Seems like it is mostly giveaways.

And take-aways.

We must be careful when we talk about paying taxes and where those dollars go because not everyone in fact pays taxes.



Only the Rich Pay Taxes! NEW UPDATED FIGURES: Top 20% Pay 80% of Taxes New York Times Buries, But Reports, Truth on Taxes
CBO report misheadlined by New York Times still reveals truth...tscript,
• CBO Report: Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
• Posted Forever: Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes
• Excel file: IRS Income Stats
• Myth Buster: Democrats Get More Campaign Cash from "Rich" [/url]

Just about everyone most certainly does pay taxes; just not "income" taxes. Every working person pays Soc Sec and Medicare tax right off the top of the paycheck: no exemptions or anything else to make this form of taxation more progressive. Since I own my business I get to pay both the employer and employee portion of the tab (I do get an adjustment to my AGI to account for some of this impact).

I would love to see some graphic regarding what percentage of all federal taxes (including FICA) are paid by the top 20%, not just "income" taxes.

My job in wealth management is to help my wealthy clients lower their tax bills. This administration has certainly kept their promise to help me do so.

If they were at all serious about tax relief for middle income and working people, the separate FICA tax would be abolished and the real cost of Social Security/Medicare would be included in the income tax.

Paul

The super rich pay very little in taxes as percentage of income in many cases:

http://www.amazon.com/.../103-7945321-0563014

From the book: There are more rich people making way more now than ever before. The top 1 percent of the richest people in the U.S. are making more than twice as much in 1970 as now (In 1970, the richest 1 percent made about $250,000 a year in year 2000 dollars, now the richest 1 percent make year $500,000 in year 2000 dollars). The other 99 percent make about the same or less. The top 1 percent are paying less taxes compared to years ago and the other 99 percent are paying more, or so says the author.

This is an excellent book (I've gotten through most of it) written by a Pulitzer-winner ... The better-off wage earners (those making $100,000 to $250,000) pay the lions share of the taxes, true. But really rich people (multi-millionaires) are hardly paying anything, really, compared to what they they make as everything is written off, hidden away, considered a 'loss' etc. etc. I guess it all goes back into the economy anyway.

A few questions:

This includes, state, local, property, everything, right? (of course it varies from state to state and town to town) Maybe not: Where do cops, courts and fire fit in?

Is 'Income security' 'unemployment?' and disability? It must be.

Not to brag, but I'm pretty sure that I pay more taxes than all but the upper .0000001%. That being said, unless you are a greedy fuck, who really cares? After a certain point its all moot anyway. I've been very lucky in life, and barring a catastrophic disaster on my person/business, I'm never going to be able to spend what I earn. I look at taxes, especially out here in California, as the price of admission. My father-in-law, a died-in-the-wool, extreme-right-of-Rush Republican, continually bitches about taxes (and also lives in constant fear of terrorist attacks (in Hudson Ohio of all places...but thats another thread)) and how much he has to pay. So fucking what? 40% of $1m + in income per year is still $600k take home; annually. How greedy does one need to be? This is a guy who owns 2 homes, 2 boats, 4-6 cars, all on a rotating basis, and wouldn't give dime one to a charity unless something was in it for him....and he still bitches about the gov't taking "his" money away (that 90% of his income is derived from selling goods to the US military, and that his income is directly sourced from US tax dollars has been the source of many an argument). He is emblematic of what I see as the Republican party--all out for themselves, with no thought to society as a whole.

Do I pay attention to tax cuts? No. Should I? Who the fuck knows? All I know is that something like 4 million more people are now living in poverty since before Bush became president.....that is much more important to me as opposed to whether I get an extra % or two more in my take home. I give a huge percentage of my take home pay to various educational and environmental charities & causes--not because its in my best interest (I couldn't even tell you my tax bracket or what these donations save me in tax dollars), but because it is the right thing to do. Most Republicans/conservatives I know don't do the same, and I'm afraid it is pretty much par for the course from the pettiness that I've seen on this & other political boards.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

First of all congratulations on your success in life (seriously) You have obviously worked hard and reaped the benefits of the opportunities our great nation has provided you and all of us. I must say though your position on the tax issue is troubling. Just because you don't care about how much you pay in taxes how is it that your opinion on what your father in law has to pay is any of your business. Who is to say how much is too much $$? At what point do you feel someone is comfortale at? One hundrd thousand $$ a year, a million $$ a year? I mean why do you or anyone (government included) get to decide? Also, just because your father in law chooses not to give any $$ to charity unlss it benefits him its stil his $$. So what. Your characterization of him makes it sound like all rich people are stingy and greedy. I would disagree. There are many times more people in this country who give alot of their income to charitable causes. Your broad bush stroke of painting all conservatives as not donating to charities is troubling as well. Please provide me with your facts and proof not just your anecdotal thoughts on the matter that rpublicans are tingy. While you are at it please do some research on what the "poverty" level you mention is. Very few people in tis category do have a roof over their head, food on the table and clothes on their backs. In other words poor but no destitute. This is a distortion of the reality that you and your left leaning friends either don't know or don't tell. The US government's definition of poverty is still higher than 90% of the "middle income" of Europeans. Thats right Europeans not third world countries. The other fact is that the poverty level, just like all levels of income in this country, is fluid. People move into then out of poverty all the time. Very few people are "stuck" there for their entire lives. Its very generous for you to sit back and throw these charities your $$ but beside that what have you done? You may well have gone to Mexico to help build a church or school. You may volunteer to go down to the homeless shelter at Christmas and serve meals. You may volunteer to be a Big rother to a kid from the iner city. I do not have your isposable ncome and I give generously to our church. I also have, and do, the things I mentioned. And I too am a hard right wing Republican. So I guess because I don't have alot of $$ to give I am heartless and cruel and don't care about my environment or society.

The Health & Medicare, should be re-titled (liability & malpractice insurance)

Since we elect our Representatives aren't we saying we want them to decide how much we pay in taxes should be? And even if it shouldn't be them, someone has to decide otherwise there would be no social services, no highways, no schools and no infrastructure*.

I know rich people who are pricks and who are generous, I know poor people who are the same. People are people (you know this, sorry for needlessly saying it).

I like "moppies" (or would it be "mopies"?) view of "taxes are the admission fee for success" viewpoint. Having to pay $400k/year in taxes means you are making over 20 times that of the average American household. You volunteer at charities so you see what it is like to be poor and struggling.

And I think we as Americans should hold ourselves to a higher standard. So yes, the poverty line in Europe may be lower, but those countries also offer socialist social services. But more importantly, the US makes more money than all of the EU. We have a more "robust" (vomit, what a lame word) economy and therefore we should strive to not have just the top 1% benefit from economic expansion, we should try and help those less fortunate.



* One can argue that all government services could be provided by private industry, but it would cost an exponentially higher amount for this.

I bet I am in the minority on this but I think the rich- especially the very wealthy who own businesses that employ more than 1,000 people, should recieve a substantial tax break, or pay no taxes at all.

Excess taxation of the rich, or even the same percentage of taxation, is a dis-incentive toward financial success. I think there needs to be significant incentives to be financially prosperous.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

I'm sure you are in the minority. The wealthy have reaped the greatest benefit from this country, and can afford to pay a greater share than the less fortunate. Do they pay more than their fair share? Sure they do, and I think it's great that they do. They can afford to pay their fair share, and the fair shares of 26 or so other people without putting a dent in their ability to eat, house, and clothe themselves, and still have plenty left over to do whatever they want to with. Excessive taxation is a very nebulous term because what you consider excessive may not be considered so by someone else. However, having to pay more taxes isn't a disincentive to get rich. You still are richer, even if you are paying more taxes. It's not like you get rich, and then pay so much tax that you actually end up poorer, at least not usually. The incentives in place to be financially prosperous come in the form of a nice plump bank account. We shouldn't have to give you anything in addition to that to make you work hard.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Excess taxation of the rich, or even the same percentage of taxation, is a dis-incentive toward financial success. I think there needs to be significant incentives to be financially prosperous."


According to the book I mentioned above and another post in this thread by the money manager, right now may be the best time to be rich in the U.S. and taxes for the very wealthy are at an all-time low, due to the complicated tax code. It's wage earners and small to medium business owners that are getting taxed tremendously. Big business and really wealthy people are often let off the hook, compared to decades past. I agree with slowguy in that taxes are not to the point they have proved a genuine disincentive for people to make more money or for businesses to expand.

Now very low income people ($8 an hour) and very small businesses (like my sister and her husband, $50K a year gross) pay very little to nothing in income taxes. Some say sales taxes hit them hard, but I think sales taxes are the fairest of all taxes. Montana has no sales tax, just very high income and property taxes. What's a fair sales tax in your opinion?

Jeezus....we gotta do something about that Social Security/Health & Medicare piece (45 cents of every dollar). That's waaaaay too much.

But, as a retired military veteran, don't even THINK about messing with income security, defense and veteran's benefits ;-)

Gawd, I love getting that pension check :-)) Thanks, guys.

T.



P.S. What's that old line from the movie "Full Metal Jacket"? "It's a big shit sandwhich......and we're all gonna have to take a bite."

