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

[rjain]

If you make more money, you're likely to own more valuable property and pay more property taxes and you'll purchase more goods, so I think that effect isn't as you explain. You may be right about SS tax, tho. I don't know because I don't make that much.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain
If you make more money, you're likely to own more valuable property and pay more property taxes and you'll purchase more goods, so I think that effect isn't as you explain. You may be right about SS tax, tho. I don't know because I don't make that much.

What he is trying to say is that since sales tax and property tax and the rest don't take into account one's income to set the rate of the tax - that the rich still "get" to only pay 5% on purchase(or whatever it is in your area) and their property tax rates don't go up as their income does since it is tied to the property value. And since they make much more than us poo folk do, that these "other" taxes are less as a percentage of income. What he fails to understand is that the "rich" pay an extrodinary amount of money in taxes and are taxed at a much higher rate than us poo folk on their income. 96% of all income taxes are paid by the "rich" top 50% percent of wage earners, who make over 40-50K/yr.

CkG

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: rjain
If you make more money, you're likely to own more valuable property and pay more property taxes and you'll purchase more goods, so I think that effect isn't as you explain. You may be right about SS tax, tho. I don't know because I don't make that much.

But spending more on goods and buying a more expensive house is purely voluntary, and in the case of the very rich it would be almost impossible to spend enough to equal the same % of income that a middle class or poor person pays in sales taxes and property taxes, so the affect is as I described, IMHO.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

To me it's quite simple. Taxes must be raised and the rich can afford it without it greatly affecting their standard of living. What's so hard to comprehend?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

But spending more on goods and buying a more expensive house is purely voluntary, and in the case of the very rich it would be almost impossible to spend enough to equal the same % of income that a middle class or poor person pays in sales taxes and property taxes, so the affect is as I described, IMHO.

Getting a better paying job is also voluntary. It would be trivial for the very rich to spend enough to equal the same % of income of others in sales taxes, as they could spend far more of their money on taxable items.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me it's quite simple. Taxes must be raised and the rich can afford it without it greatly affecting their standard of living. What's so hard to comprehend?

The fact that you're then penalizing the people who make this economy strong for doing that. Making it less rewarding to increase the standard of living for the poor (which is what a stronger economy really does) doesn't make it any easier for the poor to get a better standard of living.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: rjain
If you make more money, you're likely to own more valuable property and pay more property taxes and you'll purchase more goods, so I think that effect isn't as you explain. You may be right about SS tax, tho. I don't know because I don't make that much.

But spending more on goods and buying a more expensive house is purely voluntary, and in the case of the very rich it would be almost impossible to spend enough to equal the same % of income that a middle class or poor person pays in sales taxes and property taxes, so the affect is as I described, IMHO.

So do we get rid of sales tax?
How about property tax?
Do we make ALL taxes income based?
Like say 20% across the board?
Wouldn't you then be bitching that the "rich" are only taxed at 20% based on income rather than the 35+% rate they do now? You sure a hell would be ranting and raving about "tax cuts for the rich".

It's amazing that you people who scream about the rich paying their "fair share" don't realize that they already do - infact the top 20% do pay the most as a percentage of income and only pay way over 65%(top 10% pay 65%) of all income taxes.

CkG

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

This is not about penalty, it's about necessity. If you're arguing on behalf of the wealthy, you may not even realize this. Corporate America and it's wealthy owners were given the incentive to create new jobs to employ the many qualified indivudals out of work in the form of Bush's tacx cut. Good news is that the stock market is much healthier and those who may have lost some money have liekly made it back, if not in spades since they had the opportunity to invest at rock bottom prices. Bad news? There've been hardly any new jobs created, and MANY more have been lost because it's cheaper to harbor labor overseas. How does this help the little guy? Now, the wealthy are getting wealthier and the middle class is as f$cked as they were a couple of years ago. Even worse, now there's that much less opporunity for employment since those many jobs that people were hoping to open up again have already been filed by cheaper, more profitable labor in Bombay (for example.) Call me crazy, but compare a person whose is earning much less than they are qualified for because they are now employed by taco bell or something upon the elimination of their job to individuals whose jobs income sources were not entirely eliminated and happen to be extremely wealthy to begin with, and you agree that taxing the latter individual makes more sense than the guy who has already lost his standard of living.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

CAD, people are screaming because they are hastily falling into poverty while you and other wealthy individuals are liekly geting richer. You can argue all the figues you want, but the truth is is that the wealthy can better afford to shoulder the burdon of a tax increase that this country cannot avoid.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me it's quite simple. Taxes must be raised and the rich can afford it without it greatly affecting their standard of living. What's so hard to comprehend?

