Who isn't paying "their fair share"?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: bfdd
.... 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.
on a side-note, let me get this straight... you left a job that paid you $80k because you didn't feel they were paying you enough, or what you "deserved." You then took a job that only pays you half of that... say what?! :confused:

Is the new job in an entirely different field, or do you only work half as hard, or half as many hours? I don't get it...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: 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.

It was, in part, sarcastic, sir. Im well aware of what you said as truth; however, Im not sure what you mean by proportionately.

(please put on your big boy pants before reading this.)

The fact is, both the rich and the poor receive bennies. First the poor. They get subsidized health care, food, housing, zero or close to zero federal tax liability, and typically work jobs that arent...glamorous. Lets face it. I doubt most people would choose to work fast food. Or work day labor picking up trash on the road. Or even work as a checker at retail. But lets face it - the intelligence and creativity required for these jobs is almost zero. ANYONE can do them. Do they contribute to the welfare of the country? Absolutely! I mean, SOMEONE has to make those burgers, right?

And how about the ultra rich? Im not not talking about 7 figure millionaires, Im talking about 8 figure and above. Well, they benefit by having senators looking out for their financial well being, because in most cases senators are rich too. But what do they actually take in the way of services from the government? Not much, really. Other than enjoying their lifestyle the government protects.

First, the fact is, the majority of wealth in the country was not inherited. Sure there are the Hiltons, the Waltons, etc; however, if you look at the who's who you will see it was either created by them or started as a lower amount. That says something! You "tax the rich" crowd always seem to use AIG execs and their ilk as examples. How many people really can do their job? Do you have any idea what it takes to run a Fortune 500 company? Do you think its all about playing golf and travelling around having lunches? Most on this board seem to think that, which just shows their naivity. If you look at the track histories of most of these execs, CEO's, CFO's, CTO's, etc you will see most are highly educated, and have worked their asses off to get there. Yes, luck sometimes plays a part, but its not like you just get put into a multi-millionaire position because a friend owes you a favor. It doesnt work that way. Fact is, a very small percentage of people in this country have either the intelligence, creativity, or the motivation to accomplish what these men and women have accomplished.

The number of jobs with that much responsibility, vs the number of jobs that impact really no one, is HUGE. A CEO/exec/etc who fucks up can ultimately affect not only the livelyhood of hundreds of thousands or more of people (shareholders), but can completely turn their employees at the bottom's world UPSIDE down. Thats a fuckload of responsibility. The guy at McD who fucks up....well, not much fallout there.

Do I think CEO's make too much money? In most cases, no. The last 50 years have been tremendous for our country in the way of wealth creation. Our markets are fucking DEEP. That has made available huge amounts of money to offer execs to seduce them to their comanies. Thus, we get huge signing bonuses and compensation packages. But at the same time, quality of life has gone up for the poor as well. You mention proportionate? How the fuck do you measure it? Percentages wont work. You could say the poor's pay has increased blah blah blah while the rish's has increased blah blah blah. Sire the rich's will be higher; however, so has their responsibility of the rich. Companies have gotten larger, etc.

The bottom line is, yeah the rich have gotten richer, but so have the poor. I dont have a problem with wealth, and the envy on this board is fucking amazing. But the whole boo hoo hoo the poor have it so bad and all the rich do is buy yachts is absolutely BULLSHIT. Very few people could do the job of CEO of a Fortune 500 company. And for the number of people their fuck ups would touch, I say go ahead and pay em big. If they have a track history of bringing value, innovation, investors, and growth to a company, theyre worth it.

So, in closing, to answer your statement:

It's just that prosperity is increasingly going to the very top instead of being shared proportionately with the working class.

of course is correct. But dont forget so has the responsibility upon the shoulders of most execs. The guy making burgers has the same responsibility as he/she did 20 years ago - none.


(let me finish by saying the above rant is not absolute, and is meant to be general in nature.)
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This is a Joke. You do realaize that if you make $25 K, that may not be above the poverty line depending on how large the household is. And you want a family of 4 making $25K to pay taxes? They probably cant even afford to eat. I would estimate that the average price of a starter house might be as high as $200.00 in most large metropolitan areas. You might still find houses around $100.000.00 in some areas. I suggest you start thinking about what is going on here. I do not think your table to be very fair, much less make common sense.