Excess taxation of the rich, or even the same percentage of taxation, is a dis-incentive toward financial success. I think there needs to be significant incentives to be financially prosperous.

I'd have to disagree... Even with the current progressive tax system, I believe the majority of people in the US still desire to be 'richer'. I myself would welcome the jump to the highest tax bracket. I'm currently in the next-to-highest.

What I hate is that I'm considered "rich" because my wife & I make over 100K combined. I'm actually at the point that I'd hesitate at another nominal pay raise, because then I wouldn't be able to contribute to an IRA. That's fuct.

the very wealthy who own businesses that employ more than 1,000 people

Of course, if you employ 1000 people, you'd better be incorporated. And the goal of a corporation should be to break even, so that you don't have to pay taxes. Distribute that money through salary and stock, etc..

Excess taxation of the rich, or even the same percentage of taxation, is a dis-incentive toward financial success.

What drugs are you on? The last thing I think about during my day-to-day activities, is how much more I'm going to have to pay in taxes because I'm making more $$. That makes no sense at all. If you are paying more taxes, you are making more money & you still come out way, way ahead. How is that a dis-incentive to financial success.

And your argument re 1000+ people employed when owned by a sole proprietorship doesn't make any sense either--they already do receive very healthy tax breaks thru various methods of incorporation, not to mention government subsidies & tax rebates depending on where the biz is located, type of employees hired, product produced.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

I used my FIL as an example of the hypocrisy surrounding most of the tax "disinclined" that I've met over the years. As to your "who am I to say how much is too much?" argument: trust me, unless you are a rock star, $400k+ take home is really, really hard to spend, and $1m + is just silly money. It is a societal problem that families are trying to get by on <$20k per year, but a large # of us are living large on $400k+ w/o any regard for how much $$ that really is & how much less we actually need to live on. No, it is not up to me (or the government) to say how much is too much, but giving people in my income bracket tax breaks is simply ludicrous: we don't NEED the money. This year I'll pay between corporate & personal (including wife) probably close to $1m in taxes. Seems like a stupid amount of $$, and I won't relish writing the check (actually, I write a check every month), but the last thing I'm going to do when looking at the overall picture is bitch that I'm not making enough money. If I paid an extra $100k annually in taxes it wouldn't affect my standard of living one bit, but that $$ would probably go quite a ways to helping educate the poor & help families in need. It is that basic greed & ignorance from the "I've got mine" crowd that pisses me off more than anything, and Bush is simply their toady. Did I spend more (to help rev up the economy as Bush promised) because of his tax cuts? Absolutely not--at a certain level it is impossible to, and that is what nobody seems to realize (or want to say).

What I always wonder from the anti-tax crowd is this: how much is "too much" in taxes? What basic services are you willing to give up? (and then I always prepare for the welfare abuse stories).

My taxes (both personal & corporate) would be much, much lower if I lived in Texas, Nevada or similar "low tax" state, however the opportunities are limited for my business in these states. Hence, while I'm not thrilled at California's income, business & sales taxes, those $$ are well spent in that a 40 million consumer (customer) base provides opportunities that aren't available elsewhere (plus we do have ridiculously low property taxes).

Yes, I was painting too broad a stroke in regards to Repubs & their spending habits, but it is simply what I have experienced over the years. Plus the facts are pretty plain--Repubs look to cut social & environmental services first (historically that is--Bush's Medicare fiasco is a puzzlement to most everyone), the traditional backbone of the Dems. As to your "they are just poor, not in poverty" argument: please, you really want to rest your hat on the premise that because they aren't destitute & on the street that it is not a problem of society? Do you really believe that being poor is ok & that society shouldn't work toward everyone having a high standard of living (and with the exception of Ireland, the poor areas of Europe & similarly styled European countries (Australia for example) are much closer to our middle class than our slums....our slums, especially the rural poor, are more in line with third world countries than you may want to believe).

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

For a more complete listing of budget line items and a fairly complete history of the same.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf

~Matt

Also, the very rich are usually heavily invested in or benefit greatly from government funded infrastructure and departments. Defense contractors benefit from the military. Oil companies benefit from the military and our energy policies. All corporations rely heavily upon our interstate highways and rail system ... therefore shouldn't the people and corporations who benefit from -- and rely most upon -- these services the government provides also pay the largest share of their funding?

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

"but a large # of us are living large on $400k+ w/o any regard for how much $$ that really is & how much less we actually need to live on."

I doubt there is "large number" of people who are clearing over $400k a year. I know I'm not even at 25% of that number and I personally don't know anyone who would even be close to clearing $400k a year.

Per the U.S. Gov, in 2004 1.55m people earned more than $250k per year....and from experience once you get above $250k, it keeps getting easier. Even if the # is only 1m people at the 400k mark, it doesn't change the fact that it is much more than we actually need. Especially with 12.5% of the population living in poverty.

Don't know where you live, but in NY & CA, the amount of wealth is much greater (insofar as # of people) than in other parts of the country.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Per your request I did a bit of research on poverty in the US. Poverty is not as fluid as you would like to believe: since 2000, 4.3 million people have joined the poverty ranks--now 12.5% of our total population. Please tell me how this is a good thing? That every year since Bush has been in office the # has gone up probably isn't a big deal either in your eyes? From the US Census: Because the largest income declines occurred among the lowest income families, the share of the nation living in poverty increased, from 12.1% in 2002 to 12.5% last year, adding 1.3 million persons to the poverty rolls. Since 2000, poverty is up 1.2 percentage points, an addition of 4.3 million poor persons.

Any questions? Or are you going to stick with the "they are still better off than if they lived in Europe or a developing country crap?

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Interesting how ones "perspective" cn become squewed. The poster you're responding claims to be paying 1M$ in taxes. Assuming this is true, likely the crowds he's exposed to generally make 400K a year.

OTOH were I live and, apparently yourself as well, am only regulary exposed to one individual that makes anywhere near that. Fortunately I'm related to them and see them at Christmas....weddings and funerals.

Considering the mean income in the US is some amount like 35K, if memory serves, it's highly unlikely that ALOT of people are making 400K a year.

Then again I guess it depends on how you define alot. .01% of the working population in the US is what 17K (Note Numbers PFA'd) people...that's alot of people I guess. But a very small percentage.

~Matt

So 1.55 million people make more than 250K, I wonder how many actually clear more than 400k? You'd be making what 6-700k to clear 400?

Anyways, 1.55 million out of nearly 300 million in the entire US gets you what barely over 0.5% of the population? Seems like a pretty small number in my book.

I'm in the 'burbs of Chicago so I don't live in a rural area.

I probably know one or two people who make around that 250k number (but no one who makes over 400k), and I know people who have a very high net worth, but their income isn't anywhere near that high. Just a lifetime of living frugally and having a good head for investing.

Only the rich pay taxes?!?!

I thought the rich hired accountants and lawyers to stick it to the middle class.

President Bush said so (from his stump speach):

"Well, the rich hire lawyers and accountants for a reason -- that's to stick you with the tab. "

So I did some more looking. In '03 the break point for the top 1% of AGI was $285,000, so to even get to $400k in AGI you're looking at much less than 1% of the tax filers. There was a total of 168,000 filers who had an AGI higher than a million bucks, of those the state with the highest was California (not surprisingly). So, if you paid more than a million in taxes then you obviously have an AGI higher than a million bucks (unless you're counting tons of other taxes that you haven't talked about).

Congrats, that puts you in the top 25,730 filers in the state of California. In '03 California had roughly 35 million people (from the census site). So that puts you in the top 0.0735% of filers. I can understand why you don't care if you lose a few percentage points of your income, but to say there is a "large number" of people making as much as you is not true. It's actually a relatively small number, one I wish I was a part of.

Good points & good statistics--my tax situation is a bit different from most as a biz owner + investor + have a wife who does well so I'm hit in 3-4 different areas, but thats besides the point.

Regardless of the stats, the point that I was trying to make is that at a certain point, tax "relief" for the higher income earners is just silly--the money isn't going back into circulation from my spending--it would be much better to give true tax relief to those making < $50k (for arguments sake) as they are feeling the pinch.

Interesting that your stat showed 168k filers nationwide w/AGI of over $1m, when there are estimated to be 8.2m millionaires in the US--1/2 of them retired. The majority made their money thru real estate investing, not high salaries.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

"Regardless of the stats"

Nice...

"the point that I was trying to make is that at a certain point, tax "relief" for the higher income earners is just silly"

The point however is who decides "what's silly" Maybe to you 400K is that point. Maybe to someone else It's 1M$. The fact remains it woudl be far more equatibale and IMO, fair to keep things even across the board. Under the current tax law the rich pay a greater percentage than the poor. IMO that's just wrong.


"The majority made their money thru real estate investing, not high salaries. "

Are you sure about this? I coudl have sworn I saw somewhere that the #1 way to become a millionaire was to "start your own business". this may include realestate, not sure.

From 2002 teh top 10 millionaires.

