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

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Regarding this stat:
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%

I think that's misleading, as there are other ways to gain income that are not classified as wages. In addition, by just focusing on income tax (the most progressive of taxes here in the US) and not the total tax burden (including sales taxes and other regressive taxes) gives the false impression that the rich are overtaxed, when in reality they pay roughly the same percentage of their income to taxes as everyone else (as reflected in the NYTimes chart).

This misunderstanding leads to comments like this from Caddy:

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.

The rich and poor are taxed exactly the same on thier first $6000 of income, on their first $26,250 of income, and so on as pointed out earlier in the thread.

You seem to misunderstand my point just as the rest of the people here. The Left seems to think that for some reason the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" but that figure puts that assertion in question since it is pretty much the only truely income based tax. 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". Now again - nobody seems to want to show that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" - they just want to keep repeating the same old "lets tax the rich" whining.

Also if you have a problem with those stats - go find some to refute them Say "taxable income" numbers I'd be willing to bet that the figures don't change much.

It's nice to see that class warfare is still alive and well in this country

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: schizoid
Does anyone find it funny that I posted a thread that didn't actually say anything, and now it's three pages long, with people getting into long-winded arguments over the validity of my non-claim?

I think that's very funny, actually.

Actually I think it brought out alot of good discussion about alot of popular misconceptions.

Please change your thread title back.

CkG

Looks like a lot of rightwing party line bleating to me. Misconceptions

Heh - no - it's not "party line bleating" I've been over these sorts of things for years....even stretching back to my youth when I thought Mike Dukakis should win:Q - good thing I couldn't vote at that age
The misconceptions here are that the rich don't pay their "fair share" which is why LIEberman comes out with his new "tax the rich" crap and certain people eat it up.

Sure would be nice to hear someone come up with some ideas to make things "fair" or heck - even an admission of what "fair" would be for the rich to pay and why. Maybe I'm asking too much though...

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Only an idiot assumes poor means lazy. Some poor are lazy. Some rich are lazy. Some poor work as hard or harder than any rich people. You Republican elitists complain about class warfare from the left. That's just what you are doing with comments like that.

Bahaha! You think I'm a Republican. If someone is poor and they're working hard, they're not doing anything their customers find valuable, or they don't care to get money from them. If they did something valuable, the customers would surely be willing to pay a little to gain the value of that person's service.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat
The reason that we have a progressive tax on income is a matter of economics. Remember the items (most) taxes pay for are publicly consumed goods, not private. An individual's willingness to pay for such goods generally increases with the amount of income you have. Consider something as basic as a neighborhood park. If you had plenty of money, wouldn't you be willing to shell out the cash for a big open, well maintained zone for your children to play in? Of course. However if you're poor, you would not be willing to pay to have a public good like that, because comparatively speaking, there are more pressing matters to you when income is a limitation. In the end however, even if a wealthy individual pays more for the park via income tax than the poor person, both are better off as opposed to not having that park at all. This same idea applies to all publicly provided goods. To give you another example, suppose you and your wife wanted to take a vacation. You make 30,000 a year, and your wife makes 4,000,000 a year. Lets say that we'll apply the regressive tax structure to families, and say that both you and your wife must both shell out equal amounts of money for all household purchases (this concept is the same as a flat tax). Hypothetically speaking, lets say a trip to....Tahiti costs 15,000 dollars. You, as a 30,000 dollar earner, will NOT be able to go on that trip to tahiti, because you wouldn't be able to foot the bill for all of the other living expenses you and your spouse will incur. This means that as a couple, you would have to live in a small house, drive inexpensive cars, eat at budget restauraunts, because costs must be split evenly. However, if you guys decide that your wife will foot a larger percentage of the cost of living (which is what a progressive tax does), BOTH of you can now enjoy a nice big house, nice cars, nice vacations, and nice meals, even though you make substantially less than her. As a result, BOTH of you are better off, even though she paid more. The same concept applies to public goods and taxation. By having a flat tax, we would not be able to pay for many of the public goods we have now, and we would all be worse off.

I hope all of that made sense.

This assumes that:
1. Everyone who is taxed wants the same public good/service. Does your wife want to pay for something that she will never use?

2. Everyone is willing to pay for someone else's use of a public good/service. Does your wife want to pay for your vacation to Tahiti? Sure! Does your ex-wife want to pay for your vacation to Tahiti? Probably not.

 

[Tom]

"This assumes that:
1. Everyone who is taxed wants the same public good/service. Does your wife want to pay for something that she will never use?