Nothing; there are a number of books written about Communism which explain your hypothesis in layman's terms. We get it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
CAD, people are screaming because they are hastily falling into poverty while you and other wealthy individuals are liekly geting richer. You can argue all the figues you want, but the truth is is that the wealthy can better afford to shoulder the burdon of a tax increase that this country cannot avoid.

Bullsh!t. All I hear from you leftists is this "fair share" BS. Well, how do you suppose we make it fair since you seem to think it isn't? Increasing their income taxes? Why is that "fair"? I am far from "rich", but I don't see how someone who's income tax rate is 38%+ is "fair" compared to others who pay a lesser rate. And even if you think it is "fair" that they pay a higher rate of income taxes - I still say that the top 20% pay more as a percentage of their income than any of the other levels.

My questions were quite simple and were very much relevant...which must be why they weren't addressed.

The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes. Remember, 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners How is that "fair"?

Maybe someone can share with us a "fair" tax plan, because all I see is people saying "tax the rich, because they can afford it". Far from the "fair share" montra they've been leading with.

CkG

 

[Tom]

___________________________________________________________________
"So do we get rid of sales tax?
How about property tax?
Do we make ALL taxes income based?
Like say 20% across the board?
Wouldn't you then be bitching that the "rich" are only taxed at 20% based on income rather than the 35+% rate they do now? You sure a hell would be ranting and raving about "tax cuts for the rich".

It's amazing that you people who scream about the rich paying their "fair share" don't realize that they already do - infact the top 20% do pay the most as a percentage of income and only pay way over 65%(top 10% pay 65%) of all income taxes.

CkG "
___________________________________________________________________


Two responses-
first I believe you are just wrong about the very rich paying a larger % of their income in taxes, I mean all taxes, not just income taxes. And I'm not necessarily talking about the top 20%, I would guss that includes a number of people that I wouldn't consider "very rich". So from the issue of fairness alone, I think Bush's tax cuts have created a situation where some extremely wealthy people pay less % of their income than people who are less wealthy.

secondly the discussion isn't just about principle, it's also about the real world situation. Taxing everybody 20% makes no sense if that includes making it impossible for low income people to live. The only rational tax policy is one that encourages everyone to strive to better themselves and at the same time pays for the government we want.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
___________________________________________________________________
"So do we get rid of sales tax?
How about property tax?
Do we make ALL taxes income based?
Like say 20% across the board?
Wouldn't you then be bitching that the "rich" are only taxed at 20% based on income rather than the 35+% rate they do now? You sure a hell would be ranting and raving about "tax cuts for the rich".

It's amazing that you people who scream about the rich paying their "fair share" don't realize that they already do - infact the top 20% do pay the most as a percentage of income and only pay way over 65%(top 10% pay 65%) of all income taxes.

CkG "
___________________________________________________________________


Two responses-
first I believe you are just wrong about the very rich paying a larger % of their income in taxes, I mean all taxes, not just income taxes. And I'm not necessarily talking about the top 20%, I would guss that includes a number of people that I wouldn't consider "very rich". So from the issue of fairness alone, I think Bush's tax cuts have created a situation where some extremely wealthy people pay less % of their income than people who are less wealthy.

secondly the discussion isn't just about principle, it's also about the real world situation. Taxing everybody 20% makes no sense if that includes making it impossible for low income people to live. The only rational tax policy is one that encourages everyone to strive to better themselves and at the same time pays for the government we want.

Umm...from our buddy jahawkin

Boy looks like a two birds with one stone situation...20% and rich pay more. Hmm...
It is absurd to only pinpoint the ultra rich and say they only pay X% based on income compared to ___.

How would you like to see it changed then? See that is what is missing from this whole "debate" - ideas, REAL ideas and thoughts about what is "fair" yet still balanced with reality. I'm still waiting for HOW to make it "fair" and such.

BTW - Bush's tax-cuts didn't just suddenly create some big "situation" like you seem to think.