Bill Gates $43 billion Microsoft
Warren Buffett $36 billion Berkshire Hathaway
Paul Allen $21 billion Microsoft
Alice Walton $19 billion Inheritance: Wal-Mart
Helen Walton $19 billion Inheritance: Wal-Mart
Jim Walton $19 billion Inheritance: Wal-Mart
John Walton $19 billion Inheritance: Wal-Mart
S. Robson Walton $19 billion Inheritance: Wal-Mart
Lawrence Ellison $15 billion Oracle Corp.
Steven Ballmer $12 billion Microsoft
Michael Dell $11 billion Dell Computer
John Werner Kluge $10 billion Metromedia
Forrest E. Mars $10 billion Inheritance: Mars Candy
Jacqueline Mars $10 billion Inheritance: Mars Candy
John Franklyn Mars $10 billion Inheritance: Mars Candy

Although I'm sure each of the above are/did make some money on realestate along the way I didn't see any of them that made it from realestate only.

~Matt

There's a big difference between being a millionaire and having an AGI (income after many of the deductions) of over one million dollars for a given year.

As I get older and continue to save/invest aggresively, I'll probably be a millionaire, but I don't have much hope of ever having an AGI of over a million dollars.

My question to you is if you got at $100k "tax break" what would happen to it? Would you invest it? Spend it? Grow your business? Give it away to charity? Take the cash and put it under your bed?

Of all of those questions the only one that doesn't help the economy/others is if you put that money under your bed. Invest it, you help those companies you invest in (make the market look better as there is more demand for securities); spend it, same thing; grow your business, probably hiring more people; charity, no brainer.

That's just one of the "thought processes to lowering taxes to grow the economy". You're taking it a different way, put more of the burden on the rich and less on the middle class, where any extra income will almost assuredly be spent and after a year of the lower taxes those same people would be no better off except they would have a better television or whatever they buy with their money. Different ways to hypothesize about solving the same situation. The lower class is typically already not paying anything in taxes and in fact they may be getting money back through the earned income credit.

"Under the current tax law the rich pay a greater percentage than the poor. IMO that's just wrong. "

Why? When you look at it on a cash basis, the rich are still rich & (usually) getting richer. The poor need the $$ much, much more than we do. And if you look at the taxes as a % of take-home (on a cash basis), the middle class & the poor get hit much worse.

My stats came directly from US Census figures & from this article: http://money.cnn.com/...lionaire_households/ (though it only touches/attributes the recent rise in # of millionaires due to real estate investments). And I do agree with you--best way to become wealthy is start your own business.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

"My question to you is if you got at $100k "tax break" what would happen to it? Would you invest it? Spend it? Grow your business? Give it away to charity? Take the cash and put it under your bed? "

Invest it in a vacation home in either Provence or South Australia, or both.

"You're taking it a different way, put more of the burden on the rich and less on the middle class, where any extra income will almost assuredly be spent and after a year of the lower taxes those same people would be no better off except they would have a better television or whatever they buy with their money. Different ways to hypothesize about solving the same situation. The lower class is typically already not paying anything in taxes and in fact they may be getting money back through the earned income credit. "

Its not like tax breaks are a one-time stimulus--they go on & on, so theoretically the middle class & below families would have a re-curring stream of additional income to spend. As to the middle & lower classes not paying anything in taxes--as a contributing % to the US tax base ($$ wise) they very well may not be, but as a % of their income, yes, they are taking a much bigger hit to their personal bottom lines than the rich.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

The problem comes with just how much do you cut the lower income tax rates? The bottom 50% of taxpayers in the 2002 fiscal year paid an average tax rate of just 3.21%. They're share of the total income tax was just 3.5%. That means that half of the country pays 96.5% of the income taxes and the other half pays just 3.5%. Then to take those numbers even farther, the top 25% paid 83.9% of the total taxes collected in 2002 and to get into the super rich people who "never pay taxes" the top 1% accounts for a whopping 33.7% of the taxes collected. The top 5% of taxpayers alone pay over half of the total taxes collected at 53.8%!

The income splits at 50% is $28,654, at 25% is $56,401, at 1% is $285,424.

The tax system that we have is already very heavily progressive.

Here's the link to the stats. Their source was the irs.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this page.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

Shows that the top 1% only accounts for 16.12% of total AGI and top 5% at only 30.55%. So in essence both of these groups are paying a much high percentage of tax than the lower groups. For example the lower 50% makes 14.23% of the total AGI but only pays 3.5% of the tax?

To put in a "ratio" the Lower 1/2 pays at a tax to income ratio of .245 While the upper 1% pays at a ratio of 2.09? Hmmmmm seems...well unfair.

The real problem I have here is that simply going to flat tax would send "Mr. lower 50%" into a tail spin. It would appear that teh lower 50% simply has gotten off easy for so long I wonder if they could actually survive while paying the same rate/ratio as the upper percentile?

~Matt

Which is why the flat tax will never be adopted, nor does it really make sense for the country as a whole. We need $X dollars collected in tax revenue and in order to get it on a flat tax basis you'd really have to sock it to the lower and middle class people.

Another way to think about it that will annoy you is that the top 1% pays an average rate that is more than 8 TIMES higher than the bottom 50%. However, if you upped the tax on those bottom 50%, then they wouldn't be able to live on a day to day basis without gov't assistance. So a progressive tax is really the only way to go.

Now the thing to really remember is this is just federal income taxes. It doesn't include social security, etc, etc.

What really cracks me up is that here you are explaining rationally and without reservation that you don't care about the taxes you pay since your earnings render your tax burden a moot point, and there are STILL people in this forum who make WAY less than you that feel like telling you that you are wrong.

L O freaking L

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

What I'm getting from your post is that you think taxes should be on a normalized bell curve distrobution? That makes absolute no sense to me.

What is confusing me is I'm not sure what tax rate you think someone making $1m/year should be paying.

What tax to income ration would be fare? .5 to 1.5? It makes me wonder what the actual total $ amount paid by the bottom 50% pays and the top 1% pay. Cause I'm not seeing how the bottom 50% could ever equal the top 1% without paying a 50% tax rate or something.

Here we go again--enough with the percentages. Lets take a look at real $$ & how the tax rates affect people:

Lets make some broad assumptions for purpose of argument (percentages may be off a point or two, but they are pretty close (at least out here in CA)):

Family A AIG is $30k. They pay $5k in state & federal taxes. They live on $25k. Roughly $2k per month.

Family B AIG is $60k. They pay $15k in state & federal taxes. They live on $45k. Roughly $3750 per month

Family C AIG is $100k. They pay $30k in state & federal taxes. They live on $70k. Roughly $5900 per month.

Family D AIG is $400k. They pay $160k in state & federal taxes. They live on $240k. Roughly $20k per month.

So you truly believe that families/individuals A-C should be paying more taxes, or paying at the same percentage as family/individual D? Quit worrying about the % & look at the actual dollars and how it is going to affect the individuals/society. Who is going to feel it more? I guarantee that Family A is counting every last dollar, and Family B & C feel some squeeze, depending on their lifestlye/location. But trust me on this, Family D could pay an additional 10-25% more in taxes & it really won't matter. Sure, may mean one less trip abroad every year, or that they lease instead of buy a Range Rover, but their day-to-day standard of living does not change, unless they have overbought on a house, and then they've got other issues, but you have to really work at it to spend $15k per month, month-after-month--even with a $1m mortgage, much less $20k.

You keep using percentages in your argument as a justification for keeping taxes down. What services do you think we should cut? Education? Head Start? Environmental protections? Because those are what are on the current chopping block. How about we cut out corporate welfare & farm subsidies instead? How about we quit wasting billions on a "missle defense system" that can't hit water if it was thrown out of a boat.

There is a price for success here in the US & that is that we pay more actual $$ out to the gov't: so what--it is a percentage of earnings, and the more that you are paying directly equate to the more you are earning (actually it is, worst case, more like 45/55)--you are still getting far ahead. For argument's sake lets look at the top 20k filers in CA--all earning over $2m (and that 20k are filing on $2m means that there are probably another 20k that make near to that but are ducking & dodging their way out of it)--theoretically if I make, between corp earnings, investments & my wife's income $2.5m this year, than I'm going to pay approx $1.2-1.4m in taxes. Guess what--that leaves me $1.1-1.3m in net income. Unless I decide to become either a rock star with a heroin habit or move to Vegas to pursue my professional poker career, there is no way that I could spend all that money (well I could this year but not year after year after year). I don't mind paying more taxes/giving to charity/etc if it is helping the greater good--and I've always felt that way about the system. When my wife moved here (LA) from Ohio, she bitched for the first two years about the sales tax, COL, and state tax rates. Guess what--she no longer complains as the opportunities that have opened up for both of us due to California's economy (and housing market) means she certainly isn't making the $75k she was grateful for in Hudson OH. You have to pay to play--and the sooner the Right quits worrying about the percentages & the pennies & focuses on the big picture (such as moving more people out of poverty & into the middle class (thru education & worker's protections) so they have more $$ to spend, the better the long term health of this country will be. Except for the Right it is always about ME-ME-ME. Very short-term thinking.

