Should The Rich Pay More Taxes?

[luvmylabs23139]

2010 1040 Calculation
w-2 income50000
less standard deduction-11400
less pers. Exemption (4*3650)-14600
Taxable income24000
federal tax2763
federal tax is 1675 + (24000-16750)*.15
less child credit (2*1000)-2000
federal tax763
less making work pay credit (800)-800
refund due taxpayer27

You will note that I did this based on zero witheld

Here is the actual calculation for Paul since he won't accept my word.
All of these numbers can be checked using the info from IRS.gov

[depittydawg]

"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand should be required reading.

I read it in HS. Before it became a cult. Good novel. Put it alongside "The Jungle" and you have a pretty good look at both sides of capitalism.

[sinner]

All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers." A very true statement!
I stated earlier:
Flat Tax and I beleive one of the last Republican hopefuls supports this tax approach.
Probably won't happen in my life time.

[Marvin S]

All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers." A very true statement!
I stated earlier:
Flat Tax and I beleive one of the last Republican hopefuls supports this tax approach.
Probably won't happen in my life time.

www.taxfoundation.org , Steve Forbes (Mr. Flat Tax) is a supporter

"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand should be required reading.

I believe "We The People" & "Fountain Head" to be equally as good & should be read in that order prior to "AS" .

[cotts135]

DNF, I can't speak to what Goose intended to say, but I can comment on how I read his remarks.

I think that Social Security, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Nor do I read Goose's comments to be saying that either. In fact, run correctly it's a very good thing. Exactly what it's name implies, Security.

The problem is that our Government has been running it like a Ponzi scheme. They take in money, spend it, and then pay out dividends with the money they take in later. Isn't that exactly what Bernie Madoff is in prison for?

If all the money paid into Social Security has been saved and used for Social Security, what condition would the program be in now?

Off topic I know but that's a great looking dog in your avatar.

[hotel4dogs]

Totally agree!

[QUOTE=Marvin S;741003][URL="
I believe "We The People" & "Fountain Head" to be equally as good & should be read in that order prior to "AS" .[/QUOTE]

[YardleyLabs]

Federal taxes, like state and local taxes, come in many flavors. The Federal income tax is a progressives tax meaning, in theory, that those with the highest incomes pay a larger percentage of their incomes in taxes than those with the lowest incomes. Other Federal taxes, such as social security and excise taxes such as those on cigarettes and gasoline, are regressive, meaning that those with the lowest incomes pay the largest percentage of their incomes in taxes. Since the 1980's we have been decreasing income tax while increasing social security. The increases in social security taxes created massive surpluses in current accounts which were used as one of the major sources of revenue to cover the cost in income tax cuts. The crisis in social security is less a factor of the long term funding for social security, which is marginally inadequate, and more a function of the fact that the surpluses generated by social security are now running out and the fund is reaching the point, as expected, when it will need to take back the money that was borrowed to cover deficits.

It is true that almost half of the population does not pay Federal income taxes. However, that does not mean they do not pay taxes. In fact they pay a substantial portion of their incomes for those other taxes. The overall tax burden -- that is, the percentage of total personal income spent on taxes of any kind -- for lower income people is actually quite substantial. The greatest tax burden is on those in the middle class, while the very wealthiest face tax burdens (once again, measured by percentages of total income) that rival those paid by the poorest because such a large percentage of their incomes comes from income, such as interest and dividends, that are taxed at preferential rates, and the majority of their incomes may be exempt from such regressive taxes as social security.

Obviously, however, the total dollars paid in taxes by the wealthiest are much higher than the total paid by the poorest. As the wealthiest in America have received a higher and higher percentage of total income, and the "poorest" 50% have seen their "share" of total income cut almost in half, the total taxes paid by the wealthiest have gone up. Is that fair? The reality is that the only "fair" system of taxes is to have no taxes at all. To see the obvious benefits of such an ultimate expression of the free market in action, one need look no further than at such paradises as Somalia.

