Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
What you say is in fact, a lie.

They may not pay a federal INCOME tax, but they do pay taxes. Like I posted in this thread, I made basically no money and paid ~10% of my AGI to federal payroll taxes, plus I have to pay 9.5% state sales tax on stuff I buy.

Sure feels awesome paying like 20% of my AGI away in taxes. Oh wait, I forgot, I don't pay any because I'm poor.

No he is correct. Federal INCOME tax. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, are not income tax. They are taxes for those programs solely.
I take it you don't even do your own taxes. When filling tax returns, there are no options to reduce your SS, Med taxes. It's all based on your Federal Income tax (or state if you have state income tax).

It's people like you and the other sheep of the Democrat party that like to over simplify things.
http://libertyworks.com/
When the Bush tax cuts were enacted, income taxes had been steadily declining based on the Clinton tax rates. When the Boosh tax cuts where inacted, Income tax revenue INCREASED. Infact, thee 2007 tax year was the largest income tax intake in history. Taxes aren't the problem. SPENDING is. Congress needs to stop spending OUR money.
Anyone that thinks raising taxes on the "rich" is the answer has fallen for the class warfare scam that the Democrats are piling on. It's nothing more than another way for them to garner votes, tax money away from the successful and productive, and give just enough to the lowest earners, to make them feel better, but not actually impact their lives to the point of making them productive.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Why didn't Obama and Congress make this a TOP priority? You have two choices. Either they didn't want to (the most likely since the Dem leaders also benefit) or they are moral cowards (also true but less likely because they pushed other considerations down people's throats without much regret).

Stick to your people and explain yourselves, if you can. BTW. I have decided that voting is a waste of gas for federal elections. You have presented me a Hobson's choice and I will not play your fool. That does not mean I won't vote if there is a reason.

Now, show us ignorant how you apologize for your side not fixing this when they could have. You rammed insurance legislation through so you could have done something about this, but you are in the pockets of those who want this. Pets who protest too much, that's partisans.

That is fine, if you are unhappy with either side, you don't have to vote for either, no one is forcing you to endorse either position with your vote. If one side is guilty of breaking, and the other side is guilty of not fixing, it's a pretty easy choice to make for me. As far as picking TOP priority, I think averting a second Great Depression at whatever cost necessary is a pretty good choice by Obama. Again, you don't have to agree.
 
Last edited:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
You're really bordering on intellectual dishonesty here. You eventually want SS to end. RIGHT? Therefore you are advocating that other Americans give up SS. Now, according to your logic, you should give it up first even though it's not the law. Voluntarily.

Of course I know SS taxes pay for SS. That's not relevant here. The only thing that's relevant is the childish idea that you can only advocate for taxes if you voluntarily pay them without other people paying them. You could extend it to military spending. How about those who think taxes should pay more for common defense buy the US army a humvee first to put their money where their mouth is? It's a stupid idea.

Your charity analogy is horrible because taxation is nothing like charity. The entire point is that it works if everyone does it. Here is another bad analogy for you. Maybe we could make driving on the right side of the road voluntary. People who think it's a good idea should lead the way and put their money where their mouth is.

Once again, I'm advocating that we give up social security ALONG WITH THE TAXES THAT WE PAY IN!
So theres no comparison at all.

How many fucking times do I have to explain that?
My god!

I do not advocate that anyone pay into social security and NOT receive any benefits.
Stop arguing with me on the basis that I do.

By my logic, if there was a way to opt-out of SS and not pay into any taxes and I didn't do it, then I would be a hypocrite.
There is currently no such way to do this, therefore I am not a hypocrite.

And I don't advocate for voluntary taxes either, thats a strawman.
 
Last edited:

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
That is fine, if you are unhappy with either side, you don't have to vote for either, no one is forcing you to endorse either position with your vote. If one side is guilty of breaking, and the other side is guilty of not fixing, it's a pretty easy choice to make for me. As far as picking TOP priority, I think averting a second Great Depression at whatever cost necessary is a pretty good choice by Obama. Again, you don't have to agree.

Closing tax loopholes and collecting more money for govt expenditures from the rich doesnt apply in this staving off of a great depression? Please tell us why.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Closing tax loopholes and collecting more money for govt expenditures from the rich doesnt apply in this staving off of a great depression? Please tell us why.

Do you think GOP will pass this reform? Or not filibuster it if Dems are in power? Fat chance.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Do you think GOP will pass this reform? Or not filibuster it if Dems are in power? Fat chance.

