"Fair Share"

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

I've seen far more threads with people whining about taxing the rich too much lately, not sure what forum you are reading.

As for taxing labor, I think my labor should be taxed at the same rate as long term capital. I'm an investment and should be taxed as such, so my rate should be lowered to long term capital gains rates!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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?

Except that was never the claim. No one said they were paying a higher RATE, but their share of the burden is bigger - which is exactly what you libs keep trying to do - soak the "rich". You should be cheering this data as the rich's share of the burden is getting bigger.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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.

Nobody said it wasn't progressive, just not MORE progressive. Maybe I missed it too, but where did the article state that the bottom 50% income increased? Median income has decreased so I'm not sure how their share has increased but maybe it has (someone have a link?).

What effect rate does each percentile pay now vs whay they paid in 2004? Simple question.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

I've seen far more threads with people whining about taxing the rich too much lately, not sure what forum you are reading.

As for taxing labor, I think my labor should be taxed at the same rate as long term capital. I'm an investment and should be taxed as such, so my rate should be lowered to long term capital gains rates!

I don't think labor/productivity should be taxed at all. IMO, there are much better ways - the best being consumption.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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?

Except that was never the claim. No one said they were paying a higher RATE, but their share of the burden is bigger - which is exactly what you libs keep trying to do - soak the "rich". You should be cheering this data as the rich's share of the burden is getting bigger.

Their share of the burden is bigger because, even with a lower effective rate, they are making MORE of the income than ever. Not hard to digest that one.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

I've seen far more threads with people whining about taxing the rich too much lately, not sure what forum you are reading.

As for taxing labor, I think my labor should be taxed at the same rate as long term capital. I'm an investment and should be taxed as such, so my rate should be lowered to long term capital gains rates!

I don't think labor/productivity should be taxed at all. IMO, there are much better ways - the best being consumption.

That might (not sure yet) be even better....will have to think about it.

I'll do just that on my nightly 1.5 hour (+/-) walk....

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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:

Excellent rebuttal. The conservative way...can't argue, be a jackass. You can thank Regan for coming up with that debating technique.

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.

It's not emotional, it's practical. If you're going to ask someone for money, it makes sense to ask the people who would otherwise be spending it on a new BMW vs people who would be spending it on food. Are you honestly trying to argue that money is as "tight" for the rich as it is for the poor?

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.

Hey, I started off just trying to get you to back up your "MORE progressive" statement. But I think we can agree that taxes aren't unfairly distributed right now...the problem is that taxes aren't high enough because government spending isn't low enough. Nobody seems to be on board with lowering spending, so the only alternative is to raise taxes. And thinking practically, it makes more sense to raise them on the rich than on anyone else.

And please don't try to tell me that "YOU people" are the only ones making an emotional rather than practical argument. If I can go five minutes in a tax debate without hearing that progressive taxes "discouraged building wealth" or something similarly ridiculous, I'd be amazed.

 

[Bowfinger]

Pity this wasn't locked as a repost since this exact issue is already being discussed, with supporting documentation, in that thread. Of course it's much easier to start a new thread spreading the same old misdirection and disinformation that it it to actually address the facts.

This thread discusses a specific article rather than a general concept, so I left it open. If they both end up being long discussions on the same thing, we might consider merging them or locking one.

Rainsford
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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?

Except that was never the claim. No one said they were paying a higher RATE, but their share of the burden is bigger - which is exactly what you libs keep trying to do - soak the "rich". You should be cheering this data as the rich's share of the burden is getting bigger.

That's almost what you said, but not quite. "More progressive" (which was the claim) implies that the rich pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than they used to. The fact that their share of the tax burden went up doesn't mean anything if their share of the total income went up even more. Their effective tax rate could have actually DROPPED in that situation, which wouldn't quite support your point very well.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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?

Except that was never the claim. No one said they were paying a higher RATE, but their share of the burden is bigger - which is exactly what you libs keep trying to do - soak the "rich". You should be cheering this data as the rich's share of the burden is getting bigger.

Nice spin, as usual. What you, and the WSJ desperately want to avoid, is that their share of total income is growing faster than their share of taxes... due in no small part to their tax rates being lower than any time since the 1920's...

