The 25%ers vs 99%ers

[Dickieboy]

Yep, we want it all. We just don't want to pay for it.

IMO, this is the underlying crux of the economic downturn. We wanted it all and got it via credit. When we ran up our credit to the max and when we couldn't spend any more it collapsed demand. Those who went in WAY over their heads in the mortgage industry, for whatever reason, defaulted and furthered the situation limiting the ability of those who could to borrow. Regardless of what Washington does the economy will not heal correctly until most of the public debt has cleared. Unfortunately the government spending/debt will not be addressed until this pubilc debt is lessened which at that time may be too late due to the interest amounts on said public debt. We'll see.

 

[imagep]

Effective taxes are near their historic low; your entire argument about taxation is a strawman.

Yes, and Federal spending IS AT their historic highs and increasing annually.

Your both right, and thats the problem. We can't have historic low taxes and historic high spending, and both have to moderate. Unfortunately this means higher taxes and lower spending. It sucks for the poor who will get less in gov services, it sucks for the rich who will have to pay more in taxes. But thats life, we have to pay for what we spend, and we have to spend to be productive.

The reality is that both the poor and the rich have been getting over on the middle class for decades.

 

[imagep]

what are facts?

Yes, the wealthiest are paying a larger percent of taxes, but they also are making a larger and larger percent of the income.

Now if the creation of new wealth was more equaly distributed, then the percentage of taxes would also be more equaly distributed. It's simple math.

I hate it when people try to make out like the rich are paying a higher percentage of our tax base, without pointing out that they are paying more because they are acquiring a higher percentage of our income and wealth. It's intelectually dishonest when people don't show both sides.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, the wealthiest are paying a larger percent of taxes, but they also are making a larger and larger percent of the income.

Now if the creation of new wealth was more equaly distributed, then the percentage of taxes would also be more equaly distributed. It's simple math.

I hate it when people try to make out like the rich are paying a higher percentage of our tax base, without pointing out that they are paying more because they are acquiring a higher percentage of our income and wealth. It's intelectually dishonest when people don't show both sides.

what is really dishonest is claiming the rich are not paying their "fair share" when the rich are paying the highest amount of the tax burden in years and the gap between their share of the wealth and their share of the federal iincome taxes is huge (22%/39%)

and you ignore the actually tax dollars paid by the "rich"

 

[Mach]

The reality is that both the poor and the rich have been getting over on the middle class for decades.

I was under the impression many of us start out relatively poor, pass through middle class, then either end up rich, at least with respect to having a retirement sufficient to sustain a moderate income for the rest of your life.

When I was poor, was I getting it over on my middle-class years? In my wealthier years, would I be sticking it to my middle-class self of years past?

Tax contribution-wise, I can demonstrate that I paid in nearly nothing while poor, some while middle-class, and now pay more than all of that combined in a single year at higher income. My experience doesn't match what you're claiming, why is that?

 

[imagep]

that still does not justify 1% paying more taxes than 80% because there is no possible way you can honestly claim that the top one percent use more of the direct and indirect government services than 80%

Facts:
1) Top income earners are paying a larger percent of our total income tax revenues
2) Top income earners are acquiring a larger percent of our total income and wealth
3) Top marginal income tax percentages have been trending lower for decades
4) Top income earners are benefitting from the trend of their income rising faster than lower income earners and from their tax rates falling.

Just to make a simple example, the ratio of CEO to worker pay 30 years ago was about 30:1, today it is about 300:1. Thats about a ten fold increase adjusted for inflation. Thus a CEO who was making $1 million dollars 30 years ago would likely be making about $10 million dollars. 30 years ago the top income tax rate was 70%, today it is 35%. Back in 1980, that CEO would have had about $300,000 in income that wasn't taxed away by the federal government (for simplicity I assumed that 100% of his income was taxed at the top rate). Today, that CEO would have about $6,500,000 after federal income taxes. So which is more? $300,000 or $6.5 million dollars?

The wealthy are WAY better off than they were 30 years ago. They are making more money, paying a lower tax rate, and have far more after tax earnings than their wealthy peers did decades ago.

The wealthy really don't have a reason to complain, and all of their arguements that they pay too much is taxes are trumphed by the fact that they are ONLY paying more in taxes because they are getting a larger slice of they pie. If we were to try to adjust our tax rate to equalize their slice of the pie compared to the historical rate, we would need something like a 97% top marginal tax rate (not that I am recommending this).