CkG

 

[Tom]

"The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes. Remember, 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners How is that "fair"?"

You say you're questions are simple, but in reality they are based on complicated issues and opinion. For example how do you define "fair" ?

And what % of all income goes to the top 50% of wage earners ?

And if we are going to have a discussion about taxes and fairness, it's important to include all taxes, not just income tax. For example a person with a minimum wage job might pay 5% of his entire income in sales taxes to achieve a certain standard of living. A person who makes a million dollars a year would only pair a fraction of a % to achieve the same standard of living. Is that "fair" ?

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
CAD, people are screaming because they are hastily falling into poverty while you and other wealthy individuals are liekly geting richer. You can argue all the figues you want, but the truth is is that the wealthy can better afford to shoulder the burdon of a tax increase that this country cannot avoid.

Bullsh!t. All I hear from you leftists is this "fair share" BS. Well, how do you suppose we make it fair since you seem to think it isn't? Increasing their income taxes? Why is that "fair"? I am far from "rich", but I don't see how someone who's income tax rate is 38%+ is "fair" compared to others who pay a lesser rate. And even if you think it is "fair" that they pay a higher rate of income taxes - I still say that the top 20% pay more as a percentage of their income than any of the other levels.

My questions were quite simple and were very much relevant...which must be why they weren't addressed.

The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes. Remember, 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners How is that "fair"?

Maybe someone can share with us a "fair" tax plan, because all I see is people saying "tax the rich, because they can afford it". Far from the "fair share" montra they've been leading with.

CkG

The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes. Remember, 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners How is that "fair"?

CAD, you come from a strange camp, guy. First, the ability to pay IS a big factor to keep in consideration when deciding who should bear the brunt of a tax increase. I don't think that's unreasonable comment. Second, I will speak for myself here in stating that I've never (nor likely any one else for matter) suggested that the wealthy pay ALL taxes. That's a lofty generalization you just threw out for some odd reason. Lastly, for a class of people so unjustly burdened by over-taxation, they're still wealthier than 99% of the planet. Do you feel more compelled to help the guy who lost his job and is aobsolutey struggling to keep food on the table and a roof above his famalies head or the dead billionairre CEO who's rotten kids will stand to inherit a measly $250 million after the hugely unfair estate tax.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me it's quite simple. Taxes must be raised and the rich can afford it without it greatly affecting their standard of living. What's so hard to comprehend?

I think what's so hard to comprehend is that the actual answer is that spending must be cut first.

Your simple idea is flawed in many ways. Not the least of which is that it would discourage people from working to acheive large incomes in the first place. And without that, the government ends up collecting less taxes, not more. After all, who wants to go through the stress, heartache, pain, and risk of seeking to acheive when there is no reward? Why would anyone pay tens of thousands for higher education when they could get a job with equal net pay without it? Who would work long hours if all those extra hours when to pay taxes?

The problem with the poor in America is that they think that everyone successful in America got there without trying or working hard. The reality is the opposite in every way. Now take away the incentive to work, and we all get poor. Following that is a cascade effect of people who don't buy new products because they can't comfortably afford them, of companies who lay off workers because buying has slowed, and so on.

What's so hard to comprehend?

 

[Tom]

"How would you like to see it changed then? See that is what is missing from this whole "debate" - ideas, REAL ideas and thoughts about what is "fair" yet still balanced with reality. I'm still waiting for HOW to make it "fair" and such."


While it's impossible to be "fair" to everyone I personally thought the federal tax situation was reasonably fair before Bush's tax cuts, given the amount of debt that we were/are carrying. If it had come to pass that we could have actually reduced the debt enough to actually have saved some of the interest cost, then I might have favored a tax cut at some point, but I would probably have done it by increasing the income level at which the first tax bracket goes into effect, rather than reducing the marginal rate of the top tax bracket. That kind of cut would have still given everybody a tax cut, just less of it would go to the extremely wealthy.

I think this kind of tax cut helps offset the natural increases in sales taxes and property taxes in a more balanced way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
CAD, people are screaming because they are hastily falling into poverty while you and other wealthy individuals are liekly geting richer. You can argue all the figues you want, but the truth is is that the wealthy can better afford to shoulder the burdon of a tax increase that this country cannot avoid.

