From "No taxation without representation" to "Representation without taxation."

[Patranus]

But let's not mention payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes on various goods.....

All of whick (for the most part) are state taxes.

 

[cwjerome]

To be fair, the top 10% also have 75% of the government representation. Government bailouts, subsidies, laws that favor their business
[...]
Why did Obama drop the public option in favor of mandatory private insurance? Because he was bribed by the top 10%.

This kinda got me thinking. The way things are going with wealth distribution in this country and tax trends, it's not completely crazy to think in 10-20 years the top 5-10% of income earners will completely carry this country (federally), and basically run it de facto style. That amount of control by a small elite is a scary thought... socialistic feudalism I suppose.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'm in the top 10%... actually I'm in the top 1%...and I do not feel as though I am being represented by them. You may be nearly right though...maybe it is the top .1% that are being represented by lobbies...

Well who is your employer? (don't post who you work for, just think about it)

When I worked at a billion dollar drug company, the stock options were great. I could put up 15% of my paycheck into the company's stock program and it would be purchased at the lowest price in the past 6 months I think it was. Unfortunately the regular wage sucked because I was a junior so I couldn't really afford to buy any stock. My boss was probably a baller because of the stock program; he drove an Acura TL to work

 

[Carmen813]

Too low across the board? I gave about $70,000 to the government last year... I don't think that is too low, especially since I routinley work 10-14 hour days to make a good living. To be sure, I don't mind paying my fair share. I am also fortunate (smart, white male born to middle class family) and did something with myself, so I don't mind paying a bit more than those who were not born with a good hand...

But why should I pay more when ~50% of the U.S. pays nothing?

A short time ago my borough was trying to institute a plastic bag tax. 5 cents per plastic bag at the supermarket. Of course this would only add about 20 cents to your average $50 grocery bill...and people were PISSED! They started buying their own bags, and they wanted to know where that money would be used (I believe it was going to be used for recycling programs and trash cleanup.) The point is, charging people a very small amount for something they got for free suddenly made them pay attention and want to know what the hell was going on.

Do you think that charging low income even a token amount, such as $50, would get their attention enough?

If it makes you feel any better, I think it's the bottom end of the curve that needs the most work. I would say probably around 2% at the bottom and 39% at the top. Of course to me, this includes capital gains as well.

It's unlikely we will ever be able to balance our budget (including our long term entitlement programs) without a combination of both tax increases and spending cuts.

 

[Carmen813]

If we spent less... Oh, that's right - talking about cutting spending is so last century. Instead, let's talk about the merits of taking more of everyone's money at gunpoint - that'll learn those pesky taxpayers to complain!

My point totally flew over your head.

 

[ShawnD1]

If it makes you feel any better, I think it's the bottom end of the curve that needs the most work. I would say probably around 2% at the bottom and 39% at the top. Of course to me, this includes capital gains as well.

It's unlikely we will ever be able to balance our budget (including our long term entitlement programs) without a combination of both tax increases and spending cuts.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think a different approach would be to tax the richest people to get this money simply because they have the most influence. When you tell the wealthiest people that you're going to jack their taxes by 5% because you want to fund a war with Iraq, they're going to rip your balls off. Poor people will complain but do nothing about it. They're too poor to bribe you and they probably don't vote anyway.

 

[ShawnD1]

asdfasdfdfsasdf

 

[her209]

I think we should have a minimum income tax rate.

Say 5% and no mater how poor you are or how little you make you still pay that 5%.

The problem isn't that people don't make enough to be taxed. Its that people are able to take enough tax deductions and/or get tax credits that they do not have to pay any taxes, i.e., their taxable income is $0, or in some instances even get money back.

 

[ebaycj]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=529854I think that every American citizen should have to pay some sort of federal income tax, even if what they pay is a tear in the salty sea.

What if the result of them paying was a net loss to America, because it cost more to process their tax return than they owed in taxes?

Do you still support your premise?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What if the result of them paying was a net loss to America, because it cost more to process their tax return than they owed in taxes?

Do you still support your premise?

They all have to file anyway if they have an income.

 

[ebaycj]

I'm in the top 10%... actually I'm in the top 1%...and I do not feel as though I am being represented by them.

Psst... You're doing it wrong.

 

[PokerGuy]

The problem is two-fold. One, many people simply don't have to pay anything, they don't feel the sting of government waste in their wallet. Two, even those who do have to actually pay for the government waste don't really see and feel it anymore, it's all hidden as much as possible - taxes get withheld, included in all sorts of fees, and so on.

Everyone needs to pay something to make sure they have at least some stake in the game, and we need a mechanism to make sure everyone actually feels the sting of having to pay a large amount to the various levels of government to waste. People are incapable of budgeting, so having them write a check at the end of the year is difficult, but that way at least people really knew how much they were paying.

 

[Darwin333]

I think I'm going to print this thread out and send it in with the large check I'll be mailing on Thursday night. Obviously, it will do no good, BUT might make me feel slightly better (or much worse).

lol.

There are a lot of things in this world I am willing to do, fucking with the IRS isn't one of them. I would rather take a sever assbeating than to have the IRS messing with me.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The problem isn't that people don't make enough to be taxed. Its that people are able to take enough tax deductions and/or get tax credits that they do not have to pay any taxes, i.e., their taxable income is $0, or in some instances even get money back.

Yes and no. It's true there are a fuck-ton of deductions and credits available, but generally they're short term things designed to try and keep the bulk of America with enough disposable income to not totally tank the retail/consumer sector.

The REASON this is necessary is that cost of living is getting so high, while incomes are exceedingly low. When 47% of the nation makes $25,000/yr or less there's a BIG problem. You can charge them $50 if it makes you feel better. It won't raise much money or alter anyone's perceptions, however, because the bottom line is: most of America is broke AND in debt.

 

[CycloWizard]

My point totally flew over your head.

Yes, that was the problem. :roll:

 

[ElFenix]

But let's not mention payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes on various goods.....

of course, as long as the payroll taxes fund "mandatory" programs where the .gov explicitly owes a person some defined benefit, they are a different animal than the general taxes that go to fund programs where the benefit is not as explicit or defined.

 

[ElFenix]

When 47% of the nation makes $25,000/yr or less there's a BIG problem.

i'd like to see the source of that statistic and what exactly it measures. median household income is ~$50,000 (as of 2007 per wikipedia). of course, households could have multiple earners (2, 3, even 4 or more if there are enough kids in high school or college but remain in the "household").

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Scrap the child tax benefit for a start. Seems that the poorest people are the ones that have the most kids.

 

[PrinceofWands]

i'd like to see the source of that statistic and what exactly it measures. median household income is ~$50,000 (as of 2007 per wikipedia). of course, households could have multiple earners (2, 3, even 4 or more if there are enough kids in high school or college but remain in the "household").

Individual income, 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Source for that table:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/perinc/new01_001.htm


It's important to note that in the last couple years there has been a LARGE shift towards the lower end of the income spectrum, so the numbers are likely larger now. We'll know for sure next year sometime.

 

[ElFenix]

Individual income, 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Source for that table:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/perinc/new01_001.htm


It's important to note that in the last couple years there has been a LARGE shift towards the lower end of the income spectrum, so the numbers are likely larger now. We'll know for sure next year sometime.

i wonder whether income includes government payments/benefits or not?

i added up some of the numbers on the table and got 82,509,000 for the number of people with income age 25 and older and lower than $27,499. that's about 39% of those with 'income.'

109,545,000 total with income and under $27,499. of those, 32,125,000 are the householder; 24,317,000 are the spouse of the householder; 19,309,000 are the child of the householder, and 26,259,000 are roommates.