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

[rjain]

Amazing that people who pay almost no income tax manage to spend almost 18% of their money on sales, property, and utility taxes. I don't get it. Why would they live in expensive homes and use ridiculous amounts of energy? Or is this figure distorted by the retired?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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??

I didn't say they weren't. But you see, it only goes to show that the "rich" do pay their fair share and do infact pay the most according to that breakdown

Got any real info though? I see a graph and some numbers but remember - graphs can be made to show pretty much anything you want them to and this one shows very little data.

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: 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.

Wow. Now that's a totally random remark.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"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 ?

No, people shouldn't pay the same dollar amount in taxes. Rate? maybe, but it depends on quite a few things

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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??

Sure - if you want to push for a new 50% rate - go ahead if you think that is "fair".

Did you not read my fruit analogy? It is very similar to that. The outcome statement lumps two different structures into one and gives them the same heading Do you pay $12/lb for fruit if you buy bananas and 2 pinapples? No, you pay $.49/lb for the bananas and $15 each for the pinapples(i have no idea what a whole pinapple costs, but just say they are $15). The numbers here aren't the important part - the way they are priced is though. Lumping pinapple(cost per qty) in with a weighted item and then stating only a per lb rate for the total is assinine. Yes you can do it but you in no way are being accurate if you break that back down since your pinapples aren't the same weight.

Got it yet?

CkG

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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?[b/][u/]

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

You're higher than Rush Limbaugh in a Mexican Pharmacy, Cad. Bush's tax cuts favored the rich because the majority of the cuts were targeted at individuals in the top income brackets. That whole argument about the "rich get more of the tax cut because they pay more taxes" is pure crap.

 

[rjain]

CAD: Think of the EIC as an end-of-year bonus for having little or no economic effect. Must have been Greenspan's idea.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

what? I am by no means "rich"

There is no question that there is a standard of living issue, but what does that have to do with making the "rich" have to pay for everything or paying their "fair share"? I don't understand where you get off saying that I "flout" the superiority of the rich to show the worthlessness of the "poor". hehe - you don't have a clue really. Come back when you get a clue though, it's great to see people learning.
Can you please tell me how it is that the rich don't pay their fair share? Really, because if you or anyone else can show me how the rich aren't paying their "fair share" I'll gladly join in the "tax the rich" chant because I certainly am not "rich" and I don't like paying taxes

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You're higher than Rush Limbaugh in a Mexican Pharmacy, Cad. Bush's tax cuts favored the rich because the majority of the cuts were targeted at individuals in the top income brackets. That whole argument about the "rich get more of the tax cut because they pay more taxes" is pure crap.

nice to see you back DM

No it's not "pure crap". Did the working "poor" benefit? (yes) Did the working middle class benefit? (yes) Did the working "rich" benefit? (yes). All of their income tax rates went down(except the 10% bracket but they shouldn't end up paying income tax in the end anyway if they file their taxes correctly)
So please tell me again that it is only for the rich

Anyone have a guess at what you have to make(AGI) to be in the top 10% of wage earners("rich")?
The numbers(if you actually look at them) are quite interesting.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: 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??

Sure - if you want to push for a new 50% rate - go ahead if you think that is "fair".

Did you not read my fruit analogy? It is very similar to that. The outcome statement lumps two different structures into one and gives them the same heading Do you pay $12/lb for fruit if you buy bananas and 2 pinapples? No, you pay $.49/lb for the bananas and $15 each for the pinapples(i have no idea what a whole pinapple costs, but just say they are $15). The numbers here aren't the important part - the way they are priced is though. Lumping pinapple(cost per qty) in with a weighted item and then stating only a per lb rate for the total is assinine. Yes you can do it but you in no way are being accurate if you break that back down since your pinapples aren't the same weight.

Got it yet?

CkG

The top marginal rate in the 50's and 60's was over 70%, so yes, I think it is fair to have add a new bracket at 50%.
As far as your fruit analogy goes, I still don't see how it is wrong to estimate total taxes paid for each income group and then comparing the taxes with the income of that group. It doesn't matter that taxes are paid in different forms.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
The top marginal rate in the 50's and 60's was over 70%, so yes, I think it is fair to have add a new bracket at 50%.
As far as your fruit analogy goes, I still don't see how it is wrong to estimate total taxes paid for each income group and then comparing the taxes with the income of that group. It doesn't matter that taxes are paid in different forms.

I give up. You obviously won't admit my point. I've already stated that as an overview it might be possible but it isn't an accurate representation of income categories. As other's have pointed out, if a "rich" person lives in a small house they pay less in property taxes which skews the overall numbers The same goes for the other "taxes" that aren't income level based.

I still haven't heard a good reason why it is "fair" for the "rich" to pay more of their income in taxes.

CkG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
The top marginal rate in the 50's and 60's was over 70%, so yes, I think it is fair to have add a new bracket at 50%.
As far as your fruit analogy goes, I still don't see how it is wrong to estimate total taxes paid for each income group and then comparing the taxes with the income of that group. It doesn't matter that taxes are paid in different forms.

