Turns out it IS all the fault of the rich. Proof inside!

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You got caught up on the overall picture item when it wasn't really the main fight.

i would say overall picture is the only fight that really matters.

Ofcourse we need to look at the overall picture(in CONTEXT)

the overall picture is the context, and you've actually been doing as much as possible to detract from the overall picture until just recently in this thread.

but at this point it is to muddy to paint an accurate picture

there have most likely been many studies done on overall tax burden and present quite a clear and accurate picture of what the overall burden is.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: rjain
Well, money is "lost" when it isn't recirculated into the money supply. If someone shoves $100,000 under their bed, that's a loss of at least $90,000 to the money supply. If they spent the money, they could increase the money supply by $100,000 over and above the $100,000 they spent, no problem.

but the gov't isn't doing that

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
I beg to differ, CAD. The politician is just an extension of some kind of interest backed by some kind of dollar amount. The politician couldn't exist to represent special interest in an overly effective way if our political system didn't allow it.

all interests are special

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You got caught up on the overall picture item when it wasn't really the main fight.

i would say overall picture is the only fight that really matters.

Ofcourse we need to look at the overall picture(in CONTEXT)

the overall picture is the context, and you've actually been doing as much as possible to detract from the overall picture until just recently in this thread.

but at this point it is to muddy to paint an accurate picture

there have most likely been many studies done on overall tax burden and present quite a clear and accurate picture of what the overall burden is.

CkG

Where are they? the studies? Do you keep forgetting that I kept asking for data? The context is VERY important, otherwise I could go around saying that the rich are way overtaxed(which I'm not BTW) but have no data to back it up. You get the point yet? People are making an accusation that they don't present evidence of.

Show me that data/reports/anything verifiable, a politician blubbering the words "fair share" over and over doesn't make it true.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Where are they? the studies? Do you keep forgetting that I kept asking for data? The context is VERY important, otherwise I could go around saying that the rich are way overtaxed(which I'm not BTW) but have no data to back it up. You get the point yet? People are making an accusation that they don't present evidence of.

Show me that data/reports/anything verifiable, a politician blubbering the words "fair share" over and over doesn't make it true.

CkG

i'm not forgetting; i keep telling you i'm the wrong one to ask. i don't need to provide data because i'm not claiming that the data says one thing or another. i'm merely claiming that the proper data to use to figure out if any one segment is over/underburdened is aggregate tax data.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Where are they? the studies? Do you keep forgetting that I kept asking for data? The context is VERY important, otherwise I could go around saying that the rich are way overtaxed(which I'm not BTW) but have no data to back it up. You get the point yet? People are making an accusation that they don't present evidence of.

Show me that data/reports/anything verifiable, a politician blubbering the words "fair share" over and over doesn't make it true.

CkG

i'm not forgetting; i keep telling you i'm the wrong one to ask. i don't need to provide data because i'm not claiming that the data says one thing or another. i'm merely claiming that the proper data to use to figure out if any one segment is over/underburdened is aggregate tax data.

Good, finally. The only way you are going to get any semblence of an "aggregate" tax data is to look at the taxes we currently have. After seeing that data and sorting it as best we can, we can paint an overall picture that reflects the taxes it is made up of. And you see, there has been none of that data presented - yet people are using the accusation that "the rich don't pay their fair share". So is it unreasonable to question WHY? and ask for the proof that backs up thier claims? No.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Good, finally. The only way you are going to get any semblence of an "aggregate" tax data is to look at the taxes we currently have. After seeing that data and sorting it as best we can, we can paint an overall picture that reflects the taxes it is made up of. And you see, there has been none of that data presented - yet people are using the accusation that "the rich don't pay their fair share". So is it unreasonable to question WHY? and ask for the proof that backs up thier claims? No.

CkG

what do you mean "good, finally"? of course you have to look at the taxes that exist, who has been saying otherwise? you can't just make up numbers.

the thing that is unreasonable is what you've been doing, railing against aggregate tax data as the method by which to determine if taxation is "fair."

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Good, finally. The only way you are going to get any semblence of an "aggregate" tax data is to look at the taxes we currently have. After seeing that data and sorting it as best we can, we can paint an overall picture that reflects the taxes it is made up of. And you see, there has been none of that data presented - yet people are using the accusation that "the rich don't pay their fair share". So is it unreasonable to question WHY? and ask for the proof that backs up thier claims? No.

CkG

what do you mean "good, finally"? of course you have to look at the taxes that exist, who has been saying otherwise? you can't just make up numbers.

the thing that is unreasonable is what you've been doing, railing against aggregate tax data as the method by which to determine if taxation is "fair."

ok, so we go backwards.

"good, finally" meant I thought you understood now.
No, I haven't been railing against "aggregate" data - I've been saying that you have to look at all the data to get a somewhat accurate picture of the overall - and a lot of the data is missing. Thus since there is data missing - these people can't back up thier "fair share" accusation against the rich.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

ok, so we go backwards.

