CallTheFBI
Banned
Taxes really suck. They wouldn't suck as bad if you could actually choose the agencies your tax dollars went towards, the California DMV would definately NOT be on my list.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Who Really Pays Taxes
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Grasshopper27
Banned
It isn't a perspective difference, it is a moral difference. I don't care if you make 10 cents or 10 million, you owe your fair share of taxes on whatever income you earn.
It isn't his $180 a month any more than the $1,667 a month belongs to the "rich" person. Those are taxes used to pay for the things we all collectively need as a modern civilized socity.
I'm perfectly happy to let the person keep the $180 a month so long as he doesn't use any government provided services.
In truth, he is still getting a steal of a deal because he is paying nearly 10 times less in actual dollars per month, but probably using nearly the same level of services as the person making $100K a year.
BTW, it should also be pointed out that the person making $100K a year is paying more in tax than the person making $900/month earns in total all year, times two.
What I'd like to know is why the poor person feels he/she is entitled to not even pay that meager share of his civic obligations?
Because the poor person gets the benefits of living in this country, thus he needs to pony up his 20% just like everyone else.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Thumper makes so little money at her day job that she actually qualifies for rent assistance from the state. Sadly, we'll lose that when we move in together. 🙁
Hopper
Grasshopper27
Banned
This from the person who is too cheap to let his dad use his car for a day when his dad paid for 2/3 of it...
CallTheFBI
Banned
No I did let him use my car today.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
demand at food assistence centers around the US is at a very high level right now, and bush cuts taxes for the rich😛
One reason well-to-do taxpayers are paying a bigger share of individual income taxes is that they are getting a bigger and historically high share of total income
Internal Revenue Service data show that 21 percent of the nation's before-tax income flowed to the top 1 percent of the income spectrum in 2000. That's up from 14 percent a decade ago. The average income of that richest 1 out of 100 households exceeds $1 million.
If the top 1 percent took in, say, 90 percent of all income, they would pay almost all of the individual income tax - and complain louder.
McIntyre makes another point. "The overall federal tax system is only modestly progressive," he notes.
If payroll taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes and other federal taxes are included as well as the income tax, the burden shifts down dramatically.
Work & Money: "Economic Scene: A Weekly Column"
from the December 23, 2002 edition
The rich are taxed too much? It depends on whom you ask
By David Francis
Economist Bob McIntyre has a sarcastic streak. The director of Citizens for Tax Justice headlines a new study: "White House Reveals Nation's Biggest Problems: The Very Rich Don't Have Enough Money & Workers Don't Pay Enough in Taxes."
Of course, the Bush administration would deny that characterization of its policy. But the arguments put forward by R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Larry Lindsey, the sacked head of the National Economic Council, suggest that at least some White House officials believe the really affluent are taxed too much and that more of the tax burden must be shifted to the middle class and the poor.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
Related stories:
11/25/02
Charities harden opposition to an estate-tax repeal
05/23/01
Tax cuts widen US income gap
monitortalk:
Weigh in on issues of the day in our MonitorTalk forums.
Click here...
"The increasing reliance on taxing higher-income households and targeted social preferences at lower incomes stands in the way of moving to a simpler, flatter tax system," Mr. Hubbard told an American Enterprise Institute conference in Washington.
A "flatter tax system" is economist's lingo for reducing the present progressivity of taxes where the well-to-do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor on the grounds that the rich can afford it.
In a recent Washington Times opinion article, Treasury official, J. T. Young, argued that higher earners cannot produce enough tax revenues to pay for "increasingly costly" spending programs sought by liberals. So if this spending is not controlled, "the tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder."
There is probably no more explosive an issue in tax politics than the impact of tax changes on different income levels. "Class warfare," Republicans charged when liberal analysts like Mr. McIntyre noted the 2001 Bush cuts gave most of the benefits to those with higher incomes.
"Someone has to fight back," says McIntyre.
Mr. Hubbard's case rests on looking at the personal income tax alone. In 1970, he noted, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for roughly 17 percent of all individual income-tax receipts. The top 50 percent were the source of 83 percent.
By 2000, the top 1 percent were the source of 37 percent of all these receipts, and the top one-half of taxpayers 96 percent.
Rebuttals came fast.
One reason well-to-do taxpayers are paying a bigger share of individual income taxes is that they are getting a bigger and historically high share of total income, notes Joel Friedman, an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Internal Revenue Service data show that 21 percent of the nation's before-tax income flowed to the top 1 percent of the income spectrum in 2000. That's up from 14 percent a decade ago. The average income of that richest 1 out of 100 households exceeds $1 million.
