Top 50% pay over 96% of income taxes. (1 Viewer)

[Rhapsody1447]

That Bush only cuts taxes for the rich! He hates the poor! Boo-Hoo!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html

 

[Iriemon]

How much did he cut social security taxes the less wealthy pay and the wealthier effective don't as a percentage of their income?

More right-wing class warfare propoganda

 

[WI Crippler]

You know when I was poor I always got every penny of my federal and state income tax back. Now that me and my wife are starting to make some money these last few years we watch as our refund disappears and we have to pay in more than we already have. The poor do not share in the burden of taxes to our federal and state governments. Why does everyone think the poor need to be taxed less, or the rich more?? Cut taxes for everybody that pays them so we can increase spending of consumers, and cut wasted programs to reduce spending.

 

[Kandahar]

That Bush only cuts taxes for the rich! He hates the poor! Boo-Hoo!

What is the main reason for this income tax disparity? Could it be the ENORMOUS wealth disparity in this country, which George Bush has made worse with the No Child Left Behind Act? Yes.

If we got the federal government out of education entirely, so that states that wanted to could allow school choice and experiment with education however they wanted, the poor would once again have more upward mobility (and therefore the wealthy wouldn't shoulder as much of the income tax burden).

 

[Iriemon]

You know when I was poor I always got every penny of my federal and state income tax back. Now that me and my wife are starting to make some money these last few years we watch as our refund disappears and we have to pay in more than we already have. The poor do not share in the burden of taxes to our federal and state governments.

I agree the poor pay proportionately less taxes than the rich; and they should IMO. Those at the very bottom effectively pay no or little tax because of the EITC.

On the other hand, citing statistics about just the income taxes like the first post did creates the (intentionally) misleading impression that the bottom half of Americans pay no taxes. Absolutely not true.

The amount of taxes paid thru FICA tax is almost as much as the amount of income tax.

Why does everyone think the poor need to be taxed less, or the rich more??

Because when you tax the poor you are taking away necessities; when you tax the rich you are taking away luxuries.

Cut taxes for everybody that pays them so we can increase spending of consumers, and cut wasted programs to reduce spending.

Sounds good, but all that we've seen happen is cutting taxes, more spending, and more borrowing. $3 trillion since 2001, thanks to the leaders of the pass the buck generation.

 

[Iriemon]

What is the main reason for this income tax disparity? Could it be the ENORMOUS wealth disparity in this country, which George Bush has made worse with the No Child Left Behind Act? Yes.

If we got the federal government out of education entirely, so that states that wanted to could allow school choice and experiment with education however they wanted, the poor would once again have more upward mobility (and therefore the wealthy wouldn't shoulder as much of the income tax burden).

Don't follow. How does Federal spending on education stymie upward mobility among the poor?

 

[LeftyHenry]

You know when I was poor I always got every penny of my federal and state income tax back. Now that me and my wife are starting to make some money these last few years we watch as our refund disappears and we have to pay in more than we already have. The poor do not share in the burden of taxes to our federal and state governments. Why does everyone think the poor need to be taxed less, or the rich more?? Cut taxes for everybody that pays them so we can increase spending of consumers, and cut wasted programs to reduce spending.

wtf?? every penny back?

 

[Kandahar]

Don't follow. How does Federal spending on education stymie upward mobility among the poor?

Federal controls on education make the system worse by not allowing states to try various policies with education to see what works the best.

If the states were allowed to try various policies, at least some of them would try school choice. The others would follow suit after it became obvious what a success it was.

This would give the poor a better chance to escape their lot by providing them with a quality education, instead of a property-tax based school that doesn't teach them anything.

 

[Andy]

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/wpsipp.html

This site offers a graph of the distribution of the net worth of us households (bottom graph). Apparently, the top 4% of households in the US control about 60% of the net worth. That probably explains why they pay so much in taxes.

 

[Kushinator]

Remember that guy Steve Forbes? He was the one running for president in '96 to establish the 17% across the board tax. I wonder why such an idea was shot down?

Espically since he was running for the GOP...