"good, finally" meant I thought you understood now.
No, I haven't been railing against "aggregate" data - I've been saying that you have to look at all the data to get a somewhat accurate picture of the overall - and a lot of the data is missing. Thus since there is data missing - these people can't back up thier "fair share" accusation against the rich.

CkG

And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others, so to represent it as such isn't accurate.

you're waffling again

and lest we forget your fruit analogy as well, railing against the aggregate

another

To throw the other taxes in there isn't right because - those are more set rate taxes which have very little to do with income. So lumping them into income categories is not "honest".

So yes - for a person to lump all the taxes together it is intellectually dishonest

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

ok, so we go backwards.

"good, finally" meant I thought you understood now.
No, I haven't been railing against "aggregate" data - I've been saying that you have to look at all the data to get a somewhat accurate picture of the overall - and a lot of the data is missing. Thus since there is data missing - these people can't back up thier "fair share" accusation against the rich.

CkG

And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others, so to represent it as such isn't accurate.

you're waffling again

No I'm not - you just don't understand what I said

Sales tax isn't assessed based on your income, is it? (no)
So therefore to lump it into income categories WITHOUT putting it in the right context isn't accurate. You can't take a sales tax and then make it a rate of income based on end numbers. Yes it is part of the overall picture but that doesn't mean it can accuately described in purely income terms.
What I'm saying is that the overall picture while in income categories needs to be put in the context that not all of the "taxes" are based off of income. Without presenting it as such you are twisting the data. It's a simple concept - I don't know why you keep fighting it.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes it is part of the overall picture but that doesn't mean it can accuately described in purely income terms.

yes, actually, it can.

What I'm saying is that the overall picture while in income categories needs to be put in the context that not all of the "taxes" are based off of income.

of course not all the taxes are levied as a precentage of income. that doesn't stop the validity of being able to express them as a percentage of income

Without presenting it as such you are twisting the data.

you're really not doing anything of the sort

It's a simple concept - I don't know why you keep fighting it.

CkG

because you're wrong about it

especially with statements like this

So, the question then becomes - Is the revenue recieved by the FEDS "fair"? If not? why?Fix?
Next, where does the state revenue come from?
Then Local too.

where what you appear to be doing is evaluating the tax burden piecemeal and in a vacuum.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I'm done - you are choosing to NOT to acknowledge my legitimate point. And yes - how it is collected and where it goes - IS part of the overall picture. To think it is not is absurd.

Good day.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I'm done - you are choosing to NOT to acknowledge my legitimate point. And yes - how it is collected and where it goes - IS part of the overall picture. To think it is not is absurd.

Good day.

CkG

i'm doing no such thing. any proper study is going to say what taxes make up what percent of the overall burden. your problem is that almost every post you've made you've tried to discredit aggregate numbers as much as you possibly could. so far you've also called me an ass, a leftist, and patronized me. if anyone should be leaving, it's me.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I'm done - you are choosing to NOT to acknowledge my legitimate point. And yes - how it is collected and where it goes - IS part of the overall picture. To think it is not is absurd.

Good day.

CkG

i'm doing no such thing. any proper study is going to say what taxes make up what percent of the overall burden. your problem is that almost every post you've made you've tried to discredit aggregate numbers as much as you possibly could. so far you've also called me an ass, a leftist, and patronized me. if anyone should be leaving, it's me.

Don't get your dander up. Caddy's having a rough night. His economic theories are being attacked on two fronts. I've been busy documenting that Bush's tax cuts and Iraq spending do, in fact, explain most of the current budget deficit.

I've largely stayed out of this one because I didn't want to do the research Cad would demand -- not that he'd do it himself -- to document average overall tax contributions by income level with a complete breakdown of each of the individual taxes in the aggregate. I agree this is the sensible way to compare tax loads; income tax alone overstates the tax burden on higher-income taxpayers.

In order to do a really good comparison, we also need data that shows the average amount of "income" shielded from income taxes at each income level. I suspect that wealthy taxpayers are able to shelter a far greater proportion of their income, further overstating their apparent tax burden. I've never seen any data addressing this, unfortunately. I may be wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Actually I'm right on both fronts and I tire of both of your mischaracterizations of what I am saying.

It is important to look at the data I seek - to be able to look at the big picture somewhat accurately and in the right context. So I hope I don't see or hear some "fair share" argument about taxes until the people who use it are prepared to back it up

Now as to your assertion that by hiding things in tax shielded places would actually mean their reported "burden" is understated currently. So if it was all reported they actually would be paying more since that "hidden income money" would be taxed at a pretty high rate, no?

Budget is 2.2Trillion - Deficit 375Billion. Yeah - Tax-cuts(not a "cost") and the $75B for the war are the "bulk" Absurd.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually I'm right on both fronts and I tire of both of your mischaracterizations of what I am saying.

