Huffington Post Accidentally Admits Rich Pay More than 'Fair Share'

[expat_panama]

from: Huffington Post Accidentally Destroys The Left's Entire 'Tax Fairness' Argument

JOHN MERLINE 5:19 PM ET

The left-leaning (to put it politely) Huffington Post website makes a convincing case for the Republicans' plans to cut taxes.

In an article headlined 'That GOP 'Middle Class' Tax Cut Might Be a Big Fat Trojan Horse For The Rich," a Huffington Post writer set out to attack Republican tax-cutting plans.

There's nothing new about decrying tax cuts as giveaways to the rich. Democrats spent years trashing President Bush's tax cuts on those grounds, and the first chance President Obama had, he raised the top tax rates.

But in making his case, Huffington Post senior White House correspondent S. V. Date inadvertently reveals...


...the infamous Top 1% — you know, the folks who don't pay their "fair share" — actually pay 25% of all federal taxes.

The top 20%, Date goes on, pay 69% of all federal taxes. The middle 20? They pick up just 9% of the tax bill.

What's more, Date notes that the average federal tax rate has dropped significantly for every group over the past 30 years — except the wealthy.

"The poorest 20% saw their average federal tax rate drop from 8.7% in 1983 to 3.3% in 2013,"...


...a tiny fraction of the country pays the vast bulk of the tax bill, while more than 40% pay nothing. Then, whenever Republicans talk about tax cuts, Democrats scream that all the benefits go to the rich.

This isn't an argument against tax cuts. After all, the people paying the bulk of the tax load also tend to be the people who make the investments that grow the economy, create jobs and increase opportunities for everyone. Lower their taxes and they will have more money to invest...​

 

[Velvet Elvis]

The left assumes ANY money that "the evil rich" are allowed to keep is "too much." Seriously, we've got masses of people who don't pay anything in taxes yet enjoy all the benefits of public service and assistance, but oh no...it's the RICH people who don't pay enough.

 

[Praxas]

The left assumes ANY money that "the evil rich" are allowed to keep is "too much." Seriously, we've got masses of people who don't pay anything in taxes yet enjoy all the benefits of public service and assistance, but oh no...it's the RICH people who don't pay enough.

Oh yeah I'm sure the poor enjoy not having disposable income like the wealthy. Why I bet trump and you would give up all you have to be poor like they are. Hurry up and quit your job and then let us know the paradise you've found.

 

[chuckiechan]

So raising taxes on the rich doesn't help those who pay zero, does it?

I think the beef is the accumulation of wealth, rather than high income. Rather than run them out of the country or confiscate their wealth through taxes, I don't see much that can be done. Hell, all the wealthy Canadian stars become citizens and move here, so I suppose it's not as bad in the US as it could be.

The issue comes down to: who gets your money. The federal government or the banking system. Who adds productivity to the use of capital and who doesn't, should be the question.

 

[Fritz]

Not that the poor have a lot of money to give, unlike the millions (and billions) that the rich possess. Of course their [top 1%] tax percentage would be high because they pay more money since they have BILLIONS. The lower classes are paying money, not as much as the rich BECAUSE they don't have a lot money. A lower class family pay taxes relative to their income bracket, so they are paying a lot of money to taxes in their perspective. The money a working class family pays is obviously pocket change for a billionaire. Even the Bible addresses that topic in Luke 21: 1-4. Lowering taxes for the rich so they can invest money into the economy looks amazing on PAPER, but most of them will just pocket the extra money for themselves because they are selfish. Consumers and workers are the ones putting money on the table for the rich to snatch anyway. Guess what, the rich will always find new ways for profit like shipping their factories and jobs to other countries to increase their wealth at the expense of hundreds upon hundreds of the employees whose lives the rich destroyed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Oh yeah I'm sure the poor enjoy not having disposable income like the wealthy. Why I bet trump and you would give up all you have to be poor like they are. Hurry up and quit your job and then let us know the paradise you've found.