Now if they want to pay less in taxes, they are welcome to go back to 1980 income distributions and decrease their earnings by 90%. If they want the poor and middle class to pay more in taxes, they are welcome to distribute 90% of their income to lower earning individuals so that those individuals will pay more in taxes.

Basically, those who whine about "class warfare" are missing the fact that the wealthy are winning the class war. Yup, you won. Now STFU you poor mistreated unfortunate rich people.

 

[Karl]

Effective taxes are near their historic low; your entire argument about taxation is a strawman.

Yes, and Federal spending IS AT their historic highs and increasing annually.

Every year of the Reagan administration federal spending was at its historic high and increased annually.

In fact, after 10 years of Reagan/Bush I, federal spending had more than doubled :shock:

Government Spending Chart in United States 1980-1990 - Federal​

Yes it was and yes they did...and after those 10 years I was MUCH better off than I was before...but today i am not better off than I was three years ago.

In the world of debate, personal anecdotes mean nothing. Anonymous anecdotes mean even less. . . . .

Also in the world of debate, you lost your point in your post #122 above.

 

[Karl]

[...] society and the government are not the same thing [...]

Interesting that you disagree with Thomas Jefferson....



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [...]"

[...] that doesn't disprove my comment [...]

Any rational analysis says that it does. The U.S. government was instituted (created) by society (men). Government is continually elected and evolved (laws) by society (men, collectively speaking). Government, other than a despotic tyranny, is indeed a creation and reflection of society.

To argue otherwise would be obtuse.

 

[Missed AB]

Yes. It's both practical, because the poor can't really afford to pay more taxes, and moral, because the rich have benefited more from society than the poor.

What is imoral about the "poor" earning less than 20K/year (example 18 year old living at home with mom and dad) paying federal income tax?

What is that makes it unaffordable family of 4 living on 55k unable to pay 1 dollar in federal income tax, but they are not "poor" enough to buy beer, cigarettes, flat screen TV's, high speed internet, Iphone's and the costly data plans...? Who are the "poor" you speak of?

What level of income SHOULD a person pay at least 1 dollar into federal income tax?

do you really believe that half of all Americans should NOT pay federal income tax?

 

[Karl]

[...] and no one can seriously argue that the top one percent-people who pay 40% of the income tax use more government [...]

Anyone who offers an argument using income taxes alone as a proportional measure of government contributions (payments) is not arguing from a position of seriousness, but of intellectual dishonesty.

TPC Tax Topics | Current-Law Distribution of Taxes​

Furthermore, my source says 32% paid by the top 1%, so I'm at a loss as to why your source says 40%... oh, that's right, you didn't provide a source, now did you?

Share of Federal Taxes Under Current Law, By Cash Income Percentile, 2011
​

 

[atrasicarius]

What is imoral about the "poor" earning less than 20K/year (example 18 year old living at home with mom and dad) paying federal income tax?

What is that makes it unaffordable family of 4 living on 55k unable to pay 1 dollar in federal income tax, but they are not "poor" enough to buy beer, cigarettes, flat screen TV's, high speed internet, Iphone's and the costly data plans...? Who are the "poor" you speak of?

What level of income SHOULD a person pay at least 1 dollar into federal income tax?

do you really believe that half of all Americans should NOT pay federal income tax?

I'd say above 20k per household. And no, I don't believe that half of Americans shouldn't pay income taxes. I believe they should have jobs good enough that they're above the cut off point for not having to pay income taxes.

 

[imagep]

I was under the impression many of us start out relatively poor, pass through middle class, then either end up rich, at least with respect to having a retirement sufficient to sustain a moderate income for the rest of your life.

When I was poor, was I getting it over on my middle-class years? In my wealthier years, would I be sticking it to my middle-class self of years past?

Tax contribution-wise, I can demonstrate that I paid in nearly nothing while poor, some while middle-class, and now pay more than all of that combined in a single year at higher income. My experience doesn't match what you're claiming, why is that?

Yes, that would be a cycle that many of us would expect to happen, including myself.

Thats part of the reason that I dont resent people who pay nothing or little in taxes. Many of them are temporarally unemployed, many of them are students working part time, many of them have already worked their 45 years and are living off of savings. Certainly we shouldn't expect any of those people to pay income taxes, when they have little if any income.

And yes, I used to be one of those non-income tax payers, when I was working myself through college by being in a National Guard unit and by working crap jobs.