2. Everyone is willing to pay for someone else's use of a public good/service. Does your wife want to pay for your vacation to Tahiti? Sure! Does your ex-wife want to pay for your vacation to Tahiti? Probably not."


The Constitution gives the power to levy taxes to Congress, you don't have the option of picking which ones you want to pay.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Ldir

Only an idiot assumes poor means lazy. Some poor are lazy. Some rich are lazy. Some poor work as hard or harder than any rich people. You Republican elitists complain about class warfare from the left. That's just what you are doing with comments like that.

Bahaha! You think I'm a Republican. If someone is poor and they're working hard, they're not doing anything their customers find valuable, or they don't care to get money from them. If they did something valuable, the customers would surely be willing to pay a little to gain the value of that person's service.

I think rjain is on to something here; the issue at hand is not about how "hard" the stupid and lazy poor people work but rather how "stupid" the stupid and lazy poor work! What would you call that, a "stupidity" tax? I'm sure you're nodding your head in agreement. I'm starting to understand the popularity of the Guillotine a couple centuries back.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Regarding this stat:
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%

I think that's misleading, as there are other ways to gain income that are not classified as wages. In addition, by just focusing on income tax (the most progressive of taxes here in the US) and not the total tax burden (including sales taxes and other regressive taxes) gives the false impression that the rich are overtaxed, when in reality they pay roughly the same percentage of their income to taxes as everyone else (as reflected in the NYTimes chart).

This misunderstanding leads to comments like this from Caddy:

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.

The rich and poor are taxed exactly the same on thier first $6000 of income, on their first $26,250 of income, and so on as pointed out earlier in the thread.

You seem to misunderstand my point just as the rest of the people here. The Left seems to think that for some reason the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" but that figure puts that assertion in question since it is pretty much the only truely income based tax. 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". Now again - nobody seems to want to show that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" - they just want to keep repeating the same old "lets tax the rich" whining.

Also if you have a problem with those stats - go find some to refute them Say "taxable income" numbers I'd be willing to bet that the figures don't change much.

It's nice to see that class warfare is still alive and well in this country

CkG

How typical - any discussion of taxes elicits an accusation of class warfare. Yes, class warfare is still alive and well in this country. Look at Bush's tax cuts for example.
How is including sales tax and other non-income based taxes into the mix not "honest"? They're still taxes after all, and to a poor person sales tax could be a very significant portion of their tax burden. Why is looking at this total tax burden not honest??
I never said that the rich don't pay their "fair share," but which group is more capable at paying taxes??

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: CWRMadcat
The reason that we have a progressive tax on income is a matter of economics. Remember the items (most) taxes pay for are publicly consumed goods, not private. An individual's willingness to pay for such goods generally increases with the amount of income you have. Consider something as basic as a neighborhood park. If you had plenty of money, wouldn't you be willing to shell out the cash for a big open, well maintained zone for your children to play in? Of course. However if you're poor, you would not be willing to pay to have a public good like that, because comparatively speaking, there are more pressing matters to you when income is a limitation. In the end however, even if a wealthy individual pays more for the park via income tax than the poor person, both are better off as opposed to not having that park at all. This same idea applies to all publicly provided goods. To give you another example, suppose you and your wife wanted to take a vacation. You make 30,000 a year, and your wife makes 4,000,000 a year. Lets say that we'll apply the regressive tax structure to families, and say that both you and your wife must both shell out equal amounts of money for all household purchases (this concept is the same as a flat tax). Hypothetically speaking, lets say a trip to....Tahiti costs 15,000 dollars. You, as a 30,000 dollar earner, will NOT be able to go on that trip to tahiti, because you wouldn't be able to foot the bill for all of the other living expenses you and your spouse will incur. This means that as a couple, you would have to live in a small house, drive inexpensive cars, eat at budget restauraunts, because costs must be split evenly. However, if you guys decide that your wife will foot a larger percentage of the cost of living (which is what a progressive tax does), BOTH of you can now enjoy a nice big house, nice cars, nice vacations, and nice meals, even though you make substantially less than her. As a result, BOTH of you are better off, even though she paid more. The same concept applies to public goods and taxation. By having a flat tax, we would not be able to pay for many of the public goods we have now, and we would all be worse off.

I hope all of that made sense.

This assumes that:
1. Everyone who is taxed wants the same public good/service. Does your wife want to pay for something that she will never use?