 

[Rhapsody1447]

I agree the poor pay proportionately less taxes than the rich; and they should IMO. Those at the very bottom effectively pay no or little tax because of the EITC.

On the other hand, citing statistics about just the income taxes like the first post did creates the (intentionally) misleading impression that the bottom half of Americans pay no taxes. Absolutely not true.

No one is saying that the bottom half of Americans pay no taxes. The only misleading impression out there is that Bush only cuts taxes for the rich and that the poor are in turn being hurt, when in fact, any cut in taxes helps everyone.

The amount of taxes paid thru FICA tax is almost as much as the amount of income tax.

Who pays the bulk of these taxes? I would assume the rich.

Because when you tax the poor you are taking away necessities; when you tax the rich you are taking away luxuries.

No one is being tax to the point of losing necessities. Anyone who is on this verge are most likely recieving money from the government.

Sounds good, but all that we've seen happen is cutting taxes, more spending, and more borrowing. $3 trillion since 2001, thanks to the leaders of the pass the buck generation.

Conservatives agree with you that this administration's spending policies are too excessive. But we are in a war, and that doesn't help reduce federal funding. Don't harp on the national debt so much, it can remedied quite easily.

 

[Andy]

How does one "easily remedy" an $8,000,000,000,000 debt?

Furthermore, a significant percentage of the new deficit isn't the product of the Iraq War or the War on Terrorism, but the result of the 4-fold increase in pork barrel spending that has happened over the past decade (Source: TIME magazine, 11/06/06), the $60 billion a year Medicare drug plan expansion, the energy bill, the attempted privatization of Social Security, the expansion of Federal power into state education in the form of NCLB, and the government's continued insistence on farm subsidies all come to mind.

 

[Iriemon]

How does one "easily remedy" an $8,000,000,000,000 debt?

My reaction as well. If we took the biggest surplus during the Clinton administration, it would take about 80 years to pay off the debt.

Furthermore, a significant percentage of the new deficit isn't the product of the Iraq War or the War on Terrorism, but the result of the 4-fold increase in pork barrel spending that has happened over the past decade (Source: TIME magazine, 11/06/06), the $60 billion a year Medicare drug plan expansion, the energy bill, the attempted privatization of Social Security, the expansion of Federal power into state education in the form of NCLB, and the government's continued insistence on farm subsidies all come to mind.

Correct. Blaming the Iraq war is an excuse for justifying running up the debt.

 

[Kushinator]

One could legalize marijuana, tax it 100 %, and invest half of the income to educate the youth about the dangers of drugs. I mean, who knows how much revenue this could generate.?.? Not to mention how much money this would save the state and local levels legal/jail systems. In turn, jobs would be created, companies formed, and guess what? More income to tax! I mean, marijuana dealers make money every day, yet only gets taxed in the form of court, lawyer, and probation costs. Quite inefficient and a waste of money if you ask me.

Then, you start taxing all these foreign owned businesses. Dont tax foreign workers, but tax the profits on the business. There would also have to be requirements and rules, but you get the point.

Next, start taxing tobacco products 100%. Since they cause an estimated medicad payments to medicade cost the fed around 12 billion a year, its time for people to start footing the bill for their illness. Not to mention the costs in legal battles.

All of these hypothetical solutions would generate billions more per year, and also, wouldnt cut into the revenues of their parent companies(if marijuana had any:roll).

Another possibability to consider. China is growing. So much that their middle class population will eclipse ours in less than 20 years. This in turn creates higher standards of living, and with it the desire for unessential goods. And because the US is the undoubted capital of information, media, entertainment, and "gizmos" i have little doubt we will play a large part in assuring China access. Imagine how much money can be made in condoms with the right marketing, access to the market, and an early embarkment when considering this.

Hmm, this gives me an idea for a new topic...

 

[Rhapsody1447]

Correct. Blaming the Iraq war is an excuse for justifying running up the debt.

No one is trying to justify running up the debt. I said that the spending policies of this administration have been too excessive, and need to be cut back. But you can't ignore the fact that we are at war, and to say it contributes nothing to the our debt is stupid.

