Whose taxes to cut?

[Darwin333]

That's lame and obfuscational. Taxes are taxes- it doesn't matter which govt entity receives them, at least not to anybody's bottom line.

Part of the reason state and local taxes have increased is that federal disbursements haven't kept up with needs of states and munis- they've gone to military hardware that has no mission, wars of adventure and maintenance of debt created by cutting taxes at the top in the first place...

Taxes are not "taxes". That is like saying that a bill is a bill, the bill for my wifes Macy's card is much different than the electric bill. Social Security taxes are supposed to be different than Income taxes, property taxes are very different than income taxes, etc....

Specific taxes pay for specific things (at least they are supposed to) and everyone should pay something if the tax applies to them. Federal income taxes should apply to all in someway or another regardless of other taxes. If they have a problem with the state and local taxes they have much more power to get those reduced than they do the Federal taxes.

You can argue all that you want but if that is truly your position we should add all of their expenses into the argument. Water is a necessity so why wouldn't you include that into the discussion? Why not the electric bill too?

You have a lot of work compiling all of that data in order to have an informed discussion. If that is indeed your position, get back to me when you have all of the data and we can debate the issue further.

 

[Acanthus]

You'd do well to learn math, yourself.

In 2008, it took $380K of *taxable* income to enter the top 1%. They brought home 1/5 of total taxable earnings. The top .1% had incomes of $1.8M and above, and took home 10% of all taxable income.There were almost 140M returns filed in 2008. Which means 1.4M and 140K families respectively.

Oh, yeh- 2007 was a very good year for America's wealthiest, even as the economy headed down the shitter. The income share of the top .1% was just about the same as that of the bottom 50% combined...

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

It seems a bit unseemly for people making upwards of $380K to be snivelling and raving about their taxes going up by ~4% of their taxable income...

Most of America would give their left nut and their first born child to make that kind of money... and weep tears of joy when they sent off the cheque to the taxman...

And the picture looks a LOT worse if you start talking about wealth instead of income.

The bottom 60% all have net worths below $10000, and the vast majority of them are negative now.

 

[Slew Foot]

This isnt charity, it's outright class warfare, and the top 10% are winning.

The top 10% arent winning, the top .05% are winning.

 

[Argo]

It's not forced charity if it is used on roads and defense.

Or reversing crippling financial oppression from the state-sponsored monopolies on finance and capital.

When one in 7 american families are on some sort of assistance, is it reasonable to have people raking in billions overseas on 1% taxes?

This isnt charity, it's outright class warfare, and the top 10% are winning.

You're mixing multiple concerns in one statement, so let me answer them separately:

1) It is charity if one person pays for the roads, while another doesn't - yet both of them get to use those roads. If it wasn't charity - then people who don't pay taxes won't get to use said roads. That's like both of us going to 6 flags, and I have to pay both fares.

2) Roads are not the only thing taxes get spent on. In fact, if the taxes were only spent on infrastructure people would have a lot less problems with paying them. Instead taxes get used on welfare programs, unpopular wars, earmarks and all sorts of other hand outs.

3) Nobody in this thread is arguing against rich people paying taxes. Heck, nobody is even arguing against rich people paying more taxes - hence the percentage (quick math recap: if everybody pays 10%, the more you make the more you pay!). If there are examples of rich people escaping taxes - I say we close those loopholes (which btw, a simpler tax code would accomplish).

4) I keep hearing people talk about "rich escaping taxes" - I'm yet to see those loopholes everybody talks about. I pay through the nose every year. I paid close to 30% last year. Yet I'm being told that I make too much money and I need to pay more. You can understand how one can feel when he's being told that his 30% is not enough, yet majority of the country pay 0%.

 

[Acanthus]

The top 10% arent winning, the top .05% are winning.

Id actually argue about the top 1000 americans are winning.

That's what? the top .0000028%?

 

[alkemyst]

The rich and then raise them on the 47% who pay no federal income tax so that everyone is paying their "fair share".

When you have the top 50% paying 97% of all taxes and the bottom 50% paying 3% of the taxes you have a problem.

Hell, the top 25% pay 85% of all taxes.
(the top 25% starts at $66,532)

How about everyone just pays 10%?
You make $20,000? You pay $2,000.
You make 20,000,000? You pay 2,000,000.

No if, ands, or buts. No accounting tricks or paper work. 10% is 10%.

Except when you get ahead of critical mass 10% could mean not eating.

I think a sales tax based system is a much better approach. Put breaks on food and medicine and then anything 'extra' you pay tax on.

Spend more, pay more.

Spend less, pay less.

Just stick to food and meds, nothing.