I would not even count people making less than $20k to have a valid source of income and that is if they are single. This is similar to what a working college student might make part-time. Maybe less than that even. If you worked 40 hours a week at Wal-Mart at a rate of $10.00hr You might be able to make $20,000 a year. However, I think Wal-mart only pays $9.00 an hour. So how much tax should someone working at Wal-Mart have to pay? Normally for taxes I think you get a $6,5000 deduction per household plus so much for each dependent. So if you made the Wal-Mart Pay the government reduces your income by subtracting the deductions. So if you made $20,000 then that would equite to about paying tax on about $10,000. However, if you are head of household with one parent you might have child care deductions also. You get my drift?

Here are the brackets I'd propose:

Real Tax Rates (after deductions)
---- top rate ---- Married filing jointly
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+ $372.95k - Above 35%
30.00% - 250k+ $208.85k - $372.95 33%
20.00% - 100k+ $137.05K - $208.85k 28%
15.00% - 50k+ $67.9K - $137.05K 25%
10.00% - 25k+
05.00% - 10K+
02.50% - 5K+
01.25% - 2.5K+ $16.7k - $67.9k 15%
00.75% - 1K+
00.00% - 0+ 0-$16.7k 10%
---- bottom rate ----
Under this category you may
qualify for up to $18,000 in
basic Family deductions. So
Just get rid of the tax tables below
$20,000.

If you make $20,000.00 in taxable income and file jointly with a family, you will not even owe any tax under current guidelines, more or less.

You may want to consider just changing the AMT (Alternate Minimum Tax). I dont even understand how AMT works. Typically you also lose your deductions for yourself and your children under AMT.

One problem with messing with all these tax laws is that if in the USA we change our tax laws to too high a rate, rich people will just find a way to move outside of the USA, or move their headquarters outside of the USA.
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.

I will attempt to define "middle class" as well as "poor" and "rich."

Here they are in summary:
Poor - You don't work and have no money or you work one or more jobs and cannot make ends meet without assistance or you can make ends meet but are required to work multiple jobs to do so. You have no disposable income.

Middle Class - You work out of necessity to maintain your desired standard of living and are able to make end meet by doing so and may have some money to spend and/or invest after all bills and taxes are paid.

Rich - You are financially independent being able to generate enough passive income from assets you own such that you can maintain your desired standard of living without having to work and without personally having to divest any of your assets to generate enough income for you to live on happily.

As you can see from these definitions there are no absolute hard and fast numeric dollar figure dividing lines between poor/middle class/rich. The lines are relative to the desired standards of living of the individuals in the respective groups.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
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.

Haha that's just stupid right there. The super welathy live good where ever they are, but only in AMerica can poor people drive Escalades with 22's, and watch 50" Plasmas after a long day at the Social Security Office.

Wait, what? lol

Section 8 house in my neighborhood has a Jag, Mercedes, and 2008 Chrysler mini van in her driveway. She pays $200.00 of the $2,000.00 per month.

So report them?

Flagrant abuse of the system is fraud, and jailable.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
What I would like to see is changes in what people have to pay in Social Security. I think the Cap is stupid. It should be a straight percentage with no CAP. The CAP is stupid because it is based on the assumption that you are basically paying for your own social security. We all know we are paying for everyone's social security so dont bother responding with the stupid CAP argument. At present the social security goes into the general fund. If there is not enough then the taxpayers are paying for social security out of payroll taxes. Just get rid of the Social Security CAP. Make everyone pay a straight percentage. If they make more they just pay more; one straight and fair percentage.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
I'm going to guess that all the people with their hand out are probably not paying what they should be.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
What I would like to see is changes in what people have to pay in Social Security. I think the Cap is stupid. It should be a straight percentage with no CAP. The CAP is stupid because it is based on the assumption that you are basically paying for your own social security. We all know we are paying for everyone's social security so dont bother responding with the stupid CAP argument. At present the social security goes into the general fund. If there is not enough then the taxpayers are paying for social security out of payroll taxes. Just get rid of the Social Security CAP. Make everyone pay a straight percentage. If they make more they just pay more; one straight and fair percentage.

Which would be solved if it wasnt raiding for things other than SS. But thats probably another thread.