 

[bismitch]

if you think about it, the top 50% of taxpayers probally make 96% of the income for the U.S. So I don't understand the basic issues of our current tax system.

 

[Joby]

if you think about it, the top 50% of taxpayers probally make 96% of the income for the U.S. So I don't understand the basic issues of our current tax system.

uhhhh.... the top 1% owns over 40% of all the privately held wealth (including assets, of course).

 

[bismitch]

uhhhh.... the top 1% owns over 40% of all the privately held wealth (including assets, of course).

sorry i wrote this after going sleepless for a night, but I meant to say more than 96%(Probally somewhere near 98%). I think the tax system right now is fine, maybe a new tax bracket for the excedingly wealthy could be good too. If taxes would be reduced, they should in the middle class sector.

 

[Iriemon]

sorry i wrote this after going sleepless for a night, but I meant to say more than 96%(Probally somewhere near 98%). I think the tax system right now is fine, maybe a new tax bracket for the excedingly wealthy could be good too. If taxes would be reduced, they should in the middle class sector.

The tax system is just fine, except for the fact that for the year ending 9/30/06 the revenues that tax system brought in were $572 billion less than the Govt spent over the same period.

 

[Iriemon]

I agree, a spending problem, not a tax problem (if that is what you're saying).

The tax cuts were good. They were not moral or immoral, they were just good, they were the right thing to do. When you're $8,000,000,000,000 in debt, then there's no discussion on who needs to pay your fair share, it's reached the point where if we're not gonna elect people who're gonna eliminate the nanny state we need to maximize the IRS's revenue. That is what the tax cuts worked towards.

The spending is ridiculous, but what can ya do, you vote for people who're always promising new ****. Not you in particular, that was meant in general, as with the entirity of my rant.

Sorry, you will never convince me that loading up on trillions of debt with the accordant hundreds of billions in annual interest expense is a good thing for our country.

I also fail to see the logic of how lowering tax rates "maximizes" tax revenue. Under that logic, the Govt should lower the rates to 1% and then there would be trillions more revenue.

Voodoo economics.

However, I'm sure your logic will be accepted by the pass the buck crowd that puts lower taxes above all else.

 

[ARealConservative]

Sorry, you will never convince me that loading up on trillions of debt with the accordant hundreds of billions in annual interest expense is a good thing for our country.

I also fail to see the logic of how lowering tax rates "maximizes" tax revenue. Under that logic, the Govt should lower the rates to 1% and then there would be trillions more revenue.

Voodoo economics.

However, I'm sure your logic will be accepted by the pass the buck crowd that puts lower taxes above all else.

And you will never convince me that in a country that values freedom and property rights, that the correct tax rate is the one that maximizes "revenue".

How about taking into account that this is people's property we are dealing with. Cut spending and stop stealing.

Sounds pretty damn fair to me

 

[Iriemon]

And you will never convince me that in a country that values freedom and property rights, that the correct tax rate is the one that maximizes "revenue".

And I would never try to convince you of that.

However, I would try to convince you that the correct tax rate is one that generates revenues sufficient to fund what the Govt spends, and that the correct tax rate is not one that puts our country under a huge debt that will burden future Americans.

How about taking into account that this is people's property we are dealing with. Cut spending and stop stealing.

Sounds good to me. In the meantime, until that happens, raise taxes and stop expecting our kids to pay for our government.

Sounds pretty damn fair to me

What, expecting the next generation to pay for our government? Sounds pretty damn selfish to me.

 

[ARealConservative]

And I would never try to convince you of that.

However, I would try to convince you that the correct tax rate is one that generates revenues sufficient to fund what the Govt spends, and that the correct tax rate is not one that puts our country under a huge debt that will burden future Americans.

Cute. the government spends funds based on the desires of people that aren't going to be forced to pay for it.

You obviously have it backwards though.

If my wife charges too much on the credit card, the solution isn't for me to find a higher paying job. It is to cut up the credit card.

Same with the government. They need to reign in spending, not find a higher paying job.