They'll no sooner pass this than the Dems, and that is the problem. That's because of their respective enablers.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
But on the other hand if there is no chance of it passing then I can see a call for reform. Scores points, does nothing. It's the Washington Way.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Do you think GOP will pass this reform? Or not filibuster it if Dems are in power? Fat chance.

That isnt what I asked. Why isnt collecting more tax revenue a priority for Obama and the Democrats to stop a great depression?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
That isnt what I asked. Why isnt collecting more tax revenue a priority for Obama and the Democrats to stop a great depression?

It is priority for Obama, which is why he's letting tax cuts to the wealthy expire. GOP is having a hissy fit over it. Even something as obvious as requiring hedge fund managers to pay taxes at same rates as everyone else is a non-starter to them.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
It is priority for Obama, which is why he's letting tax cuts to the wealthy expire. GOP is having a hissy fit over it. Even something as obvious as requiring hedge fund managers to pay taxes at same rates as everyone else is a non-starter to them.

It isnt a priority for Obama. Clearly as he didnt push anything other than let tax cuts from 7 years prior expire.

And you arent answering my question. Why?
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Holy 8 strawmen in a single post!

You're still not getting the very basic point that if he wants others to pay more then he should write a check. Otherwise he's a hypocrite.

And if you want social security to end you should return all your benefits when you get to the right age.

No offence but I pretty much already know you're not going to be able to understand this issue. I have hope for Matt though.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
It isnt a priority for Obama. Clearly he didnt push anything other than let tax cuts from 7 years prior expire.

And you arent answering my question. Why?

Because it's the wrong question to be asking. Within what is politically possible to get accomplished, Obama is for getting that accomplished. All he can do is let those tax cuts expire. If you want to ask why Obama is not doing stuff that he can't get through GOP House or GOP and "moderate" Senate filibuster, that is mental masturbation that you are free to engage in on your own, I want no part of it.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
And if you want social security to end you should return all your benefits when you get to the right age.

No offence but I pretty much already know you're not going to be able to understand this issue. I have hope for Matt though.

/facepalm.

SS was MY MONEY to start with, of course I want MY MONEY. You STOLE MY MONEY by rule of law, of course I want it back. It's my money. Hell, just stop deducting it now and you can keep the money I've paid in, just let me keep my money.

If I opt out of SS, then I don't expect to receive any benefit. That's where I put my money where my mouth is, I won't expect something so no hypocrisy. If I wanted higher taxes for people and didn't contribute more than required, that's the definition of hypocrisy.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
To put his 200k in perspective....just remember that EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS gets $174k....MINIMUM. The VP: 230k The POTUS: 400k. That's at the federal level. 80 million dollars a year so these people can squabble about how to spend our money. Here in California....the governor makes 200k. Each member of our state congress gets 100k.

IMO they should not make more than double the national average salary(of ALL Americans, not just those working). Right now that's about 43k....so an 85k salary(not counting their perks like taxpayer funded cars and gas and fancy dinners). Much more reasonable, PLUS they would have motivation to get these people jobs....instead of rewarding them for being lazy.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Once again, I'm advocating that we give up social security ALONG WITH THE TAXES THAT WE PAY IN!
So theres no comparison at all.

How many fucking times do I have to explain that?
My god!

Who fucking cares? That's not relevant. Stop repeating yourself. The guy in the article is not saying that the rich shouldn't be allowed to get the government services that come with the higher taxes either.

Keep making emotional arguments that people like this should be writing a check though. You won't convince anyone but at least Hatch has your vote. The real issue is whether the rich should be taxed more in situations like his. But politicians like Hatch are able to bamboozle emotional thinkers like yourself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,769
136
Holy 8 strawmen in a single post!

You're still not getting the very basic point that if he wants others to pay more then he should write a check. Otherwise he's a hypocrite.

That's an incredibly dumb argument that for some reason people are either unwilling or incapable of dispensing with.

By this logic, anyone who favored the invasion of Iraq shouldn't have waited for the US to act collectively, they should have grabbed the family rifle and invaded themselves immediately upon coming to the conclusion that they supported it. To do anything else would be hypocritical.

Considering you supported the war, did you go over and fight it? No? Fucking hypocrite.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
/facepalm.

SS was MY MONEY to start with, of course I want MY MONEY. You STOLE MY MONEY by rule of law, of course I want it back. It's my money. Hell, just stop deducting it now and you can keep the money I've paid in, just let me keep my money.

If I opt out of SS, then I don't expect to receive any benefit. That's where I put my money where my mouth is, I won't expect something so no hypocrisy. If I wanted higher taxes for people and didn't contribute more than required, that's the definition of hypocrisy.

