teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
actually, as of 2009, it was 11.06%. And that's just for those with a "positive liability". I think you have confused "effective" with "nominal".
precisely. because they are not stupid - instead they are dynamic creatures that respond to incentives. When you increase marginal rates, you accordingly increase incentives to alter compensation in such a manner as to decrease exposure. Even the President takes advantage of the tax credits and deductions that are available to him, even as he derides others for doing so.
However, all of Romney's income was taxed before he got it, often at the nominal 35%; so I'm not terribly worried that he's not paying his fair share of supporting the government.
if thats how you want to do it, then you have given a false apples-to-oranges comparison by adding in state, local, and other federal taxes to your claimed median, but only counting Federal Income for Romney.
The impression is one who has invested and now is reaping the benifits. If you don't like the capital income tax laws, get your rep to help change the tax code.
In all fairness, Pelosi and her wealth growth is also legal.
Does she give the impression of the type of person that works? I'll help you out, she is rich, her husband is rich. They use the same tax code and take advantage of the tax code like anyone else in their income bracket. So you see it does no good to do partisan rock throwing. The other side is just as guilty.
What? No, that is Romney's total effective tax rate also. It's apples to apples.
No doubt Pelosi should pay way more in taxes. And Buffet and Gates and all the other rich Democrats. The tax breaks indeed do go to people from both parties. That doesn't make them any more acceptable.
When I hear these specifically phrased points, I always wonder something. If Warren has it so great and contributes so little, maybe he and his secretary would like to trade tax bills. Not effective amounts, but bills.
When the top 1% is no longer paying 38% of all FIT and the top 10% is no longer paying almost 3 quarters of all collected FIC, I will listen to talk about not paying their fair share.
I actually don't mind the idea of taxing capital gains as normal income
That doesn't really make sense to talk about the absolute amount somebody pays. If you just look at that then all you're really measuring is how wide the wealth gap is between the super rich and working people. They pay a lot of taxes because they're getting insanely huge amounts of money. That gap being super wide is an argument for more progressive taxation, not less.
In my view that is the solution to a lot of society's problems. Put the super rich's interests in the same bucket as working people.
Pelosi inherited and married into wealth, she has done nothing really to earn it but since she's a big lefty she won't get criticized by the whiners who attack Romney who actually created wealth
actually there are good reasons why the income tax scheme actually helps the people you call insanely wealthy
the death tax and the progressive income tax hurts those who are somewhat rich and insulates the "insanely rich"
that is why so many uber wealthy people support the death tax and progressive income taxes. guys making 400K to 2 or 4 million a year with a lot of salary in that mix tend to be the ones most opposed to the PIT and the Death tax
So you guys have a lot in common.
The estate tax doesn't hurt anyone who's just somewhat rich.
silly personal attacks are bad enough, ones based on lies are even worse and when envy and lies combine, its the nadir
That's quite ironic, so you do get half a point. :lol:
really, tell us your expertise on that. and define somewhat rich. you libs want the death tax to start at a million so a modest estate of 2 million means the second million loses 550,000 dollars
You really haven't the cred to be that arrogant towards anyone.
That doesn't really make sense to talk about the absolute amount somebody pays. If you just look at that then all you're really measuring is how wide the wealth gap is between the super rich and working people. They pay a lot of taxes because they're getting insanely huge amounts of money. That gap being super wide is an argument for more progressive taxation, not less.
I see advantages, such as encouraging reinvestment into companies and such. I just find the argument is often hard for people to separate from general tax rates, so I hesitate to argue it.In my view that is the solution to a lot of society's problems. Put the super rich's interests in the same bucket as working people.
"you libs" want that? According to whom? As far as expertise, at least I know enough to understand that the exemption is per inheritor, so if there's more than one inheritor there is exactly zero tax on a $2 million estate -- even with your made-up $1 million exemption.
No doubt Pelosi should pay way more in taxes. And Buffet and Gates and all the other rich Democrats. The tax breaks indeed do go to people from both parties. That doesn't make them any more acceptable.
I don't think we need them to cover more than the nearly half of FIT.
I understand that those who have the money end up paying more. It's not fair, but it's logical and necessary.
thanks for stating that.
While this thread was specific to Romney, I felt it was important to show that other politicians are doing the same thing.
I am not sure I wan't to see all income treated the same. But that is for another thread.
Looking only at federal income taxes is a deception. That is less than half of all taxes. It is the only progressive tax in the system. It is progressive in part because it has to offset the bulk of other taxes that are regressive. If you look at all taxes, they pay a much smaller percentage. If you looked at what percentage of sales taxes different brackets pay you'd find that the middle class pay like 90% of sales taxes and the top 1% pay only maybe 2% of them for example. You couldn't draw conclusions about what share of the taxes the rich pay overall based on that alone either.
Why is it not fair? By definition they're pulling more benefit out of society. Why shouldn't they have to chip more back in to keep the society they're reaping that benefit from strong?
if all income were to be treated the same then dividends would no longer be taxed as corporate profits first
so you deny that Obama wanted the old rate of one million? Okie dokie
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?