And if I make it rich, I will not resent the fact that I have to pay more in taxes than I did when I was poor. It's a trade off. We tax the piss out of people when they get rich so that we can tax them less when they are poor.

So whats the problem? Why is anyone complaining? We have a progressive tax system because we SHOULD have a progressive tax system, and the progressive tax system makes it possible for the rich to become rich. I think all of that is a good thing.

Of course I can understand why someone who didn't go through that wealth cycle, someone who started at the top, wouldn't see it the same way I do. They think that somehow they are entitled to more and that everyone who didn't start at the top, or who is having to work their way to the top, is somehow sucking off of them.

 

[whysoserious]

TurtleDude:

Considering the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket is 35% (and I am not aware of any tax on income higher than 40%), please explain how anyone is paying over 40% of their income in taxes.

 

[Karl]

TurtleDude:

Considering the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket is 35% (and I am not aware of any tax on income higher than 40%), please explain how anyone is paying over 40% of their income in taxes.

He's saying that they pay 40% of the total income taxes collected. No source for that claim was provided.

 

[Missed AB]

I'd say above 20k per household. And no, I don't believe that half of Americans shouldn't pay income taxes. I believe they should have jobs good enough that they're above the cut off point for not having to pay income taxes.

Well then make up your mind... half of all Americans don't pay federal income tax.... they are too poor with a median income of apx 55k....

So you agree the base needs to be broadened, on both percentage and income views. Why does it seem you do not seem to support increasing taxes on the "poor" on this forum?

 

[TurtleDude]

Facts:
1) Top income earners are paying a larger percent of our total income tax revenues
2) Top income earners are acquiring a larger percent of our total income and wealth
3) Top marginal income tax percentages have been trending lower for decades
4) Top income earners are benefitting from the trend of their income rising faster than lower income earners and from their tax rates falling.

Just to make a simple example, the ratio of CEO to worker pay 30 years ago was about 30:1, today it is about 300:1. Thats about a ten fold increase adjusted for inflation. Thus a CEO who was making $1 million dollars 30 years ago would likely be making about $10 million dollars. 30 years ago the top income tax rate was 70%, today it is 35%. Back in 1980, that CEO would have had about $300,000 in income that wasn't taxed away by the federal government (for simplicity I assumed that 100% of his income was taxed at the top rate). Today, that CEO would have about $6,500,000 after federal income taxes. So which is more? $300,000 or $6.5 million dollars?

The wealthy are WAY better off than they were 30 years ago. They are making more money, paying a lower tax rate, and have far more after tax earnings than their wealthy peers did decades ago.

The wealthy really don't have a reason to complain, and all of their arguements that they pay too much is taxes are trumphed by the fact that they are ONLY paying more in taxes because they are getting a larger slice of they pie. If we were to try to adjust our tax rate to equalize their slice of the pie compared to the historical rate, we would need something like a 97% top marginal tax rate (not that I am recommending this).

Now if they want to pay less in taxes, they are welcome to go back to 1980 income distributions and decrease their earnings by 90%. If they want the poor and middle class to pay more in taxes, they are welcome to distribute 90% of their income to lower earning individuals so that those individuals will pay more in taxes.

Basically, those who whine about "class warfare" are missing the fact that the wealthy are winning the class war. Yup, you won. Now STFU you poor mistreated unfortunate rich people.

what an idiotic rant. You start from the moronic assumption that the rich should pay a higher rate because they are rich EVERYONE IS BETTER OFF TODAY than they were 30 years ago.

the RICH PAY A HIGHER AMOUNT OF THE income tax now than they did 40 years ago.

tell me why it is written in stone that the rich should pay a higher tax rate

tell me why it is written in stone that I should pay a higher amount for my citizenship benefits than you do?

Now STFU you slackers who aren't pulling your own weight

 

[TurtleDude]

TurtleDude:

Considering the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket is 35% (and I am not aware of any tax on income higher than 40%), please explain how anyone is paying over 40% of their income in taxes.

you forget

1) the death tax
2) state income taxes
3) state death taxes
4) state sales taxes
5) excise taxes
6) gasoline taxes

 

[Mach]

Anyone who offers an argument using income taxes alone as a proportional measure of government contributions (payments) is not arguing from a position of seriousness, but of intellectual dishonesty.

#1 Your chart appears to lump EMPLOYER payroll with employee payroll taxes.

#2 And most people get back something from their personal portion of payroll tax, let's look up what payroll tax is on that same site.

