculated percentage based on AGI. The problem with that is you'll still have to cap it otherwise you could have someone pay 100% potentially. So the basic jist is that your types will whine about total vs burden no matter what the tax brackets are since the insanely rich will have a lower ratio...ignoring the fact the lowest bracket was elimnated with Bush's cuts and the other brackets were lowered as well.

What he is saying is do the rich pay a higher rate (not burden vs total taxation) than they did before the Bush cuts?

Just because they are paying more of the burden of total taxation does not mean they are paying a higher rate (and they probably aren't).

Do the rich now pay a higher RATE than they did in 2003?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...
The bottom 50% make 12% of the income yet only pay 3% of the taxes. I'm not sure how BHO can really lessen the "burden" when there isn't much of one to begin with.
...

Income vs living costs doesn't scale linearly. The amount of "disposable" income you have as a percentage of your total income is not constant at all, meaning extra costs are a much lower real burden the more money you make.

Also, am I the only person who finds it hysterical that when discussing a graph showing that the top 5% of the country earns 60% of the income, the only thing conservatives can come up with to bitch about is the relative tax burden? And how you can dismiss the bottom 50%'s tax burden when they get to share about half the income earned by the top 1% is beyond me.

But the really stupid part is that this kind of debate is pointless, because a progressive tax is the only way the system works. The rich are the ones with virtually all of the money, if you're going to have a government, you're going to have to get money from somewhere. And you can complain about fairness until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't help that bottom 50% come up with more tax money.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to wade hip deep into tax return data, but that article (and CSG's commentary on it) has the potential to be pretty misleading. The year to year comparison is done on income percentiles without doing a comparison on how much actual income is accounted for in each percentile. A single data point comparing the two is given on the included graph on the page, demonstrating that the tax structure is indeed progressive, but no proof is offered to show that it's MORE progressive than it was before the Bush tax cuts, which is the implication of the article.

If someone else wants to look this up, they're more than welcome to, but I'm suspicious of this article because it looks like funny math to get the desired outcome. A very simple way to prove (or disprove) their point would have been to compare percentage of total income to percentage of income tax burden. If it went up for higher percentile groups, that would indicate an increase in how progressive the tax system is. But instead the article compares income percentiles to tax burden, which is an unbelievably clumsy way of doing it unless they're trying to fudge the numbers.

Uhh... the numbers aren't fudged.

Total incomes to "burden" percent(income tax) increase per the bracket you are in. The problem with your scenario is that the "rich"(highest bracket) include the mildly rich to the insanely rich. Obviously the lower you are in the bracket the higher the "burden" vs income. It'll be that way until they get rid of the bracketed system and replace it with an analog system that ususes a calculated percentage based on AGI. The problem with that is you'll still have to cap it otherwise you could have someone pay 100% potentially. So the basic jist is that your types will whine about total vs burden no matter what the tax brackets are since the insanely rich will have a lower ratio...ignoring the fact the lowest bracket was elimnated with Bush's cuts and the other brackets were lowered as well.

Numbers and what numbers MEAN are two very different things. You are claiming, via this article, that "Seems our system is MORE "progressive" after Bush's taxcuts" yet the numbers offered to defend that position do absolutely nothing to support it. I'm not saying the numbers are wrong, but your interpretation of them seems to be.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to wade hip deep into tax return data, but that article (and CSG's commentary on it) has the potential to be pretty misleading. The year to year comparison is done on income percentiles without doing a comparison on how much actual income is accounted for in each percentile. A single data point comparing the two is given on the included graph on the page, demonstrating that the tax structure is indeed progressive, but no proof is offered to show that it's MORE progressive than it was before the Bush tax cuts, which is the implication of the article.

If someone else wants to look this up, they're more than welcome to, but I'm suspicious of this article because it looks like funny math to get the desired outcome. A very simple way to prove (or disprove) their point would have been to compare percentage of total income to percentage of income tax burden. If it went up for higher percentile groups, that would indicate an increase in how progressive the tax system is. But instead the article compares income percentiles to tax burden, which is an unbelievably clumsy way of doing it unless they're trying to fudge the numbers.

Uhh... the numbers aren't fudged.

Total incomes to "burden" percent(income tax) increase per the bracket you are in. The problem with your scenario is that the "rich"(highest bracket) include the mildly rich to the insanely rich. Obviously the lower you are in the bracket the higher the "burden" vs income. It'll be that way until they get rid of the bracketed system and replace it with an analog system that ususes a calculated percentage based on AGI. The problem with that is you'll still have to cap it otherwise you could have someone pay 100% potentially. So the basic jist is that your types will whine about total vs burden no matter what the tax brackets are since the insanely rich will have a lower ratio...ignoring the fact the lowest bracket was elimnated with Bush's cuts and the other brackets were lowered as well.

