The Truth about who can afford to pay Taxes

[washunut]

Them creating a successful business and providing a service certainly didn't make anyone poorer. Entrepenurial endevors are not what I am talking about. I am saying that within a company, if one individual consumes a share of the income pool larger than can be economically justified then the income of other employees is neccessarally reduced. Its a mathmatical fact.

Wrong, it is not a mathematical fact. Employee income is not a zero sum game. For example oftentimes sales reps get paid on commission, so you don't know what they will make until the end of the year. A big part of executive pay comes in the form of bonus or stock. Again bonus is based on annual performance so companies do not know what they will pay out at the time they set raises for non-bonus people. Stock is based on the performance in the stock market so that has nothing to do what the average worker gets paid. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you have never been part of putting together a comp plan at a major company.


It was my hypothetical situation, I get to dermine if the street sweeper was in a union, in my part of the country we dont have public worker unions and very few private unions, so I choose that in my hypothetical, that unions were not involved.


OK in a non union environment the best worker should rightfully expect to get paid more than PEERS who are not as productive.


Capital can come from anyone, including the common worker if they are compensated highly enough to save some capital. Regardless, the largest holder of US non-governmental debt is US individuals and corporations. I believe that your information is incorrect.

I was talking about government debt. The largest holders of corporate debt are pension funds and high net wealth individuals.



Yes, income disparity exists all of the world, particularly in underdeveloped countries. Seems to me the larger the income disparity the less developed a country is. Which country would be better, one where 99% of the population is dirt poor, or one where only the extreme slacker are poor and the remaining 90% live a middle class lifestyle or greater.

That was not the question posed. The question is should an american worker be paid more because he/she happened to be born in america versus china.



It seems that a common error is to try to equate income with productivity. There is not really a lot of correlation between income and productivity. There should be, but it doesn't always work out that way.

Depends on how do measure productivity. Also do we count supply demand for a job as well. For example there are a lot more people qualified for your street sweeper example than a heart doctor. Should that be taken into account?

I would recommend that you read Tom Freidman's ( no conservative) boof the world is flat to give you another perspective on what is going on in the world economy.

 

[Mach]

LOL.

The question is not and never has been about who can afford it. Wealthy people necessarily can afford more of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING when compared to their non-wealthy peers. Why something so painfully obvious needs a post...

The question is why so many people who cannot afford things, are spending so much money, that they don't have.

In other words, who can afford to be spending this much? ( Hint, not the low income earners). So why do they keep voting for legislation that takes from the wealthy to line their own pockets? Because they can.

If they can't afford it, it's not fair to give them a share. They HAVE NOT EARNED IT. If someone's not pulling their weight, claiming they are entitled to a fair share is bull****. If it's an orphaned child, or a disabled single mother...but statistically these are not the people draining the economy, forming the majority, putting the nation in debt, all the while making up nonsense that is supposed to convince people that if they cannot afford it...well, by golly they are entitled to it! It's nuts.

 

[haymarket]

LOL.

The question is not and never has been about who can afford it. Wealthy people necessarily can afford more of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING when compared to their non-wealthy peers. Why something so painfully obvious needs a post...

The question is why so many people who cannot afford things, are spending so much money, that they don't have.

In other words, who can afford to be spending this much? ( Hint, not the low income earners). So why do they keep voting for legislation that takes from the wealthy to line their own pockets? Because they can.

You seem to have a huge problem with our form of government. That seems to be the crux of all your anger and hostility against all but the wealthy.

 

[Mach]

You seem to have a huge problem with our form of government. That seems to be the crux of all your anger and hostility against all but the wealthy.

The fact that you routinely avoid reasonable debate/counter point, and continue to attack individuals personally, only evidences your weak arguments.

And no, the "form of government" is irrelevant to the debate about taxation and spending in the U.S. Our "form of government" existed back when we had 0% income tax, so apparently the "form of government" is irrelevant to the debate.

 

[TurtleDude]

The fact that you routinely avoid reasonable debate/counter point, and continue to attack individuals personally, only evidences your weak arguments.

And no, the "form of government" is irrelevant to the debate about taxation and spending in the U.S. Our "form of government" existed back when we had 0% income tax, so apparently the "form of government" is irrelevant to the debate.

hymarket spends most of his time on this board trying to justify the government taking more money from those who already pay an indordinate amount of the federal taxes and calling those who oppose such schemes as being "selfish" "confused" unable to "comprehend etc.

