AH boy where to start. Maybe with if you have $100000 in the bank and get 5% on your money. Or you have $10000. Witch would you like to be.
Does this surprise anyone
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
Freeze, I will ask you for about the twentieth time...what do you consider a fair tax rate for everyone? How much should an American be taxed? You never have addressed this, and I'm starting to wonder why. Maybe you are a closet liberal and just want to complain.
You say that the upper class is stifled by the current tax system, and yet they make a far disproportionate amount of the money in this country, and that amount is drastically increasing each year. I would submit to you, that this system is not a hardship, nor unfair, to the upper income American. Apparently, the system is helping these people increase their incomes every single year, on average. Is it possible that they are able to better take advantage of opportunities that this system provides them? Are they more able to create businesses and make investments due to what the system affords them, which increases their income and net worth?
The treasury and tax numbers say this is so. If it is not so, then why does anyone aspire to make more money?
Again, I see you equate having a lot of money with hard work in your blanket statement world. People work hard at all levels, and there are plenty of wealthy people that simply showed up at the right hospital at the right time to "earn" their money. And there are plenty of wealthy Americans that did not have to work hard to get where they are. You continually paint these situations with a broad brush, and it doesn't add up.
You say that the upper class is stifled by the current tax system, and yet they make a far disproportionate amount of the money in this country, and that amount is drastically increasing each year. I would submit to you, that this system is not a hardship, nor unfair, to the upper income American. Apparently, the system is helping these people increase their incomes every single year, on average. Is it possible that they are able to better take advantage of opportunities that this system provides them? Are they more able to create businesses and make investments due to what the system affords them, which increases their income and net worth?
The treasury and tax numbers say this is so. If it is not so, then why does anyone aspire to make more money?
Again, I see you equate having a lot of money with hard work in your blanket statement world. People work hard at all levels, and there are plenty of wealthy people that simply showed up at the right hospital at the right time to "earn" their money. And there are plenty of wealthy Americans that did not have to work hard to get where they are. You continually paint these situations with a broad brush, and it doesn't add up.
Personally, here's one of the contract items that I find particularly laughable:
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement.
This, coming from the party who made drastic cuts in Child Support Enforcement one of the four main areas of attack when coming up with more money for their war effort.
I'm not sure that putting up a plan - when you know it is either a lie or something you know you will not follow through with - is better than not having one at all. I honestly don't know that it is.
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement.
This, coming from the party who made drastic cuts in Child Support Enforcement one of the four main areas of attack when coming up with more money for their war effort.
I'm not sure that putting up a plan - when you know it is either a lie or something you know you will not follow through with - is better than not having one at all. I honestly don't know that it is.
Separating Tax Facts From Tax Fiction
Monday, June 07, 2004
By Gail Buckner, CFP
Dear Readers ?
I really try to avoid anything that smacks of politics, but I can't help setting the story straight on a popular American myth ? repeated with increasing frequency in this election year ? that "The Rich" (whoever "they" are) don't pay their fair share of taxes.
A corollary to this is the assertion that The Rich received the biggest benefit of the so-called "Bush" tax cuts," the political catch-phrase for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.*
Neither position is supported by hard data taken from income tax returns. In fact, in both cases, the opposite is true.
In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.
According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:
1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.
2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).
Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.
3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.
How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)
Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430.
Because lower-income individuals are paying a smaller piece of the total tax revenue pie, the portion paid by those with higher income must, by definition, go UP.
It will be a couple of years before 2002 and 2003 income tax data are in a form that can be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Treasury Department estimates that this year the portion of tax paid by those with higher incomes will increase again. That's because tax provisions such as marriage penalty relief have a bigger impact on taxpayers with lower
incomes. In addition, some tax breaks phase out once your income hits a certain level. Those with higher incomes see no benefit at all from, for instance, the increased child tax credit.
When they crunch the actual numbers for 2004, the folks at Treasury predict the average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers will fall by 16 percent, compared to a 12 percent decline for those in the top 1 percent of income.
In fact, according to the Treasury Department, nearly 5 million additional Americans will end up paying NO income tax at all in this year, thanks to the tax breaks ushered in by the 2001 and 2003 Acts.
The data are also broken down by state. For instance, thanks to changes in the tax code, 12.4 million Californians will pay less (federal) income tax. More than a million Pennsylvania taxpayers will benefit from the reduced tax rates (15 percent) on dividends and capital gains. Nearly 4.2 million Illinois residents will pay less because of the new 10 percent income tax bracket. 1.6 million New Yorkers will see their taxes reduced thanks to the increase in the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000.
