PDA

View Full Version : Fair taxation?



dnf777
04-17-2011, 01:38 PM
Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically



WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes

I don't know how the right-wingers will feel about this...but I'm feeling like we're all taking the shaft! And I'm not talking about the over 250k/yr crowd. That's peanuts compared to what these folks are making.

Eric Johnson
04-17-2011, 01:45 PM
WASHINGTON – ... and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.


I'd focus on this group first. Those other 400 people and firms are at least paying something.

subroc
04-17-2011, 01:46 PM
Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically



WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes

I don't know how the right-wingers will feel about this...but I'm feeling like we're all taking the shaft! And I'm not talking about the over 250k/yr crowd. That's peanuts compared to what these folks are making.

there is someone, somewhere making $9.50 an hour who believes you are the super rich.

dnf777
04-17-2011, 01:51 PM
there is someone, somewhere making $9.50 an hour who believes you are the super rich.

I understand that. But they're not paying any taxes, so their right to complain is somewhat diminished. I am paying taxes. So are you probably. We're also paying for those who don't pay any, and those who make 7,8, and 9 figure salaries, so they don't have to pay as much.

Both situations need looked at, and fixed.

dnf777
04-17-2011, 01:53 PM
I'd focus on this group first. Those other 400 people and firms are at least paying something.

Eric, I see your point and agree it should be looked at. But those people ARE paying something...via user fees, licensing fees, sales tax, etc...

They are for the most part, NOT rolling in the dough. 9-figure salary earners should pay AT LEAST as much as you and I do.......IMO.

Doc E
04-17-2011, 02:07 PM
One more reason for a "flat tax" rate.



.

luvmylabs23139
04-17-2011, 03:45 PM
Until the 50% that pay no federal income taxes start paying, let alone stop having a NEGATIVE tax liability that is REFUNDED to them I'm not going to worry about those that already pay. When the gov't stops giving people money I worry about those that pay. By that I mean actually giving people money that they did not earn. I am not refering to the amount of money a person earns that is stolen by the gov't.

subroc
04-17-2011, 06:42 PM
Dave, when you or Roger post items like this, I get the impression you believe you are reporting a scandal of some sort.

Well, soon enough, you along with the rest of the Americans that took advantage of the “Bush Tax Cuts” will have an opportunity to participate in the “obama Tax Increases.”

I doubt you will ever believe no matter what tax increase is imposed on those who make more than you it will ever be enough.

Doc E
04-17-2011, 08:34 PM
All in favor of a Flat Tax, say "Aye".



.

Uncle Bill
04-17-2011, 08:55 PM
All in favor of a Flat Tax, say "Aye".



.


I would like to agree with you, Doc, but it wouldn't be long before we had an underground economy that would choke an ox.

The only tax that would catch everyone is a consumtion tax...one that would exclude food and meds (to protect the 'poor' ya know). Since the majority of the states have a 'sales' tax now, it would be the easiest to implement, with very little additional personnel to collect it.

UB

Doc E
04-17-2011, 08:58 PM
UB
You're probably right.



.

dnf777
04-17-2011, 09:08 PM
Dave, when you or Roger post items like this, I get the impression you believe you are reporting a scandal of some sort.

Well, soon enough, you along with the rest of the Americans that took advantage of the “Bush Tax Cuts” will have an opportunity to participate in the “obama Tax Increases.”

I doubt you will ever believe no matter what tax increase is imposed on those who make more than you it will ever be enough.

Subroc,
You misread me then. I would be the first to vote for a flat tax. I just thought that anyone who believes in a fair tax law would be upset that the billionaires pay a lower tax rate than most of us here on POTUS.

Yes, when middle-class Americans pay a higher percentage of their wages in taxes than billionaires who conduct business and provide jobs overseas.....that is a scandal!

Buzz
04-17-2011, 11:03 PM
Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically



WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes

I don't know how the right-wingers will feel about this...but I'm feeling like we're all taking the shaft! And I'm not talking about the over 250k/yr crowd. That's peanuts compared to what these folks are making.


I don't know about anyone else, but this pi$$e$ me off.

