Who isn't paying "their fair share"?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: gardener
Raise the top marginal rates back to those in the 1950s, you know, the good old days of meat, potatoes, and the missionary position.

1950's : 91%

Today: 35%

Dont forget the lowest bracket in the 1950s was 22%, not 10% like it is today.

If pay/salaries (for the average working class person) actually kept up with inflation over all those years that wouldn't have had to change.

You can partly blame govt policy on that and changing dynamics of the American household.

Of course, the people at the top of corporate america have absolutely nothing to do with that, right? They would *NEVER* place profits (or their own personal bonuses) over salary increases for the rank-and-file employees.

I was thinking more along the lines of inflationary pressures from govt deficit spending and two income households. But there is also another major component in healthcare costs that have stagnated income.

But there is of course the problem of corporatism that is creeping its head at an accelerating rate in this country as well.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Patranus
This has nothing to do with what group 'earned' their income, it has to do with...well...'paying their fair share' of the total tax burden. 45% of Americans pay NOTHING.

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Patranus
When Liberals say that its time for the 'rich' and 'middle class' to pay "their fair share", what do they really mean by that?

Do they mean the "fair share" paid by the 45% of Americans who do not pay taxes?

People usually forget sales and payroll taxes...

http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/...ressive-are-our-taxes/

 

[Via]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Via

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Via
Lesser income people don't pay taxes? I wish I had known about this shit a while ago.

When I was a grad student in the 90s I made between 12000-15000 a year from my assistantships and other part time jobs and I sure as hell wasn't a zero liability.

My dad's accountant handled my taxes for free as a favor and I paid every fricking year on top of what was withheld.

Hell, I make about 50,000 now and I still pay a shitload of taxes every year.

Either you are taking something like 999 deductions on your W2 or your dads tax man is horrible at his job. Paying in on top of witholding on 15,000 dollars in wages? Only if they simply witheld nothing.

Nope, no special deductions or anything. I always ended up paying a few hundred bucks on tax day.

Uh huh, my wife and I clear about 4x income after taxes and recieve a refund check. You arent having enough witheld from your check if you are paying in at the end of the year. At 15K, that would basically mean nothing is being witheld except FICA.

I used to make about as much as you in college and never had to pay in. What other income are you reporting at the end of the year? Scholarship, grants, unpaid compensation, working as a bartender\wait staff?

When did you go to college?

My girlfriend in 1998 made less than I did and had to come up with some obscure $500 education credit to not owe anything.

She filed on the IRS website. I was siting next to her when she did it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Via

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Via

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Via
Lesser income people don't pay taxes? I wish I had known about this shit a while ago.

When I was a grad student in the 90s I made between 12000-15000 a year from my assistantships and other part time jobs and I sure as hell wasn't a zero liability.

My dad's accountant handled my taxes for free as a favor and I paid every fricking year on top of what was withheld.

Hell, I make about 50,000 now and I still pay a shitload of taxes every year.

Either you are taking something like 999 deductions on your W2 or your dads tax man is horrible at his job. Paying in on top of witholding on 15,000 dollars in wages? Only if they simply witheld nothing.

Nope, no special deductions or anything. I always ended up paying a few hundred bucks on tax day.

Uh huh, my wife and I clear about 4x income after taxes and recieve a refund check. You arent having enough witheld from your check if you are paying in at the end of the year. At 15K, that would basically mean nothing is being witheld except FICA.

I used to make about as much as you in college and never had to pay in. What other income are you reporting at the end of the year? Scholarship, grants, unpaid compensation, working as a bartender\wait staff?

When did you go to college?

My girlfriend in 1998 made less than I did and had to come up with some obscure $500 education credit to not owe anything.

She filed on the IRS website. I was siting next to her when she did it.

1996-2001

I have no idea how you are paying in at the end of the year unless you have nothing witheld or declaring untaxed income at the end of the year like scholarship, gift money, grants, tips, ect ect.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Those that pay zero federal income taxes dont pay their fair share.