I think this is much more fair, however; most systems we have had / have in place would be ok if it weren't for the loopholes and shelters created to take advantage of them.

 

[Acanthus]

You're mixing multiple concerns in one statement, so let me answer them separately:

1) It is charity if one person pays for the roads, while another doesn't - yet both of them get to use those roads. If it wasn't charity - then people who don't pay taxes don't get to use said roads. That's like both of us going to 6 flags, and I have to pay both fares.
2) Roads are not the only thing taxes get spent on. In fact, if the taxes were only spent on infrastructure only people would have a lot less problems with paying them. Instead taxes get used on welfare programs, unpopular wars, earmarks and all sorts of other hand outs.
3) Nobody in this thread is arguing against rich people paying taxes. Heck, nobody is even arguing against rich people paying more taxes - hence the percentage (quick math recap: if every pays 10%, the more you make the more you pay!). If there are examples of rich people escaping taxes - I say we close those loopholes (which btw, a simpler tax code would accomplish). 4) I keep hearing the people talk about "rich escape taxes" - yet I'm yet to see those loopholes everybody talks about. I pay through the nose every year. I paid close to 30% last year. Yet I'm being told that I make too much money and I need to pay more. You can understand how one can feel when he's being told that his 30% is not enough, yet majority of the country pay 0%.

To recap the current thread, with the current tax system if you compare cumulative earnings vs tax paid it is very close to a linear increase.

LOL you've never seen the arguments for the rich escaping taxes? Wow.

Remember this one? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18

 

[Argo]

To recap the current thread, with the current tax system if you compare cumulative earnings vs tax paid it is very close to a linear increase.

LOL you've never seen the arguments for the rich escaping taxes? Wow.

Remember this one? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a6bQVsZS2_18

Fair enough - *maybe* the top 0.1% have found the loop-holes to escape taxes. Yet, for some reason every tax proposal I saw on the table attacks upper middle class. I'll venture a guess that after we raise taxes on people making over $200,000 to 50%, the richest 0.1% will still figure out a way to not pay.

It's just the middle and upper middle class are the easiest targets. They have significant amount of income (as percentage of total population) yet they're not rich enough to have significant impact on elections.

So let me challenge you with the following question: if rich people finding loopholes is the problem, why aren't politicians attempting to close those loopholes? Instead - they invent new taxes, like prop 1098 in WA.

 

[Jhhnn]

Taxes are not "taxes". That is like saying that a bill is a bill, the bill for my wifes Macy's card is much different than the electric bill. Social Security taxes are supposed to be different than Income taxes, property taxes are very different than income taxes, etc....

Specific taxes pay for specific things (at least they are supposed to) and everyone should pay something if the tax applies to them. Federal income taxes should apply to all in someway or another regardless of other taxes. If they have a problem with the state and local taxes they have much more power to get those reduced than they do the Federal taxes.

You can argue all that you want but if that is truly your position we should add all of their expenses into the argument. Water is a necessity so why wouldn't you include that into the discussion? Why not the electric bill too?

You have a lot of work compiling all of that data in order to have an informed discussion. If that is indeed your position, get back to me when you have all of the data and we can debate the issue further.

Sigh. Now you're trying to change my argument to suit your own purposes, and to bring non-tax issues in as obfuscation.

The sad truth is that progressive federal income taxes are the only reason that those with *very large* incomes pay as much in taxes as the rest of us, at all. That's because their material desires are satiated with a fraction of those incomes, with the rest being re-invested one way or another, with whisking money offshore as fast as possible being the current favorite.

Taxes that matter to the rest of us shrink to insignificance. The price of a pack of cigarettes, a bottle of liquor, a gallon of gas or a month's worth of groceries really doesn't matter to them. There are no transactional taxes on stocks and bonds, real estate, or goods and services purchased in tax havens.

And modern taxes have overlapping functions, with many of the services we require obtaining them from local, state and federal sources. Law enforcement. Fire protection. Roads, bridges, transit, navigation and a lot more.

Your argument is empty, based on false premises and desires.

 

[JS80]

The top 10% arent winning, the top .05% are winning.

I don't get why these fuckers want to classify a family with two professionals making $250k combined with an actor with a $5 million payday. It's like fuck I'm not fucking rich. I can't even afford a goddamn house (that I want).

 

[IGBT]

taxes are income confiscation. it took time out of your life to earn that income. so any tax increase is actually confiscation of time out of the earners life.

 

[Acanthus]

I agree with the last few posts, so what is the solution? A new tax bracket at 1m+?

Closing the loopholes is the ideal solution, but try to get that shit passed...

 

[JS80]

Id actually argue about the top 1000 americans are winning.