Is the function of the federal income tax code to make the poor have disposable income like the wealthy or to make the wealthy feel more like the poor? IIRC, income equality is not even discussed in the 16A.

 

[Peter King]

To me it is very obvious, in times of economic crisis/high government debt the strongest shoulders should bear the biggest burden (another way to say that rich people should get taxed more in times of need) but when tax cuts can be given when there is a true economic boom and the government is no longer in huge debt, it should be obvious that they too should get the biggest tax breaks (as a percentage of the taxes they pay). At least that is my opinion. Sadly the economic crisis is hardly over because the government debt still hangs about the US economy/society as a sword of Damocles.

It is now only fair that the middle class, the true economic engine of most societies, gets the kick start it needs, not the super rich. But they too must at one point be given huge tax cuts when the time is right. But that time was not right in the past 30 years and it will not be right in 2017.

That at least is my opinion.

 

[Fritz]

To me it is very obvious, in times of economic crisis/high government debt the strongest shoulders should bear the biggest burden (another way to say that rich people should get taxed more in times of need) but when tax cuts can be given when there is a true economic boom and the government is no longer in huge debt, it should be obvious that they too should get the biggest tax breaks (as a percentage of the taxes they pay). At least that is my opinion. Sadly the economic crisis is hardly over because the government debt still hangs about the US economy/society as a sword of Damocles.

It is now only fair that the middle class, the true economic engine of most societies, gets the kick start it needs, not the super rich. But they too must at one point be given huge tax cuts when the time is right. But that time was not right in the past 30 years and it will not be right in 2017.

That at least is my opinion.

I do agree that the middle class is obviously the economic workhorse and deserves tax cuts at the appropriate times, but tax cuts for the wealthy don't really give them incentives to reinvest in the long run. The wealthy will just sit on their extra money, but if the middle class got taxes cuts they would actually spend it, for they need recourses to provide for themselves. Tax cut [in general] may seem beneficial for government revenue in the short term, but it becomes a liability in the long run.

Evidence Shows That Tax Cuts Lose Revenue | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Brookings Institution economist William Gale and now-CBO director Peter Orszag concluded that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are “likely to reduce, not increase, national income in the long term” because of their effect in swelling the deficit. CBO’s recent study of a deficit-financed extension of the 2001 and 2003 income-tax cuts found that “real [Gross National Product] per person would decline by 13 percent in 2050” relative to a extension that was financed through a balanced mix of revenue and spending changes effective immediately. -from article

 

[Praxas]

Is the function of the federal income tax code to make the poor have disposable income like the wealthy or to make the wealthy feel more like the poor? IIRC, income equality is not even discussed in the 16A.

Never said that but to act like the poor are enjoying some paradise due to their bracket is equally stupid.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Never said that but to act like the poor are enjoying some paradise due to their bracket is equally stupid.

I fight poverty by working as a self employed handyman - most often I am employed by those far richer than myself. They need my skills and I need some of their money - that system seems to work quite well for both of us.

 

[Praxas]

I fight poverty by working as a self employed handyman - most often I am employed by those far richer than myself. They need my skills and I need some of their money - that system seems to work quite well for both of us.

That doesn't have anything to with my quotes or complaints about those that think the poor live a paradise due to their tax bracket. Anymore diversions?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That doesn't have anything to with my quotes or complaints about those that think the poor live a paradise due to their tax bracket. Anymore diversions?

The idea that the rich would not spend money, thus creating jobs, if not forced to do so via taxation is moronic. I have yet to see folks state that lack of income taxation makes the poor happy about living in poverty. Keeping the poor dependent on handouts by taxing the rich more is not placing them in paradise.

 

[Beaudreaux]

That doesn't have anything to with my quotes or complaints about those that think the poor live a paradise due to their tax bracket. Anymore diversions?

Your posts are not based on anything happeneing in this thread. No one has said anything about the poor living in a paradise. As for which group reaps the most from federal tax funds while paying the least, if any at all? Well, that would be the poor, not the rich. And, the OP article and the posts that seem to have stirred something down deep within you discuss that fact, and the myths being put forth by the left of the rich not paying their fair share.