2. Everyone is willing to pay for someone else's use of a public good/service. Does your wife want to pay for your vacation to Tahiti? Sure! Does your ex-wife want to pay for your vacation to Tahiti? Probably not.

1. You are correct, but in many public goods, we do not get a choice. We'll have police, whether you want them or not.

2. That's what a public good is, and we do it all the time. I pay my taxes for the police, but I haven't called on them once for anything, although I'm sure others have. Is it worth it? Sure, the safety definately offsets the cost of having police, even though I may not "use" their services as much as others. My example of the couple was just an analogy to try to make the point clearer (of course an ex wouldn't want to pay for you ).

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
CWRMadcat: cute analogy, but faulty. You fail to take into account the sheer number of wage-earners that are exempt or that pay comparatively very low percentages of income in taxes. You also fail to take into account the inefficiency of such a complicated system, and the number and variety of exemptions available to the wealthy.

Take a look at

Optimal Taxation and Optimal Tax Systems, Joel Slemrod, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Winter, 1990), pp. 157-178.

Financing Public Goods, Russell D. Roberts, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 95, No. 2. (Apr., 1987), pp. 420-437.

Tax-Based Incomes Policies, Laurence S. Seidman; Robert J. Gordon; Arthur M. Okun, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1978, No. 2. (1978), pp. 301-361.

On Tax Reform, W.E. Diewert, The Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1. (Feb., 1988), pp. 1-40.

Prospects for Fundamental Tax Reform:The Future of Fundamental Tax Reform, Alan J. Auerbach, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1997), pp. 143-146.

Prospects for Fundamental Tax Reform: Deconstructing the Income Tax, Joel Slemrod, The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1997), pp. 151-155.

Lots of random crap to read through, I know.

I'll be sure to look into all that, time permitting. I do agree progressive taxation isn't perfect, and as you say, there are inefficiencies, but the same can be said for taxes in general. Especially for goods, unless the demand or supply for a specific good is perfectly inelastic, inefficiency results.

But the alternative of a head tax imho seems to be a worse solution to providing for the public domain. Everyone would have to live at the lowest common denominator because setting a flat tax geared toward the median level of income would make it impossible for people under the median income to pay their taxes, while the extremely wealthy would cruise on by. The only way you could have poor people paying their fair share of taxes under regressive taxation would be to place a tax level that they could actually pay. The result is that you'll have a lot of people with more money on their hands, but public goods will fall into the hole.

This is of course, just my point of view. If people were actually able to find that perfect tax system, we'd all be living in a utopian society.

 

[CWRMadcat]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Regarding this stat:
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%

I think that's misleading, as there are other ways to gain income that are not classified as wages. In addition, by just focusing on income tax (the most progressive of taxes here in the US) and not the total tax burden (including sales taxes and other regressive taxes) gives the false impression that the rich are overtaxed, when in reality they pay roughly the same percentage of their income to taxes as everyone else (as reflected in the NYTimes chart).

This misunderstanding leads to comments like this from Caddy:

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.

The rich and poor are taxed exactly the same on thier first $6000 of income, on their first $26,250 of income, and so on as pointed out earlier in the thread.

You seem to misunderstand my point just as the rest of the people here. The Left seems to think that for some reason the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" but that figure puts that assertion in question since it is pretty much the only truely income based tax. 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". Now again - nobody seems to want to show that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" - they just want to keep repeating the same old "lets tax the rich" whining.

Also if you have a problem with those stats - go find some to refute them Say "taxable income" numbers I'd be willing to bet that the figures don't change much.

It's nice to see that class warfare is still alive and well in this country

CkG

How typical - any discussion of taxes elicits an accusation of class warfare. Yes, class warfare is still alive and well in this country. Look at Bush's tax cuts for example.
How is including sales tax and other non-income based taxes into the mix not "honest"? They're still taxes after all, and to a poor person sales tax could be a very significant portion of their tax burden. Why is looking at this total tax burden not honest??
I never said that the rich don't pay their "fair share," but which group is more capable at paying taxes??

Well, I think when you try to mix regressive and progressive tax data, you're going to get inconsistent numbers. IMHO, you'll be far better off analyzing it separately, because regressive taxes combined with progressive taxes will make it seem like poor people are overtaxed, and the rich are not, simply because the inclusion of the regressive taxes will inflate the percentage of tax/income for the poor, and reduce it for the rich, leaving it open to misinterpretation. For example, 1000 in sales taxes is a much larger percentage of a poor persons' disposable income as opposed to someone who is wealthy.