 

[haymarket]

The fact that you routinely avoid reasonable debate/counter point, and continue to attack individuals personally, only evidences your weak arguments.

And no, the "form of government" is irrelevant to the debate about taxation and spending in the U.S. Our "form of government" existed back when we had 0% income tax, so apparently the "form of government" is irrelevant to the debate.

the fact that you routinely state your allegations as fact, state your opinions as fact, state your claims as fact only shows you have no concept of what constitutes actual evidence in a debate.

The fact that you constantly refer to your own claims as past establishment of your case, when in fact all you did was make claims not backed up by anything but your own views and ideology, shows you have no real idea how to construct an intelligent case for your own views.

It is sad and telling that you find the American form of government irrelevant to a debate on governmental taxes. That is your right and you are welcome to it.

 

[haymarket]

hymarket spends most of his time on this board trying to justify the government taking more money from those who already pay an indordinate amount of the federal taxes and calling those who oppose such schemes as being "selfish" "confused" unable to "comprehend etc.

NO, what I am doing is simply attempting to place ALL taxes paid to ALL levels of government on the table in any discussion of taxes so that a complete and honest picture of the tax burden on Americans is achieved.

 

[Mach]

It is sad and telling that you find the American form of government irrelevant to a debate on governmental taxes. That is your right and you are welcome to it.

Then by all means, please evidence to us exactly how:

1. Wanting to lower taxes logically necessitates not wanting the U.S. to continue with its constitutional republic and representative democracy.

*gets popcorn*

 

[Mach]

NO, what I am doing is simply attempting to place ALL taxes paid to ALL levels of government on the table in any discussion of taxes so that a complete and honest picture of the tax burden on Americans is achieved.

I already used YOUR numbers and showed you that the highest 20% income earners, pay 63% of the entire tax burden, more than the next 80% combined.
This is different than federal by 7% (Where top 20% pays 70% of the federal tax burden).

So, precisely how does this 7% difference fundamentally change the fact that that top 20% income earners (not wealthy, income earners), pay the vast majority, far more than any "equal" share, of ALL taxes? (hint: it doesn't, you lose..again)

 

[haymarket]

I already used YOUR numbers and showed you that the highest 20% income earners, pay 63% of the entire tax burden, more than the next 80% combined.
This is different than federal by 7% (Where top 20% pays 70% of the federal tax burden).

So, precisely how does this 7% difference fundamentally change the fact that that top 20% income earners (not wealthy, income earners), pay the vast majority, far more than any "equal" share, of ALL taxes? (hint: it doesn't, you lose..again)

Since you already have put on the shirt of the referee as well as the uniform of a participant, it seems senseless to try to say anything to you. But one last try....

You continue to ignore that nobody here is claiming that poor people pay more taxes than rich folks. All we are doing is showing that when all taxes are paid to all levels of government, the percentage of income paid as taxes by the wealthiest 1% is but 1.5% more than the rest of us pay as a percentage of our income.

 

[Mach]

You continue to ignore that nobody here is claiming that poor people pay more taxes than rich folks.

Are you suggesting I am arguing that someone on DP is claiming that poor people pay more in taxes than high income earners?
1. If Yes, show evidence
2. Else, withdraw the claim since you cannot back it up (strawman)

All we are doing is showing that when all taxes are paid to all levels of government, the percentage of income paid as taxes by the wealthiest 1% is but 1.5% more than the rest of us pay as a percentage of our income.

No, the OP is "who can afford to pay taxes". You're off on a tangent.
I already used YOUR numbers and showed you that the highest 20% income earners, pay 63% of the entire tax burden, more than the next 80% combined.


Do you claim that the top 20% income earners paying 63% of the entire tax burden:
3. is not enough, they should be forced to pay more
4. is about right
5. is too much, they should not bear that much of the overall tax burden <- and this can be remedied by lowering spending and/or lowering their tax rate.

So, let's see you adopt this "intellectually honesty" and tell us the precise answer for each of the questions I've posed to you. You can even just choose the numbers, it's that easy.

 

[mbig]

LOL.