And we once again encounter the usual flimflam, discussing taxes as if federal income taxes were the only taxes. They're not. When total taxes are taken into account, progressivity is at its lowest point since WW2...

You reinforce the old saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: 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:

Excellent rebuttal. The conservative way...can't argue, be a jackass. You can thank Regan for coming up with that debating technique.

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.

It's not emotional, it's practical. If you're going to ask someone for money, it makes sense to ask the people who would otherwise be spending it on a new BMW vs people who would be spending it on food. Are you honestly trying to argue that money is as "tight" for the rich as it is for the poor?

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.

Hey, I started off just trying to get you to back up your "MORE progressive" statement. But I think we can agree that taxes aren't unfairly distributed right now...the problem is that taxes aren't high enough because government spending isn't low enough. Nobody seems to be on board with lowering spending, so the only alternative is to raise taxes. And thinking practically, it makes more sense to raise them on the rich than on anyone else.

And please don't try to tell me that "YOU people" are the only ones making an emotional rather than practical argument. If I can go five minutes in a tax debate without hearing that progressive taxes "discouraged building wealth" or something similarly ridiculous, I'd be amazed.

Uhhh... hello - we aren't talking budgets here. THIS IS ABOUT INCOME TAXES. Your attempts to bring these emotional(and unprovable) items in is nothing more than obfuscation and topic creep.


And no, there are plenty of us that are on board with lowering spending. However, whenever it's proposed to reign in spending, you libs whine about "cuts". And no, that's not just partisan rhetoric - It happens every time. XXX doesn't care about YYY people because he's "cutting" ZZZ program(and the "cut" may just be a reduction in the increase )

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Pity this wasn't locked as a repost since this exact issue is already being discussed, with supporting documentation, in that thread. Of course it's much easier to start a new thread spreading the same old misdirection and disinformation that it it to actually address the facts.

This thread discusses a specific article rather than a general concept, so I left it open. If they both end up being long discussions on the same thing, we might consider merging them or locking one.

Rainsford
AnandTech P&N Moderator

That isn't even close to being the same as this thread. Sheesh.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And no, there are plenty of us that are on board with lowering spending. However, whenever it's proposed to reign in spending, you libs whine about "cuts".

Libs whining? No more than anyone else...LOL.

For the record, I saw no cuts in spending, only major increases in them, from 2000-2008 (including the all GOP 2000-2006) with larger deficits than before, but that's a different story for a different thread.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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.

I've seen far more threads with people whining about taxing the rich too much lately, not sure what forum you are reading.

As for taxing labor, I think my labor should be taxed at the same rate as long term capital. I'm an investment and should be taxed as such, so my rate should be lowered to long term capital gains rates!

I don't think labor/productivity should be taxed at all. IMO, there are much better ways - the best being consumption.

I always liked that idea, the problem is that it seems like it could negatively impact spending. With income tax, it's still worth it to rise up the corporate ladder or invest, even if the tax is progressive, because overall you still get more money. A consumption tax, on the other hand, means that spending money now results in even more money out of your pocket, and it can be avoided entirely if you simply spend less.

Which is fine, up to a point, I think people should save more and spend less overall anyways. The problem is that I think it would encourage pretty dramatic changes in how people spend their money compared to how they do now. More taxes would be the thing at the back of your mind with every purchase, a subtle discouragement to actually spend money unless you needed to.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
...

Uhhh... hello - we aren't talking budgets here. THIS IS ABOUT INCOME TAXES. Your attempts to bring these emotional(and unprovable) items in is nothing more than obfuscation and topic creep.


And no, there are plenty of us that are on board with lowering spending. However, whenever it's proposed to reign in spending, you libs whine about "cuts". And no, that's not just partisan rhetoric - It happens every time. XXX doesn't care about YYY people because he's "cutting" ZZZ program(and the "cut" may just be a reduction in the increase )

Taxes pay for budgets, they would seem to be pretty obviously related to me. I tried telling my bank that my spending shouldn't be related to my income, but they didn't buy it...I don't see why it's OK on a national level. But keep calling my points "emotional", I'm pretty sure that's how making a counter-argument works.