I pay higher than a 17% effective rate. What a load of horse $hit.

You're right Dave, it's a scandal.

If I hear one more time that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem, I'm gonna throw a brick through the 55 inch screen. You gotta hand it to them, they know how to stick with a talking point though don't they?

Marvin S
04-17-2011, 11:25 PM
All in favor of a Flat Tax, say "Aye"..

AYE - Emphatically


I would like to agree with you, Doc, but it wouldn't be long before we had an underground economy that would choke an ox.

The only tax that would catch everyone is a consumtion tax...one that would exclude food and meds (to protect the 'poor' ya know). Since the majority of the states have a 'sales' tax now, it would be the easiest to implement, with very little additional personnel to collect it.

UB

From personal experience as there is Sales Tax, No Income Tax in WA. More than 1/2 the potential revenue is lost in those exempt from the Sales Tax, so the rest of us pay twice as much. So it would be no better than the present Federal system given time & payoffs. I still favor Steve Forbes idea.


I don't know about anyone else, but this pi$$e$ me off.

I pay higher than a 17% effective rate. What a load of horse $hit.

it's a scandal.

The Federal Reserve & the O person have finally lowered our taxes to the point the that we pay, barely. In fact the lowest rate we have paid since I got the sheepskin :) . Course there is the corresponding hit on income. Buzz, you don't know how good it feels to sell a stock & know that we get to keep it all. :razz:

I really have an issue with the class envy thing - those gabillionaires are making jobs, a lot of them. Gates, Soros & the Koch's get to spend their money as they see fit, which is appropriate as they earned it. How many jobs does a billion dollar yacht make?

We ran Totten's trial in Twin Bridges, Went to the Trout unlimited banquet & had a young lady sit with us whose income was derived from caring for the homes of the rich while she tries to find a young rancher. She said they show maybe once or twice a year at most. Now if you wanted to take away the mortgage deduct for anything beyond a 1st home, I would favor that wholeheartedly.

As you edited after I pulled you up - REPEAT AFTER ME, THERE IS A SPENDING PROBLEM, NOT A REVENUE PROBLEM. I guess we're going to have to start calling you Mr BIG GOVERNMENT - How'd that work for MI?

dnf777
04-17-2011, 11:29 PM
AYE - Emphatically



From personal experience as there is Sales Tax, No Income Tax in WA. More than 1/2 the potential revenue is lost in those exempt from the Sales Tax, so the rest of us pay twice as much. So it would be no better than the present Federal system given time & payoffs. I still favor Steve Forbes idea.



The Federal Reserve & the O person have finally lowered our taxes to the point the that we pay, barely. In fact the lowest rate we have paid since I got the sheepskin :) . Course there is the corresponding hit on income. Buzz, you don't know how good it feels to sell a stock & know that we get to keep it all. :razz:

I really have an issue with the class envy thing - those gabillionaires are making jobs, a lot of them. Gates, Soros & the Koch's get to spend their money as they see fit, which is appropriate as they earned it. How many jobs does a billion dollar yacht make?

We ran Totten's trial in Twin Bridges, Went to the Trout unlimited banquet & had a young lady sit with us whose income was derived from caring for the homes of the rich while she tries to find a young rancher. She said they show maybe once or twice a year at most. Now if you wanted to take away the mortgage deduct for anything beyond a 1st home, I would favor that wholeheartedly.

Marvin, if what you said was true, I would be inclined to agree with it. Many of these billionaires are making money from off-shored manufacturing. They are NOT creating jobs here. Not all of them, anyway. And as for Gates, he was part of a consortium with Warren Buffett saying, "we can afford it, tax us fairly and fix this deficit mess!" (ie, more)

ppro
04-18-2011, 12:50 AM
Gates has all the right to " donate " as much taxes as he would like. That is crap to ask for higher taxes. I don't claim to know or wish to speculate why he and Warren Buffit sY this but they can give all their money if they want.