Payroll Tax, Federal: From The Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy
Components of federal payroll taxes
Federal payroll taxes, or social insurance contributions, consist of tax revenues from Social Security, Medicare hospital insurance, unemployment insurance, railroad retirement, and other retirements. Social Security comprises the lion's share of federal payroll taxes
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social Security benefits are calculated using a progressive benefit formula that replaces a much higher percentage of low-income workers' pre-retirement income than that of higher-income workers
===============

So were you being intellectually dishonest as you seem to preach against, or it just that your kung-fu is weak?

 

[Missed AB]

He's saying that they pay 40% of the total income taxes collected. No source for that claim was provided.

step 1. Google
step 2: type in text box: who pays what in federal income taxes
step 3: click serch button
step 4: click result National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

Like a term paper, sources are not required for common knowledge... and if you don't know to verify common knowledge, then you are in the wrong place.


Top 1%
$343,927
36.73

Top 5%
$154,643
58.66

Top 10%
$112,124
70.47

Top 25%
$66,193
87.30

Top 50%
$32,396
97.75

Bottom 50%
<$32,396
2.25

 

[Karl]

you forget

1) the death tax
2) state income taxes
3) state death taxes
4) state sales taxes
5) excise taxes
6) gasoline taxes

Actually, by basing your argument solely on income taxes it is you that forgot those.

When you add in all federal taxes, your claimed 40% drops down to 24.5% (see my post #185). Is that why you forgot those other taxes?

 

[Karl]

step 1. Google
step 2: type in text box: who pays what in federal income taxes [...]

No. Do your own research. Don't ask others to do it for you.

 

[imagep]

What is imoral about the "poor" earning less than 20K/year (example 18 year old living at home with mom and dad) paying federal income tax?

Nothing.

What is that makes it unaffordable family of 4 living on 55k unable to pay 1 dollar in federal income tax, but they are not "poor" enough to buy beer, cigarettes, flat screen TV's, high speed internet, Iphone's and the costly data plans...? Who are the "poor" you speak of?

Nothing.

What level of income SHOULD a person pay at least 1 dollar into federal income tax?

Well, the median income of $37,000 (or whatever it is) would be logical.
So would the mean income of close to $150,000.
Or the average income of our highest paid normal workers (surgions) - $350-$400k
Or the income above which no one can really justify, it's a matter of opinion, but my opinion is about $2 million.

Any of those would work, obviously the higher the exemption, the higher the rate above the exemption has to be. I'd personally suggest that NO one should pay a penny in tax on money that they earn from a job, until at least $500k/yr.

do you really believe that half of all Americans should NOT pay federal income tax?

When income tax first started, 99% didn't pay income tax. That sounds about right to me. Why in the hell would we want to tax someone for working? It's insane. We shouldn't have an income tax at all, we should have an "excess income tax"

 

[Mach]

He's saying that they pay 40% of the total income taxes collected. No source for that claim was provided.

None is needed unless you want to dispute it. It's a lot of work to go tally up individual taxes to the nth degree, so much so that most people with that high of a tax burden, pay someone to do it. If you think with most income at the highest bracket rate (plus the various incremental rates below that on a small portion of income), plus all the other taxes such as property, sales, sin, gas, state, local, corporate, etc., etc., that a 40% figure is outrageous? I think it's a good ballpark.

 

[imagep]

what an idiotic rant. You start from the moronic assumption that the rich should pay a higher rate because they are rich EVERYONE IS BETTER OFF TODAY than they were 30 years ago.

the RICH PAY A HIGHER AMOUNT OF THE income tax now than they did 40 years ago.

tell me why it is written in stone that the rich should pay a higher tax rate

tell me why it is written in stone that I should pay a higher amount for my citizenship benefits than you do?

Now STFU you slackers who aren't pulling your own weight

I pull far more than my own weight in tobbaco and alcohol tax. Do you? Are you a SLACKER when it comes to paying the tobbaco tax? All people who don't smoke should be deported because they are tax slackers.

 

[Karl]

#1 Your chart appears to lump business payroll with employee payroll taxes. [...]

That is the standard convention. It also assigns all corporate taxes to individuals. It assigns all taxes to individuals, since it is they that ultimately pay (as the right is constantly reminding us with regards to corporate income taxes).

By doing so, there is no way to hide taxes... as one poster is trying to do by basing his 'poor little rich folks' argument on federal income tax alone.