If the top 1 percent took in, say, 90 percent of all income, they would pay almost all of the individual income tax - and complain louder.
McIntyre makes another point. "The overall federal tax system is only modestly progressive," he notes.
If payroll taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes and other federal taxes are included as well as the income tax, the burden shifts down dramatically.
McIntyre's numbers show that in 2001, the richest 1 percent earned 18 percent of total pretax income and paid 25.1 percent of all federal taxes - a proportion he doesn't consider excessive. "Poor guys," he jokes. "They are practically poor paying so much more taxes."
By McIntyre's calculation, the lowest 20 percent of households (average $9,400 annual pretax income) paid, on average, 7 percent of their pretax income in total federal taxes in 2001. The next 20 percent ($20,700) paid 13 percent, and the middle 20 percent ($34,300) paid 17 percent. The fourth 20 percent ($56,100) paid 21 percent. The next 15 percent ($796,200) paid 21 percent, and the top 1 percent ($1,028,000) paid 26 percent - maybe less, suspects McIntyre.
If Social Security taxes aren't included, the tax burden of the wealthy looks more severe, making tax cuts for them seem more justifiable. So Mr. Lindsey held that these payroll taxes could just as well be "deposits" held by the government on behalf of workers to cover pensions and other benefits paid back in later life.
But even conservative economists have trouble with that view. A tax is a tax, most economists figure.
"It sounds like a transparent cover for giving rich people all the money they can get," says Jeffrey Frankel, a Harvard University economist who served President Clinton.
If an individual paid taxes according to the benefits received, then the rich should pay more for US defense and other security measures since they have more property to protect.
If personal income tax rates were flattened for all to about 13 percent to replace only income tax revenues, then in 2010, the top 1 percent would get a tax reduction of $159,501 and those making less than $100,000 would pay an extra $3,089 each, McIntyre says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1223/p17s01-wmgn.html
One reason well-to-do taxpayers are paying a bigger share of individual income taxes is that they are getting a bigger and historically high share of total income
Internal Revenue Service data show that 21 percent of the nation's before-tax income flowed to the top 1 percent of the income spectrum in 2000. That's up from 14 percent a decade ago. The average income of that richest 1 out of 100 households exceeds $1 million.
If the top 1 percent took in, say, 90 percent of all income, they would pay almost all of the individual income tax - and complain louder.
McIntyre makes another point. "The overall federal tax system is only modestly progressive," he notes.
If payroll taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes and other federal taxes are included as well as the income tax, the burden shifts down dramatically.
Work & Money: "Economic Scene: A Weekly Column"
from the December 23, 2002 edition
The rich are taxed too much? It depends on whom you ask
By David Francis
Economist Bob McIntyre has a sarcastic streak. The director of Citizens for Tax Justice headlines a new study: "White House Reveals Nation's Biggest Problems: The Very Rich Don't Have Enough Money & Workers Don't Pay Enough in Taxes."
Of course, the Bush administration would deny that characterization of its policy. But the arguments put forward by R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Larry Lindsey, the sacked head of the National Economic Council, suggest that at least some White House officials believe the really affluent are taxed too much and that more of the tax burden must be shifted to the middle class and the poor.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
Related stories:
11/25/02
Charities harden opposition to an estate-tax repeal
05/23/01
Tax cuts widen US income gap
monitortalk:
Weigh in on issues of the day in our MonitorTalk forums.
Click here...
"The increasing reliance on taxing higher-income households and targeted social preferences at lower incomes stands in the way of moving to a simpler, flatter tax system," Mr. Hubbard told an American Enterprise Institute conference in Washington.
A "flatter tax system" is economist's lingo for reducing the present progressivity of taxes where the well-to-do pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor on the grounds that the rich can afford it.
In a recent Washington Times opinion article, Treasury official, J. T. Young, argued that higher earners cannot produce enough tax revenues to pay for "increasingly costly" spending programs sought by liberals. So if this spending is not controlled, "the tax burden will have to begin extending backward down the income ladder."
There is probably no more explosive an issue in tax politics than the impact of tax changes on different income levels. "Class warfare," Republicans charged when liberal analysts like Mr. McIntyre noted the 2001 Bush cuts gave most of the benefits to those with higher incomes.
"Someone has to fight back," says McIntyre.
Mr. Hubbard's case rests on looking at the personal income tax alone. In 1970, he noted, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for roughly 17 percent of all individual income-tax receipts. The top 50 percent were the source of 83 percent.
By 2000, the top 1 percent were the source of 37 percent of all these receipts, and the top one-half of taxpayers 96 percent.