Personally I like Australia's system--there are very few people actually living in poverty--the gov't has the dole & it is pretty sweet + subsidized housing & pretty much free medical benefits. There isn't alot of suffering--even the lower income/poor enjoy a very high standard of living. However there aren't that many super-rich either--the taxes are progressively worse as you climb the food chain and there are numerous protections for employees & the environment that we simply don't have. So you have a very broad middle class that probably comprimises 80% of society, with 10/10 above/below. Then again they only have 25m people or so, but the concept is pretty sound. Its just that those whose only focus is grabbing the brass ring, at any cost to their fellow man/society, is what seems to drive our country. I just don't understand how you can sit there & make the argument that the poor & middle class should bear a greater burden of the taxes than the wealthiest 5%, when IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER TO THEIR SOL. Rant over.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Hey Ty and Matt

Just another stat for the discussion. While income rates have been discussed, one thing that should be considered is that the top 1% hold nearly 40% of total wealth in this country. That's up from around 20% in 1980.

Yes, the ultra wealthy do pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes, but they are still rapidly increasing their holdings. In other words, the idea that higher tax rates is a disincentive to making more money doesn't appear to hold water.

You guys visit TNO anymore?

_______________

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.

"How greedy does one need to be?"

How condescending and self serving do your posts like yours need to be?

There is the theory of 'living an abundant life' which says is is good to have more, it is good to desire and achieve wealth and there is nothing at all wrong with wanting to have as much as you can get. The more you have the more you can give.....the more positive things you put out in the universe, the more you will come back to you. Cause and effect.

There's also something called gracefulness, as in; 'grace in giving' something you do without the selfish need to draw attention to yourself. Most libs, like you, cheapen your generosity by having to broadcast it; Why are you trying so hard?

Makes it look like it's done for nothing more than your vanity.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

I think your "living an abundant life" is the same as the "if you were rich, got an extra $20k/year back, how much would you actually put into helping the economy" question. And from what I have read, most wealthy people put the majority of tax reductions into savings or buying real estate.

"normalized bell curve distrobution"

Where did you get that?

I believe a fair tax rate is one where everyone pays the same percentage rate despite income level.

Actually I'd even go with saying that after some point, let's say poverty level, everyone pays the same tax rate.

I can understand and somewhat agree with the idea that someone who's making 10K a year makes no sense to be paying taxes as what is "taxed away" will likely have to be replaced with some other support or service in order for the individual to survive. Better he/she keep it to start with and save the loose thru ineffecient redistribution.

I don't however understand why someone making 50K should be taxed at a lower level than someone at 300K.

"What tax to income ration would be fare..."

As I see it the one that woudl be "fair" is likely not possible at this point as Tyriius pointed out.

The problem is there would be a small revolt if the lower half had to actually pay their fair share. I;m certain I would have to make some real lifestyle changes if I were forced to pay my share.

What this does point out is truely how high our national spending is. The true answer is lower overall federal spending and then give everyone a reasonable flat rate tax....IMO.

~Matt

Actually I saw some note in my "research" about this thread that said Bill Gates by himslef has as much wealth as the lower 40% of the country or something like that.

Another graph showed that the realized income for the various groups, by quintilla, had gone up almost equally from 1947 thru 1979. However it was massively skewed toward the upper 20% from 1980-2000. I'd agree a disturbing trend.

I would like to see a study on that and find out what the contributing factors for the recent trend is compared to the older trend.

"You guys visit TNO anymore?"

Nope, Like I said in my "farewell letter". I don't appreciate being treated like a child and won't support someone who feels they have to treat others that way.

~Matt

The last part makes sense, but as far as I can tell anytime the Federal government shrus off spending it just gets thrown to the States (ie Medicaid). So we'd end up with lower federal taxes and crazy state taxes.

Although maybe one could argue that States would spend it more effectively, I don't think you'd see any benefits to large contract purchases or services. I'd imagine that licensing for software and office supplies alone would cost millions upon millions a year in additional overhead due to the lack of the GSA.

I got the bell curve thing because it sounded like you wanted the top 1% and the bottom 1% to pay the same rate. But now I see you want everyone to start off with the same rate. The challenge is the given system ends up in the rich just taking advantage of tax laws to an extent that the poor never could.

"So you truly believe that families/individuals A-C should be paying more taxes or paying at the same percentage as family/individual D?"

Yes

As stated in another post the problem lies in the idea that in order to make it equatable at this time, without running numbers, I suspect that the lower 50% would have to pay 100%+ tax rate.

(Added: After thinking about this for a while it woud seem that if we simply raised the tax rate all to the same as the highest level we would all be paying the same amount and would have more money coming into the treasury. I'd be for exempting everyones first "X" amount of income from any tax except SS which would be put into a PA. By raising everyon's rate we would all be paying equal percentage and we could use the excess to pay off some debt. I'd actually go for this is it was legislated in conjunction with some serious "meaningful" spending reforms.)

Again as I stated in a prior post the entire budget needs to be shrunk t the point that it can be a fair tax and reasonable tax rate.

The plain and simple fact is that all of us, me included, that aren't paying a higher rater are freeloaders plain and simple. I don't like being put in a situation were I'm dependant on others for what I'm getting. It's wrong.

~Matt

" The last part makes sense, but as far as I can tell anytime the Federal government shrus off spending it just gets thrown to the States (ie Medicaid). So we'd end up with lower federal taxes and crazy state taxes. "

I'd agree based on the idea that all servies provided by teh federal government are services we actually need and aren't services we are simply giving for votes.

"The challenge is the given system ends up in the rich just taking advantage of tax laws to an extent that the poor never could."

Agreed again. Part of a flat tax rate system woudl have to be a more simplified system with MANY less loopholes deductions etc etc.

The only problem I see here is making a clear distinction between business and personal income. I'm all for no deductions on a personal level as as individuals we don't spend money to mkae money we simply spend money. At the business level you're spending alot, most of your money to make a little money.

~Matt

I noticed that too. I think a lot of people believe they are part of the "rich" if they have an AGI over 100K.

I don't remember arguing for a flat tax or increasing the rate of the lower brackets. In fact, the only reason I got in this discussion was to talk about the numbers of people who were making more than 400k a year, I continued in it because I find it interesting to see who is actually paying what. As I was posting I was sharing what I found.

To state my opinion, we need a progressive tax, a flat tax would kill the lower class; same as a national sales tax. In fact, I think we should maybe collapse one of the brackets we have now and add another one at say 750K of AGI and make that one around 40%. There wouldn't be too many people paying that, but some would and it would bring in a good amount of revenue.

And before you generalize my political viewpoints too much, I think our defense budget is way too high. I find it sad that the really "successful" farmers make more money filling out government paperwork then they do actually farming. I'm no Right Wing conservative Bush worshipper. In fact, I find it difficult to even call Bush a conservative as he spends more than any conservative should ever even think about.

And as to the person who thought that me making over 100k in AGI makes me think I'm rich is so far from the truth that I can't even describe it. That much money doesn't go too far in the suburbs where housing costs are high, property taxes are enormous (over 2% of the purchase price of your home), and you have a baby on the way. I'm distinctly middle class.

Maybe I need to be more clear in each of my posts, but also maybe people shouldn't try to "read between the lines" and assume that people believe something when they never said it.

You also need to be wary of those stats. Take Bill Gates again, his stock in Microsoft would be included in his wealth, but could you imagine what would happen if he tried to turn that stock into cash? The value of those shares would plummet, along with his net worth. Same with the Waltons, Dell, Buffett, all the big businessmen whose "wealth" is tied up in the stock market. They own so much that it would cause a huge supply and demand upheavel if they tried to "cash in" their securities.

So while Bill Gates may be worth XX billion on paper, that doesn't mean he has access to that much liquidity.

Also, say the price of Microsofts shares just doubled and instead of say Bill being worth 30 billion he's now worth 40 billion, well that's just a "paper" gain, if he tried to capitalize on it those shares would fall and he'd probably be back to nearly 30 billion again (not small potatoes though)

"You guys visit TNO anymore?"

TNO has rapidly become very boring. I think I've posted once or twice since the whole debacle.

"The plain and simple fact is that all of us, me included, that aren't paying a higher rater are freeloaders plain and simple. I don't like being put in a situation were I'm dependant on others for what I'm getting. It's wrong. "

How much of the government funded infastructure do you use? Do you have fleets of trucks that use the interstate system every day? Do you derive tremendous benefits from our energy, trade and defense policies? Corporations and super-wealthy benefit more from these services and policies and as such should have to pay more to support them. When you consider who uses more of the stuff our tax dollars pay for, the average schnook pays way more than their fair share. We're not the freeloaders ... they are.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





No sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter!

"(Added: After thinking about this for a while it woud seem that if we simply raised the tax rate all to the same as the highest level we would all be paying the same amount and would have more money coming into the treasury. I'd be for exempting everyones first "X" amount of income from any tax except SS which would be put into a PA. By raising everyon's rate we would all be paying equal percentage and we could use the excess to pay off some debt. I'd actually go for this is it was legislated in conjunction with some serious "meaningful" spending reforms.)"

Ok, but what then would the exempt amount be :-)? It costs much, much more to live in LA or NYC than it does in Mississippi.

"The plain and simple fact is that all of us, me included, that aren't paying a higher rater are freeloaders plain and simple. I don't like being put in a situation were I'm dependant on others for what I'm getting. It's wrong."

