Who isn't paying "their fair share"?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Balt
Sounds like the government is subsidizing not only the poor, but the corporations who employ them.

For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.

Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?

Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.

Indeed, it's a form of corporate welfare. In general, this whole concept is ignored by those who like to point at the poor and complain about all the government benefits they receive. Businesses and investors receive far greater benefits, not just directly, but through the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure developed and maintained largely through tax dollars.

For example, Joe Sixpack personally benefits from the public road he uses to get to work. Acme, Inc. (and its shareholders) benefits by the 100,000 employees who use those roads to get to work (many using public transportation), as well as having those roads to receive materials and ship their wares. Joe's K-12 public education qualified him to work on the line at Acme. Acme benefits from 100,000 public educations creating a strong supply of qualified employees, plus the tens of thousands of professionals with subsidized college degrees working in their offices. And on and on it goes, utilities, banking, public safety, health, defense, etc.

This is why progressive taxation is, in fact, "fair." In general, one draws proportionately greater, compounding benefits from government as you rise up the food chain. Sure, those at the top pay more taxes, but the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place. They're still coming out ahead.

:music: It's the circle of liiiife :music:

?

My sarcasm meter is flaky. Are you being dismissive, or are you just having a great morning?

 

[piasabird]

If you make 9$ an hour and have a wife and kids, then you probably have enough deductions to get every penny back from the government. Also some people may be working as a janitor and that may be a second job or some kind of job to supplement family income that a woman or under-employed person might do.

What usually happens in a case like this is that the company will not directly hire the people they will contract the labor out to a cleaning company, and the cleaning company will hire undocumented workers that are happy to get a job. This way the primary company can claim no responsibility for hiring illegal immigrants. You have to know how this racket works.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Balt
Sounds like the government is subsidizing not only the poor, but the corporations who employ them.

For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.

Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?

Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.

Indeed, it's a form of corporate welfare. In general, this whole concept is ignored by those who like to point at the poor and complain about all the government benefits they receive. Businesses and investors receive far greater benefits, not just directly, but through the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure developed and maintained largely through tax dollars.

For example, Joe Sixpack personally benefits from the public road he uses to get to work. Acme, Inc. (and its shareholders) benefits by the 100,000 employees who use those roads to get to work (many using public transportation), as well as having those roads to receive materials and ship their wares. Joe's K-12 public education qualified him to work on the line at Acme. Acme benefits from 100,000 public educations creating a strong supply of qualified employees, plus the tens of thousands of professionals with subsidized college degrees working in their offices. And on and on it goes, utilities, banking, public safety, health, defense, etc.

This is why progressive taxation is, in fact, "fair." In general, one draws proportionately greater, compounding benefits from government as you rise up the food chain. Sure, those at the top pay more taxes, but the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place. They're still coming out ahead.

:music: It's the circle of liiiife :music:

?

My sarcasm meter is flaky. Are you being dismissive, or are you just having a great morning?

Neither. I was being flippant, masking it in sarcasm. Sorry for fucking up your meter.

 

[StageLeft]

What usually happens in a case like this is that the company will not directly hire the people they will contract the labor out to a cleaning company, and the cleaning company will hire undocumented workers that are happy to get a job. This way the primary company can claim no responsibility for hiring illegal immigrants. You have to know how this racket works.

Yep, this is absolutely true.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I'd like to see a 90% tax bracket returned, you make 100 million?? You still have 10 million left, more than enough to live on if you budget well. But, you may keep 10,00 families firmly in the middle class to purchase and invest in all your goods and services which keep this US machine running. It's in everyone's best interest to have a nice, big, fat, stable middle class. and a progressive tax is the surest way to do it.

and bringing back all those loopholes that went along with the 90% bracket will make sure that there is an army of accountants to do the taxes of the 100 millionaire. and what's more middle class than an accountant?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The beautiful thing about wingnuts is that they can't be confused with facts or logic, because their opinions are strictly faith-based.

They love to discuss federal income taxes as if those were the only taxes, as if all the myriad of taxes we all pay don't matter. Well, they do matter, a lot, unless you're at the top of the pile, in which case they fade to insignificance. Sales tax, head tax, excise tax, liquor tax, property tax, licensing and registration fees of all kinds, tobacco settlement tax- the list goes on from there. I guess those aren't "real" taxes...

And the silly creatures contend, and actually believe, that the tax system has become more progressive, when the opposite is true, particularly for the ultra wealthy, the true Bush constituency. Expressed as a % of income, those at the top enjoy the lowest total taxation since the 1920's, sometimes less than upper middle class folks.

