After the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts

[floridayankee]

Aug 2, 2011 15:35:55 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I just get tired of the complaint that the rich pay 60% of income taxes & the bottom 50% pay no taxes. That is true when you are just looking at income taxes...

I agree, but why would you purposely mention "income taxes" if you were talking about all (fed) taxes?

IMHO, it's silly to assume that somebody is comparing one specific tax of one group to all taxes of another group. It's an apples / oranges comparison.

[Angel!]

Aug 3, 2011 7:48:33 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Aug 2, 2011 15:35:55 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I just get tired of the complaint that the rich pay 60% of income taxes & the bottom 50% pay no taxes. That is true when you are just looking at income taxes...

I agree, but why would you purposely mention "income taxes" if you were talking about all (fed) taxes?

IMHO, it's silly to assume that somebody is comparing one specific tax of one group to all taxes of another group. It's an apples / oranges comparison.

I'm confused by your question. Maybe my wording was confusing "I just get tired of the complaint that the rich pay 60% of income taxes & the bottom 50% pay no INCOME taxes." I left out the second income because I assumed it was a given that I was talking about income taxes with both statistics, but that may have been a poor wording choice on my part. Only ~10% of the population pays absolutely no taxes.

I dislike that this is a commonly used statistic to show how the unfair taxes are to the rich, when it is really a misleading statistic. Income taxes are only a portion of the complete picture & while the rich pay more than their fair share in income taxes, they pay less in other taxes & combined the two balance out to make the total federal taxes paid a pretty fair distribution (IMO).

[floridayankee]

Aug 3, 2011 10:23:30 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I'm confused by your question. Maybe my wording was confusing "I just get tired of the complaint that the rich pay 60% of income taxes & the bottom 50% pay no INCOME taxes." I left out the second income because I assumed it was a given that I was talking about income taxes with both statistics, but that may have been a poor wording choice on my part. Only ~10% of the population pays absolutely no taxes.

The common defense is to compare ALL taxes paid by one group to defend the fact that the same group pays no income tax. I'm just saying it's apples/oranges since most taxes beyond an income tax are usually "use taxes"...aka you have to spend money to pay the tax.

they pay less in other taxes & combined the two balance out to make the total federal taxes paid a pretty fair distribution (IMO)

"They" as a group pay less in total tax simply because there are so few of them. "They" as an individual likely pay more simply because they have more to spend.

[Angel!]

Aug 3, 2011 10:42:38 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

The common defense is to compare ALL taxes paid by one group to defend the fact that the same group pays no income tax. I'm just saying it's apples/oranges since most taxes beyond an income tax are usually "use taxes"...aka you have to spend money to pay the tax.

It is a common defense because it is reasonable. Income taxes only account for about half the taxes the federal govt collects. The next biggest tax collected are the FICA taxes, which are also not use taxes & account for about 40% of taxes collected. Only about 10% of federal tax revenue is from other taxes such as excise tax.

It seems disingenuous to focus only on 50% of the revenue as proof the bottom 50% doesn't pay their fair share, while ignoring the fact that the bottom 50% pay a much higher effective higher tax rate on another 40% of the revenue.

"They" as a group pay less in total tax simply because there are so few of them. "They" as an individual likely pay more simply because they have more to spend.

I wasn't looking at total tax, I was looking at percentages, so this argument doesn't make much sense to me. I said earlier - the top 5% make 32% of the total income & pay 44% of the total taxes. I don't find that to be too unfair considering they have much more disposable income, but your opinion on this may differ.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 2, 2011 14:38:44 GMT -5 henryclay said:

dj said:

i take more risk, therefore i get more reward. that is how it works.

Oh, what kind of risks?

i already specified what kind. but you can also add that i am at a very real risk for career ending liability lawsuits as an owner.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 2, 2011 14:38:44 GMT -5 henryclay said:

dj said:

Do you take greater risks of loosing the whole enterprise like our farmers do, , , year end and year out? I understand fishing is the most dangerous occupation in the country. Do your risks approacjh theirs?

But if you are talking financial risks only, you should understand that the "rich" take a lot more risks than you do, so why are you so hard on them? After all, the roster of "rich" changes about as much as the frontrunners for the superbowl.

henry- as you rightly pointed out, there are people out there that take far more risk and get far fewer rewards for it. so what makes a corporate CEO worth $20M a year, and a fisherman worth $50k a year?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 2, 2011 15:16:42 GMT -5 henryclay said:

A rich person may be invested in annuities, or stable value, living off the yield.

Risk in investments knows no wealth status.