And as to your cap comment...benefits are capped also. You realize that right?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: bfdd
.... 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.
on a side-note, let me get this straight... you left a job that paid you $80k because you didn't feel they were paying you enough, or what you "deserved." You then took a job that only pays you half of that... say what?! :confused:

Is the new job in an entirely different field, or do you only work half as hard, or half as many hours? I don't get it...

Entirely different field, it's all principle. I was in a union, I worked for a certain contractor exclusively, they refused to pay me above my scale even though they had me running work. Not to mention they were disrespecting me etc because I refused to be a kiss ass. So pride and principle stepped in I quit and found another job in an entirely different field, I work with a friend of mine and I'm ok making less money.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
% should decrease as you make more money. Taxing the poor would serve as great motivation for them to make more money.
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
% should decrease as you make more money. Taxing the poor would serve as great motivation for them to make more money.

Yeah great idea there Einstein except for that even if you taxed them 100%, 100% of 0 is still 0.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: JS80
% should decrease as you make more money. Taxing the poor would serve as great motivation for them to make more money.

Yeah great idea there Einstein except for that even if you taxed them 100%, 100% of 0 is still 0.

By your statement you are implying all or most poor people make $0. Who is the moran?
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
What I would like to see is changes in what people have to pay in Social Security. I think the Cap is stupid. It should be a straight percentage with no CAP. The CAP is stupid because it is based on the assumption that you are basically paying for your own social security. We all know we are paying for everyone's social security so dont bother responding with the stupid CAP argument. At present the social security goes into the general fund. If there is not enough then the taxpayers are paying for social security out of payroll taxes. Just get rid of the Social Security CAP. Make everyone pay a straight percentage. If they make more they just pay more; one straight and fair percentage.

How about we end something stupid like SS which is purely a scam? How about instead of a PAYGO system, what you pay in is what you get out--more in the sense of a 401k fund. Instead of the govt telling you how much you paid in, how about you actually get a 401k account-like system where you can log in and view your balances and how much you've paid in so far.

Cap or no cap I don't care. I'd rather go for cap because if I'm making 600k a year do I really want to put my money into a 1% ROI? FCK NO. SS is there for the poor who can't really save up for their own retirement. For many people it's nice to have extra change. They don't need the money, but it's not your business to take it away. That's why we should have your money as your money just like in a 401k. Stop making people pay extra for others.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: 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?

So what's your point? When you're making 12.2k you're probably lumped in the 50% of Americans who pay zero taxes anyway. What more do you want? You want a $5000 cut? And even with these Bush cuts, the tax burden is still huge on the top 1%, 5% or even 10%.
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: JS80
% should decrease as you make more money. Taxing the poor would serve as great motivation for them to make more money.

Yeah great idea there Einstein except for that even if you taxed them 100%, 100% of 0 is still 0.

By your statement you are implying all or most poor people make $0. Who is the moran?

You cannot squeeze blood out of a stone. How do you expect somebody who already can't make ends meet, or maybe they can just barely if they work 2 jobs, to come up with more money? By my definition of poor it doesn't mean you make/earn nothing. It means that after you have paid for all bills/taxes/necessities you have nothing left over to save or spend on luxuries. It makes about as much sense as suing a homeless person. . .what do expect to get from somebody who already has nothing even you get 100% of what they have? From my statement you jumped to your own conclusion but it was NOT what I implied. As for your question, I think the answer is pretty clear. Besides, did I call anybody "moran?"
 
May 28, 2006
149
0
0
Originally posted by: DLeRium
SS is there for the poor who can't really save up for their own retirement. For many people it's nice to have extra change. They don't need the money, but it's not your business to take it away. That's why we should have your money as your money just like in a 401k. Stop making people pay extra for others.

66% of retirees count on SS to provide 50% or more of their income. For workers in aggregate, SS provides more retirement income than all other sources of income, combined.

So "extra change" is inaccurate.

Maybe people like you and I would do well without SS. But I look at it this way, if it wasn't for this forced insurance program, that 66% of people would have even less, many would be starving, and then I'd get stuck paying an even bigger bill...because that 66% people hadn't payed a dime.

In a rational, moral society we don't let old people starve to death.

As for your notion that people should have their own accounts, the system was initially set up to start paying out to retirees immediately. Current workers have always paid for current retirees, a generational transfer of wealth. That may sound unfair to you, but then again you were born into a world built and paid for by that generation...the streets, bridges, schools, farms, shops, legal system, etc., and they didn't charge you a toll on the way down the birth canal.