And they'll never, ever understand or admit that huge structural federal deficits are a necessary part of The truly cruel deception that is Reaganomics, trickledown economics, that the lootocracy's share of income has grown much faster than total inflation adjusted income. Deficits hide that rather effectively, and give the ultra wealthy safe investments and more leverage wrt the government, all at the same time.

They can't understand that EIC is basically a subsidy for don't-pay-fer-shit employers like Walmart, and that having people on public assistance of various kinds props up the illusion because those people aren't counted as unemployed... that the price of cheap imported goods is fewer decent paying jobs here at home, that when you work at Walmart, it's the only place you can afford to shop... well, there and at Goodwill...

Nor are they vaguely capable of comprehending that the current malaise is largely a product of offshoring and induced bubble looting.

But I'm sure that they'll continue to believe what they believe, well, because they believe it, because they derive deep emotional satisfaction from it and feed their addiction to outrage all at the same time...

Spiffy little article about taxes-

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1201/p13s01-wmgn.html

Good points. Too bad the wingnuts won't discuss them.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Balt
Sounds like the government is subsidizing not only the poor, but the corporations who employ them.

For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.

Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?

Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.

Indeed, it's a form of corporate welfare. In general, this whole concept is ignored by those who like to point at the poor and complain about all the government benefits they receive. Businesses and investors receive far greater benefits, not just directly, but through the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure developed and maintained largely through tax dollars.

For example, Joe Sixpack personally benefits from the public road he uses to get to work. Acme, Inc. (and its shareholders) benefits by the 100,000 employees who use those roads to get to work (many using public transportation), as well as having those roads to receive materials and ship their wares. Joe's K-12 public education qualified him to work on the line at Acme. Acme benefits from 100,000 public educations creating a strong supply of qualified employees, plus the tens of thousands of professionals with subsidized college degrees working in their offices. And on and on it goes, utilities, banking, public safety, health, defense, etc.

This is why progressive taxation is, in fact, "fair." In general, one draws proportionately greater, compounding benefits from government as you rise up the food chain. Sure, those at the top pay more taxes, but the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place. They're still coming out ahead.

You too.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Balt
Sounds like the government is subsidizing not only the poor, but the corporations who employ them.

For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.

Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?

Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.

Indeed, it's a form of corporate welfare. In general, this whole concept is ignored by those who like to point at the poor and complain about all the government benefits they receive. Businesses and investors receive far greater benefits, not just directly, but through the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure developed and maintained largely through tax dollars.

For example, Joe Sixpack personally benefits from the public road he uses to get to work. Acme, Inc. (and its shareholders) benefits by the 100,000 employees who use those roads to get to work (many using public transportation), as well as having those roads to receive materials and ship their wares. Joe's K-12 public education qualified him to work on the line at Acme. Acme benefits from 100,000 public educations creating a strong supply of qualified employees, plus the tens of thousands of professionals with subsidized college degrees working in their offices. And on and on it goes, utilities, banking, public safety, health, defense, etc.

This is why progressive taxation is, in fact, "fair." In general, one draws proportionately greater, compounding benefits from government as you rise up the food chain. Sure, those at the top pay more taxes, but the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place. They're still coming out ahead.

You too.

:beer:

They won't. They can't. Their depth is limited to the bumper sticker points -- B.S. Points -- they get in forwarded e-mail chains and from infotainers like Rush. The wing-nuts here work from a pretty simple set of talking points, and when you push them too far off script they're lost. They lack the information, the depth of conviction, and the reasoning skills to really discuss issues and ideas, so they try to change the subject, attack the messenger, or when all else fails, run away as they've done here.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Balt
Sounds like the government is subsidizing not only the poor, but the corporations who employ them.

For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.

Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?

Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.

Indeed, it's a form of corporate welfare. In general, this whole concept is ignored by those who like to point at the poor and complain about all the government benefits they receive. Businesses and investors receive far greater benefits, not just directly, but through the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure developed and maintained largely through tax dollars.

For example, Joe Sixpack personally benefits from the public road he uses to get to work. Acme, Inc. (and its shareholders) benefits by the 100,000 employees who use those roads to get to work (many using public transportation), as well as having those roads to receive materials and ship their wares. Joe's K-12 public education qualified him to work on the line at Acme. Acme benefits from 100,000 public educations creating a strong supply of qualified employees, plus the tens of thousands of professionals with subsidized college degrees working in their offices. And on and on it goes, utilities, banking, public safety, health, defense, etc.