The second part only shows that the investment risk depends on the amount of the investment itself. The "risk" is greater when the investment is greater.

really? so, if a person has $1M sitting in a swiss bank account, he is at more risk than a guy playing $100 Blackjack?

[bubblyandblue]

I am one who believes our revenue system is broken. I guess I am a fundamentalist when it comes to economic theory and taxation. I see proposals for flat taxes and taxing the rich but, they all seem lacking in understanding of what taxes are and the power taxes have. The only power taxes have is the power to destroy. I look at this tax debate as a class warfare. I see some rich people backing the tea party (and the US government -money, lobbyists, lawyers) to achieve their goals (rich getting richer) and, I see the tea party as a bunch of fools on a fools errand. The tea party seems to run on babbling about this and that without having any intellegent components of their own - puppets on a string. Meanwhile the Republicans and the tea partiers have got what they want with this debt ceiling crap - it's time those folks step up to the plate and assume the responsibility, going forward, to which they (Repubs) have fought for years to attain and the fleabaggers tagged on this session - own it. Own the fact that you have taken the fourth leg of production away - government spending. Government spending in infrustructure, defense, energy, research etc. it is not ment to make profit but it does lower the cost of doing business and living for the rest of us. Own the fact that you have aided the speculators the fraudsters and banksters to the detriment of the rest of us who actually contribute to the wealth of the nation.
Taxes power to destroy should be aimed at detroying the things that got us into this financial mess in the first place - tax it at near 100%.
Speculation, Special Privalege, Vested interest, Monopolism etc. -----
Credit is seen as necessary; but what of credit derivatives, the financial sector’s arcane “small print”? How intrinsic are financial gambles on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs, “weapons of mass financial destruction” in Warren Buffett’s terminology) – not retail banking or even business banking and insurance, but financial bets on the economy’s zigzagging measures. - Tax it to the max. High Speed Trading - put a transaction tax on every trade - I don't think a microsecond ownership of stock is ownership - its speculation -tax it to the roof. Hedge fund bets that don't take possesion - it's betting - tax it to hell.
I wonder how we can babble on about taxes and, blindly go forward without paying attention to different types of businesses.
In my view their are two types of business - one that uses labor and capital to produce a service or product (wealth) and the other that employs neither while not producing wealth - tax the latter without remorse while reducing it on the former.
The great sore spot in our modern commercial life is found on the speculative side. Under present laws, which foster and encourage speculation, business life is largely a gamble, and to “get something for nothing” is too often considered the keynote to “success”. The great fortunes of today are nearly all speculative fortunes; and the ambitious young man just starting out in life thinks far less of producing or rendering service than he does of “putting it over” on the other fellow. This may seem a broad statement to some: but thirty years of business life in the heart of American commercial activity convinces me that it is absolutely true.
If, however, the speculative incentive in modern commercial life were eliminated, and no man could become rich or successful unless he gave “value received” and rendered service for service, then indeed a profound change would have been brought in our whole commercial system, and it would be a change which no honest man would regret.- John Moody, Wall Street Publisher, and President of Moody’s Investors’ Service. Dated 1924


In spite of the ingenious methods devised by statesmen and financiers to get more revenue from large fortunes, and regardless of whether the maximum sur tax remains at 25% or is raised or lowered, it is still true that it would be better to stop the speculative incomes at the source, rather than attempt to recover them after they have passed into the hands of profiteers.
If a man earns his income by producing wealth, nothing should be done to hamper him. For has he not given employment to labor, and has he not produced goods for our consumption? To cripple or burden such a man means that he is necessarily forced to employ fewer men, and to make less goods, which tends to decrease wages, unemployment, and increased cost of living.
If, however, a man’s income is not made in producing wealth and employing labor, but is due to speculation, the case is altogether different. The speculator as a speculator, whether his holdings be mineral lands, forests, power sites, agricultural lands, or city lots, employs no labor and produces no wealth. He adds nothing to the riches of the country, but merely takes toll from those who do employ labor and produce wealth.
If part of the speculator’s income – no matter how large a part – be taken in taxation, it will not decrease employment or lessen the production of wealth. Whereas, if the producer’s income be taxed it will tend to limit employment and stop the production of wealth.
Our lawmakers will do well, therefore, to pay less attention to the rate on incomes, and more to the source from whence they are drawn.

We should start to solve our problems by first elevating the understanding and knowledge about our own workings and economics. We should stop believing the one-line-one-slogan crap that passes as intelligence. I do believe most people are capable of much higher thinking than what someone from another planet would have to assume.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be ... The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe." - Thomas Jefferson

[henryclay]

I think the disingenious part is when the argument is made that the "poor" pay a disproportionate high share of taxes when the reference incudes FICA tax. FICA is called "tax", but it is actually an annuity premium and is dedicated to a Trust Fund.