The question is not and never has been about who can afford it. Wealthy people necessarily can afford more of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING when compared to their non-wealthy peers. Why something so painfully obvious needs a post...

Yes it IS about who can afford Taxes.
It needs a post/string because Turtle Dude doesn't agree with reality/the obvious.
He feels poor people can afford to pay the same rate (flat/fair tax) as rich people.
You seem confused about it.
Suggesting they can't afford anything else Either.. so let's tax them the same.

The question is why so many people who cannot afford things, are spending so much money, that they don't have.

The American consumer does overspend.. of course that doesn't nullify the fact he can't afford the same rates as the rich.
Your posts shows Disdain for those less well off who aren't over-consuming.

In other words, who can afford to be spending this much? ( Hint, not the low income earners). So why do they keep voting for legislation that takes from the wealthy to line their own pockets? Because they can.

Because people just aren't that smart and influenced/DUPED by TV time bought by the rich.. who also have inordinate influence in electing congress... and tax law.

If they can't afford it, it's not fair to give them a share. They HAVE NOT EARNED IT. If someone's not pulling their weight, claiming they are entitled to a fair share is bull****.

Hey, I agree.. People who cannot afford a 'Fair'/Flat/Same rate as the rich shouldn't be able to vote.. or even have full citizenship!
Yes I understand your position.

 

[Mach]

mbig,

Suggesting, ie, Walmart Employees who make $12 an hour (25,000 a year) should pay more, ie, 25%, so that people who make $25 Million should pay less in the name of some Absurd/Abstract Concept of 'fair' is Ridiculous.

You are positioning this as if there are only two choices:
1. top income earners pay as now or more, low income earners pay as now or less
2. low income earners pay more, top income earners pay less.

That's a false choice.

There is a third option:
3. Reduce government spending so everyone pays less in taxes, or in the case of the lowest category that already pays nothing, they pay the same.

 

[mbig]

mbig,

You are positioning this as if there are only two choices:
1. top income earners pay as now or more, low income earners pay as now or less
2. low income earners pay more, top income earners pay less.

That's a false choice.

There is a third option:
3. Reduce government spending so everyone pays less in taxes, or in the case of the lowest category that already pays nothing, they pay the same.

No it's NOT a false choice, it's a SEPARATE debate.

ie, Fairtax is [claimed] "Revenue Neutral". It collects (ostensibly) the SAME amount as current income and other taxes combined.

We debate it based on today's budget.

So you wanting to move the goal posts to include a new issue I take it as somehwat/reluctantly agreeing with he OP.
ergo, in lieu of giant and pretty much impossible shift in spending (as most is non-discretionary, like debt interest) you [have to] agree with 1. and 2.

 

[Mach]

He feels poor people can afford to pay the same rate (flat/fair tax) as rich people.
You seem confused about it.
Suggesting they can't afford anything else Either.. so let's tax them the same..

No, you are adding to it things that you feel, but aren't true.

First, the proposed fair tax also shows the lowest income individuals not having to carry the burden. You indicate that by TD proposing fair/flat tax, that shifts the burden to them. That's not true.

Secondly, the point is precisely that if the middle class has to actually feel more if the tax burden for the goods/services they keep asking for, they may actually favor cutting SPENDING, since they do not want to pay those taxes. In other words, they can certainly choose NOT to pay that much, by lowering government spending and the associated tax burden it entails. That's how everything else in the market works. This goes back to the "free lunch" syndrome where people will eat way more than they may otherwise eat, if someone else is footing the bill. It promotes irresponsible spending, which is the argument.

 

[haymarket]

If the Fair/Flat tax is revenue neutral, and if that tax does not increase taxes on the poor, and if it decreases taxes on the rich... who in the hell pays more to make it revenue neutral?

 

[mbig]

No, you are adding to it things that you feel, but aren't true.

First, the proposed fair tax also shows the lowest income individuals not having to carry the burden. You indicate that by TD proposing fair/flat tax, that shifts the burden to them. That's not true.

Completely False.
'Fairtax' provides a 'prebate' to cover/'Lipstick' the outrageous regressivity but doesn't change the fact the Burden shifts Down the income chain.
Clearly this is a Gigantic windfall for the rich/very rich.. (examples/elaborated above) and since it's 'rev neutral'.. WHO PAY'S MORE?