The free market, operating on its own, will not create a country with the infrastructure, stability, and work force needed to build and sustain wealth. It is that simple. Everyone benefits from those services, but the primary benefits follow the money since the primary activities of government are dedicated to maintaining the economic infrastructure and protection of property. The simple, reductio ad absurdum argument to support this is to envision who would lose most from the elimination of all that government supports, the millionaire or the unemployed thug on the street.

Arguments of tax equity always need to consider all taxes, not just selective ones. That includes sales taxes, property taxes, per capita taxes, excise taxes, "benefit" taxes (social security, Medicare, unemployment), etc. Arguments also need to address the actual amount of money needed to meet "public" needs for schools, roads, property protection, defense, etc., etc. Obviously, there is no "right" answer for this amount, but there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the amount required to maintain a viable modern economy is pretty substantial.

[Julie R.]

While that was quite a thoughtful post Jeff, it's a little off topic. The original post was about how more taxes on the wealthiest hurts JOB CREATION. When was the last time a anyone got a job from a poor man, government leech or welfare queen? And playing your violin for the overtaxed poor isn't exactly music to the ears of those who try to make the right choices for their families:

It is true that almost half of the population does not pay Federal income taxes. However, that does not mean they do not pay taxes. In fact they pay a substantial portion of their incomes for those other taxes. The overall tax burden -- that is, the percentage of total personal income spent on taxes of any kind -- for lower income people is actually quite substantial.

Let's have a pity party for the overtaxed downtrodden

If lower income people pay "too much" in taxes, it is because proportionally more of them make bad choices: smoke, drink, eat fast food and squander gasoline. Everyone has the choice to drive or not or use more fuel efficent cars (even, gasp, older ones) instead of late model SUVs, or use public transportation, and cigarettes, booze, KFC & Happy Meals aren't exactly part of the five major food groups. In short, if the poor were really trying to stretch dollars by cutting out all non-essential items, fixing meals at home, etc. they'd pay much less in taxes. Probably wouldn't be hatching out babies on the government nickel every 9 months, but I digress.

And, nice try comparing tax reduction to tax elimination and therefore, a Somalia-like state overrun with lawless thugs. No one, even the most hard core righty, is suggesting we get rid of all taxes because they're inherently "unfair." But we definitely need to cut spending, entitlements and find ways to eliminate waste and fraud, and there are a lot of ways to do that and still have a functioning economy. The exponential growth of the welfare class has abundantly proven that handouts and entitlements do nothing to promote family stabilty and improvement of one's lot in life.

[hotel4dogs]

I saw a bumper sticker that said,

"If You Can't Feed 'em, DON'T Breed 'em "

love it!

[SIZE=3][COLOR=navy]. Probably wouldn't be hatching out babies on the government nickel every 9 months, but I digress

[road kill]

While that was quite a thoughtful post Jeff, it's a little off topic. The original post was about how more taxes on the wealthiest hurts JOB CREATION. When was the last time a anyone got a job from a poor man, government leech or welfare queen? And playing your violin for the overtaxed poor isn't exactly music to the ears of those who try to make the right choices for their families:

Let's have a pity party for the overtaxed downtrodden

If lower income people pay "too much" in taxes, it is because proportionally more of them make bad choices: smoke, drink, eat fast food and squander gasoline. Everyone has the choice to drive or not or use more fuel efficent cars (even, gasp, older ones) instead of late model SUVs, or use public transportation, and cigarettes, booze, KFC & Happy Meals aren't exactly part of the five major food groups. In short, if the poor were really trying to stretch dollars by cutting out all non-essential items, fixing meals at home, etc. they'd pay much less in taxes. Probably wouldn't be hatching out babies on the government nickel every 9 months, but I digress.

And, nice try comparing tax reduction to tax elimination and therefore, a Somalia-like state overrun with lawless thugs. No one, even the most hard core righty, is suggesting we get rid of all taxes because they're inherently "unfair." But we definitely need to cut spending, entitlements and find ways to eliminate waste and fraud, and there are a lot of ways to do that and still have a functioning economy. The exponential growth of the welfare class has abundantly proven that handouts and entitlements do nothing to promote family stabilty and improvement of one's lot in life.

HERE HERE!!!


RK