Total taxation in the US is one of the lowest in the developed world

[DA60]

The election numbers speak for themselves. Advertizing is not allowed in Europe, and for good reason.

You want politicians "sold" like soap-powder, that's your business. Politics, as the US is proving, should not be driven by TV commercials. But, by judicious consideration of economic and policy goals explained to the people.

So what? Only the elderly watch tv much. The young are watching less and less of it. And only an idiot would fall for a campaign ad in 2016. I guarantee you the mainstream news and the debates had FAR more to do with people deciding than any dumbass tv ad.

You (plural) are light years away from that rule. Especially Donald Dork who said nary a word regarding either. He tweeted idiocies to the American public, and evidently they sopped it up.

What does twitter have to do with advertising? Does Europe ban politicians from using twitter and Facebook also?

Shame, shame, shame - it is election campaigning reduced to the absurd ...

AND Trump did not win the election because of the voters. He won the election because of the stupid 'Electoral College' nonsense.

Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million voters and only lost because of roughly 80,000 votes in key, swing states. And she was despised by many of her own supporters. If Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would have run against Trump, they probably would have beaten him easily. Trump did not win, imo...Clinton lost it. She had a massive lead and because she is so unliked, regarded as an insider and ran such a lousy campaign...she blew it.
TV ads had little/nothing to do with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

 

[Lafayette]

I am not interested enough to look into finding out why, but the Education services, health care etc number of 8,3% seems odd. That is about what the government spends on health care alone. So a little explanation of the chart would have been in order. dumping it into the forum like that, because it looks good, does your argument little justice.

Right, the "proof" doesn't please you, so you take a "cheap-shot" at it.

Those percentages are not "concocted". They are taken from the GDP compilation established by the Dept. of Commerce of the Federal Government. (So complain to the right people.)

Let's all open wide our eyes, shall we ... ?

 

[Lafayette]

On the other hand, it makes sense for economically successful persons to use their resources of influence to support policies that they have found increase efficiency and make the society productive.

As I have stipulated far too often on this forum: Electing a PotUS in the US is like selling washing-powder. Their candidates all wash whiter than white?

I suggest that such is an intended manipulation of dimwits and it was these Dem-voters who decided to get of their fat arses and vote for Donald Dork.

Which is why many if not most developed countries don't allow such media-manipulation. For instance, see here.

 

[Moderate Right]

statists like you tend to ignore the rights of taxpayers in order to justify your envy

What gets me the most is that they are too chicken to just come out and say what they really believe.

 

[Moderate Right]

The election numbers speak for themselves. Advertizing is not allowed in Europe, and for good reason.

You want politicians "sold" like soap-powder, that's your business. Politics, as the US is proving, should not be driven by TV commercials. But, by judicious consideration of economic and policy goals explained to the people.

You (plural) are light years away from that rule. Especially Donald Dork who said nary a word regarding either. He tweeted idiocies to the American public, and evidently they sopped it up.

Shame, shame, shame - it is election campaigning reduced to the absurd ...

Why do you hide behind Europe (because you live in France) but act like you live in America? Please make up your mind whether you are representing Europe or the US.

 

[upsideguy]

I do. And I just presented to you how I pay over 50%. But let's never let facts get in the way of anyone's liberal, commie agenda.

You presented several numbers that you think add together, but do not. Not every dollar is taxed, is taxed the same or is taxed at the same way. Fortunately for you, this liberal commie is a business owner that holds a CPA certificate, so I can actually show you why "your all wet" in your argument.

So, I tried to come up with a nightmare tax scenario: someone in a high tax bracket with poor tax planning and saving. So, I have a man/wife and child living in Palo Alto, CA living in a $2,000,000 home subject to a $500,000 mortgage. They actually live in this home: 567 Barron Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 - realtor.com®.

They save very little, but have a little money in mutual funds that produce interest and cap gains... but, since they spend everything, almost all of their discretionary income is subject to 8.5% sales tax (the Palo Alto rate).... that is a bit absurd, but hey, trying to run up the tax bill to see how close I can get to 50%.... Of course they pay Fed and CA income taxes at the highest marginal rates. They do not partiticipate in a 401(k) (why they wouldn't I have no clue, but we are trying to run up the tax bill). They do make IRA and HSA contributions however.

So, even in my ALL-IN nightmare tax scenario, including attributing employer payroll taxes to them, which is wrong, but for this argument, I will add it..... the ALL-IN taxes, in almost a worst case scenario are 40.4%

You can see and study the math below...