Ok again, but what are you willing to give up? Military? Amtrak (Santorum on Meet the Press on Sunday was admanant that that wasn't going to happen)? Environmental protections (can't do a triathlon if the water's dirty)? Education? Social services for the poor? I think we both agree that corporate & farm pork has to go, but finding a politician willing to step up on this is about impossible.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

Nice contribution to the discussion. How is the view from the cheap seats anyway?

Let me guess, when you look in the mirror you just repeat ME-ME-ME-ME? Way to have some empathy for others.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

"Do you have fleets of trucks that use the interstate system every day?"

These people with "fleets of trucks" Pay far more taxes than you'd even imagine. Liscensing, fuel tax etc etc. On top of that these "fleets of trucks" general are corporate assets not individual assets thus fall under a slightly different tax code than you and I.

"When you consider who uses more of the stuff our tax dollars pay for"

Taking a look at the largest federal budget items, SS, Health services, defense which make up a major portion of the budget. I don't see how these "rich people" use any more than you or I. Are the rich somehow "more protected" do the get a large SS check or use more health services? In act I'd say quite the opposite. They don't care about the SS check, they don't use much if any of the health services and on top of that they are far more likely to send there kids to private school...but still pay to have yours educated. Yes I'd say WE are teh free loaders.

~Matt

"Ok, but what then would the exempt amount be :-)? It costs much, much more to live in LA or NYC than it does in Mississippi."

Yes this is an issue, but much easier to deal with than teh current tax code. Also much more "global" than the current tx code. Could be done by area code or zones etc. Of coure our current tax code does not allow different exemptions at the federal level for individuals so maybe we won't have different exemptions with "my plan" either.

"Ok again, but what are you willing to give up?"

I'm willing to give up alot. In fact I'd be willing to give up or transfer to the private sector a good deal of the current federal government.

First a slow phase out of the current SS system to privat accounts. This despite everyones whining would over a period of 2-4 generations take roughly 12% out of the hands of the federal government and place it back into the private sector. Does it have glitches and bumps? Sure what doesn't. Would it be far superior to the current system? IMO by far.

Second...How about some tough love? Lets turn the wellfare system into a safety net rather than a way of life. No, drug addiction, obesity, alcoholism is not a disablity. The wellfare system can be reformed but it'll hurt and most people don't want anyone to hurt.

Three..."With my proposed" increase in taxes, so we all pay the same flat rate as you currently are, combined with the savings above we apply the surplus to the deficit. The ensuing drop in interest will intern result in lower taxes.

Four...There is no perfet system. Almost every, maybe even every system, can be improved. Military, tax law, Medicare etc etc, all be improved. With improved effeciency we end up with lower taxes.

~Matt...and I approve of this message.

Let's say we would all have to go to a 27% tax rate to make a flat tax, or something very similar, viable. It makes sense if you're paying greater than 27% (or whatever), but why argue for paying more taxes? It's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. People that would pay more taxes on a flat tax system and are arguing for the system are basically saying 'I believe in my ideology so strongly that I am willing to reduce my standard of living and give up thousands of dollars to make sure my ideas are implemented.'

I'm all for a tax system that is simpler and 'fairer,' but I'm not willing to pay thousands to get there. Supporting a flat tax means you're either rich, or insane.

"'I believe in my ideology so strongly that I am willing to reduce my standard of living and give up thousands of dollars to make sure my ideas are implemented.'"

I guess I don't understand your point. Yes I believe in my ideaology. Not because it's an "Idea" or I want my "ideas" implemented, but because they are what I believe is correct and fair.

I, as well as most if us below the 50% mark, aren't paying our fair share. The reason we aren't paying our fair share is because someone else is carrying the load for us. I think that is wrong, very wrong.

"Supporting a flat tax means you're either rich, or insane."

Or honestly believe that this country would be better off if people started actually taking responsibility for themselves. IMO the progressive tax rate, especiallly as skewed as it is, is nothing more than another form of welfare. Frankly I don't like being forced into a situation that in essence pputs me on the "Wellfare role"

The problem is that most people in this country feel exactly as you do, not just about taxes, but most things. "I'm all for "X", as long as "I" don't have to sacrafice anything". IMO we have crossed, or are very near crossing, the line of "no return" where the majority of the population is in someway supported by the minority. Only a few things can come from that scenario, complete stagnation, collapse due to ever increasing burden on the minority, or a "class system" are a the main ones I can think of. Taking a look at the ever widening gap between the "haves" and the "have not's" in this country I think we are moving toward the later.

We simply cannot have the minority supporting the majority and expect that we have the same freedoms, rights and desicion making powers as they do.

Either take responsibility for yourself and support yourself or basically be a second class citizen...IMO.

~Matt

That's all fine and dandy, but rich benefit from gov't services more than the poor and middle class. I read an article about a year ago from someone at harvard stating this, but I can't find a link. I think you are incorrect when you say that poor and middle income people are not paying their fair share. I'll try to find that article.

Money is not an end all be all. Just because you make a lot of money doesn't mean you work harder than other people. People are people. Some rich are lazy, some poor are lazy. We could argue in circles about the benefits of government services to different socioeconomic class, and about how lazy people are, but we couldn't come up with anything solid because we really don't know. You believe, for whatever reason, what you believe as do I. We both have good reasons.

So what it boils down to is, as people have already stated, if I have to pay 27% of my income in federal taxes, that's going to hurt like a bitch and I'll have to skip a few races, shorten my already short vacation, and make many other sacrifices. Regardless of what services I receive from gov't and how hard I work. I'm climbing the ladder, enrolling in grad school, and working my ass off but I can't afford to have my taxes increased a lot just to make a few people who think the current system is unfair happy. So fuck you when you say that I'm not pulling my weight. I think I speak for most of the middle class when I say that. God damn armchair quarterback.

My friend who makes 150k pays a shitload in taxes, but guess who goes to the bahamas for two weeks every year, drives a porsche, and generally takes friday afternoons off? It isn't me.

"I think I speak for most of the middle class when I say that."

Like I've already stated, of course you speak for most of the middle class. Few people of todays day and age want to admit their freeloaders. I for one, who BTW is definately middle, maybe even lower middle by some standards, feel that the system is not fair to the upper classes.

"My friend who makes 150k pays a shitload in taxes, but guess who goes to the bahamas for two weeks every year, drives a porsche, and generally takes friday afternoons off? It isn't me."

Plain and simple your friend pays shitloads of taxes, thus has less of a percentage of his money he worked just as hard for as you did, to spend. In essence he gets to do less things as a percentage of what he makes than you do. Also in essence you get to do more things beause he gets to do less.

Are we to legislate taxes on "who does what?" What if both of us make the same amount of money. I however am frugal and live well below my means for several years, make wise investments and end up with considerable wealth. We both had the same opportunity's yet I made different choices. Should I pay more taxes because I go to the Bahama's for 2 weeks a year. You apparently think yes I think no.

"So fuck you when you say that I'm not pulling my weight."

So yes fuck me. Because I'm not pulling my weight either. However at least I'm willing to admit it and also willing to accept a reasonable tax reform that would rectify the situation.

~Matt

"I for one, who BTW is definately middle, maybe even lower middle by some standards, feel that the system is not fair to the upper classes."

I'm sorry to break the news to you, but you are an idiot. I refrained from posting after your recent top 6 list of ways to run the country into the ground, but this line couldn't be ignored.

Trust me on this--one who is very comfortably ensconced in the upper class--we are not suffering, nor are we feeling put upon (those that do are greedy bastards with little regard for the well being of society or their fellow man) by the "burden" the middle & lower socio-economic classes "put" upon us.

Your statement may be one of the stupider things I've ever read on the internet. Let me, part of the 5%, thank you for subjecting the 95% of society to a poorer day-to-day existence just so I can buy a Chateau in Provence ahead of schedule. Comical.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

To throw another political cartoon into the mix. It gets to the heart of the issue of whether we need to privatize social security and allow us to plan for our own future. I happen to be in the camp who feels Americans are more than capable of making the right decision as it relates to their investments and finances. For those who don't then they need to accept the responsibility for their actions. For those who can't we as a society need to help. But there is a distinction between the two.

"but you are an idiot"

Maybe I am but can you explain teh simple fact that while over the last 30-40 years we've transfered the burden of taxation over to the upper classes is the period that the gap between upper and lower class is growing? In teh same time frame the percentile of income increase for the lower groups has not increase nearly as much as that of teh upper class?

I think I can and it's fairly simple. As we, the lower and "Middle" class become more reliant on the upper class we are put into fewer and fewer situations in which we are "forced" to be self reliant. As we loose, yes loose, these opportunities we are slowing having our oportunities for ways to be succesfull removed. This in the long term will religate the lower and middle class to permant level of "reliance". Some call this fiefdom, or slavery.

Necessity is still the mother of invention. When nothing becomes necessary not much gets done. As we become reliant on others for our "needs" there are fewer and fewer instances of necessity.

I'm not suggesting we tax everyone into the poor house, infact I'd rather see the top 1% end up in my bracket than I in their's. However that would take MASSIVE cuts. And why would the lower or middle class be for that if someone else is paying for it?