Rebuttals came fast.
One reason well-to-do taxpayers are paying a bigger share of individual income taxes is that they are getting a bigger and historically high share of total income, notes Joel Friedman, an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Internal Revenue Service data show that 21 percent of the nation's before-tax income flowed to the top 1 percent of the income spectrum in 2000. That's up from 14 percent a decade ago. The average income of that richest 1 out of 100 households exceeds $1 million.
If the top 1 percent took in, say, 90 percent of all income, they would pay almost all of the individual income tax - and complain louder.
McIntyre makes another point. "The overall federal tax system is only modestly progressive," he notes.
If payroll taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes and other federal taxes are included as well as the income tax, the burden shifts down dramatically.
McIntyre's numbers show that in 2001, the richest 1 percent earned 18 percent of total pretax income and paid 25.1 percent of all federal taxes - a proportion he doesn't consider excessive. "Poor guys," he jokes. "They are practically poor paying so much more taxes."
By McIntyre's calculation, the lowest 20 percent of households (average $9,400 annual pretax income) paid, on average, 7 percent of their pretax income in total federal taxes in 2001. The next 20 percent ($20,700) paid 13 percent, and the middle 20 percent ($34,300) paid 17 percent. The fourth 20 percent ($56,100) paid 21 percent. The next 15 percent ($796,200) paid 21 percent, and the top 1 percent ($1,028,000) paid 26 percent - maybe less, suspects McIntyre.
If Social Security taxes aren't included, the tax burden of the wealthy looks more severe, making tax cuts for them seem more justifiable. So Mr. Lindsey held that these payroll taxes could just as well be "deposits" held by the government on behalf of workers to cover pensions and other benefits paid back in later life.
But even conservative economists have trouble with that view. A tax is a tax, most economists figure.
"It sounds like a transparent cover for giving rich people all the money they can get," says Jeffrey Frankel, a Harvard University economist who served President Clinton.
If an individual paid taxes according to the benefits received, then the rich should pay more for US defense and other security measures since they have more property to protect.
If personal income tax rates were flattened for all to about 13 percent to replace only income tax revenues, then in 2010, the top 1 percent would get a tax reduction of $159,501 and those making less than $100,000 would pay an extra $3,089 each, McIntyre says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1223/p17s01-wmgn.html
Grasshopper27
Banned
Dude, you bitched and moaned about it in that other thread...
If you were serious about what you typed, then all I can say is that you're spoiled beyond belief and need a good butt kicking by your father for your lousy attitude.
Hopper
Grasshopper27
Banned
The poor got their tax cuts last year, Bush is just being fair.
So what? More power to them if they can come by it honestly...
I'm not rich, not even close, but I don't bitch and moan about paying my fair share of taxes. The rich pay far more than their fair share, so they do deserve a tax cut.
Ok, but a flat tax covers that.
Someone making $10K a year would pay $2K in tax if the rate is 20%
Someone making $100K a year would pay $20K in tax if the rate is 20%
Sounds fair to me...
Sounds reasonable... Why? Why not?
Why should the rich pay more than their fair share? Why punish success?
Hopper
CallTheFBI
Banned
I wasn't going to let my dad go without a car today, I just wanted to explore other options that he might have such as a rental car or a taxi. That's why we got in the argument. My dad refused the other options so I just forked over the keys, end of discussion.
Zebo
Elite Member
I don't really want to get in this thread but realise GH those poeple in your statistics are all workers with income. The real rich don't have any income, they have capital gains, typically long term capital gains, which are only taxed at 10%. they are not included, they show no income. The poor dumb workers, yes even the ones making 200K are dumb, pay almost all the taxes in this country.. And as for your assertion corps pay lots of taxes it's just wrong. The federal government only gets 10% of it's revenue from corps. Check OMB.
Grasshopper27
Banned
Sigh...
Lets look at this logicly...
1. You live under your parents roof and don't pay rent
2. Your parents paid for 2/3 of the car
3. Your dad needed said car for a business trip
4. He offered you the use of his own van for the day
Nothing further needs to be looked at. He needs the car, he asks you for it, you let him use it. You do so because you're grateful for all he has given you, worked hard for you, and done for you. You do so because you don't need it that day and because his mini-van is just fine. You do so because you love him and know it will help him out in his job (which is what pays for all your stuff in the first place).