Again, you suffer from the common misconception that if I add up the marginal rate I pay on every tax I pay, I pay more than 50%.... but taxes simply do not work that way.... it is exceptionally rare for anyone to have all in taxes much more than 45%... with almost everyone in the higher tax brackets actually at 35% or less...



In the scenario above, one would have other tax saving activities going on, including aggressive participation in a 401(k) and not spending every dollar made subject to sales tax....

 

[Moderate Right]

Some people must have the last word regardless of how sarcastic it may be.

It makes them think they "won" the argument.

Do your feel better now ... ?

Why don't you prove what you say and not have the last word yourself? Or, are you a typical liberal hypocrite who accuses the others of having to get the last word in while you continue to do so yourself?

 

[joG]

Right, the "proof" doesn't please you, so you take a "cheap-shot" at it.

Those percentages are not "concocted". They are taken from the GDP compilation established by the Dept. of Commerce of the Federal Government. (So complain to the right people.)

Let's all open wide our eyes, shall we ... ?

I did not say that they were "concocted". I said that they meant something quite different that they might seem to mean and were quite different than the numbers you yourself have so happily used in those graphs you like so much showing US health care expenditures. So it would have been polite to either argue with the same measures or explain the differences. Just throwing charts around is not good style and often done with malintent.

 

[Moderate Right]

So what? Only the elderly watch tv much. The young are watching less and less of it. And only an idiot would fall for a campaign ad in 2016. I guarantee you the mainstream news and the debates had FAR more to do with people deciding than any dumbass tv ad.

What does twitter have to do with advertising? Does Europe ban politicians from using twitter and Facebook also?



AND Trump did not win the election because of the voters. He won the election because of the stupid 'Electoral College' nonsense.

Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million voters and only lost because of roughly 80,000 votes in key, swing states. And she was despised by many of her own supporters. If Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would have run against Trump, they probably would have beaten him easily. Trump did not win, imo...Clinton lost it. She had a massive lead and because she is so unliked, regarded as an insider and ran such a lousy campaign...she blew it.
TV ads had little/nothing to do with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

I have to disagree somewhat. I think the constant negative ads run by Hillary actually backfired on her. I've also seen that here in Kentucky where constant negative and untruthful ads run by Democrats over the last several elections have backfired on them and allowed Republicans to take over the governorship and the state government. The public can see through the dishonest negative advertising, mainly because it has been more blatant and untruthful.

 

[Moderate Right]

Right, the "proof" doesn't please you, so you take a "cheap-shot" at it.

Those percentages are not "concocted". They are taken from the GDP compilation established by the Dept. of Commerce of the Federal Government. (So complain to the right people.)

Let's all open wide our eyes, shall we ... ?

There you go again, wanting to get the last word in.

 

[Moderate Right]

As I have stipulated far too often on this forum: Electing a PotUS in the US is like selling washing-powder. Their candidates all wash whiter than white?

I suggest that such is an intended manipulation of dimwits and it was these Dem-voters who decided to get of their fat arses and vote for Donald Dork.

Which is why many if not most developed countries don't allow such media-manipulation. For instance, see here.

The Democrats are the ones who have the mainstream media in their back pockets and the voting public has seen through the shallowness of it all. The left also lost the election by calling everyone names, just as you are doing now.

 

[joG]

As I have stipulated far too often on this forum: Electing a PotUS in the US is like selling washing-powder. Their candidates all wash whiter than white?

I suggest that such is an intended manipulation of dimwits and it was these Dem-voters who decided to get of their fat arses and vote for Donald Dork.

Which is why many if not most developed countries don't allow such media-manipulation. For instance, see here.

As you point out, most countries are not very prone to allow freedom of information, when it is inappropriate by their elite's view of things. That the US sins in this respect also is true. But I compare it with countries like Germany or France or the UK and find the US propensity for freedom much greater.

The regulation of election funding is already a very dubios thing in the US, hindering political opinions as it does. But to advance Turkey's handling of election funding as something to aspire to is quite in character with your use of information generally.

There are intelligent arguments to be made for and against freedom. You should try using them.

 

[upsideguy]

It depends what you count. If you count ALL taxes, then indeed, many do pay total taxes, at all levels that exceed 50% of income. All you need is a household with double 6 figure incomes in a high property tax jurisdiction and you're there.

