Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 11:10:47 GMT -5
and about 20% below where they would have been without tax cuts. but don't take my word for it. take the OTA's. The equities markets were growing at 15 to 25% shortly after the tax cuts in 2003. You are totally ignoring the earlier drop in the market, of course there is going to be a large rebound with or without the tax cuts.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 11:12:46 GMT -5
The rich had a larger cut in average tax rates & a much larger drop in taxes paid. So who got the tax breaks? Like djlungrot said - everyone did, but the wealthy benefited far more from them. Stands to reason, since they pay the most taxes. Anyone with an elementary school education could figure that out. Then why is the OP trying to imply that the wealthy were actually paying higher tax rates by using misleading numbers?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 11:16:32 GMT -5
You are totally ignoring the earlier drop in the market, of course there is going to be a large rebound with or without the tax cuts
Not sure if this is news to you are if you realize this. The equities markets are known for fluctuating and volitility. Every single person in the US with a 401K, IRA, Roth, Pension, etc., benefits from a rising equities market. Tax cuts provide capital.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 11:17:24 GMT -5
Then why is the OP trying to imply that the wealthy were actually paying higher tax rates by using misleading numbers?
They are paying higher rates. They pay nearly all the federal income taxes.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 11:25:17 GMT -5
You are totally ignoring the earlier drop in the market, of course there is going to be a large rebound with or without the tax cutsNot sure if this is news to you are if you realize this. The equities markets are known for fluctuating and volitility. Every single person in the US with a 401K, IRA, Roth, Pension, etc., benefits from a rising equities market. Tax cuts provide capital. If you understand the votility, then why are you going to claim a huge upswing (after a down period) was the result of tax cuts? You should understand there are far more factors at play.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 11:27:10 GMT -5
Then why is the OP trying to imply that the wealthy were actually paying higher tax rates by using misleading numbers? They are paying higher rates. They pay nearly all the federal income taxes. No, as I showed, they are actually paying lower rates than before the tax cuts. They are paying more in total dollars, but that is because their income increased significantly, their actual tax rates are down. I guess you could say they pay nearly all the federal taxes, if nearly all means less than 60%.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Aug 2, 2011 11:31:02 GMT -5
So what is the actual goal of the "soak the rich" crowd? I really want to understand. Do you want no one to be allowed to become financially successful? Or is the goal just to punish those who do?
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 11:32:17 GMT -5
No, as I showed, they are actually paying lower rates than before the tax cuts. They are paying more in total dollars, but that is because their income increased significantly, their actual tax rates are down.
But they are paying more in taxes, which is the goal.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Aug 2, 2011 11:38:46 GMT -5
One of the loopholes targeted,the "carried interest loophole", was one that allowed hedgefund managers to pay their salary for running the fund at the long term gains rate, which is less than the rest of us earning a check...I really do not consider this soaking the rich,but what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Aug 2, 2011 11:47:05 GMT -5
One of the loopholes targeted,the "carried interest loophole", was one that allowed hedgefund managers to pay their salary for running the fund at the long term gains rate, which is less than the rest of us earning a check...I really do not consider this soaking the rich,but what do I know? I guess my question is why is it not enough that the top 5% of income earners pay almost 60% of all federal income taxes, while nearly 50% of Americans pay nothing? What would be fair in your opinion?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 11:54:38 GMT -5
One of the loopholes targeted,the "carried interest loophole", was one that allowed hedgefund managers to pay their salary for running the fund at the long term gains rate, which is less than the rest of us earning a check...I really do not consider this soaking the rich,but what do I know? I guess my question is why is it not enough that the top 5% of income earners pay almost 60% of all federal income taxes, while nearly 50% of Americans pay nothing? What would be fair in your opinion? You are ignoring all the other taxes if you just focus on income taxes. The top 5% pay about 45% of total taxes & only the bottom 10% pay nothing. The top 5% make about 32% of the total income & the bottom 10% only make about 2% of the total income. It is still skewed, but not as much as some like to claim.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 11:59:15 GMT -5
One of the loopholes targeted,the "carried interest loophole", was one that allowed hedge fund managers to pay their salary for running the fund at the long term gains rate, which is less than the rest of us earning a check...I really do not consider this soaking the rich,but what do I know?
Doesn't John Edwards work for a hedge fund? Incidentally, this "loophole" is not a salary, but a share of profits of a successfully run private equity or hedge fund. This is much more complicated than what individuals are making it.
If we really wanted to raise revenue, the tax free status of proceeds on the sale of private residences should be removed. Think of all the RE sales of 100s of thousands going untaxed.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Aug 2, 2011 11:59:45 GMT -5
You are ignoring all the other taxes if you just focus on income taxes.