This is why progressive taxation is, in fact, "fair." In general, one draws proportionately greater, compounding benefits from government as you rise up the food chain. Sure, those at the top pay more taxes, but the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place. They're still coming out ahead.

You too.

:beer:

They won't. They can't. Their depth is limited to the bumper sticker points -- B.S. Points -- they get in forwarded e-mail chains and from infotainers like Rush. The wing-nuts here work from a pretty simple set of talking points, and when you push them too far off script they're lost. They lack the information, the depth of conviction, and the reasoning skills to really discuss issues and ideas, so they try to change the subject, attack the messenger, or when all else fails, run away as they've done here.

Wow I agree with you

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I'd like to see a 90% tax bracket returned, you make 100 million?? You still have 10 million left, more than enough to live on if you budget well. But, you may keep 10,00 families firmly in the middle class to purchase and invest in all your goods and services which keep this US machine running. It's in everyone's best interest to have a nice, big, fat, stable middle class. and a progressive tax is the surest way to do it.

and bringing back all those loopholes that went along with the 90% bracket will make sure that there is an army of accountants to do the taxes of the 100 millionaire. and what's more middle class than an accountant?

That's a stupid fucking argument. Loopholes have magically stopped existing since Reagan was in office! The bands in the Caymans and Switzerland have all shut down!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I'd like to see a 90% tax bracket returned, you make 100 million?? You still have 10 million left, more than enough to live on if you budget well. But, you may keep 10,00 families firmly in the middle class to purchase and invest in all your goods and services which keep this US machine running. It's in everyone's best interest to have a nice, big, fat, stable middle class. and a progressive tax is the surest way to do it.

and bringing back all those loopholes that went along with the 90% bracket will make sure that there is an army of accountants to do the taxes of the 100 millionaire. and what's more middle class than an accountant?

That's a stupid fucking argument. Loopholes have magically stopped existing since Reagan was in office! The bands in the Caymans and Switzerland have all shut down!

Oh come on. The Caymans and Switzerland are so 1990's. Luxembourg and Belize are where its at!

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I'd like to see a 90% tax bracket returned, you make 100 million?? You still have 10 million left, more than enough to live on if you budget well. But, you may keep 10,00 families firmly in the middle class to purchase and invest in all your goods and services which keep this US machine running. It's in everyone's best interest to have a nice, big, fat, stable middle class. and a progressive tax is the surest way to do it.

and bringing back all those loopholes that went along with the 90% bracket will make sure that there is an army of accountants to do the taxes of the 100 millionaire. and what's more middle class than an accountant?

That's a stupid fucking argument. Loopholes have magically stopped existing since Reagan was in office! The bands in the Caymans and Switzerland have all shut down!

Oh come on. The Caymans and Switzerland are so 1990's. Luxembourg and Belize are where its at!

Ha! You got me there.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I'd like to see a 90% tax bracket returned, you make 100 million?? You still have 10 million left, more than enough to live on if you budget well. But, you may keep 10,00 families firmly in the middle class to purchase and invest in all your goods and services which keep this US machine running. It's in everyone's best interest to have a nice, big, fat, stable middle class. and a progressive tax is the surest way to do it.

and bringing back all those loopholes that went along with the 90% bracket will make sure that there is an army of accountants to do the taxes of the 100 millionaire. and what's more middle class than an accountant?

You are the only person talking about bringing back loopholes, like there is some magical Ring of Power the inexorably binds the 90% bracket to the loophole.

One ring, for Fenix to bring up
One ring, for Fenix to think up
One ring, to bind the loophold to the 90% bracket, somehow.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Balt
Sounds like the government is subsidizing not only the poor, but the corporations who employ them.

For example:
1) Acme Corporation needs to hire a janitor. They know they can hire one for $9/hour and someone will be desperate enough to take the job.
2) Janitor nets about $16k/year (despite what you may think, he's not going to get all of his paycheck even with a low wage). Of course pretty much every cent of that is required in order to feed, clothe, and house himself.
3) Janitor thus benefits from not having to pay much in taxes that he cannot afford. Acme Corporation thus benefits by being able to hire someone at a wage that frankly would be unlivable on if he had to pay more in taxes.

Who is really being subsidized the most by the government in the end? The janitor or the Acme corporation who can hire 500 janitors across the country at $9/hour?

Let's face it, businesses benefit from low taxes on the poor just as much as the employees do, if not more.

Indeed, it's a form of corporate welfare. In general, this whole concept is ignored by those who like to point at the poor and complain about all the government benefits they receive. Businesses and investors receive far greater benefits, not just directly, but through the extraordinary physical, financial, and educational infrastructure developed and maintained largely through tax dollars.