The fact that you're paying more than I makes no more sense than you going to the grocery store and buying my groceries.

"Let me, part of the 5%, thank you for subjecting the 95% of society to a poorer day-to-day existence just so I can buy a Chateau in Provence ahead of schedule."

As the poster I responded to said "Money isn't everything" and a "poorer day-to-day existence" is certainly debateble as whether it's related to money at all. I frankly would feel our society was much better off if the "Me, Me, Me" mentality that has been created over the last 30-40 years was changed. I frankly believe that part of this mentality has been created simple because we don't have to do a whole lot for everything we get, particularly from the US government. I strongly suspect that this mentality, at least were the government is concerned, would change precipitously if the lower and middle class had to pay their portion of what they were recieving.

~Matt...The idiot.

What exactly are you saying here, and how did you get so focused on percentages?

Why do you think the middle class is somehow reliant on the upper class? I can tell you that we're doing all their dirty work, and getting paid far, far less than they are. As you pointed out, the rich have figured out how to get richer despite our progressive tax system.

You're making too many assumptions in your arguments. I'm paying around 35% in taxes, state, local, etc. which is my fair share. My relatively low wages keep me from doing the things that require more gov't resources, like investing, traveling, and consuming. Sure, I do all of them, but my measely 20k investment doesn't require the resources that a 10 million dollar (or even a million) investment requires of the FDIC. My short trips to other parts of the country don't require much of the resources of the FAA, unlike multiple trips to europe require. And I don't get to depreciate and write off many of the things I buy. Let's look at the write off of a 75k SUV the gov't allows. You can take this write-off in one year, which means you have to be making a lot of money to write off that whole amount. How does that benefit me? I'm paying for some rich guy's SUV. To the tune of 75k. I'd rather pay for some freeloader's foodstamps to the tune of 1500 per year than an SUV for someone that doesn't need my help. Yeah, I write off mortgage interest, but since I can't afford a huge house the amount is pretty small. So thanks to all this crap, my friend that makes 150k only reports 85k income to the IRS. Sure he's in a higher tax bracket, but if you look at the taxes he pays (40k), his percentage is lower than mine (27% compared to 35%). And it's not like he doesn't use his business car for personal trips, and his laptop and cell phone for personal stuff, and that home office he writes off for storage of his own stuff, etc. etc.

Maybe it's time the upper class started 'taking responsibility.'

Matt, Greenspan seems to share your views on the complexities of the tax code:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3689-2005Mar3?language=printer
Time to Change Tax Code Again, Greenspan Says
1986 Law Presented As Model of Reform

By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 4, 2005; Page E02

The U.S. tax code should be simplified in ways that would boost economic growth, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday.

Greenspan, addressing the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, urged the committee to follow the spirit of the "exemplary" 1986 law that lowered marginal rates while broadening the revenue base by scrapping many of the exemptions, deductions, credits and other provisions that shield much income from taxation.

Since 1986, he said, "the tax code has drifted back to be overly complicated," with higher rates and multiple special provisions that narrow the tax base. "It is perhaps inevitable that, every couple of decades, drift needs to be addressed and reversed."

Greenspan proposed no specific tax-law changes, but recommended broadly that the panel seek to keep tax rates as low as possible and make the rules predictable. That should benefit the economy overall, as did the 1986 law, he said.

"A simpler tax code would reduce the considerable resources devoted to complying with the current tax laws, and the freed-up resources could be used for more productive purposes," Greenspan said.

President Bush has made tax reform one of the top domestic legislative priorities of his second term.

He created the advisory panel to recommend ways to simplify the tax code to promote long-run economic growth and job creation while encouraging work, saving and investment. He directed the group to keep tax deductions for home-mortgage interest and charitable giving. Greenspan said in his testimony that one of the first decisions the panel must make is whether to focus on taxing consumption or income, or some combination.

The U.S. system is "somewhat mixed," as are those of many countries, he said. "That is probably the best route to go."

Many economists, including some White House advisers, have advocated a system that would tax consumption more heavily, such as through a national sales tax or value-added tax. They argue that a consumption-focused system would encourage people to spend less and save more, providing more capital for investment, which over time fuels growth and produces the new technologies, plants and equipment that raise living standards.

Greenspan noted that argument, but didn't say whether he agreed with it. Rather, he suggested switching to such a system would raise "a challenging set of transition issues." And, he said, "the opposition that would arise would probably make [a pure consumption tax] infeasible."

More generally, Greenspan repeated his oft-stated belief that taxes should be as low as possible.

"Any tax increase, as you know, inhibits economic activity in one way or another," he said. "Whatever you tax, you will get less of."

However, he criticized the proliferation of special provisions that reduce taxes in various ways. One problem with them, he said, is that they distort economic behavior by prodding businesses and consumers to make decisions based on tax advantages rather than pure economics.

Such special provisions also make the tax code more unpredictable, he said. In his view, ever-changing rules make it harder for businesses and consumers to plan ahead, lowering investment and restraining the rise in living standards.

He did, however, endorse tax breaks designed to encourage retirement savings, such as through 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts.

Economists disagree about whether such accounts lead to more savings overall or just cause people to move savings from regular accounts to those that carry tax advantages. Either way, Greenspan said it is "probably indisputable" that they do boost saving for retirement specifically, even if there is no increase in total saving.

And boosting saving for retirement, he said, is "clearly something that is desirable."

I like the cartoon, that's funny.

I think your view about Americans being more capable to run their own finances than the government is mostly correct (not that you care what I think), but the differences in views on what should happen to SS are more about how one views what SS is about, than what method to use to fix it.

I view SS as purely a backup and safety plan. Sadly, most Americans seem to view it as their primary retirment income vehicle. I think we have to aggressively attack that view first, and then can address actually changing the setup of SS.

Not sure if you've read prior posts....but from a prior post.

"The bottom 50% of taxpayers in the 2002 fiscal year paid an average tax rate of just 3.21%. They're share of the total income tax was just 3.5%. That means that half of the country pays 96.5% of the income taxes and the other half pays just 3.5%. Then to take those numbers even farther, the top 25% paid 83.9% of the total taxes collected in 2002 and to get into the super rich people who "never pay taxes" the top 1% accounts for a whopping 33.7% of the taxes collected. The top 5% of taxpayers alone pay over half of the total taxes collected at 53.8%! "

And from another post...

"Shows that the top 1% only accounts for 16.12% of total AGI and top 5% at only 30.55%. So in essence both of these groups are paying a much high percentage of tax than the lower groups. For example the lower 50% makes 14.23% of the total AGI but only pays 3.5% of the tax?

"To put in a "ratio" the Lower 1/2 pays at a tax to income ratio of .245 While the upper 1% pays at a ratio of 2.09? Hmmmmm seems...well unfair."

Your numbers seem a bit "anecdotal" while the above numbers are based on actual 2002 tax return information. I realy don't think I'm making any assumptions merely quoting numbers from gathr tax information.

Even with all of these "Tax deductions" the rich get it appears they are paying a much higher percentage of taxes per income, as shown above, than the rest of us. You cn argue all day long about how "the rich guy gets so many breaks" but according to the collected tax information he stills pays a higher percentage than the little guy.

I can think of many deductions that are way more impactfull on my income than they are for a rich guy. For instance what's the individual deduction now? 2500-3000$. Well for a person making 30K that's a 10% deduction. For someone making 3Mil that's....well that's nothing. Add in mortgage, deductions for kids, IRA savings and it's pretty easy to see how someone making 30K a year will only pay 3.5% in taxes.

"Maybe it's time the upper class started 'taking responsibility.'"

It would be very, very, very ugly in this country if these supposed "rich" freeloaders, that aren't paying there share, suddenly all moved. In this very thread we have someone claiming to make 1M a year, true or not, I have no idea, however he also states he pays far more percentile than us on the lower end. Thankfully he doesn't mind.

~Matt

ljk, read this book. You are pretty much right on ... Like I posted so long ago, this book tells a lot:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591840198/103-7945321-0563014

I'm not advancing an opinion, just facts.

Is utterly untrue to believe the wealthy are paying more in taxes than 30-40 years ago, and middle class people are paying less, according to the author of this book. They are paying far less. Sure, the super rich are paying more than ever before in taxes, but they are making way more than ever before.

It's like this (I'm ballparking, read the book for exact stats): In 1975, the top 1 percent made $100,000 a year, or equal to $300,000 today. Today, the top 1 percent make $500,000 (equal to $500,000 today) ... So the richest 1 percent are that much richer ... Taxes? The tax burden on what the top 1 percent make is less than it used to be, due to the complicated tax code. They pay a much lower percentage now, not higher. Due to loopholes, tax writeoffs, shelters, the list goes on. Things wage earners cannot take advantage of.

As far as wage earners in the middle, someone at around the 50th percentile used to make $15,000 in '75 (Equal to $45,000 today) ... The 50th percentile today makes $45,000, so their earnings haven't increased at all. And their tax burden is much more, I am certain. Facts to prove otherwise? Bring them on.