T. Mac
04-18-2011, 01:55 AM
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/chart_fed_tax.top.jpg

subroc
04-18-2011, 05:02 AM
...And as for Gates, he was part of a consortium with Warren Buffett saying, "we can afford it, tax us fairly and fix this deficit mess!" (ie, more)



Gates has all the right to " donate " as much taxes as he would like. That is crap to ask for higher taxes. I don't claim to know or wish to speculate why he and Warren Buffit sY this but they can give all their money if they want.

Agree
Gates” opinion on how the rest of us are taxed is as meaningless as me being a consumer saying to him his product prices should be lower.

dnf777
04-18-2011, 05:54 AM
I'm surprised. Just as I thought everyone would like to see those 50k-100k folks pay their fair share, I thought folks would like to see the 1,000,000+ folks pay THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Guess there's more millionaires and billionaires here on POTUS than I realized!

road kill
04-18-2011, 06:54 AM
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/chart_fed_tax.top.jpg

For those of you that are gainfully employed, which group above do you work for??:cool:

Nuff said...........................



RK

emf111
04-18-2011, 07:05 AM
How much is a "fair share" ? How much should " we the people" send to our federal coffer? After all our politicians have historically shown a great deal of competence in managing our money. Just look at our current financial condition. NICE JOB guys and gals!! Keep up the GOOD WORK!!

Buzz
04-18-2011, 09:47 AM
I'm surprised. Just as I thought everyone would like to see those 50k-100k folks pay their fair share, I thought folks would like to see the 1,000,000+ folks pay THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Guess there's more millionaires and billionaires here on POTUS than I realized!

The brainwashing must be compete. You gotta hand it to them for convincing a large portion of the population that it's just fine for the wealthy to pay a lower effective rate than the average Joe. After all, look over there, welfare queens!

road kill
04-18-2011, 10:16 AM
The brainwashing must be compete. You gotta hand it to them for convincing a large portion of the population that it's just fine for the wealthy to pay a lower effective rate than the average Joe. After all, look over there, welfare queens!

It goes well beyond that and you know it.

Progressive liberals use class envy to garner support with those that have less.
It is not the "RICH's" tax rate that causes the government to spend mor money than we have on stuff we don't NEED!!!


Take every penny from the rich you describe that should pay more, what would that be......$6 Trillion??

Doesn't help much does it??

How about we face the facts.....we spend too much!!


RK

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 10:44 AM
When you raise the tax on the highest earners, all they do is shuffle the money, to avoid the tax. Ironically, if you would like to take the time and look, Bush senior was able to get more tax dollars out of the rich than any prior president. Don't believe me...... look it up. It is on the IRS report.... or you can Google it.

road kill
04-18-2011, 10:46 AM
When you raise the tax on the highest earners, all they do is shuffle the money, to avoid the tax. Ironically, if you would like to take the time and look, Bush senior was able to get more tax dollars out of the rich than any prior president. Don't believe me...... look it up. It is on the IRS report.... or you can Google it.

Is it on the Daily Koz?
Or the Huffington Post??
Maybe the Daily Show??

Otherwise...........:D



RK

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 11:30 AM
The true problem is government spending..... the congressional budge office shows a chart with revenue vs. spending for the last thirty years or so...... that is very entertaining...... stop spending!!!!!

Buzz
04-18-2011, 11:37 AM
The true problem is government spending..... the congressional budge office shows a chart with revenue vs. spending for the last thirty years or so...... that is very entertaining...... stop spending!!!!!

Maybe you'll believe it if you see it from the Heritage Foundation...

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts

I'm not optimistic though.

road kill
04-18-2011, 11:40 AM
Maybe you'll believe it if you see it from the Heritage Foundation...

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/current-tax-receipts

I'm not optimistic though.

Maybe you'll believe it if you see it from the Heritage Foundation...



http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-spending

I'm not optimistic though.

You must have missed this part.


Just tryin' to help...........:D


RK

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 11:42 AM
Believe what Buzz..... All that chart shows is that americas ecconomy is in the shitter..... of course overall reciepts are down..... americans have to make money in order to be liable for taxes.... americans havnt made any money........