The discussion is income taxes.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 12:04:45 GMT -5
You are ignoring all the other taxes if you just focus on income taxes.The discussion is income taxes. Fair enough, but then you are just focusing on one part of the total picture. Income taxes are just one of the taxes we pay & while the wealthy pay more than their fair share in income taxes, they pay much less than their share in other taxes. But, if you just want to focus on one part of federal taxes & talk about how the wealthy get screwed, then so be it. Just seems to be more attempts at misleading people by doing it that way, but have at it. ETA - if we are only talking income taxes, then perhaps the OP shouldn't have used total federal revenue data. Income tax revenue only increased 250 billion between 2003 & 2006.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Aug 2, 2011 12:25:04 GMT -5
while the wealthy pay more than their fair share in income taxes, they pay much less than their share in other taxes.
Do tell us about these "other taxes" that the wealthy don't pay. Sales tax? State income taxes? Estate taxes? I am in your so-called "wealthy" bracket and I pay all of those and more.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 12:29:51 GMT -5
while the wealthy pay more than their fair share in income taxes, they pay much less than their share in other taxes. Do tell us about these "other taxes" that the wealthy don't pay. Sales tax? State income taxes? Estate taxes? I am in your so-called "wealthy" bracket and I pay all of those and more. i would actually be more inclined to ask what "fair share" meant. second, i would ask what "wealthy" meant. without those two terms being defined, it is difficult to know what the argument is.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 12:36:07 GMT -5
while the wealthy pay more than their fair share in income taxes, they pay much less than their share in other taxes. Do tell us about these "other taxes" that the wealthy don't pay. Sales tax? State income taxes? Estate taxes? I am in your so-called "wealthy" bracket and I pay all of those and more. Since we are talking about federal taxes, I am not sure why you would throw sales or state taxes in there. Here is a table showing what % of tax revenue comes from each income group by type of revenue. www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=558As you can see the top 5% pay ~60% of income taxes, but only 44% of total taxes. And before you get to excited & point out that in 1979 the top 5% paid 29% of federal taxes & now they pay 44%, here is another table with income distributions over the same time period www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458During that same time period the top 5% went from having 21% of the income to 32%. Their share of the total income went up 56%, but their share of the taxes only went up 50%. Overall, the top 5% has seen a decrease in their share of the taxes over the last 32 years.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Aug 2, 2011 12:57:25 GMT -5
while the wealthy pay more than their fair share in income taxes, they pay much less than their share in other taxes. Do tell us about these "other taxes" that the wealthy don't pay. Sales tax? State income taxes? Estate taxes? I am in your so-called "wealthy" bracket and I pay all of those and more. Since we are talking about federal taxes, I am not sure why you would throw sales or state taxes in there. Here is a table showing what % of tax revenue comes from each income group by type of revenue. www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=558As you can see the top 5% pay ~60% of income taxes, but only 44% of total taxes. And before you get to excited & point out that in 1979 the top 5% paid 29% of federal taxes & now they pay 44%, here is another table with income distributions over the same time period www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458During that same time period the top 5% went from having 21% of the income to 32%. Their share of the total income went up 56%, but their share of the taxes only went up 50%. Overall, the top 5% has seen a decrease in their share of the taxes over the last 32 years. So again I ask, what would you like to see that would be "fair" for all income levels? Show me your ideal distribution...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 13:03:43 GMT -5
Since we are talking about federal taxes, I am not sure why you would throw sales or state taxes in there. Here is a table showing what % of tax revenue comes from each income group by type of revenue. www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=558As you can see the top 5% pay ~60% of income taxes, but only 44% of total taxes. And before you get to excited & point out that in 1979 the top 5% paid 29% of federal taxes & now they pay 44%, here is another table with income distributions over the same time period www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=458During that same time period the top 5% went from having 21% of the income to 32%. Their share of the total income went up 56%, but their share of the taxes only went up 50%. Overall, the top 5% has seen a decrease in their share of the taxes over the last 32 years. So again I ask, what would you like to see that would be "fair" for all income levels? Show me your ideal distribution... I don't have a huge problem with the distribution now. I think everyone needs to pay a higher tax rate because the country's tax revenue is at historic lows.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Aug 2, 2011 13:18:39 GMT -5
So again I ask, what would you like to see that would be "fair" for all income levels? Show me your ideal distribution... I don't have a huge problem with the distribution now. I think everyone needs to pay a higher tax rate because the country's tax revenue is at historic lows. You don't think that's a spending problem rather than a revenue problem?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 2, 2011 13:28:42 GMT -5
Angel D said:
Maybe that's because there are so few "rich" that it would be impossible to compete, dollar wise. For instance how many joints can one person fire up in a day? With a federal tax of $3.15 for 50 cigarette papers how many more rich people handling our most reliable businesses would have to be stoned all day to even out the tax collection on cigarette papers?
Or, take gas guzzler automoble tax. At $7,700 federal gas guzzler tax per vehicle, how many do the bottom 95% of taxpayers buy? How many do the top 5% of taxpayers buy?
Then there's the tax on alcohol. How many rich people would have to stay soused to match the tax collected on John Barleycorn? And as an aside, do you know what those taxes are assessed at per xx amount of alcoholic liquids? Maybe the hard liquor drinkers, ($13.50 tax per gallon), should consider changing to champagne, ($3.50 tax per gallon). Or is that an example of the tax laws favoring the rich?