It does, this year at $118,500, next year at $127,000 (+/-). If you're self employed that's 12.4% by the way. And some might say that the employer's share is really paid by the employee. {I was an employer up until selling my business this year and I physically paid both the employee and employer's share} -- The government is really clever enough to mask that from you.

This is true of course, but what's happening is that as FICA drops off, the brackets creep up as the household essentially creeps its way into the jaws of the AMT at the federal level, and don't forget those pesky state income taxes which more than make up that difference in many circumstances.

Now, you don't feel this happening, you just file at the end of the end of the year and then you find out things like, you can't make an IRA contribution that will actually count as a deductible expense, other itemized expenses start phasing out.

Even for the households that aren't paying more than 50%, many more have taxes where taxes themselves constitute the single largest expense faced by that household.

Disagree as per post #431...

 

[DA60]

I have to disagree somewhat. I think the constant negative ads run by Hillary actually backfired on her. I've also seen that here in Kentucky where constant negative and untruthful ads run by Democrats over the last several elections have backfired on them and allowed Republicans to take over the governorship and the state government. The public can see through the dishonest negative advertising, mainly because it has been more blatant and untruthful.

You maybe right...I do not know what everyone's reasons were.

But I personally think she just is almost unlikeable. She seems callous, arrogant, VERY bribable, lazy (all those email investigations), with virtually no sense of humor or compassion for anyone but her friends/daughter. She is clearly very bright...but that did not make up for the rest.

She took a giant lead and blew it.

The country was looking for a non-insider and Trump was in the right place at the right time.

 

[Lafayette]

I said that they meant something quite different that they might seem to mean and were quite different than the numbers you yourself have so happily used in those graphs you like so much showing US health care expenditures.

For most economists, me amongst them, they mean what is generally meant by "GDP" - detailed by "SIC".

That's good enough for most of us ...

 

[Critter7r]

Hmmm/...

More Still Say Health Law Has Hurt Instead of Helped Them | Gallup



Gallup poll finds more americans feel it has hurt them than helped them.

At least allow for the scenario where a person who "feels" they have been hurt by the ACA really hasn't, instead of repeatedly countering with the same point that is being disputed.

 

[newpublius]

Disagree as per post #431...

You can't 'disagree' its what people really are paying. Its not exceedingly rare for ordinary people in high taxation states. If you are at median income in NJ and have an average house, your property tax plus FICA ALONE are 30% and you haven't paid a nickel in anything else.

Indeed the income rax THERE in that particular situation doesn't even add that much to the burden since the itemized expenses will reduce the federal income tax to well below 15%. But that family is still paying sales tax, gas tax, motor vehicle fees.....tolls ($15 for GWB), etc.....This person might still well be under 50%, but almost assuredly over 40%

As for business owners, which I used to be, the property tax on the commercial sas $20k and of course there the problem is it just comes off the top. You pay less income tax because there IS less profitx but its no joke.

 

[OpportunityCost]

At least allow for the scenario where a person who "feels" they have been hurt by the ACA really hasn't, instead of repeatedly countering with the same point that is being disputed.

So we are to agree with this supposition why exactly? Because you think they haven't been hurt, even if they have?

Millions of people have had their health care messed with by this law, either by increasing premiums, being removed from their Doctor's network or having their current health insurance cancelled or changed significantly. Is it really doing what it was supposed to do, or is it inflicting as much harm as good, or even more harm than good?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Disagree as per post #431...

Now do it for 75k.

 

[upsideguy]

You can't 'disagree' its what people really are paying. Its not exceedingly rare for ordinary people in high taxation states. If you are at median income in NJ and have an average house, your property tax plus FICA ALONE are 30% and you haven't paid a nickel in anything else.

Indeed the income rax THERE in that particular situation doesn't even add that much to the burden since the itemized expenses will reduce the federal income tax to well below 15%. But that family is still paying sales tax, gas tax, motor vehicle fees.....tolls ($15 for GWB), etc.....This person might still well be under 50%, but almost assuredly over 40%

As for business owners, which I used to be, the property tax on the commercial sas $20k and of course there the problem is it just comes off the top. You pay less income tax because there IS less profitx but its no joke.