Look man, you are the consevative equivalent of dmcowen. I'm not going to go into it with you. It's just not worth my time. (OK this time you can take offence.)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Because it's the wrong question to be asking. Within what is politically possible to get accomplished, Obama is for getting that accomplished. All he can do is let those tax cuts expire. If you want to ask why Obama is not doing stuff that he can't get through GOP House or GOP and "moderate" Senate filibuster, that is mental masturbation that you are free to engage in on your own, I want no part of it.

It is the right question to be asked. The fact you arent answering tells me that. You need to realize they didnt enact such draconian tax law for a reason. You believing they actually intended to is funny.
 
Last edited:

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
Who fucking cares? That's not relevant. Stop repeating yourself. The guy in the article is not saying that the rich shouldn't be allowed to get the government services that come with the higher taxes either.

Keep making emotional arguments that people like this should be writing a check though. You won't convince anyone but at least Hatch has your vote. The real issue is whether the rich should be taxed more in situations like his. But politicians like Hatch are able to bamboozle emotional thinkers like yourself.


More government services from higher taxes?
Are you aware of the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit?

If we had a balanced budget and this guy was advocating higher taxes for more social programs that would be one thing. But we are already spending way behind our means, therefore any extra taxes will be used to close the deficit.

And its completely relevant because you are telling me I should sacrifice my benefits but still pay taxes or else I'm a hypocrite, but I do not advocate at all that we all take this action collectively.
This guy is advocating that people like him pay more money to the government, yet he is not doing it himself.
Thats why your analogy is completely flawed.

I don't have time to argue in circles all day though, cause I'm either not explaining my argument well enough or you are just not understanding me.
So we'll just have to end our discussion here.
 
Last edited:

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
That's an incredibly dumb argument that for some reason people are either unwilling or incapable of dispensing with.

By this logic, anyone who favored the invasion of Iraq shouldn't have waited for the US to act collectively, they should have grabbed the family rifle and invaded themselves immediately upon coming to the conclusion that they supported it. To do anything else would be hypocritical.

Considering you supported the war, did you go over and fight it? No? Fucking hypocrite.

Exactly. I didn't use this example because to be fair a lot of liberal posters brought up a similar argument up in 2003. The argument was if you liked the war you should sign up and put your money where your mouth is. (I think I also made this argument which I recognize is bad now).

But thank you for pointing out the fact that Hatch/Matt/Spidey argument is even dumber than that because they think people should act unilaterally and immediately. Unfortunately it's just a symptom of their misunderstanding of government. They live in a pseudo-libertarian fantasy world where government should be voluntary and ignore the very basic fact about government that it only works if it applies to everyone.

And I go back to my original post: we have extremes on both sides that are really fucking our tax system up. Is it so much to ask that rich pay more than (or hell even the same as) the middle class without having to hear idiotic arguments like this? Is it really that outrageous to want the majority of Americans, including poor Americans, pay their share?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
It is the right question to be asked. The fact you arent answering tells me that. You need to realize they didnt enact such draconian tax law for a reason. You believing they actually intended to is funny.

The fact that you believe that requiring hedge fund managers to pay same ordinary income tax rates on their pay as working Americans is "draconian" says everything that needs to be said on the subject. If one side believes any tax hikes, no matter how reasonable are draconian and to be stopped by any means necessary, and they have the means to do it with filibuster and control of the House, and the question that you have is why doesn't the other side pass them, then you are either out of touch with reality yourself or would like others to be. Or both.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
More government services from higher taxes?
Are you aware of the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit?

If we had a balanced budget and this guy was advocating higher taxes for more social programs that would be one thing. But we are already spending way behind our means, therefore any extra taxes will be used to close the deficit.

You're off topic and now you're just speculating that this guy is a bleeding heart liberal. I don't support more services at the moment. I think we need to get smart, close up these loopholes on the top and the bottom and our revenue will increase. The guy in the article is just part of a group of rich people that thinks they should not being paying less than average joes. For some reason you can't handle that.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
The fact that you believe that requiring hedge fund managers to pay same ordinary income tax rates on their pay as working Americans is "draconian" says everything that needs to be said on the subject. If one side believes any tax hikes, no matter how reasonable are draconian and to be stopped by any means necessary, and they have the means to do it with filibuster and control of the House, and the question that you have is why doesn't the other side pass them, then you are either out of touch with reality yourself or would like others to be. Or both.

Apparently your gods believe that. They while controlling the govt never touched the subject and couldnt wait to get more of those people into their ranks.

I will try it one more time just to see if you can answer it. Why didnt they enact these laws to stop a great depression?