The numbers are all fine and dandy. I support our progressive tax system. The problem with numbers is they're just that - numbers. They don't tell any stories and can be twisted and used any way you want. I look at the numbers and see that 1% of the people in this country take home 16% of the AGI. That's unfair. So you can whine about how you think millionaires are getting taxed too much, but they don't need your help, and you're not doing yourself any favors either. And you can opine that rich people work harder and therefore earned it, but you don't have any way to prove that. It's just your opinion.

I'm still confused why you're going to bat for millionaires for some personal ideology you have. Millionaires who are doing quite well despite this extremely unfair tax system you're talking about. Guess which country has the most billion and millionaires in the world?

Your ultimate point seems to be that society would be better off if the middle and lower classes paid more income taxes than they currently do. It would make them take more responsibility in their lives, like people having less money in their pockets is some silver bullet that will cure the problems 'people like me' are causing this society. Sorry man, that conclusion is way out there. I could say you're stretching it to come up with that conclusion, but that would be too kind.

"The bottom 50% of taxpayers in the 2002 fiscal year paid an average tax rate of just 3.21%. They're share of the total income tax was just 3.5%. That means that half of the country pays 96.5% of the income taxes and the other half pays just 3.5%. Then to take those numbers even farther, the top 25% paid 83.9% of the total taxes collected in 2002 and to get into the super rich people who "never pay taxes" the top 1% accounts for a whopping 33.7% of the taxes collected. The top 5% of taxpayers alone pay over half of the total taxes collected at 53.8%! "

And from another post...

"Shows that the top 1% only accounts for 16.12% of total AGI and top 5% at only 30.55%. So in essence both of these groups are paying a much high percentage of tax than the lower groups. For example the lower 50% makes 14.23% of the total AGI but only pays 3.5% of the tax?

I'm sure all of this is true. Statistics show people in the top 5o to 95 percent are paying more than ever, but the tax burden (percentage of income) for the top 5 percent and especially the top 1 percent is lower than ever. All due to the complicated tax code.

The poor won't ever pay much in taxes and never will (except in sales and gas taxes, which is large percentage of their income). How can they? I think most of us pair our fair share, but the really well-off are getting away with more than in the past, and the system promotes this.

"I think most of us pair our fair share"

And I don't, a matter of opinion on "Fair" I suppose. I personally think that one group paying on the order of 8-10X larger percentage, a fact, more than another is not fair, an opinion.

"The poor won't ever pay much"

I'm not asking the poor to pay ALOT of taxes, simply teh same percentage as everyone else. If you make a buck you pay "X" percent of that if you make 100$ you pay 100 times that. Seems simple and fair.

"but the really well-off are getting away with more than in the past, and the system promotes this."

This could very well be true, I've not found any data to support or deny it. I do however have a hard time believing that it's much different considering the low effect rate of 3.5% that the lower groups are currently paying. I will see if I can get a copy of the book you suggested though.

~Matt

"I'm still confused why you're going to bat for millionaires for some personal ideology you have. Millionaires who are doing quite well despite this extremely unfair tax system you're talking about. Guess which country has the most billion and millionaires in the world? "

"Your ultimate point seems to be that society would be better off if the middle and lower classes paid more income taxes than they currently do."

Nope not advocating for more taxes simply equal taxes, however one does lead to the other, without significant spending cuts.

"It would make them take more responsibility in their lives, like people having less money in their pockets is some silver bullet that will cure the problems 'people like me' are causing this society."

And in a sense yes. When one is given an "open checkbook" to spend others money we generally have a tendancy to spend it unwisely. It's very easy to be generous, giving and "compasionate" with others money. I suspect that if the tax burden was equalized so that the middle and lower classes payed "their fair share" that they would be come significantly more interested in how that money is spent. As it stands not only is a small portion paying the bulk of the taxes but they are paying at a rate that is higher than the rest of us, in effect making us not really give a rip. Why should we care if we're only paying such a tiny portion? In fact why not ask for more...we're not paying for it.

I don't think that's anymore "stretching it" than saying that if I were buying a car with my money I'd be more likely make a wiser more conservative choice than if someone gave me the money.

~Matt

 
I'm not asking the poor to pay ALOT of taxes, simply the same percentage as everyone else. If you make a buck you pay "X" percent of that if you make 100$ you pay 100 times that. Seems simple and fair.


Seems fair, but if you take home $1,500 a month after minimal taxes and SSI (Say you are relatively poor and supporting a family) that's not easy. Rent, food, gas to get to work ... Let's say before taxes you make $1,800 and all you pay is 15 %.

If you take home $15,000 a month after being highly taxed (Let's say you make $27,000 a month before taxes) life is much better, even with so much taxes. Paying 40 % is a bit of a burden. For the first person, paying 15 % is a much bigger burden, really.

Sure the bottom 50 percent contribute very little, even relative to what they make. But the very top also contribute very little compared to years past and compared to what they can contribute without too much suffering. Now the upper middle portion are paying the most in many ways.

"that's not easy."

Nope it's not. But at what point did we decide that those that have succeeded should make it "Easy" for those that have not.

Again I'm not talking about the people that simply can't or don't make enough money to survive. In fact in another post I mentioned that I would be for creating a "tax exempt" line. "If you make less than this you pay no tax as this is what is deemed what everyone needs to "survive"". Also as pointed out that point will be difficult to "nail down", but a different issue.

However after that point taxes are equal. Sure it's harder to make it on less money, that's called life. No one is guarenteed "X" level of living. I just don't agree with the idea that 1 dollar to a man with a hundred is different than 10 to one that has a thousand. To us on the lower end of the scale we see someone with 990$ left over and think "Man that guy has way to much, giving more won't make him "suffer"" to me that makes no sense. His "Expenses" are probably some factor larger but at a similar percentage.

My point is, that other than the ludicriously rich that somehow made so much money so fast that they simply couldn't "grow" into it (hink lottery winners), we are all pretty much operating at similar percentile just at larger or smaller amounts. I'd guess the mahjor difference is that the "upper" levels simply have more room to "fall" back and make cuts before they are destitute.

This is often shown by simply asking someone if they think they are rich and who do you think is rich. Few people think they are "rich" and those that point to "that guy is rich", "That guy"... probably doesn't think he's rich.

There is no simple answer to this problem, but like most systems in our governement I believe there is vast room for improvement.

Thanks for the civilized discussion.

~Matt

I agree with your reasoning for this whole tax issue. Below is an (in my opinion) excellant overview and description of the fair tax plan. I would love to hear from our multi-millionaire mopdahl on why this plan is not fair.



Thumbnail sketch of the FairTax
a comprehensive plan to replace income and payroll taxes



The FairTax proposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare.

Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

No federal sales tax up to the poverty level means progressivity like today's tax system.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.
With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service, the sales tax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. If you choose to buy used goods - used car, used home, used appliances - you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or their compliance costs, which drive up costs for those who can least, afford to pay.
Did you know that hidden income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more percent of all retail prices? It's true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices - from an average 22 percent on goods to an average 25 percent on services - for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.
Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports as they are with the current income tax. So the FairTax allows U.S. exports to sell overseas for prices 22 percent lower, on average, than they do now, with similar profit margins. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S.manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries' value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutrality:
Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.
The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 15.3 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 33 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals - don't make criminals out of honest taxpayers.
Today, the IRS will admit to 25 percent non-compliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax will tax this - criminals love to flash that cash at retail - while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance - from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers - also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

What is Americans For Fair Taxation?
Americans For Fair Taxation (FairTax.org) is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to replacing the current tax systems. The organization has hundreds of thousands of members and volunteers nationwide. Its strategy supports sound economic research, education of citizens and community leaders, and grassroots mobilization efforts. For more information visit the web page: www.fairtax.org or call 1-800-FAIRTAX.

I might or might not support some version of a national sales tax, but the article you put up is a mess. For example:

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality.

What about all the people who aren't in a 23% tax bracket?

So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 15.3 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 33 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100.

So much for revenue neutrality. The author is saying that currently, the federal goverment claims 33% of workers' income, and his plan is going to collect 23% of consumer spending. The latter figure, for the math impaired, is much less.

I don't have any idea how that "prebate" scheme is intended to be implemented, either.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

[/reply]I think your logic is a little crooked. The gov't is not giving us a blank check, as you suggest.

Look, people are people. Plenty of rich people spent their way into the poorhouse, and plenty of middle income people save lots of money. You can't just use a broad stroke and say 'if you give people more money they will spend it foolishly.' You have no basis to believe that reducing people's incomes will make them more apt to do anything but seek ways to increase it again. The article quoted above could be interpreted as saying 'when clinton increased the tax on the richest in america in the '90s, rich people found ways to reduce their tax burden through credits, write-offs, etc. We need to fix the system again.' If you increase the tax burden on middle class people, I guarantee the same thing would happen.

I just can't believe you argue percentage over means. It's just a number. Means effects how people live on a daily basis, if they have enough money for investments, real estate, education. Maybe even food. The reason the progressive tax system was implemented was due to means. The more money you have, the more means you have and the less taxation will hurt you.

It's good sense to have a straightforward tax code, especially if 25% are cheating. It's not good sense to increase the tax burden on the middle class, however. And if taxation reduces something, taxing consumption would not be good for the economy.

Just to talk about a couple of your points.