For example, Joe Sixpack personally benefits from the public road he uses to get to work. Acme, Inc. (and its shareholders) benefits by the 100,000 employees who use those roads to get to work (many using public transportation), as well as having those roads to receive materials and ship their wares. Joe's K-12 public education qualified him to work on the line at Acme. Acme benefits from 100,000 public educations creating a strong supply of qualified employees, plus the tens of thousands of professionals with subsidized college degrees working in their offices. And on and on it goes, utilities, banking, public safety, health, defense, etc.

This is why progressive taxation is, in fact, "fair." In general, one draws proportionately greater, compounding benefits from government as you rise up the food chain. Sure, those at the top pay more taxes, but the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place. They're still coming out ahead.

You too.

:beer:

They won't. They can't. Their depth is limited to the bumper sticker points -- B.S. Points -- they get in forwarded e-mail chains and from infotainers like Rush. The wing-nuts here work from a pretty simple set of talking points, and when you push them too far off script they're lost. They lack the information, the depth of conviction, and the reasoning skills to really discuss issues and ideas, so they try to change the subject, attack the messenger, or when all else fails, run away as they've done here.

:roll: Seems someone's head is getting a bit bloated...

First off your little story, while all fluffy and hits all the liberal yapping points - it's more than a bit misleading and is missing a few pieces.

1. Joe sixpack uses the road. He pays taxes on that use(in multiple ways). Yes, Acme benefits, but they too pay taxes on that use to move their products and/or people. While they may not directly pay for road use taxes for employees - you can not suggest wages aren't part of that. Moving/recieving products they still may not directly pay the usage tax but they still pay them when the shipping company sends them a bill.
2. Education. :roll: Yes people benefit from education. Are you trying to suggest that a company benefits MORE than the individual? "subsidized"? Fine - stop subsidizing them. Trying to justify "progressive" taxation due to how the gov't spends it is just asinine.

3. What you and other libs seem to forget in all this teeth gnashing and whining about corporations is that they pay 1/2 your income tax. For every employee they pay that PLUS they pay a corporate tax on top(depending on their earnings and profitability). So while an emotional argument could be made that "the benefits of those taxes are why they can make so much more in the first place" - it does not mean the system must be "progressive" as the companies already do PAY MORE. Not just more - but MUCH more. It's asinine to suggest or even try to claim that corporations and/or "the rich" "take" more than they put in. So again, even IF your BS was true(which doesn't look to be the case once you add more information to the mix) it still doesn't justify "progressive" taxation because "progressive" taxation is based purely on the emotional argument of "they have more so they can pay more".

 

[Mursilis]

With the deficit poised to exceed $1 trillion, it's clear that NO ONE is paying thier "fair share"? We're all just leaving the bill for future generations. The Dems are just as immoral as the GOP.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
With the deficit poised to exceed $1 trillion, it's clear that NO ONE is paying thier "fair share"? We're all just leaving the bill for future generations. The Dems are just as immoral as the GOP.

Bush pushed this country into an unnecessary war while cutting taxes. There is no equivalence.

When I run into someone who says "both sides are the same" blah blah I always find out they voted republican. How about you?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: Mursilis
With the deficit poised to exceed $1 trillion, it's clear that NO ONE is paying thier "fair share"? We're all just leaving the bill for future generations. The Dems are just as immoral as the GOP.

Bush pushed this country into an unnecessary war while cutting taxes. There is no equivalence.

When I run into someone who says "both sides are the same" blah blah I always find out they voted republican. How about you?

Me? Voted third party.

As for Bush and equivalence, there's been more deficits than not over the past 40+ years, so your Just-Blame-Bush stuff is, as usual, stale. When the Dems controlled the purse strings (that is, they controlled Congress), they were happy to spend like drunken sailors. Neither party has an established rep for balanced budgets. Neither party is honest.

 

[Jhhnn]

From the ever faithful CSG-

It's asinine to suggest or even try to claim that corporations and/or "the rich" "take" more than they put in.

You know better than that. Anybody with half a brain knows better than that.

Pre-Reagan, America's top 1% earned <9% of all income. In 2007, iirc, they earned ~24%. And that's poorly distributed among the top 1%, with the top .01% making incredible gains. America's top 400 more than doubled their income under Bush, and paid less than 20% in federal taxes-

http://www.visualizingeconomic...-taxes-paid-1992-2005/

Yeh, sure, the pie is bigger, too, but not that much bigger. The purchasing power of median incomes has gone nowhere, overall, other than having a modest increase in the Clinton years, only to be slapped silly under Bush.