The fact is (sadly I have to repeat again even in this string), the real/independently scored rate on Fairtax is 56/57%.. which shoots your claim and their prebate to hell. And that doesn't include state sales taxes and state income taxes converted to sales taxes to make it viable as a system.

FairYtax/prebate/sales tax collection of individuals creates a gigantic bureaucracy of it's own. Probably bigger than the IRS.
To send out checks to Tens of millions of American tax entities and then has to try to enforce a sales tax that everyone must pay.
That's right. You have a new agency which gives money out to everyone and takes it back from about the same amount of them!
A Giant double-sided waste of time.

It (a combined 70% Fed + state sales tax) will drive the economy Underground/BLACK.
Everyone will be cash or barter.
There's never been an incentive like this one to turn ordinary citizens into scofflaws.
Because of avoidance, some suggest the needed rate may well climb over 80%

Second/Third you dropped most of my reply. (showing your stereotyping of the lower income groups)

The question is why so many people who cannot afford things, are spending so much money, that they don't have.

The American consumer does overspend.. of course that doesn't nullify the fact he can't afford the same rates as the rich.
Your posts shows Disdain for those less well off who aren't over-consuming.

If they can't afford it, it's not fair to give them a share. They HAVE NOT EARNED IT. If someone's not pulling their weight, claiming they are entitled to a fair share is bull****.....

Hey, I agree.. People who cannot afford a 'Fair'/Flat/Same rate as the rich shouldn't be able to vote.. or even have full citizenship!
Yes I understand your position.

 

[imagep]

and btw Fairtax/prebate/sales tax collection of individuals creates a gigantic bureaucracy of it's own. Probably bigger than the IRS.
To send out checks to a Hundred million American tax entities and then has to try to enforce a sales tax that everyone must pay.
That's rright. You have a new agency which gives money out to everyone and takes it back from about the ame amount
A Giant double-sided waste of time.

Very correct.

It amazes me that conservatives who are supposedly against welfare support the fairtax when it contains the larger welfare program every proposed. Fully 1/3rd of the 30% fairtax would go towards paying for the welfare "prebate". We obviously couldn't get rid of the IRS with the fairtax, they would just more their area of responsibility from income tax to the fairtax and the prebate.

The idea of the prebate is to appease liberals, as it creates even more of an entitlement sociaty than we have now. But liberals don't buy it because they know that the fairtax has nothing to do with the poor, it has everything to do with benefiting the wealthy at the expense of soaking the middleclass.

 

[Mach]

Completely False.
'Fairtax' provides a 'prebate' to cover the outrageous regressivity but doesn't change the fact the Burden shifts Down the income chain.

Actually, it refuted your claim that:

He feels poor people can afford to pay the same rate (flat/fair tax) as rich peopl

If you want to argue that "everyone down the chain" is defined reasonable as "poor", you can try that line of reasoning, but you and I both know that's not very constructive. Those defined as "in poverty" pay effectively 0 tax according to the Fair Tax website. If you want to debate reasonably about fair tax, and who carries the burden, break out the numbers and be serious about it, I bet it's legitimately interesting, maybe revealing, I have no idea. But the "poor pay more" angle has been refuted.

Clearly this is a Gigantic windfall for the rich/very rich.. (examples/elaborated abov) and since it's 'rev neutral'.

How can having someone who stops taking your money, be termed a "windfall"?

But that aside, it's also not "the very rich". The recent tax debate was for individuals earning $250K+, which I think we all established are not "rich" people. They are not "the very rich". They are not "wealthy" by definition. Remember that the really wealthy are probably making a substantial portion of their income via capital gains, and the income tax rate is not that big of a deal to their massive income from investments. So no, it wouldn't even be a big windfall for the very rich.

In general the argument that the top income earners, who already pay 63-70% of the ENTIRE tax burden, should shut up and be happy about it, is absurd.
And as crazy at it sounds, if they don't prefer paying that much for things they disagree with personally, ideologically, and collectively, that should be a fairly straightforward position, no? If you don't like the burden all the government spending entails for your tax bracket, support lowering government spending!

According to their website:

Under the FairTax Plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level! Every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, and wage earners are no longer subject to the most regressive and burdensome tax of all, the payroll tax. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a tax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.