5. You should refuse the $50 he offered to pay you
6. You shouldn't have asked for the money his company paid him for the trip
7. You shouldn't have whined about it in public, it made you look bad
8. I STILL don't think you get it
*shrug*
Hopper
busmaster11
Platinum Member
Therein lies the difference between us and why we'll never agree on this subject. The inability to appreciate or acknowledge the need of 180$ to a 720$ a month individual is greater than the luxury of 1800+$ to a 10,000 a month individual is also the reason I refuse to ever vote for the politically conservative. There's some element of humanity missing...
Hopper, I don't think any poor person WANTS to be in a situation where they don't have to pay any taxes, because that ensures their poverty and misery. There are natural mechanisms in place in this contry which ensures that people will want to be in situations where they will pay taxes... the threat of homelessness for one... 🙂 Your words seem to indicate taht the rich are the ones getting the short end of the deal when the destitute cannot afford to pay taxes... Call me a bleeding heart liberal (I've been called it before if you don't believe me. 🙂 ...) but I just think thats morally wrong.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
its not about punishing success, its about obligation. those who benifit most from society are obligated to give back. its not as if they are being taxed into poverty. a rich man taxed is still a rich man.
do you think riches come from nothing but the hard work of the individual? i think not. great works such as the internet start as government projects paid for by all. much science research that later benifits companies starts.. yes as publicly funded research. communications companies using satallites? did they come up with a space program? no😛 where do companies get workers? yes, many from public education. public funding helps create the society that creates the conditions for success, the infrastructure. those that benifit most from this infrastructure are obligated to support it the most.
not to mention.. yes the rich have far more to protect then the poor. they should be paying quite a bit to keep our armed forces up. why give tax cuts that mostly benifit the rich when we're about to go to war, and have a bleeding budget, can't even fund schools adequately, makes little sense.
Grasshopper27
Banned
Try 20%, but that's a minor point. 🙂
In any case, capital gains taxes take in far less money than you'd think, lots of loopholes there too. I'm not sure such gains should be taxed, unless taken as direct income. If you use those capital gains to reinvest in other companies or property, why tax them when the money could better go to growth?
I'll take your word for it cause it is too late to bother looking it up, but even 10% is $220 Billion. That's a lot of money to take from corportations.
Every dollar a corportation pays in taxes comes directly out of consumers pockets and costs a few jobs. It makes America less competitive with the rest of the world, and it raises the price of everything you and I buy. It is a very regressive tax.
Hopper
CallTheFBI
Banned
Its morally wrong for the government to assume that people who earn a lot of money can afford to pay a proportionally greater amount of it in taxes. How can someone sit back and automatically say that someone making $127,000 a year isn't strapped for cash? Who knows what life circumstances they might have? Heck they may even be in more debt than someone making a lot less than them or they might be paying out a lot of money to put their kids through college.
Grasshopper27
Banned
Isn't it cool that we live in a country where we can debate this back and fourth in freedom? 🙂
No, I don't see us agreeing, but that's ok too. *shrug*
As for some humanity missing, that is probably true to some extent, but it should also be noted that you can do more harm that good on that road to "humanity".
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make a cake.
The rich often get the short end of the deal, they have far fewer votes than the poor people do. 🙂
There is where we disagree. You say that like they somehow have to come up with extra money that isn't in their pockets to begin with.
It isn't, the person making $900 a week only gets $720 a week in take home pay. Again, if that person wants to refrain from using all government services, sure he can keep it all.
I think the poor person is being INCREADIBLY unfair to not even be willing to kick in his $180 a month when the person making more money kicks in his $1,667 a month for basiclly the same services.
Turn this around and think of it this way. Lets say I'm the guy who makes $100K a year and I'm paying $1,667 a month in tax. You're the poor guy paying $180 a month in tax. Between the two of us, the government needs $1,847 in tax. If you pay nothing, I have to now pay $1,847 in tax for both you and me, and that money is split more or less evenly between us for government services.
What use are you then? You're then just a drain on socity. Why do you bother to exist? You're not paying for any public services that you use, paying nothing into the system, and earning so little that you hardly show up on the GDP radar. Why not just kill you and save the government the cost of providing services to you?
Ok, granted, that would not be moral either, but the point remains valid. Why should you get to pay nothing and get all those services for free? Why are you special? Suck it up and pay like the rest of us.
🙂
Hopper
Grasshopper27
Banned
They do...
A person making $100K a year pays twice as much in tax as the total income of someone making $10K a year under a 20% flat tax system.
They are paying 10 times more in tax, and you think that is unfair to the poor person? I say it is one hell of a deal for the poor person, someone else is already paying the major share of government costs, and the poor person STILL wants more.
Sounds like a selfish and greedy poor person to me.