Give me more money. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes.

or you could earn it... you know like regular people. give you money? no thanks.

People are earning it but they just aren't being paid for what they are earning. The number of hours worked per week over the years has been steadily increasing in trend that disproportionately outpaces the amount of income people are bringing home. It's not that hard to comprehend really. . .taxes go up, inflation goes up, general cost of living goes up, cost of education goes up, health care goes up, all faster than wages go up. Net effect, lower standard of living for working people. We're earning it, we're just not being paid what's due.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
... What I have said numerous times is I'd like to see the lowest tax rate something like .5 or 1%. When I grew up, I learned to value a dollar. I learned that nothing comes for free, and if you GET something, you should GIVE something in return. Sometimes its proportional, sometimes its not.

Whats so unfair about that? Give those that use our tax money the most some ownership. Thanks for trying to demonize me though. Piss poor attempt.

Shocked.

I 100% agree with BlackAngst1 on this one topic. That very nearly everyone should pay something.


Here are the brackets I'd propose:

---- top rate ----
50.00% - 50.0M+
48.00% - 25.0M+
46.00% - 10.0M+
44.00% - 5.0M+
42.00% - 2.5M+
---- divider ----
40.00% - 1.0M+
35.00% - 500k+
30.00% - 250k+
20.00% - 100k+
15.00% - 50k+
10.00% - 25k+
05.00% - 10K+
02.50% - 5K+
01.25% - 2.5K+
00.75% - 1K+
00.00% - 0+
---- bottom rate ----

Above the divider, you no longer get any deductions of any kind, as you have made more in one year than the average american makes in his life.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Patranus
When Liberals say that its time for the 'rich' and 'middle class' to pay "their fair share", what do they really mean by that?

Do they mean the "fair share" paid by the 45% of Americans who do not pay taxes?

I pay more taxes than most people because I am single and make more money than average. I do not mind because I have really benefitted from growing up and living in this country.

I have talked to people who are resentful because they have to pay taxes even though they have benefitted in a similar manner from living in the US. I have given up talking these people about taxes and politics in general.

Is this a liberal vs conservative issue?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Genx87
Thank you for not even trying to address my question and instead bantor on about the rich owning multiple homes.

Why is it our progressive tax system has become more progressive, especially in the past 30 years, yet the gap continues to widen? We have effectively lopped off nearly 50% of workers from paying federal income taxes and put a larger burden on a small % to pay it all yet the gap continues to grow?

Because our system has become somewhat more "progressive" at the bottom and significantly less "progressive" at the top.

Exactly. America's tax "burden" has shifted more and more to the upper middle class and to a lesser extent, the middle class, while those at the bottom and the very top pay proportionately less, even as those at the very top have taken more and more.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Those that pay zero federal income taxes dont pay their fair share.

Give me more money. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes.

or you could earn it... you know like regular people. give you money? no thanks.

People are earning it but they just aren't being paid for what they are earning. The number of hours worked per week over the years has been steadily increasing in trend that disproportionately outpaces the amount of income people are bringing home. It's not that hard to comprehend really. . .taxes go up, inflation goes up, general cost of living goes up, cost of education goes up, health care goes up, all faster than wages go up. Net effect, lower standard of living for working people. We're earning it, we're just not being paid what's due.

.... wtf are you talking about? 2 1/2 years ago I filed taxes on 80k, for this year it's going to be 40k. why? i quit my old better paying job because i didn't feel i was getting paid what i deserved. know how much changed? i don't buy EVERYONE drinks now and i don't have as many toys. i can still pay my bills easily. maybe if people you know... had some sort of money management they wouldn't be crying so much and pointing the finger at others for their mistakes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Genx87
Thank you for not even trying to address my question and instead bantor on about the rich owning multiple homes.