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 11:46 AM
Stan..... in your link, there is the chart that shows tax revenue versus spending..... top right chart. Could you post it for buzz????? I aint no good at this cut and paste stuff......

road kill
04-18-2011, 11:52 AM
Stan..... in your link, there is the chart that shows tax revenue versus spending..... top right chart. Could you post it for buzz????? I aint no good at this cut and paste stuff......

You mean this one??


http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww42/sbx1/growth-federal-spending-revenue-600.jpg

My pleasure!!!

RK

M&K's Retrievers
04-18-2011, 12:20 PM
I'm afraid that as long as federal spending equals votes, the spending will never go down. As long as elected officials, government employees and union members have salaries and benefits that exceed the average citizen, the spending will not go down until it's too late.

Golden egg regards,

T. Mac
04-18-2011, 12:47 PM
Another interesting graph that may explain more the income vs outgo gap!
Bloomberg Reports had another one in one of the latest magazines but based on age 18-65 that was even more dramatic. Sorry can't find it on the web. But it had employment of 18-65 yo males at below 65%!!!

http://timecuriouscapitalist.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/men2.jpg?w=470&h=324

road kill
04-18-2011, 12:49 PM
Imagine if we could get Democrats to pay their taxes!!:D


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


RK

dnf777
04-18-2011, 01:00 PM
The brainwashing must be compete. You gotta hand it to them for convincing a large portion of the population that it's just fine for the wealthy to pay a lower effective rate than the average Joe. After all, look over there, welfare queens!

Yup.

Amazing. Reminds me of the rich southern plantation owners getting the working poor to charge into union cannons for them....and their lavish lifestyle that the cannon-fodder were never going to share in even with a southern victory. Its happened before, its happening now, and it will happen again. I guess if you're rich, its good to have a gullible populace to do your work, pay your taxes, and fight your battles.

road kill
04-18-2011, 01:01 PM
Yup.

Amazing. Reminds me of the rich southern plantation owners getting the working poor to charge into union cannons for them....and their lavish lifestyle that the cannon-fodder were never going to share in even with a southern victory. Its happened before, its happening now, and it will happen again. I guess if you're rich, its good to have a gullible populace to do your work, pay your taxes, and fight your battles.

Sort of like AFSCME Union bosses??:D


RK

duckheads
04-18-2011, 01:05 PM
You are a freaking doctor and you are playing the class envy BS. "I guess if your rich" Give me a break! YOU ARE A HECK OF A LOT RICHER THAN A LOt OF FOLK ON HERE. Quit your BOO HOOING I am sick of hearing it!

Jason Glavich
04-18-2011, 01:08 PM
Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically



WASHINGTON – As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_no_taxes

I don't know how the right-wingers will feel about this...but I'm feeling like we're all taking the shaft! And I'm not talking about the over 250k/yr crowd. That's peanuts compared to what these folks are making.

If I was one of them I would be pretty mad, 17%! Dividends are usually only 15% so my money manager or accountant would be fired. Our oh so wonderful tax code allows these sorts of things. Tax everyone equally!

I say start tracking the ones who pay none and see how much "assistance" they get along with the tax return they get.

dnf777
04-18-2011, 01:21 PM
You are a freaking doctor and you are playing the class envy BS. "I guess if your rich" Give me a break! YOU ARE A HECK OF A LOT RICHER THAN A LOt OF FOLK ON HERE. Quit your BOO HOOING I am sick of hearing it!

What? By the responses, I'd guess I'm a lot poorer than many here!

If anything I was saying they should pay more! You got it all backwards, with all due respect.

Also, when the 250k line was drawn as somehow denoting "rich", that was under Reagan, and wages and CPI were a little different then.

If anything, I'm calling for a flat tax that ALL will be required to pay. Not just the working class, while the megarich get their loophole rate HALF of what I pay. Hope you don't have a problem with that.

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 01:37 PM
DNF.... You can certainly stroke a check to uncle sam..... go ahead..... if you think that you rich folk should pay more...... let your wallet do the talkin......

empty checkbook regards........

T. Mac
04-18-2011, 02:29 PM
Found the graph I mentioned above from Bloomberg Businessweek.
http://images.businessweek.com/mz/11/16/popup_mz_1116_7econmaleemp.jpg
Note the steady downward decline in employment since '53!!!