Bullsh!t. All I hear from you leftists is this "fair share" BS. Well, how do you suppose we make it fair since you seem to think it isn't? Increasing their income taxes? Why is that "fair"? I am far from "rich", but I don't see how someone who's income tax rate is 38%+ is "fair" compared to others who pay a lesser rate. And even if you think it is "fair" that they pay a higher rate of income taxes - I still say that the top 20% pay more as a percentage of their income than any of the other levels.

My questions were quite simple and were very much relevant...which must be why they weren't addressed.

The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes. Remember, 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners How is that "fair"?

Maybe someone can share with us a "fair" tax plan, because all I see is people saying "tax the rich, because they can afford it". Far from the "fair share" montra they've been leading with.

CkG

The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes. Remember, 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners How is that "fair"?

CAD, you come from a strange camp, guy. First, the ability to pay IS a big factor to keep in consideration when deciding who should bear the brunt of a tax increase. I don't think that's unreasonable comment. Second, I will speak for myself here in stating that I've never (nor likely any one else for matter) suggested that the wealthy pay ALL taxes. That's a lofty generalization you just threw out for some odd reason. Lastly, for a class of people so unjustly burdened by over-taxation, they're still wealthier than 99% of the planet. Do you feel more compelled to help the guy who lost his job and is aobsolutey struggling to keep food on the table and a roof above his famalies head or the dead billionairre CEO who's rotten kids will stand to inherit a measly $250 million after the hugely unfair estate tax.

If you wish to debate a topic - do it with facts and logic - not emotion. Emotional arguments bleeding hearts like yourself try to use don't help your cause, it only makes you look silly.
I don't "feel" when I pay taxes - it just happens.
Please come back when you can present an argument - not emotion.

CkG

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: rjain
It's all the rich peoples' fault because they worked their asses off to get their money

You mean worked their asses off like Georgie boy did?

Oh get off it...

There are TONS of people who have worked hard to get there money.. Not to say some without money haven't worked hard either...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
CAD, you come from a strange camp, guy. First, the ability to pay IS a big factor to keep in consideration when deciding who should bear the brunt of a tax increase. I don't think that's unreasonable comment. Second, I will speak for myself here in stating that I've never (nor likely any one else for matter) suggested that the wealthy pay ALL taxes. That's a lofty generalization you just threw out for some odd reason. Lastly, for a class of people so unjustly burdened by over-taxation, they're still wealthier than 99% of the planet. Do you feel more compelled to help the guy who lost his job and is aobsolutey struggling to keep food on the table and a roof above his famalies head or the dead billionairre CEO who's rotten kids will stand to inherit a measly $250 million after the hugely unfair estate tax.

As always from someone debating your side of this argument, you're under the mistaken impression that that $250 million is in the form of cash just sitting in a safe somewhere doing nothing.

It's not. It's invested in ways that provide jobs and services to people. It's in stocks that provide companies with the capital they require to hire employees, buy supplies and equipment from vendors (who give more people jobs), and sell products to people (retail jobs). The money might also be invested in securities that provide people with mortgages, so they can get that roof over their head in the first place.

I'm not opposed to the idea of an estate tax. I am opposed to your immature line of thinking.

 

[Tom]

"Umm...from our buddy jahawkin

Boy looks like a two birds with one stone situation...20% and rich pay more. Hmm..."


Looking at your chart, does it make any sense that the lowest group pays 18% while the next group up pays 14% ?

Additionally, as I suspected, the 20% numbers do not show the whole picture, if that was reduced to groupings of 10% I bet the results would show the 90th percentile and up pays significantly less % than the 80-90 group.

And this also doesn't account for the fact that the wealthier a person is the more extravagant their lifestyle would be, which would increase the amount they spend on sales tax and property tax, which are completely optional lifestyle decisions whci shouldn't be used to decide they should pay less income tax. That's like saying a person who bus a Lexus should pay less income tax than a person who bus a Civic.

I would say to make a fair comparison of tax burden, you need to figure out a baseline amount a person HAS to psend in sales tax and property tax, and other flat fees like auto license, and use that figure to determine what marginal income tax rates should be.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes. Remember, 96% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners How is that "fair"?"

You say you're questions are simple, but in reality they are based on complicated issues and opinion. For example how do you define "fair" ?

And what % of all income goes to the top 50% of wage earners ?