Why is it our progressive tax system has become more progressive, especially in the past 30 years, yet the gap continues to widen? We have effectively lopped off nearly 50% of workers from paying federal income taxes and put a larger burden on a small % to pay it all yet the gap continues to grow?

Because our system has become somewhat more "progressive" at the bottom and significantly less "progressive" at the top.

Exactly. America's tax "burden" has shifted more and more to the upper middle class and to a lesser extent, the middle class, while those at the bottom and the very top pay proportionately less, even as those at the very top have taken more and more.

Not really. Those at the top still pay proportionately more for the dollars they earn. One would have to factor in cap gains(which isn't "earned" IMO) to come close to making your statement true. The further problem is the scale we are dealing with if you must include cap gains. Obviously those with more invested are going to have a larger percentage of lower rate via cap gains which would bring down their "effective" rate. So while you leftists love to try to make the claims - you do so dishonestly and/or without full explanation. The FACT is - taxes on EARNINGS are higher per dollar for the "rich" who you claim have "taken more and more".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Those that pay zero federal income taxes dont pay their fair share.

Give me more money. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes.

or you could earn it... you know like regular people. give you money? no thanks.

People are earning it but they just aren't being paid for what they are earning. The number of hours worked per week over the years has been steadily increasing in trend that disproportionately outpaces the amount of income people are bringing home. It's not that hard to comprehend really. . .taxes go up, inflation goes up, general cost of living goes up, cost of education goes up, health care goes up, all faster than wages go up. Net effect, lower standard of living for working people. We're earning it, we're just not being paid what's due.

.... wtf are you talking about? 2 1/2 years ago I filed taxes on 80k, for this year it's going to be 40k. why? i quit my old better paying job because i didn't feel i was getting paid what i deserved. know how much changed? i don't buy EVERYONE drinks now and i don't have as many toys. i can still pay my bills easily. maybe if people you know... had some sort of money management they wouldn't be crying so much and pointing the finger at others for their mistakes.

Pssttt. Personal responsibility isn't allowed in discussions here.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: ahurtt
People are earning it but they just aren't being paid for what they are earning. The number of hours worked per week over the years has been steadily increasing in trend that disproportionately outpaces the amount of income people are bringing home. It's not that hard to comprehend really. . .taxes go up, inflation goes up, general cost of living goes up, cost of education goes up, health care goes up, all faster than wages go up. Net effect, lower standard of living for working people. We're earning it, we're just not being paid what's due.

.... wtf are you talking about? 2 1/2 years ago I filed taxes on 80k, for this year it's going to be 40k. why? i quit my old better paying job because i didn't feel i was getting paid what i deserved. know how much changed? i don't buy EVERYONE drinks now and i don't have as many toys. i can still pay my bills easily. maybe if people you know... had some sort of money management they wouldn't be crying so much and pointing the finger at others for their mistakes.

Golly, gosh! And you're the center of the universe, and if it happened to you, it must be true for everyone else too. Right?

Get a clue. The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data." People on P&N make some of the dumbest, most illogical arguments.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ElFenix
fair share would be that people who make more in income pay at least the same in % terms as those who make less income than them.

Those who benefit the most out of living in American society should pay the most i.e. the Super Wealthy.After a 100 Mil it's just keeping score.

Ok, so how about this example:

Person #1: works tail off, builds a business from the ground up, employing many others, and now makes millions.

Person #2: never works, second generation welfare leach with 5 kids who are all on the dole from the government.

Who exactly is "benefitting" more? Who is paying their "fair share"?

#1

Uh... there were 2 questions there.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Genx87
Thank you for not even trying to address my question and instead bantor on about the rich owning multiple homes.

Why is it our progressive tax system has become more progressive, especially in the past 30 years, yet the gap continues to widen? We have effectively lopped off nearly 50% of workers from paying federal income taxes and put a larger burden on a small % to pay it all yet the gap continues to grow?