Why do I feel that way? Because if leaves out government employees who have their own retirement systems and do not pay FICA taxes at all.

So if FICA tax is considered a "tax", then why is not all annuity premiums and retirement system contributions also called tax?

Angel, If the argument says that everybody pays "some" federal tax, who are the 10% of Americans who, according to yourr post, pay "no federal taxes at all".

[henryclay]

dj asked: henry- as you rightly pointed out, there are people out there that take far more risk and get far fewer rewards for it. so what makes a corporate CEO worth $20M a year, and a fisherman worth $50k a year?

Meaningless, rhetorical and argumentative only, but I'll try to answer it in kind.- - - - The same thing that makes one pilot want to fly high and fast, while another pilot wants to fly low and slow. The same thing that makes one ball player good and another ball player a stand out. The same thing that makes one math student study the movements of the stars and another math student unable to balance a check book. The same thing that makes one CEO respected by his employees for his communication skills and another CEO unable to spell simple words.

In short, What is your point? They both have a place in society. But under Obama's vision of things it appeaers the corpoprate CEO may be headed for the unemployment line and replaced by a government bureaucrat. . . . at a lot less than $20M.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 3, 2011 17:49:15 GMT -5 henryclay said:

dj asked: henry- as you rightly pointed out, there are people out there that take far more risk and get far fewer rewards for it. so what makes a corporate CEO worth $20M a year, and a fisherman worth $50k a year?

Meaningless, rhetorical and argumentative only, but I'll try to answer it in kind.- - - - The same thing that makes one pilot want to fly high and fast, while another pilot wants to fly low and slow. The same thing that makes one ball player good and another ball player a stand out. The same thing that makes one math student study the movements of the stars and another math student unable to balance a check book. The same thing that makes one CEO respected by his employees for his communication skills and another CEO unable to spell simple words.

i am not following you. most people in this society believe that pay should be based on merit. but what you seem to be saying here is that it is not- that it is as arbitrary as a choice of how to fly. or am i getting it wrong, again?

please try to be patient, henry. i really AM trying to understand.

[henryclay]

Here's the way it was put to me.

Find somebody, call him/her your model of success, with the income that you would like to have, who started out in your shape. Do what they did for s long as they did it and you should have that income for yourself. Age is not a consideration. What mattrers is HOW to get where you want to be.

If you pick somebody who started out better off than you are, , , , or if you try to cut corners that your model didn't cut, , , you will never make it to the place your model is, no matter how long or how hard you try.

[Angel!]

Aug 3, 2011 17:31:25 GMT -5 henryclay said:

I think the disingenious part is when the argument is made that the "poor" pay a disproportionate high share of taxes when the reference incudes FICA tax. FICA is called "tax", but it is actually an annuity premium and is dedicated to a Trust Fund.

Why do I feel that way? Because if leaves out government employees who have their own retirement systems and do not pay FICA taxes at all.

So if FICA tax is considered a "tax", then why is not all annuity premiums and retirement system contributions also called tax?

FICA goes straight to the federal govt & is considered part of their tax revenue & is in their budget. That is why I consider it a federal tax. Retirement contributions aren't even similar because you still own that money, it is just in a different account type. To my knowledge no pensions go straight to the federal budget or are considered tax revenue. Same reason I don't include state or local taxes, because those are completely unrelated to the federal tax revenue & every jurisdiction is going to be different.

Angel, If the argument says that everybody pays "some" federal tax, who are the 10% of Americans who, according to yourr post, pay "no federal taxes at all".

I'm not familiar with the argument that everybody pays some federal tax, so can't respond to that part of your question. The 10% who pay no federal taxes are low income folks with such high tax refunds (EITC) that the refund (minus their withholding) is larger than all the other federal taxes that they pay through the year.

[mwcpa]

"FICA is called "tax", but it is actually an annuity premium and is dedicated to a Trust Fund"

But I thought Social Security was an entitlement program? (as is suggested by today's political rhetoric and understanding, entitlements are bad things)

One cannot call the payment in an annuity payment and then say the payout is an entitlement.... does that mean my 401(k) or IRA distributions are an entitlement too when I start to draw on those.... I guess, it is an entitlement.... I set aside my money (voluntarily or not) and I am entitled to reap the fruits of the investment....just the same as if I invest in my own business I am entitled to the fruits of that.... if I work I am entitled to a paycheck.... etc....