Don't piss down our collective leg and tell us it's raining, OK?

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: Mursilis
With the deficit poised to exceed $1 trillion, it's clear that NO ONE is paying thier "fair share"? We're all just leaving the bill for future generations. The Dems are just as immoral as the GOP.

Bush pushed this country into an unnecessary war while cutting taxes. There is no equivalence.

When I run into someone who says "both sides are the same" blah blah I always find out they voted republican. How about you?

Me? Voted third party.

As for Bush and equivalence, there's been more deficits than not over the past 40+ years, so your Just-Blame-Bush stuff is, as usual, stale. When the Dems controlled the purse strings (that is, they controlled Congress), they were happy to spend like drunken sailors. Neither party has an established rep for balanced budgets. Neither party is honest.

You are true to your word, not voting republican. The country has taken a long time to realize that the one widely held belief that the republicans are fiscally responsible is a damn lie.

As for the last 40 years, the democratic leadership have been cowards and simply went along with the swing toward the right. I'm old enough to remember when both parties had some integrity.

As for balancing the budget...

Rebuild our manufacturing base by implementing a VAT, which will begin to restore our middle class tax base...Japan, China, and Western Europe all protect their industrial bases, so should we. Increase taxes on high-income earners back to the levels before Reagan started us down the road of tax cuts and deficit spending. Take the burden of healthcare costs off the back of American businesses. Stop breaking the budget by playing the world's cop.

 

[bfdd]

You guys saying our system isn't progressive enough realize that the OECD did a study and found the US to have the most progressive tax system in the world right?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: bfdd
You guys saying our system isn't progressive enough realize that the OECD did a study and found the US to have the most progressive tax system in the world right?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html

Check the author's credentials, view his interpretation in light of them-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/staff/show/5.html

He's a tool... a fat, sassy recipient of a lot of rightwing thinktank money. They can depend on him to say what they want to hear, and what they want the rest of us to hear, too...

 

[bfdd]

Jhhnn, you can just look at the OECD report and get the data yourself. It's not like he is making bogus data.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: gardener
You are the only person talking about bringing back loopholes, like there is some magical Ring of Power the inexorably binds the 90% bracket to the loophole.

One ring, for Fenix to bring up
One ring, for Fenix to think up
One ring, to bind the loophold to the 90% bracket, somehow.

there's a lot of historical ignorance about the old really high brackets and i'm trying to correct it. statements along the lines of 'we had 90% brackets before and we were fine' makes it seem like 90 cents on the dollar taxation was reality, when in fact it was not anywhere near the case.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Check the author's credentials, view his interpretation in light of them-

OECD report for your perusal

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: ElFenix

and bringing back all those loopholes that went along with the 90% bracket will make sure that there is an army of accountants to do the taxes of the 100 millionaire. and what's more middle class than an accountant?

That's a stupid fucking argument. Loopholes have magically stopped existing since Reagan was in office! The bands in the Caymans and Switzerland have all shut down!

what argument? i made a statement. can you tell the difference?

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: bfdd
Jhhnn, you can just look at the OECD report and get the data yourself. It's not like he is making bogus data.

I have. Data doesn't lie, it's just that liars use it for their own purposes.

top 10%? how convenient for the author. I'll agree that those in the 90th to 99th percentile pay relatively high federal income taxes. Why? because Reaganomics shifted much of the burden down onto them from higher up. They often pay higher rates than those making 100X the money.

The report fails to address *total taxes*, as well, making it susceptible to interpretations that are misleading. Taxes are taxes- it doesn't matter which govt entity receives them, they all cut into the citizens' bottom line. As the Feds provide less, proportionally, to the States and Munis, those entities have increased their own tax collections, often in regressive ways, which I've mentioned and linked earlier in this thread. Total taxation in the US is quite flat- even those in the bottom quintile pay ~19% of their income on taxes, while those with stratospheric incomes pay 33% or less, often a lot less.

Face it, Hodge is obviously well paid to make his benefactors look good, as are most other advocates of the failed theory of supply side economics.

Who benefits from tax cuts? obviously only those who receive them, in direct proportion to the taxes not paid. The rest is pure deception.

 

[bfdd]

Jhhnn, I'm not saying people don't get around paying their taxes, but fact is our taxes are pretty fucking progressive. If we did away with all the write offs and tax credits I think there would be a lot less complaining. TBH I'm in favor of a flat tax and I'm in favor of giving our government less money. They already fuck off the insane amount we give them already, what makes ANYONE think they're going to do better with more?