Because our system has become somewhat more "progressive" at the bottom and significantly less "progressive" at the top.

Exactly. America's tax "burden" has shifted more and more to the upper middle class and to a lesser extent, the middle class, while those at the bottom and the very top pay proportionately less, even as those at the very top have taken more and more.

Not really. Those at the top still pay proportionately more for the dollars they earn. One would have to factor in cap gains(which isn't "earned" IMO) to come close to making your statement true. The further problem is the scale we are dealing with if you must include cap gains. Obviously those with more invested are going to have a larger percentage of lower rate via cap gains which would bring down their "effective" rate. So while you leftists love to try to make the claims - you do so dishonestly and/or without full explanation. The FACT is - taxes on EARNINGS are higher per dollar for the "rich" who you claim have "taken more and more".

You really need to sign up for that remedial reading class we've discussed for so many years. A course in honest arguments might be nice too. First, the whole topic of whether capital gains deserve special treatment is a thread unto itself. Second, I never mentioned "earned" income. It's a duhversion you threw in. I talked about taxes, and what I said is 100% accurate. Third, even ignoring capital gains, the very wealthy have all sorts of ways to shelter income so they don't always pay at the highest marginal rate. The net effect of both is those at the very top do pay proportionately less in taxes than those in the upper middle class ... exactly as I said. Finally CAD, though I know you wing-nuts hate actual, objective data, it's not my claim the very rich have taken more and more. America has seen an ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the very top. It's a fact, as has been documented here many times.

Get well soon.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Even monkeys won't play games that are unfair. I think the left is very unwise not to see that the folk on the right think like monkeys. When I put my monkey cap on, I see, not folk who have to spend all they make to make others rich, but folk who are getting welfare and the perks of being an American, without contributing anything.

I say we do a couple of things. Nobody gets anything for nothing, that a job be given to every person, a job of some kind or another, and that from the proceeds of that job each person contribute something. This will not only provide more money to fatten the already haves, but eliminate dependent thinking. The function of government is to promote the general welfare and guaranteed work is how to do it. The body can't survive without sustenance and work is the means to that. The mind can't survive without concern for others, so some mandatory income taxes are the cure for that.

It makes little difference that folk pay taxes on stuff they buy if the money is stolen anyway.

That's a pretty good idea. We could control costs by having all the forced labor work in one place. We could call those places (for lack of a better word) "camps".
Several country's have done well with labor camps over the last century or so, Stalin really dialed in the idea, and there was a German fellow that did a lot with it as well. I think China is still working out the bugs in their version, but once they get the system purring it should be a good model for us to follow.

He said from his mental prison.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Genx87
Thank you for not even trying to address my question and instead bantor on about the rich owning multiple homes.

Why is it our progressive tax system has become more progressive, especially in the past 30 years, yet the gap continues to widen? We have effectively lopped off nearly 50% of workers from paying federal income taxes and put a larger burden on a small % to pay it all yet the gap continues to grow?

Because our system has become somewhat more "progressive" at the bottom and significantly less "progressive" at the top.

Exactly. America's tax "burden" has shifted more and more to the upper middle class and to a lesser extent, the middle class, while those at the bottom and the very top pay proportionately less, even as those at the very top have taken more and more.

Not really. Those at the top still pay proportionately more for the dollars they earn. One would have to factor in cap gains(which isn't "earned" IMO) to come close to making your statement true. The further problem is the scale we are dealing with if you must include cap gains. Obviously those with more invested are going to have a larger percentage of lower rate via cap gains which would bring down their "effective" rate. So while you leftists love to try to make the claims - you do so dishonestly and/or without full explanation. The FACT is - taxes on EARNINGS are higher per dollar for the "rich" who you claim have "taken more and more".