Hopper
Zebo
Elite Member
10% GH
Actually it can be as low as 8%
As far as corps they are individuals and should be taxed as such for the legal protections they are afforded. No I don't end up paying for it, because if a sole propietor sells for cheaper I'll buy it from him. And according to you corps can't be competitive due to that extra tax burden right? No well that's cuz a corp is a little more sophisticated in thier deductions. All your idea of not taxing them, will do is totally put the small businessmen out of business and kill entrepreneurship while the big corps get even bigger.
Actually it can be as low as 8%
As far as corps they are individuals and should be taxed as such for the legal protections they are afforded. No I don't end up paying for it, because if a sole propietor sells for cheaper I'll buy it from him. And according to you corps can't be competitive due to that extra tax burden right? No well that's cuz a corp is a little more sophisticated in thier deductions. All your idea of not taxing them, will do is totally put the small businessmen out of business and kill entrepreneurship while the big corps get even bigger.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
it would be morally wrong if the government had only frivolous expenses. but its the fact that we have to pay billions for defense, space, science, and transportation, and security/safety/regulation.
the poor couldn't pay for it. when you tax a poor person at a high rate you take food out of their mouths. when you tax a rich person at a high rate, they lose a luxury or two. do the higher taxes on the rich make them live the lifestyles of poor people? even middle class? no!!
rich people don't get rich in a vacumn, they live in a society that enables them to be rich. theres fair compensation for success, but theres also obligation. you don't get a free ride because you think its fair to screw everyone else. i already pointed out a few other reasons a few posts above.
the poor couldn't pay for it. when you tax a poor person at a high rate you take food out of their mouths. when you tax a rich person at a high rate, they lose a luxury or two. do the higher taxes on the rich make them live the lifestyles of poor people? even middle class? no!!
rich people don't get rich in a vacumn, they live in a society that enables them to be rich. theres fair compensation for success, but theres also obligation. you don't get a free ride because you think its fair to screw everyone else. i already pointed out a few other reasons a few posts above.
CallTheFBI
Banned
Rich people, poor people and everyone in between benefit from society. The economy is a symbiotic relationship that EVERYONE is a part of. Why should rich people have to pay for that more than poor people?
busmaster11
Platinum Member
Please compare the assumption and PROBABILITY that a 127K/yr guy is strapped for cash because of his debt and having to pay a kid through college, with a similiar assumption regarding a 12K/yr guy...
Zebo
Elite Member
Because we tax dollars not people. That poor dude one day might become rich, well then he'll fall into the next higher bracket, just like the rich he used to aspire to be. Are you saying if you could make 50K and be only taxed 10% you'd settle for that instead of making 200K and being taxed 50% and still 10% on the first 50K you made? No cause it's still more and now you can afford to pay more than when you where poor making 50K.
CallTheFBI
Banned
Seriously I don't see how someone could make that low amount of money. You could make more than $12,000 a year easily by just having a couple minimum wage jobs. Anyone only making $12,000 is just plain lazy or has serious problems that may need to be addressed by a doctor or psychologist.
CallTheFBI
Banned
Yes, I agree you could pay more but the amount you pay should be a linear function, not a progressive function. Think of it this way, if the progressive tax code kept on going and you added more and more brackets then you would eventually reach a bracket that was 100% or very very close to it. Everyone would think that was ludicrous but it isn't any less ludicrous than the current progressive system, its just that they put a cap on the number of tax brackets there are.
busmaster11
Platinum Member
It doesn't matter when they can buy votes... What did Dubya do ASA he got into office? Water down EPA laws to kiss the buttocks of big corporations... But I digress...
Well, part of it goes back to my point about how there's valets, busboys, maids, etc... They're part of society and they're needed as such. Otherwise, who is left to do the work on one wants to do? Thats a contribution to soceity isn't it?
As for your last question, thats the million dollar question right there. What entitles you to what America offers? Being a citizen? Being born in this country? (in which case, I would not. 🙁 ...) Being a productive citizen? Can you answer that question? I know I'm probably not able to.
But if you're in this country legally, I'd say you're entitled to if nothing else - some minimum standard of living - though I would really hate to pay a penny for iressponsible people who drink or gamble everything away.
Zebo
Elite Member
It does in sort of in reality.
We are usually taxed less than 30% all our lives federally...
-You start out a single dude making 50K and pay a shot load of taxes w only the standard deduction.
-Then one day you get married making 100K, buy a house etc and increase those deductions well above the standard decreasing your burden
-Then one day you got like 500K in the bank and decide to start a Mc donalds or two..adding in more deductions..Decreasing you burden further but no you make more so you need it.
-then you sell the franchise and only pay 20% capital gains
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