In terms of capability...well...thats a bit of a relative term...everyone who makes money is capable of paying taxes, it's the level of disadvantage it might cause that's more of an issue.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
Regarding this stat:
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%

I think that's misleading, as there are other ways to gain income that are not classified as wages. In addition, by just focusing on income tax (the most progressive of taxes here in the US) and not the total tax burden (including sales taxes and other regressive taxes) gives the false impression that the rich are overtaxed, when in reality they pay roughly the same percentage of their income to taxes as everyone else (as reflected in the NYTimes chart).

This misunderstanding leads to comments like this from Caddy:

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.

The rich and poor are taxed exactly the same on thier first $6000 of income, on their first $26,250 of income, and so on as pointed out earlier in the thread.

You seem to misunderstand my point just as the rest of the people here. The Left seems to think that for some reason the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" but that figure puts that assertion in question since it is pretty much the only truely income based tax. 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". Now again - nobody seems to want to show that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" - they just want to keep repeating the same old "lets tax the rich" whining.

Also if you have a problem with those stats - go find some to refute them Say "taxable income" numbers I'd be willing to bet that the figures don't change much.

It's nice to see that class warfare is still alive and well in this country

CkG

How typical - any discussion of taxes elicits an accusation of class warfare. Yes, class warfare is still alive and well in this country. Look at Bush's tax cuts for example.
How is including sales tax and other non-income based taxes into the mix not "honest"? They're still taxes after all, and to a poor person sales tax could be a very significant portion of their tax burden. Why is looking at this total tax burden not honest??
I never said that the rich don't pay their "fair share," but which group is more capable at paying taxes??

Class warfare is still being used by the left today. People rail against Bush's tax-cuts as only benefitting the rich - pure unadulterated hogwash.

Looking at non income based taxes in a income bracket mindset is misleading(dishonest), since income doesn't play a factor in the rate of the tax.

The Democrats sure are claiming that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" - infact LIEberman came out and said he wanted to raise taxes on the "rich" the other dwarves only want to increase taxes on the rich while hiding behind the wording "repealing tax cuts"

You can't spin the Democrats out of this one - they most definately are playing a class warfare game.
I should think that anyone who is employed and earns a paycheck is capable of paying taxes, no? Heck even those who no longer wish/have to work are capable of paying taxes no? Basically anyone who has money is capable. Now your point seems to be that "it won't affect their lifestyle as much", and to that I say - so? If they already pay their "fair share" why should they have to pay more just because they "can"?...or don't you think they already pay their "fair share"?

CkG

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

"...pure unadulterated hogwash."

lol

Shouldn't you be russlin' up chickens or something?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Class warfare is still being used by the left today. People rail against Bush's tax-cuts as only benefitting the rich - pure unadulterated hogwash.

Looking at non income based taxes in a income bracket mindset is misleading(dishonest), since income doesn't play a factor in the rate of the tax.

The Democrats sure are claiming that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" - infact LIEberman came out and said he wanted to raise taxes on the "rich" the other dwarves only want to increase taxes on the rich while hiding behind the wording "repealing tax cuts"

You can't spin the Democrats out of this one - they most definately are playing a class warfare game.
I should think that anyone who is employed and earns a paycheck is capable of paying taxes, no? Heck even those who no longer wish/have to work are capable of paying taxes no? Basically anyone who has money is capable. Now your point seems to be that "it won't affect their lifestyle as much", and to that I say - so? If they already pay their "fair share" why should they have to pay more just because they "can"?...or don't you think they already pay their "fair share"?

CkG

Who gets the most out of Bush's tax cuts?? The rich, by a huge margin. Don't believe me? Look at the numbers (and these don't even factor in the second round of tax cuts). How is raising taxes on the rich "class warfare," but cutting taxes on the rich not? What is your definition of "class warfare" other than a buzzword to smear democratic party members??

Why is it misleading to look at taxes where income doesn't play a factor in the rate of tax? Please be more specific.

 

[Tom]

"How is raising taxes on the rich "class warfare," but cutting taxes on the rich not? "

aye, there's the rub..

 

[naddicott]

Fair shmair. Life isn't fair.

I would like to see inter-generational fairness, but it appears America is content to let its children and grandchildren foot the bill for current unfunded spending.

I like the idea of kicking around working single parents as much as the next neo-con, but the fact is the poor don't have much money that can be squeezed out of them. The rich, however, have some breathing room. They used to tolerate closer to 70% tax rates in the past and didn't leave. Why? Because they still had no problem maintaining a high standard of living and increasing their wealth.

