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