What he is saying is do the rich pay a higher rate (not burden vs total taxation) than they did before the Bush cuts?

Just because they are paying more of the burden of total taxation does not mean they are paying a higher rate (and they probably aren't).

Do the rich now pay a higher RATE than they did in 2003?

Does the other tax brackets pay a higher RATE? The answer is NO across the board. ALL brackets were reduced.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY


Does the other tax brackets pay a higher RATE? The answer is NO across the board. ALL brackets were reduced.

Throw in capital gains tax cuts and get back with me on the rates. Who had their rates reduced more. Sure, they pay a higher rate than those below them, but their effective rate was lowered more. I would suspect that they reason that they pay more of the burden than ever is that, even with a larger effective cut, they make more of the income than ever.



Like rainsford said, someone has to pay for all the shit. You can't borrow it all.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Engineer
...
Just because they are paying more of the burden of total taxation does not mean they are paying a higher rate (and they probably aren't).
...

That's what made my BS detector light up. The author of this article probably isn't a moron, and those numbers are obvious to prove or disprove the point...so why weren't they offered?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...
The bottom 50% make 12% of the income yet only pay 3% of the taxes. I'm not sure how BHO can really lessen the "burden" when there isn't much of one to begin with.
...

Income vs living costs doesn't scale linearly. The amount of "disposable" income you have as a percentage of your total income is not constant at all, meaning extra costs are a much lower real burden the more money you make.

Also, am I the only person who finds it hysterical that when discussing a graph showing that the top 5% of the country earns 60% of the income, the only thing conservatives can come up with to bitch about is the relative tax burden? And how you can dismiss the bottom 50%'s tax burden when they get to share about half the income earned by the top 1% is beyond me.

But the really stupid part is that this kind of debate is pointless, because a progressive tax is the only way the system works. The rich are the ones with virtually all of the money, if you're going to have a government, you're going to have to get money from somewhere. And you can complain about fairness until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't help that bottom 50% come up with more tax money.

:roll:

ncome vs living costs doesn't scale linearly. The amount of "disposable" income you have as a percentage of your total income is not constant at all, meaning extra costs are a much lower real burden the more money you make.

Except INCOME taxes have NOTHING to do with "disposable" income. Trying to inject that is nothing more than emotional rhetoric that can't be proven or disproven since it varies based on a broad range of things.

Also, the ones whining about "fairness" are YOU people. YOU are the ones playing the emotional games with taxes.

The last point here is that you didn't seem to read my OP. I'm not seeking to shift the "burden" anywhere - I'd like to keep them right where they are for now seeing as how we're stuck with taxing labor.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't want to wade hip deep into tax return data, but that article (and CSG's commentary on it) has the potential to be pretty misleading. The year to year comparison is done on income percentiles without doing a comparison on how much actual income is accounted for in each percentile. A single data point comparing the two is given on the included graph on the page, demonstrating that the tax structure is indeed progressive, but no proof is offered to show that it's MORE progressive than it was before the Bush tax cuts, which is the implication of the article.

If someone else wants to look this up, they're more than welcome to, but I'm suspicious of this article because it looks like funny math to get the desired outcome. A very simple way to prove (or disprove) their point would have been to compare percentage of total income to percentage of income tax burden. If it went up for higher percentile groups, that would indicate an increase in how progressive the tax system is. But instead the article compares income percentiles to tax burden, which is an unbelievably clumsy way of doing it unless they're trying to fudge the numbers.

Uhh... the numbers aren't fudged.

Total incomes to "burden" percent(income tax) increase per the bracket you are in. The problem with your scenario is that the "rich"(highest bracket) include the mildly rich to the insanely rich. Obviously the lower you are in the bracket the higher the "burden" vs income. It'll be that way until they get rid of the bracketed system and replace it with an analog system that ususes a calculated percentage based on AGI. The problem with that is you'll still have to cap it otherwise you could have someone pay 100% potentially. So the basic jist is that your types will whine about total vs burden no matter what the tax brackets are since the insanely rich will have a lower ratio...ignoring the fact the lowest bracket was elimnated with Bush's cuts and the other brackets were lowered as well.

Numbers and what numbers MEAN are two very different things. You are claiming, via this article, that "Seems our system is MORE "progressive" after Bush's taxcuts" yet the numbers offered to defend that position do absolutely nothing to support it. I'm not saying the numbers are wrong, but your interpretation of them seems to be.

Typical liberal BS. When you have the bottom 50% paying 3% but making 12% you can come to no other conclusion that it is progressive and since the numbers have changed to lessen the "burden" on the bottom 50%(and the income share increased). But I know it's got to be difficult for you diehards to accept reality and I fully expected you to come in here whining about the numbers.