Keep raising the taxes on the rich until they start leaving the country in large numbers, then pull back the rates a little and we'll have it about right, IMO. It may not be that much of a tax hike since U.S. tax cuts on upper rates appears to have triggered the equivalent of a price war with other developed nations for the "most favorable tax climate for the rich".

Even better - we should reduce government spending at the same time as we raise enough tax revenue to pay as we go, but regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power, meaningful spending cuts are not likely to happen soon.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
"...pure unadulterated hogwash."

lol

Shouldn't you be russlin' up chickens or something?

Nope - I'm just from frum uhp heyar een Eyeohway.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Class warfare is still being used by the left today. People rail against Bush's tax-cuts as only benefitting the rich - pure unadulterated hogwash.

Looking at non income based taxes in a income bracket mindset is misleading(dishonest), since income doesn't play a factor in the rate of the tax.

The Democrats sure are claiming that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" - infact LIEberman came out and said he wanted to raise taxes on the "rich" the other dwarves only want to increase taxes on the rich while hiding behind the wording "repealing tax cuts"

You can't spin the Democrats out of this one - they most definately are playing a class warfare game.
I should think that anyone who is employed and earns a paycheck is capable of paying taxes, no? Heck even those who no longer wish/have to work are capable of paying taxes no? Basically anyone who has money is capable. Now your point seems to be that "it won't affect their lifestyle as much", and to that I say - so? If they already pay their "fair share" why should they have to pay more just because they "can"?...or don't you think they already pay their "fair share"?

CkG

Who gets the most out of Bush's tax cuts?? The rich, by a huge margin. Don't believe me? Look at the numbers (and these don't even factor in the second round of tax cuts). How is raising taxes on the rich "class warfare," but cutting taxes on the rich not? What is your definition of "class warfare" other than a buzzword to smear democratic party members??

Why is it misleading to look at taxes where income doesn't play a factor in the rate of tax? Please be more specific.

Obviously the rich get "more" of the tax cut They only PAY MOST OF THE TAXES. Cripes - how hard is that to understand?

The reason one is "class warfare" is because Bush's cuts weren't ONLY for the rich, while the Democrats are calling for the rich to pay their "fair share" and want to increase only their taxes because "they can". Bush's did help those in the poor and middle class levels, but obviously since the dollar amount doesn't equal that of the "rich" it must only be a cut for the rich

Class warfare in the tax sense is what I have stated. It pits the "poor and middle class" against the rich. The Democrats use that to say the rich need to pay more because they have more, yet still try to say the rich should pay their "fair share". What exactly is "fair" to a democrat? Nobody has come up with an answer yet. Just more BS spew to run things around in a circle.

Once more for the "challenged" - putting non income based taxes into income groups is wrong. The data doesn't fit. Overall I suppose you could get an estimate, but it still wouldn't be accurate since the tax rate or amount isn't income dependant. It's like saying you paid $12 a pound for fruit when only your bananas were charged at a per pound price and the rest was charged as a qty. item. The amount is based on entirely different data. Got it yet? That is why when you look at income levels and amounts you need to look at income bases numbers.

I'm not advocating the lowering of taxes for the rich - I just want to know why you(and/or democrats) think they don't already pay their "fair share" and why they constantly want to raise(repeal:roll) taxes on them.

CkG

 

[Tom]

"Once more for the "challenged" - putting non income based taxes into income groups is wrong. "

But then you are ignoring the fact that fees, sales tax, and property tax for basic necessities aren't voluntary, they're a necessity, and the less income you have the greater the percentage of that income goes to paying those taxes.

So not including them when discussing tax fairness, means you aren't really discussing fairness in terms of the entire picture.

Which makes the discussion about fairness pointless.

And lets look at Bush's tax cut, what if instead of changing tax rates, you took the whole amount, divided it by the number of people and gave everybody the same dollar amount ?

You will say that isn't fair because the rich paid more, so they should get more back. But it's just as valid to look at it the other way and say that either way you did it, the rich would have more income left after taxes than the poor, so why isn't that arguably just as fair ?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Once more for the "challenged" - putting non income based taxes into income groups is wrong. "

But then you are ignoring the fact that fees, sales tax, and property tax for basic necessities aren't voluntary, they're a necessity, and the less income you have the greater the percentage of that income goes to paying those taxes.