You really need to sign up for that remedial reading class we've discussed for so many years. A course in honest arguments might be nice too. First, the whole topic of whether capital gains deserve special treatment is a thread unto itself. Second, I never mentioned "earned" income. It's a duhversion you threw in. I talked about taxes, and what I said is 100% accurate. Thrid, even ignoring capital gains, the very wealthy have all sorts of ways to shelter income so they don't always pay at the highest marginal rate. The net effect of both is those at the very top do pay proportionately less in taxes than those in the upper middle class ... exactly as I said. Finally CAD, though I know you wing-nuts hate actual, objective data, it's not my claim the very rich have taken more and more. America has seen an ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the very top. It's a fact, as has been documented here many times.

Get well soon.

As to the remedial classes. I suggest you need to be the one signing up. If you look at what you commented on - you'll see that it was "federal income taxes". I bolded it for you.

And to address your other claims - you can try to spin it how you'd like but just because it's been concentrating doesn't mean it's a bad thing or wrong and it certainly doesn't mean they have "taken more and more". "Taken" from what? from whom? Are you saying that the top has "taken" from the middle or lower? Seems to me you and many other leftists don't seem to understand that things aren't static in terms of wealth. The pie can and has grown so the use of "taken" is dishonest unless you can show from whom or what it's been "taken" from.
Also, you might want to understand that "wealth" and "income" can be and are different.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Topic: Who isn't paying "their fair share"?


Effects of the 2001-Enacted Bush Tax Cuts in 2010

Average Income: $12,200 --------- Average Total Tax Cut: $98
(Less than $20,000)

Average Income: $27,500 --------- Average Total Tax Cut: $508
($20,000?36,000)

Average Income: $46,100 --------- Average Total Tax Cut: $791
($36,000?59,000)

Average Income: $75,800 --------- Average Total Tax Cut: $1,081
($59,000?97,000)

Average Income: $133,200 -------- Average Total Tax Cut: $1,225
($97,000?205,000)

Average Income: $296,000 -------- Average Total Tax Cut: $2,780
($205,000?518,000)

Average Income: $1,491,000 ------ Average Total Tax Cut: $85,002
($518,000 or more)



Bullet Points:

• From 2006 through 2009, the share of the Bush/GOP tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.

• By 2010, when all of the provisions of the Bush/GOP tax cuts (including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates) are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8% of the total tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.

I think that is very clear, P-Anus?


Do you have any questions?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Those that pay zero federal income taxes dont pay their fair share.

Give me more money. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes.

or you could earn it... you know like regular people. give you money? no thanks.

People are earning it but they just aren't being paid for what they are earning. The number of hours worked per week over the years has been steadily increasing in trend that disproportionately outpaces the amount of income people are bringing home. It's not that hard to comprehend really. . .taxes go up, inflation goes up, general cost of living goes up, cost of education goes up, health care goes up, all faster than wages go up. Net effect, lower standard of living for working people. We're earning it, we're just not being paid what's due.

.... wtf are you talking about? 2 1/2 years ago I filed taxes on 80k, for this year it's going to be 40k. why? i quit my old better paying job because i didn't feel i was getting paid what i deserved. know how much changed? i don't buy EVERYONE drinks now and i don't have as many toys. i can still pay my bills easily. maybe if people you know... had some sort of money management they wouldn't be crying so much and pointing the finger at others for their mistakes.

So if I take your meaning correctly you left an 80K per year job for a 40K per year job cutting you gross income by half. You took a 50% cut in pay. Are you now also working 50% fewer hours per week? If you are working anything more than 50% of the number of hours per week you used to work then you just took a pay cut, my friend. And, assuming you were socking away some money for retirement before, are you still able to sock away the same amount? Anyway, you yourself said that now you can't afford to buy everyone drinks any more and you don't have as many toys. . .hence your personal standard of living just decreased some. . .now do you see wtf I'm talking about? Thank you for helping me prove my point.