"I'm paying around 35% in taxes, state, local, etc. which is my fair share. "

You should probably get someone to look at your taxes because that seems to be a big percentage. I'm not paying that nearly high of a percentage of income to both fed and state (maybe you have local taxes, I don't) and I only take the mortgage interest and property tax deductions.

"Sure, I do all of them, but my measely 20k investment doesn't require the resources that a 10 million dollar (or even a million) investment requires of the FDIC."

I don't know of anyone who would put a million bucks in an FDIC insured savings account. That money would be invested in much more appropriate things than the 1-2% you can get in a savings account. Plus, the limit of the FDIC insurance is $100,000. So anything over that doesn't mean jack to the FDIC. It just means that if your bank goes under you lose the remaining $900,000.

"So thanks to all this crap, my friend that makes 150k only reports 85k income to the IRS. Sure he's in a higher tax bracket, but if you look at the taxes he pays (40k), his percentage is lower than mine (27% compared to 35%). "

Now your comparing apples to oranges. You stated that you paid 35% counting fed, state, and local, but then you took your "friends" numbers and only used the federal numbers you didn't add in the state numbers. Plus it sounds like your friend owns his own business so don't forget that he pays both the employer and employee portion of his own and his employee's SS, medicare, etc taxes. So, if you are going to make a point about percentages at least make the comparison valid.

Sorry dude, apples to apples comparison. Although I did say IRS, I meant that in reference to the amount of income he reports, not the tax rate. Sorry for the mis-statement.

My point with the FDIC was the same as the FAA. I don't know much about either one, but the point is that the more resources you have and use the more gov't services you use. Overall point is that even though people think the rich are off paying tons of taxes without using gov't services while the poor are leeches, that's not the case.

are you including all of his SS payments? are you including yours in your calculation?

I'm just not buying this story and maybe this year is an anamoly as he was able to take advantage of the one time SUV loophole, but I would be willing to bet that in a typical year he's paying a higher percentage in taxes.

"but the point is that the more resources you have and use the more gov't services you use."

Easily said, not easy to back up. In fact the mere theory of "scale of economy" goes completely against it. It's generally cheaper to get things done the more times or "bigger" you do it.

All that aside I completely fail to see how a rich guy uses and what services of the US governement he/she uses more of.

As stated in an earlier post, the largest budget line items in the federal government are, not in any particular order and coming from memory.

Interst on debt,
SS
National defense/military
Health services

The only one of the above line items I can see a persons "taking more advantage of" is possible "health services", but I don't see a whole lota rich people getting free condoms down at the local health department. Yes I know they cover otehr stuff just trying to lighten it up.

Certainly they don't get more SS, nor more benefit from miltary defense and not likely any benefit from the interest paid.

I've heard the argument "The rich guy's use more stuff" before, but have yet to see any proof of it.

~Matt

Guys, it's simplifying things to just argue the case between individuals who make tons and those who make little. How can you really quantify what gov. resources a rich person really uses vs. what resourses a poorer person uses? Look out the window, we use stuff every day made possible by taxes. So do small businesses, so do gigantic companies.

I would also argue that there hasn't been a federal adminsitration maybe ever that has actually rolled back taxes on the middle class so much it made a difference to the day-to-day lives of people. I can't imagine it ever happening, though I can envision more and more taxes, regardless of who is in office. Some say Reagan, maybe, and the Bush 2 cut, but its very debatable if it helped substantially. As someone who is very middle class, I saw no effect at all from Bush's tax cut. When there is a little period of expansion in th U.S., its questionable how much of that was caused my small tax cuts. Global economic factors are much more important.

When you are rich you usually don't earn a wage that can be taxed. It's all about companies and corporations and the people invested in those enterprises. So you can't just easily determine what people actually "make" and "spend" in those situations. It's very complex, and the tax code is increasingly geared toward big companies. Johnson's book "Perfectly Legal" outlines how huge, profit-making enterprises pay next to nothing in taxes, due to these complexities. Theoretically, companies should pay taxes on profits, but many pay very little, compared to what we all pay on our wages. I offer no solution, just saying it's way more complex than "those rich people don't pay their fair share" or "those poor people are really getting off easy." Neither statement is true, if you look into it, IMO.

"I offer no solution, just saying it's way more complex than "those rich people don't pay their fair share" or "those poor people are really getting off easy." Neither statement is true, if you look into it, IMO. "

Without a doubt it's more complex than such a simple statement. I'd also agree that corporations are "getting off easy" compared to any individual, rich or poor.

But my understanding of the discussion was not about corporations, but individuals. IMHO corporations are a completely different entity than individuals. Also teh arguement that "rich people have all of these corps" and benefits etc etc. Seems a bit fallaciouss to me since corporations are fairly easy to create, even for us poor people. I have two and use the benefits of them as much as I can.

"Look out the window, we use stuff every day made possible by taxes. So do small businesses, so do gigantic companies."

I would also agree with this and exactly the reason why I think the arguement of "tax the rich because they use more stuff" is also a poor point. again, sure a huge corporation comprised of MANY people. Likely rich and poor use much more resources than an individual. But a rich person is not a corporation, but an individual, and can't use significantly more governement resources than any other individual.

If we start throwing corporations into the mix it does get REALLY messy because corporations are neither rich nor poor. Nor comprised of just rich or poor.

~Matt

Gee, thanks for the $200k+ savings your plan will generate for me. Rather than spend a couple of hours going step-by-step & destroying the fantasy this "system" lays out, I'll simply post what 30 seconds of internet searches has dug up on your "organization's" plan:

Economist William G. Gale at the Brookings Institute has determined that most low income families will pay more taxes. "Under the Americans for Fair Taxation proposal, taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90 percent of the income distribution, while households in the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."

In a nutshell: the poor + middle classes spend a disproportionate % of their income on everyday goods. They aren't good savers. As I've previously pointed out, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the rich to spend what they earn. So basically you are penalizing the poor/middle classes for being consumers & rewarding the rich who, for the most part, aren't exactly the world's biggest spenders.

While I'm not going to refute every point in this nutjob manifesto, this paragraph actually gave me ten minutes of laughter: "No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible. With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service, the sales tax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. If you choose to buy used goods - used car, used home, used appliances - you do not pay the FairTax."

Gee, I bet every manufacturing company in the world is just salivating at this prospect. So I can just buy a 1 y.o. car every 2-3 years & never have to pay tax on it. This will do wonders for new goods purchases. I'm suprised Detroit hasn't jumped on this bandwagon. This will do wonders for our economy, housing stats & employment rates. Well thought out.


When will you right-wing nutjobs realize you are part of a society, and that one of the main goals of the society should be the betterment of everyone, not just the top 10%? This plan has ME-ME-ME-ME written all over it....even if the writing was in crayon.

Congrats on the 2nd stupidest post on this topic.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

When will you right-wing nutjobs realize you are part of a society, and that one of the main goals of the society should be the betterment of everyone, not just the top 10%? This plan has ME-ME-ME-ME written all over it....even if the writing was in crayon.

As soon as you leftwing, bed wetting, elitest, arrogant, jerks come to realize your socialistic views for the US are a pipe dream. You crack me up with your holier than thou attitudes. You think because you make more $$ than 99.9% of the people on this board you can throw around your wild ass ideas. If you had done any research into the topic you would know this is not a "right wing nut job" idea but one put forth by the Libertarian party. Why is it that because someone has an idea that may in fact be fair to ALL members of the tax paying society you automatically dismiss it. I've asked you before and you never answered but why don't you take all your extra $$ you have and do something to help the poor people you want to protect ? Please take your socialistic utopian society ideas and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

you would know this is not a "right wing nut job" idea but one put forth by the Libertarian party.

OK, so it's not a right-wing nut job idea, it's just a plain old run of the mill nut job idea. ;)

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Nice anger! Way to keep the ideals of compassionate conservatism burning bright. Good, reasoned argument--I'm sure your much more rational in person than your rantings on the internet would indicate.

As far as my $$ & contributions to poor (as if this is any indication of compassion): lets see, this year I bought 2 lots for Habitat for Humanity, am setting up a scholarship program at my old college, am sponsoring an America Works teaching program in New Mexico, plus have given high five figures to Peace Corp, Teach for America (which DeLay & Bush succeeded in killing from Americorps & to whom I'll probably give 6 figures this year), and several local charities.

Holier than thou? No, just smarter than you & bright enough to realize that being part of a society means looking out for everyone, not just myself. You just don't seem to get that though.

---

____________
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers

+++++

---

http://www.optruth.org/

Smarter than me? Again your arrogance is evident.

Interesting point Tom. You seem to believe that wealth is unlimited and is something that humans create. People who think way believe that if you encourage wealth creation and accumulation, then you'll have someone like Bill Gates come along, get rich, and be able to spend $750 million on a worldwide children's immunization program.

Others, however, believe that wealth is finite and that Bill Gates and people in the United States and other developed countries hoard the wealth and that, but for the hoarding, folks in Africa and undeveloped countries would be able to afford their own immunizations.

People in the first camp will engage in arguments about the tax structure and whether it encourages or discourages wealth creation. People in the second camp will argue that to be "fair" we must transfer the hoarded wealth to those that don't have it.