I give up. You obviously won't admit my point. I've already stated that as an overview it might be possible but it isn't an accurate representation of income categories. As other's have pointed out, if a "rich" person lives in a small house they pay less in property taxes which skews the overall numbers The same goes for the other "taxes" that aren't income level based.

I still haven't heard a good reason why it is "fair" for the "rich" to pay more of their income in taxes.

CkG

I'm not admitting any point. You haven't proven anything. The only flaw in this type of comparison that you've pointed out is that it uses averages and there might be some exceptions to the averages (as the rich person living in a small house). But these exception go the other way (a poor person living in a big house) so its a wash. If you can't articulate your point, that's your own fault. The only explainations I've heard from you on why this is wrong is that "the data doesn't fit" and some fruit analogy.

 

[Tom]

"I still haven't heard a good reason why it is "fair" for the "rich" to pay more of their income in taxes."


one reason, because the economic system is imperfect. in a free market a person would earn income commensurate with demand for what they produce. but in the real world as soon as a person has earned more than someone else, and has a larger share of the whole pie, he gains an additional advantage over others because he has more than his share of the market. This affect is easy to see once it reaches big enough proportions, like Microsoft for example, where at least part of their share of the operating system is based on them already controlling more of the market than other Os's.

So in other words, wealthy people derive advantages from being wealthy that are greater than a straight percentage difference compared to less wealthy people.

And only part of their wealth is "earned" in the normal sense of the word, part of it is just a reward for having a larger share of the distorted market.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jahawkin
The top marginal rate in the 50's and 60's was over 70%, so yes, I think it is fair to have add a new bracket at 50%.
As far as your fruit analogy goes, I still don't see how it is wrong to estimate total taxes paid for each income group and then comparing the taxes with the income of that group. It doesn't matter that taxes are paid in different forms.

I give up. You obviously won't admit my point. I've already stated that as an overview it might be possible but it isn't an accurate representation of income categories. As other's have pointed out, if a "rich" person lives in a small house they pay less in property taxes which skews the overall numbers The same goes for the other "taxes" that aren't income level based.

I still haven't heard a good reason why it is "fair" for the "rich" to pay more of their income in taxes.

CkG

I'm not admitting any point. You haven't proven anything. The only flaw in this type of comparison that you've pointed out is that it uses averages and there might be some exceptions to the averages (as the rich person living in a small house). But these exception go the other way (a poor person living in a big house) so its a wash. If you can't articulate your point, that's your own fault. The only explainations I've heard from you on why this is wrong is that "the data doesn't fit" and some fruit analogy.

I know you aren't admitting my point
I have yet to see any proof (besides a graph) that even comes close to analyzing the over all tax picture and the one you provided shows that the "rich" do infact pay more than others. So what I'm asking is how people can claim the rich don't pay their "fair share" when infact so far it looks to me like they do. How much more would be "fair"? And why does the amount of money one has or earns mean that they should pay more(percentage and amount) than others?
I wonder what a stats analyst would say about the validity of your statement versus mine and what conclusions can be drawn from each.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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.

But the poor pay a greater portion of their income as sales tax since most of their income goes to the purchase of goods and services. Sales tax is a regressive tax. As a percentage of overall income, the poor pay more, i.e., their effective rate is higher.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"I still haven't heard a good reason why it is "fair" for the "rich" to pay more of their income in taxes."


one reason, because the economic system is imperfect. in a free market a person would earn income commensurate with demand for what they produce. but in the real world as soon as a person has earned more than someone else, and has a larger share of the whole pie, he gains an additional advantage over others because he has more than his share of the market. This affect is easy to see once it reaches big enough proportions, like Microsoft for example, where at least part of their share of the operating system is based on them already controlling more of the market than other Os's.

So in other words, wealthy people derive advantages from being wealthy that are greater than a straight percentage difference compared to less wealthy people.

And only part of their wealth is "earned" in the normal sense of the word, part of it is just a reward for having a larger share of the distorted market.

so it's fair because our economic system is "imperfect"? What is the incentive for people to try and acheive wealth if they only stand to be "punished" for doing so? Obviously having more money is a reason but why should you have to pay more(percentage) than someone else? To "even the field"? Sounds a bit like socialism to me.

Incase you guys haven't been paying attention, I'm not advocating that everyone pay the same amount(rate) and I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't pay more of their income, but again - why since they already pay more of their earnings should only their taxes be increasec like the current democrats want to do? What would make it a "fair share" and why?

The truth of the matter is that the "rich" pay for almost everything that happens in the gov't and I don't believe that forcing them to pay for more of it is the answer. I'm a reduce gov't spending type of person which is my driving force behind this debate. The gov't has gotten too fat for it's wallet and I don't think hitting the "rich" up all the time is the answer.

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Sure - if you want to push for a new 50% rate - go ahead if you think that is "fair".