I will not disagree with you though that the average American's understanding of personal money matters and personal financial management skills are abhorrent. You appear to be a case in point, if not in the management skills department then in the understanding department. If you can make due on half of what you used to earn then you obviously have some kind of grasp on managing your money. But I fail to see how you don't understand that the fact that you can no longer buy people drinks and have as many toys as you were accustomed to is a decrease in your personal standard of living. Maybe you took a lesser job where you are earning a fair market salary for what you're doing now but I don't see how this has helped maintain or increase your personal standard of living at all unless you are also working 50% fewer hours to compensate for your 50% cut in pay.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Exactly. America's tax "burden" has shifted more and more to the upper middle class and to a lesser extent, the middle class, while those at the bottom and the very top pay proportionately less, even as those at the very top have taken more and more.

Not really. Those at the top still pay proportionately more for the dollars they earn. One would have to factor in cap gains(which isn't "earned" IMO) to come close to making your statement true. The further problem is the scale we are dealing with if you must include cap gains. Obviously those with more invested are going to have a larger percentage of lower rate via cap gains which would bring down their "effective" rate. So while you leftists love to try to make the claims - you do so dishonestly and/or without full explanation. The FACT is - taxes on EARNINGS are higher per dollar for the "rich" who you claim have "taken more and more".

You really need to sign up for that remedial reading class we've discussed for so many years. A course in honest arguments might be nice too. First, the whole topic of whether capital gains deserve special treatment is a thread unto itself. Second, I never mentioned "earned" income. It's a duhversion you threw in. I talked about taxes, and what I said is 100% accurate. Thrid, even ignoring capital gains, the very wealthy have all sorts of ways to shelter income so they don't always pay at the highest marginal rate. The net effect of both is those at the very top do pay proportionately less in taxes than those in the upper middle class ... exactly as I said. Finally CAD, though I know you wing-nuts hate actual, objective data, it's not my claim the very rich have taken more and more. America has seen an ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the very top. It's a fact, as has been documented here many times.

Get well soon.

As to the remedial classes. I suggest you need to be the one signing up. If you look at what you commented on - you'll see that it was "federal income taxes". I bolded it for you.

And to address your other claims - you can try to spin it how you'd like but just because it's been concentrating doesn't mean it's a bad thing or wrong and it certainly doesn't mean they have "taken more and more". "Taken" from what? from whom? Are you saying that the top has "taken" from the middle or lower? Seems to me you and many other leftists don't seem to understand that things aren't static in terms of wealth. The pie can and has grown so the use of "taken" is dishonest unless you can show from whom or what it's been "taken" from.
Also, you might want to understand that "wealth" and "income" can be and are different.

Cad, just shut up. You're a frakking idiot, and all you do is fling pointless bullshit to duhvert the discussion. I'm not going to indulge your hope for another marathon back and forth debate where I methodically dissect everything you spew while everyone else gives up and abandons the thread.

Yes, they're called federal income taxes and every single thing I said above regarding "taxes" is correct about federal income taxes. I'm not going to type the whole phrase out each time just because you have some demented compulsion to attack everything I say. Get over it. Get over me. You're a partisan moran of the worst order.

Regarding your entire second paragraph, it is, once again, pure, duhversionary drivel based on your crazed spin on what you believe I might have been thinking rather than anything I actually said. L2Read. L2Think. L2make coherent, honest arguments. Get well soon.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Those that pay zero federal income taxes dont pay their fair share.

Give me more money. I'd be willing to pay more in taxes.

or you could earn it... you know like regular people. give you money? no thanks.

People are earning it but they just aren't being paid for what they are earning. The number of hours worked per week over the years has been steadily increasing in trend that disproportionately outpaces the amount of income people are bringing home. It's not that hard to comprehend really. . .taxes go up, inflation goes up, general cost of living goes up, cost of education goes up, health care goes up, all faster than wages go up. Net effect, lower standard of living for working people. We're earning it, we're just not being paid what's due.

And yet thr standard of living for our poor gets better also and remains close, if not at the top, of the heap worldwide. Strange.