Uncle Bill
04-18-2011, 07:25 PM
How can the left not understand? This isn't about who wins elections, or if my union bargaining days are over etc. etc. etc.

THIS INDEED MAY BE ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!


UB



Per-Capita Federal Spending Now Tops $12,000 Per Citizen (http://sayanythingblog.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cf482d8e2dd7649b6def9a8f7&id=f2e0884f06&e=00537d133a)

http://sayanythingblog.com/files/2011/04/baby-debt.jpg

dnf777
04-18-2011, 08:04 PM
DNF.... You can certainly stroke a check to uncle sam..... go ahead..... if you think that you rich folk should pay more...... let your wallet do the talkin......

empty checkbook regards........


Believe me, I already pay a boatload, and THAT's why I'd like to see the truly "rich" (>250k ain't rich like the Bush's and Kennedy's and Kerry and McCain's kind of "rich") pay at the same rate.

I doubt my annual salary as a physician would even amount to initiation fees at their country clubs. Really. I'm not joking.

Why shouldn't they pay at least as much as you and I pay???

troy schwab
04-18-2011, 09:07 PM
as much as I may bitch.......I am sure all of those folks pay their fair share and then some......all while providing hundreds of jobs.......its the deadbeat 20 % of this country that really irks me.....jmo

Buzz
04-18-2011, 11:04 PM
as much as I may bitch.......I am sure all of those folks pay their fair share and then some......all while providing hundreds of jobs.......its the deadbeat 20 % of this country that really irks me.....jmo

The original post on this thread said what they pay on average, 17%. That isn't the marginal rate, it's the effective rate they pay. Meanwhile an average Joe like myself pays well over that. Once again last year I paid enough to support a family of 4 above the poverty level. If it is class warfare for me to expect those much more well off than myself to pay at least the same percentage of their income to the man, so be it, call me a class warrior.

huntinman
04-18-2011, 11:14 PM
The original post on this thread said what they pay on average, 17%. That isn't the marginal rate, it's the effective rate they pay. Meanwhile an average Joe like myself pays well over that. Once again last year I paid enough to support a family of 4 above the poverty level. If it is class warfare for me to expect those much more well off than myself to pay at least the same percentage of their income to the man, so be it, call me a class warrior.

What it did not show was the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes at all. What is it up to now 43 or 46%? paying no federal income tax. Many of those actually get returns through various credits. Building the Dem voter base one non-tax payer at a time.

troy schwab
04-19-2011, 08:30 AM
What it did not show was the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes at all. What is it up to now 43 or 46%? paying no federal income tax. Many of those actually get returns through various credits. Building the Dem voter base one non-tax payer at a time.

DING DING DING..... we have a winner...... This amount of revenue would dwarf the available taxable monies that the "wealthy" have. Only in entitlement america would you punish a successful entrepeneur.......... WHAT A CROCK!

Buzz
04-19-2011, 09:28 AM
DING DING DING..... we have a winner...... This amount of revenue would dwarf the available taxable monies that the "wealthy" have. Only in entitlement america would you punish a successful entrepeneur.......... WHAT A CROCK!

They aren't being punished, they are getting off easy! WHAT A CROCK!

dnf777
04-19-2011, 09:35 AM
DING DING DING..... we have a winner...... This amount of revenue would dwarf the available taxable monies that the "wealthy" have. Only in entitlement america would you punish a successful entrepeneur.......... WHAT A CROCK!

I'd be careful. There may be folks here who fall in that category.

As for your math, I don't know the numbers either, but if GE and Exxon didn't have so many loopholes, the 37% of 54 billion dollars would sure make up a lot of those low and middle class tax returns, eh? And that's just TWO companies! TWO. Take the half of the Fortune 500 companies who pay little or no tax and you've surely got the rest, and then some?

And there's a difference between taking away someone's ability to buy their 12th vacation home........versus their home heating allowance or food money.