No one, no one at all, has said that the poor live in some paradise, or even mentioned anything that could be construed as being close to that subject matter, except your posts. No others.

 

[mike2810]

The left assumes ANY money that "the evil rich" are allowed to keep is "too much." Seriously, we've got masses of people who don't pay anything in taxes yet enjoy all the benefits of public service and assistance, but oh no...it's the RICH people who don't pay enough.

I would think it would be better stated as , The left assumes any money that "the evil rich" are allowed to keep is "too much" as long as it does not apply to them. All other rich people need to pay more.:lamo

 

[Moot]

from: Huffington Post Accidentally Destroys The Left's Entire 'Tax Fairness' Argument

JOHN MERLINE 5:19 PM ET

The left-leaning (to put it politely) Huffington Post website makes a convincing case for the Republicans' plans to cut taxes.

In an article headlined 'That GOP 'Middle Class' Tax Cut Might Be a Big Fat Trojan Horse For The Rich," a Huffington Post writer set out to attack Republican tax-cutting plans.

There's nothing new about decrying tax cuts as giveaways to the rich. Democrats spent years trashing President Bush's tax cuts on those grounds, and the first chance President Obama had, he raised the top tax rates.

But in making his case, Huffington Post senior White House correspondent S. V. Date inadvertently reveals...


...the infamous Top 1% — you know, the folks who don't pay their "fair share" — actually pay 25% of all federal taxes.

The top 20%, Date goes on, pay 69% of all federal taxes. The middle 20? They pick up just 9% of the tax bill.

What's more, Date notes that the average federal tax rate has dropped significantly for every group over the past 30 years — except the wealthy.

"The poorest 20% saw their average federal tax rate drop from 8.7% in 1983 to 3.3% in 2013,"...


...a tiny fraction of the country pays the vast bulk of the tax bill, while more than 40% pay nothing. Then, whenever Republicans talk about tax cuts, Democrats scream that all the benefits go to the rich.

This isn't an argument against tax cuts. After all, the people paying the bulk of the tax load also tend to be the people who make the investments that grow the economy, create jobs and increase opportunities for everyone. Lower their taxes and they will have more money to invest...​

Congress raised the capital gains tax in 2013 after they found that Romney didn't pay any income taxes and that the percentage of the capital gain tax on his earnings was far less than the average income tax that most people have to pay.

You say that the top one percent create the jobs and opportunities...but Romney actually did the opposite to make his money.

 

[Grand Mal]

The left assumes ANY money that "the evil rich" are allowed to keep is "too much." Seriously, we've got masses of people who don't pay anything in taxes yet enjoy all the benefits of public service and assistance, but oh no...it's the RICH people who don't pay enough.

Did you read the OP? An article in a 'left wing' news medium?

 

[Praxas]

The idea that the rich would not spend money, thus creating jobs, if not forced to do so via taxation is moronic.

That's exactly what is happening. Jobs are being outsourced, automated, gone all the while Companies have been enjoying RECORD profits while hording money from tax cuts given to them.

I have yet to see folks state that lack of income taxation makes the poor happy about living in poverty.

The snarky remark of a poster I quoted did just as much by him saying "Seriously, we've got masses of people who don't pay anything in taxes yet enjoy all the benefits of public service and assistance" .

Keeping the poor dependent on handouts by taxing the rich more is not placing them in paradise.

Rewarding companies that send jobs overseas with tax cuts isn't the way either. Like I said if you think the poor have it SOO good by not paying federal taxes (which only apply on their labor, not the goods and services they use), then quit your job and experience the paradise of being poor. Otherwise, stop rewarding companies that send jobs overseas and just horde money while their CEOs and stocks are the only things improving.

 

[Praxas]

Your posts are not based on anything happeneing in this thread. No one has said anything about the poor living in a paradise.

Bull**** I just posted the quote from the snarky poster above.