 

[piasabird]

If you had a flat tax with no exceptions or deductions for anything, then the Income tax system would be more equitable. (Corporate and Business Taxes are another issue)

What on Earth does Middle-Class Mean anyway?

Read this and get confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

I also think we also need to get rid of this term "The Middle Class"! There is no definition for it because it covers everyone from $1 over the poverty line to anyone not making $1M a year. It is too vague of a term. It also does not take into account that in some parts of the country a house costs around $100,000.00 and in another part of the country that same house may cost over $300,000.00 or that the cost of living varies too much to understand the numbers. If you lump somone into this group that makes $40k with people that make $500k then this causes problems. How can you have a middle-class with no lower class? All you have is Poverty, Middle-Class, and Wealthy. This is too vague.

One thing you would have to look at is that a lot of corporations hire teams of lawyers and accountants to use every legal tax exemption on the planet. One thing to try to fix this would be to do away with all tax abatements and make all of them illegal (I think this is more of a State issue having to do with Property Tax). I think on federal tax, a company should have to consider a Tax Abatement as "Payment-in-kind". After doing some reading it is estimated that corporations can write so many things off that they only pay about %50 of the tax they should be paying. This is the case of the rich getting richer. It seems the more money you have the more tax loopholes there are.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1
... What I have said numerous times is I'd like to see the lowest tax rate something like .5 or 1%. When I grew up, I learned to value a dollar. I learned that nothing comes for free, and if you GET something, you should GIVE something in return. Sometimes its proportional, sometimes its not.

Whats so unfair about that? Give those that use our tax money the most some ownership. Thanks for trying to demonize me though. Piss poor attempt.

Shocked.

I 100% agree with BlackAngst1 on this one topic. That very nearly everyone should pay something.


Here are the brackets I'd propose:

---- top rate ----
50.00% - 50.0M+
48.00% - 25.0M+
46.00% - 10.0M+
44.00% - 5.0M+
42.00% - 2.5M+
---- divider ----
40.00% - 1.0M+
35.00% - 500k+
30.00% - 250k+
20.00% - 100k+
15.00% - 50k+
10.00% - 25k+
05.00% - 10K+
02.50% - 5K+
01.25% - 2.5K+
00.75% - 1K+
00.00% - 0+
---- bottom rate ----

Above the divider, you no longer get any deductions of any kind, as you have made more in one year than the average american makes in his life.

Im glad we agree about the bottom income earners...I disagree with the rest of your proposal though at the divider

Cheers man

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ahurtt
People are earning it but they just aren't being paid for what they are earning. The number of hours worked per week over the years has been steadily increasing in trend that disproportionately outpaces the amount of income people are bringing home. It's not that hard to comprehend really. . .taxes go up, inflation goes up, general cost of living goes up, cost of education goes up, health care goes up, all faster than wages go up. Net effect, lower standard of living for working people. We're earning it, we're just not being paid what's due.

And yet thr standard of living for our poor gets better also and remains close, if not at the top, of the heap worldwide. Strange.

What's strange about it? America is an incredibly prosperous country. It's just that prosperity is increasingly going to the very top instead of being shared proportionately with the working class.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: blackangst1
... What I have said numerous times is I'd like to see the lowest tax rate something like .5 or 1%. When I grew up, I learned to value a dollar. I learned that nothing comes for free, and if you GET something, you should GIVE something in return. Sometimes its proportional, sometimes its not.

Whats so unfair about that? Give those that use our tax money the most some ownership. Thanks for trying to demonize me though. Piss poor attempt.

Shocked.

I 100% agree with BlackAngst1 on this one topic. That very nearly everyone should pay something.