 

[ARealConservative]

Did you support the toughening of bankruptcy laws? We don't need to pay off all of our debts, but we need to pay off a lot of them, we need to pay back the social security trust fund, and we need to balance the budget. This would require massive spending cuts and a tax rate that does maximize the tax revenue (which is closer to the rates after, rather than before the Bush tax cuts), at least for a while. Like it or not, we've enjoyed what little benefits we're gonna receive from that money, and we have to pay the tab. I doubt one could argue that it's at all fiscally conservative to continually spend an increasingly large portion of what we do pay in taxes as interest for the loans we've already taken out.

Although I sympathized with the need to strengthen the bankruptcy laws, I felt they needlessly singled out consumers alone.

Hey, if we could actually reign in spending I would be happy to revisit maximizing taxes until we get ourselves out of debt.

But it is obvious that serious spending reductions - outside of defense - is something that proponents of tax hikes have no interest in pursuing. In which case no permanent solution exists outside of allowing our country to fall into bankruptcy.

So I lean towards bankruptcy. Then we will have no choice but to scale back to critical services.

 

[Iriemon]

No, it's not like that at all.

It's true, once you reach a certain point at which the government provides basic stability, private property rights and the like, from that point on, the bigger slice of the pie you're taking, the smaller the pie you'll be taking it from. That's not voodoo economics at all, that's plain and simple logic.

Think of a graph, there's a line with a positive slope (tax rate), and there's a line with a negative slope (amount being taxed). You tax low, then the economy will do very well, but since the rate is low you still don't get very much (very small slice of a very large pie). If you tax too much, you get a very large portion of the pie, but it's not that big of a pie. There's obviously gotta be an equilibrium, at which point you maximize the IRS's revenue, or where the IRS gets the most pie. I don't see why it's any sort of a stretch to say then that it is possible, and tax receipts back this up, for tax rates to be too high to the point where they cause the IRS to get less revenue. MR has to equal MC, and tax revenues indicate that we were taxing too much, and we still might be taxing too much. You've gotta keep **** fluid, since conditions change the equilibrium rate, plus you've gotta find the equilibrium rate.

Standard supply side blather, cut taxes and the economy grows faster. Why haven't we seen this super growth when taxes were lower? Why was growth stronger in the 90s than now with the tax cuts? Why was growth stronger in 93-00 with a 39% rate than 81-92 when the rate was cut to 28% then 31%? Why did GDP grow faster in the 50s and 60s when the top marginal rates were 91% and 70%?

From BEA data -- I'll post the back up if you want.

Average annual real growth in the 50s = 4.15%.
Average annual real growth in the 60s = 4.44%.
Average annual real growth in the 70s = 3.26%.
Average annual real growth in the 80s = 3.07%
Average annual real growth in the 90s = 3.11%
Average annual real growth in the 00s = 2.49%
Average annual real growth during Reagan: 3.42%
Average annual real growth during Reagan & Bush1: 3.0%
Average annual real growth during Clinton: 3.71%
Average annual real growth during Bush2 (thru 2005): 2.49%

The facts don't support the claim that the tax rates we've had have had any impact on economic growth.

I don't think debt is a good thing. Up to a certain point I think it's excusable, but at this point we've obviously passed that. Raising taxes means we'll have less money to pay that off. It simply doesn't make any sense.

It only doesn't make sense if you assume that the higher tax rate results in a decrease in economic output that is marginally lower than it would have been without the tax increase. Or conversely, tax cuts will increase revenues only if the marginally greater economic output generates enough economic growth to make up for the revenues lost from what they would have been without the tax cuts.

What I'm saying is that tax rates over the past 6 decades have not had this marginal effect. GDP growth has not been marginally greater with lower taxes. It hasn't been any greater at all.

If you cut the tax rates, and as a result there is no greater economic growth, the result is that relative revenues fall. And they have fallen by hundreds of billions a year over the past 5 years, and that is the biggest reason why the nation is another $3 trillion in debt.

Cutting taxes without corresponding spending cuts has meant we are just digging the nation into an ever deeper hole.

It just doesn't make sense.