70 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
what I got from it
"The wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers pay 32 percent of all income tax collected by the federal government."
Nuff said. The article could have ended right there.
That seems a good thing.
They can afford it, can't they?
The real problem for America seems to be they don't pay enough to cover the federal expenses.
We don't pay enough??
A few may not but most of us pay what we are asked to pay. Should we voluntarily send more?
Seems to me
that the majority "pay" charities in order to get the write-off...what would happen if they instead for one year or two 'paid' specifically to the debit? I'm not necessarily endorsing that option, but it IS an option, if BO and the wealthy Dems are serious about 'spreading the wealth'.
Off the top of my head, I can't go with that
if you mean eliminating the deduction for that period. I see government as having taken over a lot of what churches and other charities have always done...or tried to do. With few exceptions, I think these churches and charities are far more efficient at delivering a higher percentage of the donor dollar to those who need or could use help. What we get back in the way of a charitable deduction is peanuts compared to how much we've already donated. I don't want to hurt charities in this way if that's what might happen. But perhaps I'm just not understanding how this would be implemented.
The most efficient charity? The Mennonite Central Committee
which delivers (or did once upon a time) $0.985 cents out of every dollar donated. There are church charities that only manage to deliver $0.20 on the dollar.
"Should we voluntarily send more?"
"Should we voluntarily send more?"
Yes. I believe Liberals should send more. There's a place on the Tax Form 1040 to do that very thing. If they really feel the govt should receive more taxes and they aren't just lying hypocrites about it, then they should make a contribution to the public debt willingly above and beyond what their normal tax burden is. Show really have the principles they espouse.
Of course we know what they REALLY mean is they thing SOMEONE ELSE should pay more taxes.
RE: Should we voluntarily send more?"
Yes. I believe Liberals should send more.
So, you're a Liberal now?
Unless you're using the Royal "We"...that would make you unwelcome in Canada.
^^^ Proof that Rob lied ^^^
Actually the top 10% of wage earners pay 70% of taxes collected. This whole thread should be deleted and the liar that started it should be banned.
According to the chart in the link
The top 10% earn 73.1% of the income. The top 1% earn 34.6% of the income. If they are paying 70% and 32%, then they aren't even paying their fair share. Their effect tax rate is higher than mine. The bottom 90% earn 26.9% of the income and must pay 30% of the taxes.
Tell me that is fair.
Quit using MotherJones-the-uninformed as your source
According to the Congressional Budget Office, (yes, the official one), you can easily see the highest quintile easily pays 70% of income taxes collected. You can easily see their federal tax liability is the highest for all taxpayers. In fact, if you look at the graph on the right you'll see that only the highest quintile has a share of the federal tax liability that exceeds the share of income for that quintile.
That's not quite the same though, is it.
The argument, "The top quintile pays 70% of income taxes collected" is not the same as the argument, "Each one of those pays less, pro rata, than those on lower incomes".
That's the only quintile where the share of tax liability exceeds the share of income. All other classes have a lower share of tax liability to their share of income.
Did you go further? The "additional charts" link.
"Real After-Tax Average Income as a percent of 1979 Income, By Income Group"
I see the top 1% still saw their income rising considerably after tax. The others didn't do so well.
You're really going to demonize those who are successful? Are you suggesting there should be some kind of income approval committee that decides when it's ok for someone to have it?
I notice how your tack has changed from Lies, Lies, to attacking me for pointing this out. I take it you now accept that the top 1% earn more, pro-rata of tax, than the lowest earners, and that while the low earners have seen their income increase only marginally over the last 30 years or so, the highest earners have seen a much greater rate of increase.
It's really quite simple. If the lower earners, a much larger portion of the population, have little money with which to spend, then they don't spend so much. That affects manufacturing and retail spending.
I am quite easy with high earners earning more. But the belief that they and they alone are the key to economic growth is, in my view, misplaced.
I don't remember calling you a liar, just Rob. That's just because any claim that only the little people pay tax is quite an obvious lie.
I'm assuming that the table you linked to....
....is calculating based on actual dollars paid in income tax, vs. taxes paid as a percentage of income. So of course Bill Gates will have paid more in taxes than me.
I think what Mark is getting at is that if Bill Gates gets an extra couple hundred thousand in tax reductions, he's not going to alter his spending habits. But If you or I get a couple hundred extra dollars in our checks every month, then maybe we buy a few things at the grocery store that we'd otherwise have had to pass up. That's why I feel that income tax breaks should target the "consumer class" first. That kind of difference in my paycheck would get me spending more at local businesses, which helps the economy.