That's what? the top .0000028%?

Do you really think a couple engineers making $125k/year each are in the same class as a football player making $10m/year?

 

[JS80]

I agree with the last few posts, so what is the solution? A new tax bracket at 1m+?

Closing the loopholes is the ideal solution, but try to get that shit passed...

Why? Why? Why? Why? Won't make a dent in the national debt nor deficit. And there is good argument that we are on the latter half of the Laffer curve and any tax increases will be revenue neutral/negative.

 

[Acanthus]

Do you really think a couple engineers making $125k/year each are in the same class as a football player making $10m/year?

Not at all.

 

[Acanthus]

Why? Why? Why? Why? Won't make a dent in the national debt nor deficit. And there is good argument that we are on the latter half of the Laffer curve and any tax increases will be revenue neutral/negative.

We have many interlocking issues with taxation. I fail to see how closing tax loopholes will cost revenue. I am genuinely interested if there is data to back this up.

 

[Brainonska511]

I agree with the last few posts, so what is the solution? A new tax bracket at 1m+?

Closing the loopholes is the ideal solution, but try to get that shit passed...

How about adding another bracket or two on the top as well as treating all income the same? No differentiation between passive and earned income. Could also close some of the loopholes, like those that Hollywood actors like to take advantage of (such as forming themselves into S-corps) to avoid paying more taxes (while they hypocritically call for higher taxes).

 

[Jhhnn]

Why? Why? Why? Why? Won't make a dent in the national debt nor deficit. And there is good argument that we are on the latter half of the Laffer curve and any tax increases will be revenue neutral/negative.

What good argument do you reference, other than the one in your imagination?

America's wealthy enjoy the lowest tax rates of any in the first world.

What you offer is standard rightwing practice- introducing falsehood as fact, so as to make it an underlying part of the greater argument.

Hogwash.

 

[Hacp]

Why should we end tax cuts for people who worked hard in school and continued to work hard after school to earn money? Shouldn't we be rewarding their behavior? Instead, we reward high school drop outs by giving them food stamps, welfare, and medicaid.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why should we end tax cuts for people who worked hard in school and continued to work hard after school to earn money? Shouldn't we be rewarding their behavior? Instead, we reward high school drop outs by giving them food stamps, welfare, and medicaid.

More lameness. Success is its own reward, even after taxes.

It's not like food stamps are the same thing as a professional couple making ~$250K/yr, so your false equivalencies are just that- false.

 

[JS80]

More lameness. Success is its own reward, even after taxes.

It's not like food stamps are the same thing as a professional couple making ~$250K/yr, so your false equivalencies are just that- false.

lol that is the most lame argument ever. If that is really the left's "reasoning" then you guys are fucked up in the head and fucked, proper.

 

[Darwin333]

Sigh. Now you're trying to change my argument to suit your own purposes, and to bring non-tax issues in as obfuscation.

No, I am trying to remove non-federal income tax issues from the discussion. OTOH, YOU are bringing in non-federal tax issues in as an obfuscation. My post was simply an attempt to point that out. I am pretty sure that the discussion is about Federal income taxes, please correct me if I am wrong.

The sad truth is that progressive federal income taxes are the only reason that those with *very large* incomes pay as much in taxes as the rest of us, at all. That's because their material desires are satiated with a fraction of those incomes, with the rest being re-invested one way or another, with whisking money offshore as fast as possible being the current favorite.

I agree with a progressive tax system and have stated so in this thread so I am not sure what your point is but ok...

Taxes that matter to the rest of us shrink to insignificance. The price of a pack of cigarettes, a bottle of liquor, a gallon of gas or a month's worth of groceries really doesn't matter to them. There are no transactional taxes on stocks and bonds, real estate, or goods and services purchased in tax havens.

Absolutely nothing to do with Federal income taxes. If you would like to discuss the issues of those taxes I would be happy to do so but they have nothing to do with the Federal income tax. BTW, you do know most of those taxes you mentioned, by design, hurt the poor and middle class only right? The lotto is roughly the same as well.

And modern taxes have overlapping functions, with many of the services we require obtaining them from local, state and federal sources. Law enforcement. Fire protection. Roads, bridges, transit, navigation and a lot more.

Again, irrelevant to the discussion. The Federal government provides services that you would agree are necessary and all citizens of this country enjoy those services. My only argument is that everyone should have skin in the game, regardless of how insignificant. Furthermore, I believe that as spending goes up so should taxes.

Regardless of whatever bullshit reply you make the fact remains that our current government is unsustainable and simply increasing the taxes on the rich will not solve that.

Your argument is empty, based on false premises and desires.

Funny, I would think the exact opposite is true.