It is important to look at the data I seek - to be able to look at the big picture somewhat accurately and in the right context. So I hope I don't see or hear some "fair share" argument about taxes until the people who use it are prepared to back it up


CkG

of course its important to look at the aggregate! i've been saying that all along while you've been discrediting it! you've just completly reversed yourself, if i'm reading this right (and who knows if i am the way you're going)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually I'm right on both fronts and I tire of both of your mischaracterizations of what I am saying.

It is important to look at the data I seek - to be able to look at the big picture somewhat accurately and in the right context. So I hope I don't see or hear some "fair share" argument about taxes until the people who use it are prepared to back it up


CkG

of course its important to look at the aggregate! i've been saying that all along while you've been discrediting it! you've just completly reversed yourself, if i'm reading this right (and who knows if i am the way you're going)

No - I have not been discrediting it - I'm saying it must be looked at in the correct context as the context is part of the overall picture. That is all.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now as to your assertion that by hiding things in tax shielded places would actually mean their reported "burden" is understated currently. So if it was all reported they actually would be paying more since that "hidden income money" would be taxed at a pretty high rate, no?

I'm not completely sure what you're saying, that last sentence doesn't parse very well. If people were taxed on all forms of income/revenue from all sources, if they were unable to shelter some income from taxes, then yes that additional income would be taxed at their highest incremental rate. My premise, however, is that the average wealthy person -- whatever "wealthy" means -- has a tax rate of zero percent (0%) on a much greater proportion of their income since they are able to shield it from taxes. If I am correct, this means that these people are listed in a lower income bracket than they should be because they are underreporting income. This also means their effective tax rate is lower than reported, i.e., their tax rate is overstated because it ignores the sheltered income on which they pay 0%.

As I said, I have no data to back this up. It seems obvious since this is the whole premise behind tax shelters.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No - I have not been discrediting it - I'm saying it must be looked at in the correct context as the context is part of the overall picture. That is all.

CkG

To throw the other taxes in there isn't right because - those are more set rate taxes which have very little to do with income. So lumping them into income categories is not "honest".

And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others, so to represent it as such isn't accurate.

one could think that, according to this statement with regards to the situation it arose from, doing something like making a graph and breaking taxes down into income groups is dishonest

and the granddaddy, where you don't appear to be looking at the aggregate at all

So, the question then becomes - Is the revenue recieved by the FEDS "fair"? If not? why?Fix?
Next, where does the state revenue come from?
Then Local too.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Now as to your assertion that by hiding things in tax shielded places would actually mean their reported "burden" is understated currently. So if it was all reported they actually would be paying more since that "hidden income money" would be taxed at a pretty high rate, no?

I'm not completely sure what you're saying, that last sentence doesn't parse very well. If people were taxed on all forms of income/revenue from all sources, if they were unable to shelter some income from taxes, then yes that additional income would be taxed at their highest incremental rate. My premise, however, is that the average wealthy person -- whatever "wealthy" means -- has a tax rate of zero percent (0%) on a much greater proportion of their income since they are able to shield it from taxes. If I am correct, this means that these people are listed in a lower income bracket than they should be because they are underreporting income. This also means their effective tax rate is lower than reported, i.e., their tax rate is overstated because it ignores the sheltered income on which they pay 0%.

As I said, I have no data to back this up. It seems obvious since this is the whole premise behind tax shelters.

Yes since it is hidden we can't see their total income so their overall rate would be lower, but not on what data we have. But if we could see it, they would be paying a higher rate on that hidden money so the rate'd be somewhat the same if not a tad higher since it'd be a percentage of the hidden.

Arbitrary numbers:

1000000(Income we see)
250000(overall taxes paid)
= 25% tax rate

1250000(Income including the 250K hidden)
250000+35%(or highest income tax rate) of 250K(=337500)-if they paid taxes on the "hidden" portion too.
=27% tax rate

Now I understand there are other considerations but I don't think the "hiding" factor over-reports their tax rate burden. I'm sure you could possibly find some instance it does, but I think that overall the income hidden would most likely be taxed at a higher rate than their overall tax rate.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No - I have not been discrediting it - I'm saying it must be looked at in the correct context as the context is part of the overall picture. That is all.

CkG

To throw the other taxes in there isn't right because - those are more set rate taxes which have very little to do with income. So lumping them into income categories is not "honest".

And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others, so to represent it as such isn't accurate.

one could think that, according to this statement with regards to the situation it arose from, doing something like making a graph and breaking taxes down into income groups is dishonest

and the granddaddy, where you don't appear to be looking at the aggregate at all

So, the question then becomes - Is the revenue recieved by the FEDS "fair"? If not? why?Fix?
Next, where does the state revenue come from?
Then Local too.

Now you're just stretching. Taking individual quotes and trying to say they mean something Nice try.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

actually i just found a 4th insult directed toward me, so, i'm leaving this thread and not coming back