So not including them when discussing tax fairness, means you aren't really discussing fairness in terms of the entire picture.

Which makes the discussion about fairness pointless.

And lets look at Bush's tax cut, what if instead of changing tax rates, you took the whole amount, divided it by the number of people and gave everybody the same dollar amount ?

You will say that isn't fair because the rich paid more, so they should get more back. But it's just as valid to look at it the other way and say that either way you did it, the rich would have more income left after taxes than the poor, so why isn't that arguably just as fair ?

No numbers have been put to those "other taxes" so all we have so far is Income tax. Now if you'd kindly post some verifiable numbers as to the other taxes we can discuss fairness. - see this is exactly my point - YOU and the democrats can't provide the data and instead just use it as a cop out when someone brings up income taxes when you want to raise taxes on the rich. Remember - the democrats are the ones who keep saying that the rich don't pay their "fair share", all I'm asking is for them to show us some proof.

Bush's tax-cut: Why would you do that? Did everybody contribute an equal amount or even rate? (no on both) So then why should then get the same dollar amount back? It doesn't matter that they still have more - they earn more - so they will have more Are you trying to advocate that everyone makes the same amount of money? How absurd. Should those that pay little or no income taxes get refunded more than they pay in?(which happens with EIC:|)
Class envy anyone?

CkG

 

[Crapgame]

oh no

 

[Tom]

"Are you trying to advocate that everyone makes the same amount of money?"

No I'm not, I used a very specific example.

But let's turn your question around, do you think everybody should pay the same dollar amount in taxes ? Why wouldn't that be fair ?

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Obviously the rich get "more" of the tax cut They only PAY MOST OF THE TAXES. Cripes - how hard is that to understand?

The reason one is "class warfare" is because Bush's cuts weren't ONLY for the rich, while the Democrats are calling for the rich to pay their "fair share" and want to increase only their taxes because "they can". Bush's did help those in the poor and middle class levels, but obviously since the dollar amount doesn't equal that of the "rich" it must only be a cut for the rich

Class warfare in the tax sense is what I have stated. It pits the "poor and middle class" against the rich. The Democrats use that to say the rich need to pay more because they have more, yet still try to say the rich should pay their "fair share". What exactly is "fair" to a democrat? Nobody has come up with an answer yet. Just more BS spew to run things around in a circle.

Once more for the "challenged" - putting non income based taxes into income groups is wrong. The data doesn't fit. Overall I suppose you could get an estimate, but it still wouldn't be accurate since the tax rate or amount isn't income dependant. It's like saying you paid $12 a pound for fruit when only your bananas were charged at a per pound price and the rest was charged as a qty. item. The amount is based on entirely different data. Got it yet? That is why when you look at income levels and amounts you need to look at income bases numbers.

I'm not advocating the lowering of taxes for the rich - I just want to know why you(and/or democrats) think they don't already pay their "fair share" and why they constantly want to raise(repeal:roll) taxes on them.

CkG

The rich also saw their tax rates reduced more than everyone else. The repeal of dividend and estate taxes also greatly favors the rich (top 20%). So the Bush tax cut is "class warfare" by your definition - its favoring one income group more than the rest.
What is "fair." Well I say there should be a new 50% marginal rate tax bracket starting at $750k or $1mil. This is fair in my mind.

As far as the comparing all taxes across income groups, you still haven't said what is wrong with it. You say "the data doesn't fit," but this does nothing to explain why the data doesn't fit and why this is wrong. You can estimate how much one particular income bracket will pay in sales tax and other non income based taxes to come up with total taxes paid. What is wrong with this?? How is this not valid??

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No numbers have been put to those "other taxes" so all we have so far is Income tax. Now if you'd kindly post some verifiable numbers as to the other taxes we can discuss fairness. - see this is exactly my point - YOU and the democrats can't provide the data and instead just use it as a cop out when someone brings up income taxes when you want to raise taxes on the rich. Remember - the democrats are the ones who keep saying that the rich don't pay their "fair share", all I'm asking is for them to show us some proof.

How are these numbers not verifiable??

 

[rjain]

The poor have less discretionary income so they pay less sales tax.

No one is advocating that everyone pay the same amount of money in taxes. Stop floundering, it's not attractive.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Class envy... that's pretty low CAD, even for you. Here, we've illustrated the disparity of living standards between the have's and the have-not's and as if that weren't hard enough to swallow you then flout the superiority of the rich if to further emphasize how worthless the "un-rich" are. That is elitism at it's best, my man. Kudos.