As for which group reaps the most from federal tax funds while paying the least, if any at all? Well, that would be the poor, not the rich.

do the rich not travel on roads, do the rich not use airlines which require traffic controllers and TSA, do the rich not benefit from healthy workers versus sick ones?

And, the OP article and the posts that seem to have stirred something down deep within you discuss that fact, and the myths being put forth by the left of the rich not paying their fair share.

Just pointing out that those that think the poor have it so well because of services and some benefits of not paying taxes on their labor somehow makes their lives paradise are idiots.

No one, no one at all, has said that the poor live in some paradise, or even mentioned anything that could be construed as being close to that subject matter, except your posts. No others.

I pointed above who said that and their quote.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's exactly what is happening. Jobs are being outsourced, automated, gone all the while Companies have been enjoying RECORD profits while hording money from tax cuts given to them.



The snarky remark of a poster I quoted did just as much by him saying "Seriously, we've got masses of people who don't pay anything in taxes yet enjoy all the benefits of public service and assistance" .



Rewarding companies that send jobs overseas with tax cuts isn't the way either. Like I said if you think the poor have it SOO good by not paying federal taxes (which only apply on their labor, not the goods and services they use), then quit your job and experience the paradise of being poor. Otherwise, stop rewarding companies that send jobs overseas and just horde money while their CEOs and stocks are the only things improving.

Is your idea of helping the poor to raise retail prices to cover added taxation of imported (or off-shored) products/services?

 

[Praxas]

Is your idea of helping the poor to raise retail prices to cover added taxation of imported (or off-shored) products/services?

Nope, but neither is rewarding companies that send jobs overseas or giving tax cuts to companies that just pass that off to the CEOs and stock holders which hurt the poor even more. Why are you wanting to reward companies, who horde the tax cuts, give that money to CEOs and stock members and then send jobs overseas? How is that helping the poor?

Even Trump has backed down from China on calling out their **** in trade for "possible help" with NK which will just continue to screw the middle class and poor.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope, but neither is rewarding companies that send jobs overseas or giving tax cuts to companies that just pass that off to the CEOs and stock holders which hurt the poor even more. Why are you wanting to reward companies, who horde the tax cuts, give that money to CEOs and stock members and then send jobs overseas? How is that helping the poor?

Even Trump has backed down from China on calling out their **** in trade for "possible help" with NK which will just continue to screw the middle class and poor.

When did I ever call for any such tax cuts? When I shop for a product the country of origin is so far down on the list of desired traits that I rarely get that far.

 

[Praxas]

When did I ever call for any such tax cuts? When I shop for a product the country of origin is so far down on the list of desired traits that I rarely get that far.

Those are the type of tax cuts the Republicans have supported for decades which hurts the poor in the long run. Republicans and some gullible blue collar workers elected a man that said he was going to "change" that and he is turning out just to be just a good little corporate shill.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Those are the type of tax cuts the Republicans have supported for decades which hurts the poor in the long run. Republicans and some gullible blue collar workers elected a man that said he was going to "change" that and he is turning out just to be just a good little corporate shill.

The POTUS can't change the tax code and the congress critters that could are very unlikely to do so. Trump's idea of lower federal taxes and more federal spending is simply mission impossible to get enough congress critters (of either party) to go along with.

 

[expat_panama]

Oh yeah I'm sure the poor enjoy not having disposable income like the wealthy...

Fun and games --NEAT!

Tho, after spending enough time goofing off w/ silly stuff we're really going to eventually get back to the hard work of feeding our families. For that we got to have priorities --namely the idea that we want all income levels better off and we want the gov't solvent. That's when we face the fact that our first step is chucking class hatred.

 

[Praxas]

The POTUS can't change the tax code and the congress critters that could are very unlikely to do so. Trump's idea of lower federal taxes and more federal spending is simply mission impossible to get enough congress critters (of either party) to go along with.

That can't be though, Trump said he is a true leader and when he talks people do what he says. Surely you aren't saying that Trump is a liar are you?