 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
If there were no SS and Medicare, most of us would be responsible for taking care of our own parents when they got too old for work and/or when they got sick. They'd live in our homes and eat our food, and we'd have to pay for their medical care or for their expensive medical insurance.

Maybe you'd be fortunate enough to have parents who were financially solid in retirement, but that certainly wouldn't be true for the majority.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: JS80
% should decrease as you make more money. Taxing the poor would serve as great motivation for them to make more money.

Yeah great idea there Einstein except for that even if you taxed them 100%, 100% of 0 is still 0.

By your statement you are implying all or most poor people make $0. Who is the moran?

That would be you, moron. Here's a little tip: stop using IE, like a moron, and use a browser with spell check. We'll start taking you a little more seriously. But not much.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: shira
If there were no SS and Medicare, most of us would be responsible for taking care of our own parents when they got too old for work and/or when they got sick. They'd live in our homes and eat our food, and we'd have to pay for their medical care or for their expensive medical insurance.

Maybe you'd be fortunate enough to have parents who were financially solid in retirement, but that certainly wouldn't be true for the majority.

Im not advocating dismantling SS or Medicare/Medicaid; however, whats so wrong about your first scenario? I think its a fantastic idea myself.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Those that pay zero federal income taxes dont pay their fair share.

You still bitching about not being able to get blood out of a rock? I'd of thought a smart.... guy like you would know better by now?

Ive never....bitched. Ever. 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.

Sorry but I don't have to try to demonize you, you do it pretty well all by yourself.

If you want people to "own" something then you might try having them own something other then another bill they can't afford. Especially considering the only thing you are really after is paying less yourself.

Like I said, I thought you were smarter then this.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: JKing106
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: JS80
% should decrease as you make more money. Taxing the poor would serve as great motivation for them to make more money.

Yeah great idea there Einstein except for that even if you taxed them 100%, 100% of 0 is still 0.

By your statement you are implying all or most poor people make $0. Who is the moran?

That would be you, moron. Here's a little tip: stop using IE, like a moron, and use a browser with spell check. We'll start taking you a little more seriously. But not much.

reread you're sentance, your the moran. this is rediculous.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: JKing106
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: ahurtt
Originally posted by: JS80
% should decrease as you make more money. Taxing the poor would serve as great motivation for them to make more money.

Yeah great idea there Einstein except for that even if you taxed them 100%, 100% of 0 is still 0.

By your statement you are implying all or most poor people make $0. Who is the moran?

That would be you, moron. Here's a little tip: stop using IE, like a moron, and use a browser with spell check. We'll start taking you a little more seriously. But not much.

reread you're sentance, your the moran. this is rediculous.

:laugh:
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: Praxis1452
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.
They should be treated equal by the government as anybody else.

To say that those who benefit the most should pay the most is circular logic. You've defined benefiting the most as making the most money. If you had defined benefiting the most as say, the people who gain the most while paying the least taxes, the poor should pay the most... with money they don't have. You basically said: "Those who make the most money in America should pay the most". A flat tax would make this true. You need to explain why the taxation rate needs to be progressive, which really just boils down to people wanting what they didn't earn. Of course, I would readily admit that anytime government and business mix, businessmen often take what they don't earn as well.

Earned is a used liberally in your statement, "generated" would be closer to the truth.
The Earth is round' padre, so it is logical in a capital based system that those closer to the nuclei of capital, should have the greatest tax burden.
That way they have less capital to bribe and promote their capital building agenda.
Perversion of justice is a criminal offense which needs a greater punishment and real world effect application.
Fairness used in the first world applies firstly to opportunity, rights and justice.
Having monetary fines is unfair to those who have less wealth then those who have more and doesn't deter rich from do such acts as it does the poor- speeding fines, littering and parking infringements would be a good example.
A man that gives money to gub officials and political reps, to get contracts ahead of the competition or favourable legal interpretation is of a greater detriment to the freedom and prosperity, it is the greatest single problem facing democracy to day.
Democracy is the political ideology which embodies fairness at its core.
So people who have a "100mill" can never be treated equally, because to be fair to all you must have a system which brings that person to account for their actions when they are negative to a majority in the society- its called Justice.
Off sets in carbon tax are next loophole coming up for the mega wealthy, privately owned rural recluses as a tax break, great for a weekends fishing and shooting.