I offered a specific illustration on a high income individual living in Palo Alto, CA. It should be comparable to NJ. Note my scenario had them spending EVERY dollar of discretionary income subject to sales tax, it included property tax and included both employer/employee fica. Each of these has inherent fallacies in that no one would pay all of these, in this way. Nonetheless, in this scenario, the all in taxes (including sales taxes on every dollar of discretionary income) are 40.8%.... far from 50%. I showed you a worst case scenario and only got to 41%... show me one at 50%.... calculate all taxes paid and compare to gross income....

What people fail to understand it that taxes paid in one area are a deduction in another..... so 30,000 paid in property tax actually brings down you income tax, in the highest bracket, by -12,500.

BTW.... tolls on the GW Bridge are fees for service, not taxes. Counting the employer portion of FICA as your tax (which I did in my scenario) is also a bit absurd as they are employer taxes.

 

[newpublius]

I offered a specific illustration on a high income individual living in Palo Alto, CA. It should be comparable to NJ. Note my scenario had them spending EVERY dollar of discretionary income subject to sales tax, it included property tax and included both employer/employee fica. Each of these has inherent fallacies in that no one would pay all of these, in this way. Nonetheless, in this scenario, the all in taxes (including sales taxes on every dollar of discretionary income) are 40.8%.... far from 50%. I showed you a worst case scenario and only got to 41%... show me one at 50%.... calculate all taxes paid and compare to gross income....

What people fail to understand it that taxes paid in one area are a deduction in another..... so 30,000 paid in property tax actually brings down you income tax, in the highest bracket, by -12,500.

But we are discussing the body of the population within 1 or 2 standard deviations from the mean. I am talking the 66% of the population straddling the median and more particularly of course the above average middle class that isn't quite upper middle class and the upper middle class going up to the 1%.

That's a large chunk of the population. You have to remember if your society's average tax burden is 30%, you need to understand that you need to account for the receipt of subsidies. For instance the population receivi g Medicaid is effectively paying a negative tax rate.

Well that has to be offset on the other side of the average.

70k-->300k household income is, at least in NJ more than half.

We can discuss whether this is "most" --- either way for "most" the single greatest expense faced IS taxes. And that's really confiscatory.

The flaw in your scenario is that higher income people will be more likely to pay more in property tax on their business property (and their business may sell products subject to sales tax). When I owned my business, that's exactly what happened and that makes you WORSE than 56%......

People often overlook that EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes), includes many expenses that actually reflect tax payments of one variety or another.

 

[Incisor]

More Still Say Health Law Has Hurt Instead of Helped Them | Gallup

So a survey is your proof? OK...I was hoping you'd provide actual data or figures showing the number of people who "lost" their health insurance plan and couldn't get a new one. Where are those people? Nowhere, because they don't exist. No more than Julie Boonstra's false claim about Obamacare was true. How have these people who say they've been hurt, been hurt? That's what you don't bother to say. So your entire argument relies on innuendo.

 

[Critter7r]

So we are to agree with this supposition why exactly? Because you think they haven't been hurt, even if they [THINK THEY] have?

Yes. Just because they "think" they've been hurt by the ACA doesn't mean they really have been hurt.

Millions of people have had their health care messed with by this law, either by increasing premiums ...

Great example ... Did the premiums charged by their insurance company go up because of the ACA? Or did they just go up because they have gone up every year for the past 30 years and now there's something to blame it on, so they say "yes, I feel like the ACA has hurt me".

... being removed from their Doctor's network or having their current health insurance cancelled or changed significantly. Is it really doing what it was supposed to do, or is it inflicting as much harm as good, or even more harm than good?

Exactly.

Saying that one "feels like" the ACA has hurt them is not any sort of indication that the ACA has actually done so. Maybe it did, maybe it's just a misperception. Which is why I said he should just allow that some people SAY that they FEEL the ACA has hurt them when it really hasn't, instead of repeatedly responding with "but they feel like it has hurt them, so it has". Because, well, no sh!t they FEEL that way, but where's the proof that their feelings are based in reality?

 

[Incisor]

When they interview people and 28million say they were harmed and 17million say they were helped, I guess they were all misinformed?

Not sure where you're pulling that from, but OK I'll bite...how were they harmed? Because they can still get health insurance. If they choose not to, then that's not the fault of the ACA.

 

[upsideguy]

Now do it for 75k.

Ok... $75K, with a $500K house and $125K mortgage... other income and expenses cut commensurate with income.

Result: All in taxes about 23% (29% in you want to believe employer FICA/med is your money)