 

[imagep]

Actually, it refuted your claim that:


If you want to argue that "everyone down the chain" is defined reasonable as "poor", you can try that line of reasoning, but you and I both know that's not very constructive. Those defined as "in poverty" pay effectively 0 tax according to the Fair Tax website. If you want to debate reasonably about fair tax, and who carries the burden, break out the numbers and be serious about it, I bet it's legitimately interesting, maybe revealing, I have no idea. But the "poor pay more" angle has been refuted.


How can having someone who stops taking your money, be termed a "windfall"?

But that aside, it's also not "the very rich". The recent tax debate was for individuals earning $250K+, which I think we all established are not "rich" people. They are not "the very rich". They are not "wealthy" by definition. Remember that the really wealthy are probably making a substantial portion of their income via capital gains, and the income tax rate is not that big of a deal to their massive income from investments. So no, it wouldn't even be a big windfall for the very rich.

In general the argument that the top income earners, who already pay 63-70% of the ENTIRE tax burden, should shut up and be happy about it, is absurd.
And as crazy at it sounds, if they don't prefer paying that much for things they disagree with personally, ideologically, and collectively, that should be a fairly straightforward position, no? If you don't like the burden all the government spending entails for your tax bracket, support lowering government spending!

According to their website:

Actually, under the fair tax plan people who make less than the poverty level would actually get MORE from the prebate that they pay in sale tax. Only people who happen to make exactly the poverty level (to the penny) would have their total sales tax exactly offset by the prebate. So for all practical purposes, the prebate is an extention of or addition to any welfare that they may be recieving.

As far as those who make more than the poverty level, I really don't see the point in jacking up their sales tax by 50% (the proposed sales tax is 50% higher with the prebate than it would have to be without the prebate) in order to "prebate" it back to them. Thats like saying "give me some money so that I can give it back to you".

The only people who would benefit by the prebate are those who spend only a small fraction of their income, which are primarally the rich. While I understand that people in any income bracket would want the tax code to favor their particular income bracket (regardless of what that may be), I don't understand why it is preferable to only tax income that is neccessary to support our lifestyle than to tax all income.

 

[haymarket]

How can having someone who stops taking your money, be termed a "windfall"?

I would think to anyone who can add that is a very obvious reality.

Simply put, it allows the wealthy to keep more money than they are now keeping. That is their windfall.

This is really not complicated if we keep speaking normal english and stop speaking libertarianese.

And for its advocates and supporters, I ask yet again

If the Fair/Flat tax is revenue neutral, and if that tax does not increase taxes on the poor, and if it decreases taxes on the rich... who in the hell pays more to make it revenue neutral?

 

[TurtleDude]

the rich should keep more-they pay far more than their fair share now and in addition to that being unfair, it leads the masses to clamor for more government because they don't currently have to pay for that expense

 

[haymarket]

the rich should keep more-they pay far more than their fair share now and in addition to that being unfair, it leads the masses to clamor for more government because they don't currently have to pay for that expense

Arguing for personal greed and against the interests of the majority of the American people hardly gains you any converts.

Which leads to a more interesting question: just who are you trying to convince with your crusade? We live in a country with a democratic republic form of government and your idea of heaven is hell to most citizens. Just what is the end game that has you winning this issue?

 

[TurtleDude]

Arguing for personal greed and against the interests of the majority of the American people hardly gains you any converts.

Which leads to a more interesting question: just who are you trying to convince with your crusade? We live in a country with a democratic republic form of government and your idea of heaven is hell to most citizens. Just what is the end game that has you winning this issue?

greed is telling a minority that the majority should force that minority to pay for all the stuff the majority wants

you like the mob rule. I do not.

we live in a country that is going down the toilet because people like you want to make the government bigger and bigger

 

[haymarket]

greed is telling a minority that the majority should force that minority to pay for all the stuff the majority wants

you like the mob rule. I do not.

we live in a country that is going down the toilet because people like you want to make the government bigger and bigger

Actually I believe in "WE THE PEOPLE" some guys wrote that as the beginning of a piece of paper but that is a concept you have nothing but disdain and contempt for ... and that other thing... what was it now .... oh yeah "a government of the people, by the people and for the people". I think somebody driving a Lincoln said that.