Here are the brackets I'd propose:

---- top rate ----
50.00% - 50.0M+
48.00% - 25.0M+
46.00% - 10.0M+
44.00% - 5.0M+
42.00% - 2.5M+
---- divider ----
40.00% - 1.0M+
35.00% - 500k+
30.00% - 250k+
20.00% - 100k+
15.00% - 50k+
10.00% - 25k+
05.00% - 10K+
02.50% - 5K+
01.25% - 2.5K+
00.75% - 1K+
00.00% - 0+
---- bottom rate ----

Above the divider, you no longer get any deductions of any kind, as you have made more in one year than the average american makes in his life.

I actually agree with this bracketing for the most part. Though i would like to tweak the 100K\year bracket just a bit down. Or raise the cap to 125K\year. I think in this day and age two income earners in that range before deductions isnt that out there.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Exactly. America's tax "burden" has shifted more and more to the upper middle class and to a lesser extent, the middle class, while those at the bottom and the very top pay proportionately less, even as those at the very top have taken more and more.

Not really. Those at the top still pay proportionately more for the dollars they earn. One would have to factor in cap gains(which isn't "earned" IMO) to come close to making your statement true. The further problem is the scale we are dealing with if you must include cap gains. Obviously those with more invested are going to have a larger percentage of lower rate via cap gains which would bring down their "effective" rate. So while you leftists love to try to make the claims - you do so dishonestly and/or without full explanation. The FACT is - taxes on EARNINGS are higher per dollar for the "rich" who you claim have "taken more and more".

You really need to sign up for that remedial reading class we've discussed for so many years. A course in honest arguments might be nice too. First, the whole topic of whether capital gains deserve special treatment is a thread unto itself. Second, I never mentioned "earned" income. It's a duhversion you threw in. I talked about taxes, and what I said is 100% accurate. Thrid, even ignoring capital gains, the very wealthy have all sorts of ways to shelter income so they don't always pay at the highest marginal rate. The net effect of both is those at the very top do pay proportionately less in taxes than those in the upper middle class ... exactly as I said. Finally CAD, though I know you wing-nuts hate actual, objective data, it's not my claim the very rich have taken more and more. America has seen an ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the very top. It's a fact, as has been documented here many times.

Get well soon.

As to the remedial classes. I suggest you need to be the one signing up. If you look at what you commented on - you'll see that it was "federal income taxes". I bolded it for you.

And to address your other claims - you can try to spin it how you'd like but just because it's been concentrating doesn't mean it's a bad thing or wrong and it certainly doesn't mean they have "taken more and more". "Taken" from what? from whom? Are you saying that the top has "taken" from the middle or lower? Seems to me you and many other leftists don't seem to understand that things aren't static in terms of wealth. The pie can and has grown so the use of "taken" is dishonest unless you can show from whom or what it's been "taken" from.
Also, you might want to understand that "wealth" and "income" can be and are different.

Cad, just shut up. You're a frakking idiot, and all you do is fling pointless bullshit to duhvert the discussion. I'm not going to indulge your hope for another marathon back and forth debate where I methodically dissect everything you spew while everyone else gives up and abandons the thread.

Yes, they're called federal income taxes and every single thing I said above regarding "taxes" is correct about federal income taxes. I'm not going to type the whole phrase out each time just because you have some demented compulsion to attack everything I say. Get over it. Get over me. You're a partisan moran of the worst order.

Regarding your entire second paragraph, it is, once again, pure, duhversionary drivel based on your crazed spin on what you believe I might have been thinking rather than anything I actually said. L2Read. L2Think. L2make coherent, honest arguments. Get well soon.

:laugh: I see you cut out the important piece so you can try to twist out of your predicament.
But yeah, when it comes to partisan, I suspect you'd be an expert on it as we've established before. You continually refuse to accept or understand the issue of the taxation arguments and seem to have a knack for twisting them into some emotional/liberal argument.

So sure Bowfinger - there is no need to dissect the thread as it's already established you tried to twist the subject and/or were less than honest(intellectually) in your claims. But meh, as always you won't ever admit it and just try to attack me instead. Have a nice day and please do seek help.