And if we are going to have a discussion about taxes and fairness, it's important to include all taxes, not just income tax. For example a person with a minimum wage job might pay 5% of his entire income in sales taxes to achieve a certain standard of living. A person who makes a million dollars a year would only pair a fraction of a % to achieve the same standard of living. Is that "fair" ?

top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%

Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%

Yup - "fair"

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating sweeping cuts for the rich - I just think that aiming at them for more money everytime the gov't can't pay for their new pet project is just wrong. My stance has been and always will be that this gov't should spend less.

The question of "fair" came from me - I asked what you people who are screaming "fair share" means. The only "answer" I have seen so far is "tax the rich more" - which isn't a definition of "fair". And my questions were simple, they were yes/no questions - if you had other IDEAS then you have a chance to present them - so far all I've heard is feel good BS.

Please, will someone provide a definition of "fair share" for these people?

CkG

 

[bjc112]

top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes

That's the most important stat to me...

96%

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me it's quite simple. Taxes must be raised and the rich can afford it without it greatly affecting their standard of living. What's so hard to comprehend?

I think what's so hard to comprehend is that the actual answer is that spending must be cut first.

Your simple idea is flawed in many ways. Not the least of which is that it would discourage people from working to acheive large incomes in the first place. And without that, the government ends up collecting less taxes, not more. After all, who wants to go through the stress, heartache, pain, and risk of seeking to acheive when there is no reward? Why would anyone pay tens of thousands for higher education when they could get a job with equal net pay without it? Who would work long hours if all those extra hours when to pay taxes?

The problem with the poor in America is that they think that everyone successful in America got there without trying or working hard. The reality is the opposite in every way. Now take away the incentive to work, and we all get poor. Following that is a cascade effect of people who don't buy new products because they can't comfortably afford them, of companies who lay off workers because buying has slowed, and so on.

What's so hard to comprehend?

Nobody is suggesting raising taxes on income that would create the situation you described. And I don't agree with your beliefs as expressed about the poor or the rich. Vast majority of "rich" are that way because of who they are(family,looks,intelligence,personality,ability), not how hard they work. And vast majority of poor work extremely hard, but not necessarilly making the best decisions.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
To me it's quite simple. Taxes must be raised and the rich can afford it without it greatly affecting their standard of living. What's so hard to comprehend?

I think what's so hard to comprehend is that the actual answer is that spending must be cut first.

Your simple idea is flawed in many ways. Not the least of which is that it would discourage people from working to acheive large incomes in the first place. And without that, the government ends up collecting less taxes, not more. After all, who wants to go through the stress, heartache, pain, and risk of seeking to acheive when there is no reward? Why would anyone pay tens of thousands for higher education when they could get a job with equal net pay without it? Who would work long hours if all those extra hours when to pay taxes?

The problem with the poor in America is that they think that everyone successful in America got there without trying or working hard. The reality is the opposite in every way. Now take away the incentive to work, and we all get poor. Following that is a cascade effect of people who don't buy new products because they can't comfortably afford them, of companies who lay off workers because buying has slowed, and so on.

What's so hard to comprehend?

"The problem with the poor in America..." That obviously rules you out based on your wording. That doesn't make you a bad guy, but I think it does cloud your judgment when trying to understand the situation in realative terms. If I were to suggest to you that taxes be raised for the wealthy of our country, you compulsively react as if I'm suggesting all taxes be shouldered by the wealthy to the point that it removes their wealth. That is almost as much of a leap of logic as "The ability to pay doesn't mean that they should be forced to pay, nor does it make it "fair" to pay all of the taxes." But based on that logic, if the government (ooh, evil, nasty term huh?) raised the taxation of the wealthy (let's say, starting at salaries of $300k) by up to 10% there would no longer be any incentive to be wealthy because it's too hard. Yet, contradictorily, you sugget that the poor deserve to be poor because they are stupid and undisciplined (grossely exagerated, I know, but that's my impression of your perspective) and cannot meet the cahallenge of obtaining wealth. Hmm... Well, I can think of one way of recoupling the cost of obtaining wealth, increase the hours of the work week! Yeah, that'd be great! Law's stipulating the peramiters of paying employees for overtime are "silly and outdated." Let's kick the middle class while their down. Lazy asses.

Now, as for reducing deficit spending, you will never hear an argument from me suggesting otherwise. Now go tell that to GW.