And that consideration, is the difference between democrats (and independents) and the new breed of republicans.

luvmylabs23139
04-19-2011, 09:43 AM
DING DING DING..... we have a winner...... This amount of revenue would dwarf the available taxable monies that the "wealthy" have. Only in entitlement america would you punish a successful entrepeneur.......... WHAT A CROCK!

I'm with you. The first thing the gov't needs to do is make everyone pays federal income taxes. NOthing pisses me off more than refundable credits.
The first one to get rid of is the child credit. What a crock that is.
Just think about it. Those are the same people that use the dept of ed.:rolleyes:

dnf777
04-19-2011, 09:54 AM
I'm with you. The first thing the gov't needs to do is make everyone pays federal income taxes. NOthing pisses me off more than refundable credits.
The first one to get rid of is the child credit. What a crock that is.
Just think about it. Those are the same people that use the dept of ed.:rolleyes:

I agree with that. Baby factories should not be rewarded.

I wonder what the percentage of those paying no taxes would be if we just eliminated the child tax credit?

ppro
04-19-2011, 09:57 AM
dnf what a slick statement " They may be people in that category yada yada". So what. If you want better go get it, sorry it may be actually hard to do but you can. Don't try to give me the poor me story. I know you can come up with someone's hard luck story and that is part of some people's life but it always can be changed it just may take a lot of work. When you want a poor me story I will give you one. I pay for my own kids and don't want to pay for other's kids.I know people that get government money (my money,your money) that don't work that could.But they are poor and need help.No they are lazy and need to work.Maybe some of those jobs that Americans don't want to do like cleaning a rich man's horse stalls like I did would still be available.

road kill
04-19-2011, 09:59 AM
In regard to taxes and those of you that think the "rich" don't pay enough I have a couple questions.

#1---Define "rich?"

#2--How much should "they" pay??

Thanks,

RK

dnf777
04-19-2011, 10:30 AM
In regard to taxes and those of you that think the "rich" don't pay enough I have a couple questions.

#1---Define "rich?"

#2--How much should "they" pay??

Thanks,

RK

#2 - the SAME as you and I. In that setting, #1 becomes irrelevant.

If you still want a number, see what 250k is in 1980 dollars??

Buzz
04-19-2011, 11:01 AM
In regard to taxes and those of you that think the "rich" don't pay enough I have a couple questions.

#1---Define "rich?"

#2--How much should "they" pay??

Thanks,

RK


I'm not talking about how much the rich should pay. I'm saying that I'm not frigg'in rich. However if you take the amount I paid and divide by how much I paid, I ended up paying an overall effective rate of 24%. But reading DNF's original post:


The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.



You guys want to point the finger at lower income people that don't pay anything. FINE, OK, that's not fair. But you guys seem to think it's fair for folks who's income has NINE FREAKING DIGITS IN IT to pay that much lower a percentage than I do. And you seem to think it's fair because they are the job creators. I guess I don't contribute one iota so it's fair to take a 7% points higher chunk out of my hide. OK, I get it. They are the water carriers, I'm a water drinker...

PS: I have kid too, but I don't get to take that deduction. At some point they say FY, you can't deduct your kids.

road kill
04-19-2011, 11:12 AM
I'm not talking about how much the rich should pay. I'm saying that I'm not frigg'in rich. However if you take the amount I paid and divide by how much I paid, I ended up paying an overall effective rate of 24%. But reading DNF's original post:




You guys want to point the finger at lower income people that don't pay anything. FINE, OK, that's not fair. But you guys seem to think it's fair for folks who's income has NINE FREAKING DIGITS IN IT to pay that much lower a percentage than I do. And you seem to think it's fair because they are the job creators. I guess I don't contribute one iota so it's fair to take a 7% points higher chunk out of my hide. OK, I get it.

PS: I have kid too, but I don't get to take that deduction. At some point they say FY, you can't deduct your kids.

Buzz, my kids are raised and gone.
My wife passed.
My house is paid for as well as a small property I have.
No deductions at all.

What LOOPHOLES???

But, I paid.


RK

troy schwab
04-19-2011, 11:30 AM
I'd be careful. There may be folks here who fall in that category.