I don't see where it really matters either way
how much you, I or Bill Gates gets back in lower taxes. Unless one of us just shoves the money in our pockets and leaves it there, it's going toward purchases or investments of some type. As long as folks like Bill Gates aren't hoarding paper money in their suitcases, it really doesn't matter how much they earn. Actually, what I'd like to see running side by side with changes in relative income over the years is changes in the cost of a variety of good available during those same periods. There are also many new items and services available for purchase today that were not available decades ago. Many of these might have been, in some form, available as luxuries for the wealthier but are now commonplace among both middle and even lower income people. So I don't think we can derive too much from income without looking at spending as well.
Perhaps a little off topic but
I think also adds to your statement: If the lower earners, a much larger portion of the population, have little money with which to spend, then they don't spend so much. That affects manufacturing and retail spending.
President BO again said the other day that he was 'willing' to extend the payroll deduction (2%, I believe) for FICA so that more people would have more money in their pockets and that that would 'create jobs'...which is ridiculous on its face. Somebody on tv yesterday kind of stupidly suggested that those few extra dollars weren't going to be spent at all because people were going to 'put the money into savings accounts'. And it surely won't create jobs. Even with the few dollars extra in their paychecks, the economy won't improve either because those few extra dollars aren't going to be spent anywhere except at the grocery store and/or the gas station because of those inflated prices.
I wonder if BO or these other
financial/economic 'experts/wizards' even consider listening to themselves before opening their mouths and can possibly realize how idiotic they appear to be to the people actually living the nightmare?
I tend to agree
For lower earners such incentives at these hard times will go on food, or paying off debt, or perhaps into savings. I don't see it creating jobs.
Other nations are trying the same, the UK government is, in an effort to stimulate economy, so this isn't a uniquely Obama thing.
But haven't you noticed Mark, Britain is a "Socialist Nation
and is thus cast into the outer darkness; all comparisons drawn are therefore inappropriate and by first principles (here) false.
If the bottom 90% had just 1% more to spend, they would spend it in the economy and improve things for everyone. If the top 10% had and extra 1% they'd squirrel it away in a tax exempt investment. That's the difference between Joe Blow and Bill Gates. And I have no quarrel with Gates, except with his tax bracket. He seems like a nice guy who isn't planning on setting up a trust fund in perpetuity for his kids or anything like that.
Next year, I'll "earn" $15,000 as a pensioner, and I'll have to pay taxes on it.
BTW the average CEO got a 23% raise and the average
worker got a .5% raise. The CEO frequently got their raise by laying off the workers. As long as the stockholders are happy.
what is your source?
Here's the one link
Since the entire thing came out of a magazine with link
included, and sources noted, your quarrel is hardly with me. I didn't Lie, I don't believe I connected to a lie, and I'd be happy to see you banned for making ridiculous personal attacks when all the info is right there. You don't like how it's presented, fine. Say that. Otherwise, tend to your knitting.
Okay, Dr. Bill, diagnose this one. "He said something I don't agree with, even though he posted a link to a magazine. I don't like what the magazine said either. Lets ban him.?" What's the word I'm looking for ... not paranoid ... not schizoid ... ah, I have it, goofy.
The tax laws
are written so that according to even your own chart, 47% of the population doesn't even PAY taxes...the entire burden is on small businesses, the true job creators, because once you reach a certain level of income, the upper levels get the opportunity to move offshore and pay nothing on those profits (GE comes to mind). The tax codes have to be rewritten in order to bring those monies back to the USA even if the company itself stays overseas.
I'm a firm believer in doing away with the tax laws completely and having a flat tax so that even those in the lower 47% wind up paying a tax with every purchase they make.
It isn't dreck, when your own research shows the proof of what the Republicans and the Tea Party have been saying, Rob
Re: not paying taxes
These graphs are about income taxes, not about VAT. If you purchase anything that has VAT on it, you pay tax with that purchase. So it seems your wish already is fulfilled.
These graphs aren't about corporate taxes either. So any remarks about small businesses and GE are off-topic.
You are ignorant of American taxation it seems
There is no VAT on a federal level in America. Some states have VAT. I think most states do not have a VAT, or it's limited to certain items only. Some states don't even have an income tax, they exist from sales tax and sometimes they also share in local property tax on land and homes. The closest thing to a VAT tax in America might be "excise" taxes by the federal govt on some items such as fuel and tires. There are some subscriber federal taxes on communication services such as telephones, cable TV. You can't compare British taxation to American taxation, thinking it is the same. They are quite different.
It's the same as VAT, just on a state level instead of federal. Doesn't change the argument he's making.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)