And the topper is the 3% tax on telecommunications. I wonder if the people talking on telephones while driving down the road or standing in line at the grocery check-out should be taxed more, , , , especially if they are rich. How much would you tax the rich just so they would be paying their "fair share"?
Angel, isn't your approach entirely oriented from the typical victim's stance?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 13:29:50 GMT -5
I don't have a huge problem with the distribution now. I think everyone needs to pay a higher tax rate because the country's tax revenue is at historic lows. You don't think that's a spending problem rather than a revenue problem? ed- it is pretty clearly both if you look at the graph. the slope of the spending curve and the revenue curve are about the same (-vs- GDP)- and in the opposite direction. that is how we went from 2% to 10% deficits in very short order.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 2, 2011 13:34:36 GMT -5
Angel said: I wonder if Angel would care to rephrase her remark?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 13:36:49 GMT -5
Angel said: I wonder if Angel would care to rephrase her remark? just a point of order, henry- you are aware those are all estimates, right?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 2, 2011 13:39:44 GMT -5
Then there's the tax on alcohol. How many rich people would have to stay soused to match the tax collected on John Barleycorn? And as an aside, do you know what those taxes are assessed at per xx amount of alcoholic liquids? Maybe the hard liquor drinkers, ($13.50 tax per gallon), should consider changing to champagne, ($3.50 tax per gallon). Or is that an example of the tax laws favoring the rich? WARNING, TEMPORARY HIJACK IN PROCESS: Our sparkling tax is the same as yours, but your liquor tax is way high. We pay $2.25/$6.50/$9.53 for liquor tax depending on potency. HIJACK.......OVER.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Aug 2, 2011 13:51:22 GMT -5
yankee, our bubbly tax is graduated per alcoholic content, too, but our "distilled spirits" tax is set at $13.50/gal.
Now, those beauties who model swimsuits with the results of their tanning salon visits all aglow have to pay 10% of the tannng salon cost in order to get that fesher than the girl next door look.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 2, 2011 13:52:54 GMT -5
Angel said:I wonder if Angel would care to rephrase her remark? "historic anything" is sort of becoming as over played as the race card....IMHO of course. It's nothing but media hype and spin any more. Anyway.....While hardly at "historic lows" as a percentage of GDP, Angel is pretty much dead on Henry. We have collected between 15 and 20% of GDP in revenue since the late 50's. We're below 15% right now. Of course, spending is a major problem as well. Compare this to GDP as well and you can sort of see we have a lot of work to do to get these numbers much closer to each other. Spending at the 20-25% level when revenue has historically been in the 15-20% level is completely unsustainable.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 11:14:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2011 13:59:18 GMT -5
but i think most businessmen would argue that it is not "doing a better job" but "taking more risk" that entitles them to more pay. in my case, i guarantee company loans, for example. that is a considerable risk to me that employees don't have to bear.
djlungrot all your doing is justifying why you get paid more money. Are you saying that rich people don't take more risk than the average person? My guess is that they did because they ended up rich (& higher risk tends to make you more). What's more I'm betting that out of 100 rich people 99 could come up with a pretty good justification off the top of there head as to why they deserved to be rich & to keep that wealth. My guess would be that most of those reasons are just as valid as your reason why you deserve more. Well the truth is that I agree with you keeping more & also with them keeping more.
My only problem here is you point your finger & saying tax the rich more & yet you not including you in that rich column. Talk is cheap & if you truly believe in what your saying then why aren't you giving up all that "extra" money now? As I've said before you talk the liberal talk but in business you walk the conservative walk. Your basically trying to get others to do something that you could be doing now but don't choose to.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 14:10:55 GMT -5
but i think most businessmen would argue that it is not "doing a better job" but "taking more risk" that entitles them to more pay. in my case, i guarantee company loans, for example. that is a considerable risk to me that employees don't have to bear. djlungrot all your doing is justifying why you get paid more money. Are you saying that rich people don't take more risk than the average person? i said just the opposite, tex. see highlighted text above. i take more risk, therefore i get more reward. that is how it works.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 2, 2011 14:20:49 GMT -5
My guess would be that most of those reasons are just as valid as your reason why you deserve more. Well the truth is that I agree with you keeping more & also with them keeping more. i didn't say anything about keeping more. my focus was exclusively on making more. My only problem here is you point your finger & saying tax the rich more & yet you not including you in that rich column. where did i do that? i consider myself rich.Talk is cheap & if you truly believe in what your saying then why aren't you giving up all that "extra" money now? because i am no less or more an American than Bill Gates or any other rich guy. i think that if it should be done, it should be done as a nation, not as an individual. besides, my money won't go very far to solving the problem. however, if we are all in this together, it WOULD go a long way. As I've said before you talk the liberal talk but in business you walk the conservative walk. Your basically trying to get others to do something that you could be doing now but don't choose to. that is totally false. i have not discussed my personal feelings toward taxation on this or any other thread on this board before now. i can assure you that i am absolutely consistent on this score. i would NEVER ask anyone to do anything that i wouldn't do myself.
|
|