As for your math, I don't know the numbers either, but if GE and Exxon didn't have so many loopholes, the 37% of 54 billion dollars would sure make up a lot of those low and middle class tax returns, eh? And that's just TWO companies! TWO. Take the half of the Fortune 500 companies who pay little or no tax and you've surely got the rest, and then some?

And there's a difference between taking away someone's ability to buy their 12th vacation home........versus their home heating allowance or food money.

And that consideration, is the difference between democrats (and independents) and the new breed of republicans.


Careful?? Why? My opinion wouldnt change if they were standing next to me......... And there you go.....changing your song and dance yet again...... are we talking personal income tax, or corporate taxes?????? You decide...... when your ready, so am I........

dnf777
04-19-2011, 07:02 PM
Careful?? Why? My opinion wouldnt change if they were standing next to me......... And there you go.....changing your song and dance yet again...... are we talking personal income tax, or corporate taxes?????? You decide...... when your ready, so am I........

Either one Troy. Apparently there's no distinction anymore according to SCOTUS. (but that's a whole 'nother thread)

The premise I hold to is that anyone earning a living and expected to pay taxes, should pay the same rate. Me, you, or Warren Buffet.

How is it construed as "class warfare" to ask that the guy who owns the factory pay as much as the guy who works in the factory? Is that "unfair"?

luvmylabs23139
04-19-2011, 07:10 PM
AGAIN THAT 17% is federal income tax.
Absolutely no one can pay a federal income tax rate of 37%
The top marginal bracket is currently 35%.
Therefore even a billionare's effective federal income tax rate would be slightly less than
35% with nothing but a personal exemption and standard deduction.

troy schwab
04-19-2011, 07:10 PM
there is a massive difference between corporate and personal tax liability.......let alone liability PERIOD. corporations have to protect themselves and their employees......they should make millions....even billions.....cuz they are gonna need it without tort reform. the bottom 50% is where you should be focusing......and u refuse to look there.......please put your head back in the sand.

luvmylabs23139
04-19-2011, 07:13 PM
Additionally corporate income is taxed twice. It is taxed at the corporate level and then those same earnings if not retained are taxed again if they are distributed to the stockholder.

troy schwab
04-19-2011, 07:15 PM
Additionally corporate income is taxed twice. It is taxed at the corporate level and then those same earnings if not retained are taxed again if they are distributed to the stockholder.


which is why corporations get blamed for not paying taxes......when in fact they retain the profit to avoid the distribution tax....

Buzz
04-19-2011, 07:17 PM
I think I've just entered the twilight zone.

caryalsobrook
04-19-2011, 07:22 PM
I'm not talking about how much the rich should pay. I'm saying that I'm not frigg'in rich. However if you take the amount I paid and divide by how much I paid, I ended up paying an overall effective rate of 24%. But reading DNF's original post:




You guys want to point the finger at lower income people that don't pay anything. FINE, OK, that's not fair. But you guys seem to think it's fair for folks who's income has NINE FREAKING DIGITS IN IT to pay that much lower a percentage than I do. And you seem to think it's fair because they are the job creators. I guess I don't contribute one iota so it's fair to take a 7% points higher chunk out of my hide. OK, I get it. They are the water carriers, I'm a water drinker...

PS: I have kid too, but I don't get to take that deduction. At some point they say FY, you can't deduct your kids.

You don't pay taxes on adjusted gross income. The figure is meaningless when talking about percentages of taxes paid on income. Just some more of pure BS.

TxHillHunter
04-19-2011, 07:51 PM
I think the discussion is a great example of how "fair taxation" is un-reachable. Who sets what "fair" means? It's a non-starter.

I think I could stomach a system in which ALL individuals earning a living pay taxes, and one that begins eliminating some of the corporations that are getting off scott free - just remember, we will ALL pay for that in increased prices for the goods and services those companies provide, just as most of us benefit from the profits many of those corporations make through investments, 401k, pensions, etc.