Did you not read my fruit analogy? It is very similar to that. The outcome statement lumps two different structures into one and gives them the same heading Do you pay $12/lb for fruit if you buy bananas and 2 pinapples? No, you pay $.49/lb for the bananas and $15 each for the pinapples(i have no idea what a whole pinapple costs, but just say they are $15). The numbers here aren't the important part - the way they are priced is though. Lumping pinapple(cost per qty) in with a weighted item and then stating only a per lb rate for the total is assinine. Yes you can do it but you in no way are being accurate if you break that back down since your pinapples aren't the same weight.

Got it yet?

CkG

and yet income, sales, property, gas, and every other tax is still paid out of INCOME. using OVERALL tax burden as a percentage of income is FAR more HONEST than not doing so.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Po Po Rich Man, taxes are dragging them into Poverty.

Yep, cause it will be sooooo much better when we're all poor, right?

Even with the current "unfair" Tax system, that will never happen. It's the poor getting poorer, not the rich.

 

[Tom]

"so it's fair because our economic system is "imperfect"? "

I didn't say it's fair, I said it's complicated, too complicated to necessarily say that Bush's tax cut made it more fair, it may have made it less fair.


"What is the incentive for people to try and acheive wealth if they only stand to be "punished" for doing so? Obviously having more money is a reason but why should you have to pay more(percentage) than someone else?"

The wealthy don't pay more on the same income. Everybody pays the same percentage bracket to bracket, it's just that some people have enough income to get into the next higher bracket.

"To "even the field"? Sounds a bit like socialism to me."

Not at all. It's because the principals of any economic system, including capitalism, are impossible to be fully realized in the real world. The real market where people earn their income isn't a true free market, because that's impossible to achieve.

So you can't achieve a perfectly fair tax system if you are starting from an imperfect market, by pretending that the market is perfect.

 

[sandorski]

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.

Good points.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Sure - if you want to push for a new 50% rate - go ahead if you think that is "fair".

Did you not read my fruit analogy? It is very similar to that. The outcome statement lumps two different structures into one and gives them the same heading Do you pay $12/lb for fruit if you buy bananas and 2 pinapples? No, you pay $.49/lb for the bananas and $15 each for the pinapples(i have no idea what a whole pinapple costs, but just say they are $15). The numbers here aren't the important part - the way they are priced is though. Lumping pinapple(cost per qty) in with a weighted item and then stating only a per lb rate for the total is assinine. Yes you can do it but you in no way are being accurate if you break that back down since your pinapples aren't the same weight.

Got it yet?

CkG

and yet income, sales, property, gas, and every other tax is still paid out of INCOME. using OVERALL tax burden as a percentage of income is FAR more HONEST than not doing so.

<sigh> - yes yes - keep trying to dance around the subject. Lets see some numbers and lets try to decipher them to see what qualifies as "fair share". At this point we have nothing except actual data from income tax(2001 recently became available).
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. Now like I said - as an over all picture it may come close, but it still needs to be put in the context of not being income based.

CkG

 

[Tom]

I wish I could sell you some pineapples.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
I wish I could sell you some pineapples.

well, if I was "rich" I would probably buy them for $15

CkG

 

[sandorski]

It seems to me that these subjects always get dumbed down and ignore the complexity. As a result, we get a lot of meaingless statistics, moral judgements(fairness), weak analogies, and words such as "Socialism" get thrown around with wild abandon. Let us consider a few things:

1) Is Income Tax the only Tax?
2) Are there taxes that one class pays, but not the other?
3) Are the Rich over burdened? (unable to support themselves, losing worth)
4) If a Flat Income Tax was implemented, wouldn't the Statistics still show the Rich paying a greater Total Amount of Income Tax?

Part of the problem with this issue, it seems to me, lies in the lack of understanding what "Rich" means. Certainly there is a Number that denotes the difference(don't know what it is officially) and that number is relatively close to the Middle Class/Lower Class number(likely from $1-$100,000 depending on whom you compare to), so by definition one would be alarmed that going over that threshhold suddenly increases ones' burden dramatically. However, the Income levels are not as narrowly focussed in Reality as the definitions would seem to indicate.

The definitions certainly apply to the majority of persons, but the Real World has a large segment of the population who make much more. These people are making 10x-100x more, in many cases, then the "Rich" threshhold, as such they skew the statistics of the category "Rich". This skewing is unique to the Rich, as they are the only group that have only 1 boundary(the Lowend of $X).

1) Lower Class: $0-$X(I'll assume somewhere between $10k-$20k)
2) Middle Class: $Upper Limit of Lower Class +$1 to $X(I'll assume $80k-$100k)
3) Upper Class: $Upper Limit of Middle Class + $1 to Infinity(no limit)

There are certainly more than 3 distinctions according to the Tax Code, but when these discussions come up everyone(left/right) like to simplify the issue to a point where their supporting evidence is often totally meaningless. There may very well be an Unfair burden on some "Rich", at the Lower End of the definition, but to lump those in with the Super Rich(which happens) and treat them all as a homogenous group is disingenuous.