Yes, I can't help but notice how good a job conservatives do lowering spending...however many of you there are, it clearly isn't enough. And even for those of you on board with lowering spending, I think the main complaint is HOW you want to do that. I'm for lowering spending too, just like I'm for trying to save as much of my personal income as I can. But just like I don't plan on saving money by not buying food any more, the specific things you guys want to cut often don't make a lot of sense to some of us.

 

[bamacre]

It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

Even Jefferson knew that taxation was necessary, and supported 'progressive' taxation.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

Give us some options and I imagine people would be willing to change the debate. The problem is that all you can usually get from people is "I don't like paying taxes". Well hell, I don't either...now how about a way to FIX that problem.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

Even Jefferson knew that taxation was necessary, and supported 'progressive' taxation.

Jefferson also said, "Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

Even Jefferson knew that taxation was necessary, and supported 'progressive' taxation.

Jefferson also said, "Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."

Jefferson also had slaves and lived several hundred years ago, so I'd take the various things he's said with a grain of salt.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

the point that you were trying to make (assuming you even know what point you were trying to make) was that under bush, taxes had become more progressive.

To prove that they are more progress now than previously, you link an article that shows 2006 figures and the fact that those figures show that the tax structure is progressive, and shows nothing of previous years shares.

as to the article, the authors analysis is moronically simplistic and ignores the most important facts. First, the income of the top 1% increased and a much greater pace than all other income groups over the period, meaning they now have a greater share of income than previously.

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

the richest 1% also earned less than half their current share under Carter, in other words carter collected more taxes on less income. The 'giveaway to the rich lies' in the fact the the relative wealth of the wealthiest has exploded in the last 10 years, as far as tax cuts go, most reasonable people would conclude that cutting someones taxes would decrease someones reason to work, seeing as they would then be able to keep income more while working less. (basic economic analysis confirms this, btw)

Calling supply-side economics junk economics is giving it quite a bit or credit, in reality it just a charlatan sham.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

Give us some options and I imagine people would be willing to change the debate. The problem is that all you can usually get from people is "I don't like paying taxes". Well hell, I don't either...now how about a way to FIX that problem.

Well, we gotta cut spending, but before we do that, the mentality in this country has got to be changed. This "what can the gov't do for me attitude" has to go.

What we are seeing is a almost a purer form of democracy, where the majority is voting to give themselves more money from the wealthier people. Mob rule.

And this foreign policy has got to change, too. We spend entirely too much money overseas. And its not just the war in Iraq, either.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: bamacre
It's a damn shame that we have this mentality today. Who pays how much? It's an endless argument. How can we seek fairness in something so unfair to begin with?

Even Jefferson knew that taxation was necessary, and supported 'progressive' taxation.

Jefferson also said, "Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform."

Jefferson also had slaves and lived several hundred years ago, so I'd take the various things he's said with a grain of salt.

Hey, I didn't bring Jefferson into this.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Pity this wasn't locked as a repost since this exact issue is already being discussed, with supporting documentation, in that thread. Of course it's much easier to start a new thread spreading the same old misdirection and disinformation that it it to actually address the facts.

This thread discusses a specific article rather than a general concept, so I left it open. If they both end up being long discussions on the same thing, we might consider merging them or locking one.

Rainsford
AnandTech P&N Moderator

To be clear, I'm not questioning the moderation. That's not my department. I'm questioning Cad's motivation in starting a new thread repeating some of the same disinformation debunked in another, current thread. The facts are that American taxes have become less progressive for America's richest elite, though the WSJ piece nicely glosses over that by getting no more granular than the top 1%. This same tactic was tried -- and exposed -- in the other thread as well.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

As you can see, the AGI for the bottom 50% has increased(which is slightly different than what is used in the article but it was brought up here by Engineer I believe).
Also, you can see that the percentage of the fed income paid has decreased for the bottom 50%. The top 1%'s share has increased too.

"rich" paying a bigger share and the "poor" paying a smaller share. IMO that is "more progressive" and has been what the libs have been wanting anyway(for the rich to pay a bigger share)