BUT - Sanity in taxation requires sanity in spending. One without the other is no better than the status quo.

cotts135
04-20-2011, 06:12 AM
I'm with you. The first thing the gov't needs to do is make everyone pays federal income taxes. NOthing pisses me off more than refundable credits.
The first one to get rid of is the child credit. What a crock that is.
Just think about it. Those are the same people that use the dept of ed.:rolleyes:
How about those Corporate loopholes that let a large company like GE not pay any taxes, does that piss you off?

dnf777
04-20-2011, 06:17 AM
How about those Corporate loopholes that let a large company like GE not pay any taxes, does that piss you off?

I'm really surprised at the responses. I thought that proposing a flat tax would be met with acceptance here. Yet the main thrust appears to be to protect the richest of the rich from paying any taxes.

And just to clarify, I don't begrudge ANYONE from using the tax law to the best of their advantage, so long as its legal. We all do that. It just seems the laws (crafted by lobbyists) heavily favor the rich and the corporations, when someone making 9 figures pays a lower rate than someone making 4, 5, or 6 figures. (actually, most making 4 figures fall into the lower tail of non-payers, so just 5 and 6 figure earners)

I would also be open to proposals to delete the child tax credit. I don't know the numbers, but I suspect that is whats responsible for many of the 43%ers who pay nothing. Any one know those figures?

subroc
04-20-2011, 06:35 AM
I am still trying to figure out who is the rich?

road kill
04-20-2011, 06:49 AM
I am still trying to figure out who is the rich?

And.....how much should they pay?


RK

cotts135
04-20-2011, 07:25 AM
This is a re post from a previous thread


A lot has been said on this forum about taxes for the rich. Taxes have been a way of life in this country since 1861 which then helped pay for the American Civil war. A progressive tax system was proposed and implemented and has worked for years. Since then I don't think anyone of means has fell to the poverty level because of it.

Should the rich pay more taxes? I think the should, they certainly benefit more from what tax dollars are used for then the poor.

Is it fair? Many things are not fair. Is it fair that one person is born into poverty and the next into unimaginable riches, or someone is born with a birth defect and someone is not? Their are far worse scenarios that could be judged unfair than paying more in taxes, especially when you can afford to do so.

Lets start with interstates and airports. The wealthy get a disproportional benefit from them. It is, after all, the products and services that the rich provide that use both to get distributed.

This is a financial plus for them. What about those big trucks for transport they use that tear up our roads?

As most of you have noticed the rich have more stuff, in a majority of cases a lot more stuff. That stuff is protected by our defense. Bigger benefit, bigger price tag. This apply's to corporations they own located outside the United States.

Corporate welfare costs this country far more than is generally known. A recent report in the NY times says that General Electric paid no taxes on a profit of 5.1 billion. C'mon you have to be kidding me. How many child credits do you think it would take to equal the benefit GE received?

Another thing is that the wealthy have got us into this current economic mess how about taking some responsibility and help us get out of it.

What about the environmental messes that have been left by some big corporations. Where do you think the Superfund money came from to clean up these disasters ?

It is impossible to imagine that if the tax cuts for the rich had expired that the people affected would today be standing in bread lines. I am not suggesting going back to a 70%-90% tax rate, that is absurd, as crazy as thinking our debt is just a spending problem.

Continuing to believe in politicians who shout out "No more Taxes" and who's only self interest is that of getting re elected will lead us to ruin. Electing officials who spend recklessly and disregard sound fiscal policies so that they can get re elected must also stop.

There is a balance here somewhere, It is not where we are at or where were heading.

subroc
04-20-2011, 08:17 AM
...I am not suggesting going back to a 70%-90% tax rate, that is absurd...

Why????????????

dixidawg
04-20-2011, 08:30 AM
Some things that I have not seen on any of these threads....

How much should "the rich" pay? Pick a number.

Assuming that number becomes law, how much additional tax revenue would be generated?

Assuming that we now borrow $.40 of every dollar spent, would the additional revenue be enough to close that gap to 0?

If not 0, what is plan B for getting it to 0?



I don't know that taxing "the rich" would have much of an impact on our budget problem. Is it just a class warfare feel good game, or would it really have a material impact on the budget?

I haven't heard ANY proposals from the left for any material spending cuts. Again, if you get your way and "the rich" are taxed at higher rates, where do we go if it is still not enough to close the budget gap?