In this country we have what's called a "progressive" tax system. It means that those who can theoretically afford to pay more in taxes, do. But it's important to understand that this doesn't merely refer to the number of dollars that are collected from those with higher incomes. It means that, as your income goes up, so does the tax rate on that income.
For 2004, a married couple filing jointly pays only 10 percent income tax on the first $14,300 of taxable income. But on income from $14,300 to $58,100, the tax rate is 15 percent. When their income exceeds $58,100, the amount over this is taxed at 25 percent, meaning they give up 25 cents of every dollar of income over $56,800. Once a couple's income reaches $117,250, they lose 28 cents per dollar, and so forth until you hit the top tax rate where 35 cents per dollar goes to taxes.
In other words, as your income climbs, taxes eat up a progressively larger chunk of each additional dollar you earn.
That's how the system works. My point is, it IS working, contrary to the political rhetoric you hear.
Hey, I understand why politicians make a scapegoat out of The Rich ? this group can't be defined by race, gender, lifestyle, or any other convenient demographic characteristic. Besides, are The Rich actually going to unite and take a stand? Can you just see a thousand well-dressed individuals holding a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to proclaim, "We're rich and we think it's unfair that we pay a larger portion of income taxes?"
In other words, it's safe to pick on The Rich because: 1) they're easy to resent; and 2) they're not going to defend themselves.
Just remember that politicians don't have to adhere to any rules about being "fair and balanced."
Gail
Monday, June 07, 2004
By Gail Buckner, CFP
Dear Readers ?
I really try to avoid anything that smacks of politics, but I can't help setting the story straight on a popular American myth ? repeated with increasing frequency in this election year ? that "The Rich" (whoever "they" are) don't pay their fair share of taxes.
A corollary to this is the assertion that The Rich received the biggest benefit of the so-called "Bush" tax cuts," the political catch-phrase for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.*
Neither position is supported by hard data taken from income tax returns. In fact, in both cases, the opposite is true.
In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.
According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:
1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.
2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).
Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.
3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.
How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)
Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430.
Because lower-income individuals are paying a smaller piece of the total tax revenue pie, the portion paid by those with higher income must, by definition, go UP.
It will be a couple of years before 2002 and 2003 income tax data are in a form that can be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Treasury Department estimates that this year the portion of tax paid by those with higher incomes will increase again. That's because tax provisions such as marriage penalty relief have a bigger impact on taxpayers with lower
incomes. In addition, some tax breaks phase out once your income hits a certain level. Those with higher incomes see no benefit at all from, for instance, the increased child tax credit.
When they crunch the actual numbers for 2004, the folks at Treasury predict the average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers will fall by 16 percent, compared to a 12 percent decline for those in the top 1 percent of income.
In fact, according to the Treasury Department, nearly 5 million additional Americans will end up paying NO income tax at all in this year, thanks to the tax breaks ushered in by the 2001 and 2003 Acts.
The data are also broken down by state. For instance, thanks to changes in the tax code, 12.4 million Californians will pay less (federal) income tax. More than a million Pennsylvania taxpayers will benefit from the reduced tax rates (15 percent) on dividends and capital gains. Nearly 4.2 million Illinois residents will pay less because of the new 10 percent income tax bracket. 1.6 million New Yorkers will see their taxes reduced thanks to the increase in the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000.
In this country we have what's called a "progressive" tax system. It means that those who can theoretically afford to pay more in taxes, do. But it's important to understand that this doesn't merely refer to the number of dollars that are collected from those with higher incomes. It means that, as your income goes up, so does the tax rate on that income.
For 2004, a married couple filing jointly pays only 10 percent income tax on the first $14,300 of taxable income. But on income from $14,300 to $58,100, the tax rate is 15 percent. When their income exceeds $58,100, the amount over this is taxed at 25 percent, meaning they give up 25 cents of every dollar of income over $56,800. Once a couple's income reaches $117,250, they lose 28 cents per dollar, and so forth until you hit the top tax rate where 35 cents per dollar goes to taxes.
In other words, as your income climbs, taxes eat up a progressively larger chunk of each additional dollar you earn.
That's how the system works. My point is, it IS working, contrary to the political rhetoric you hear.
Hey, I understand why politicians make a scapegoat out of The Rich ? this group can't be defined by race, gender, lifestyle, or any other convenient demographic characteristic. Besides, are The Rich actually going to unite and take a stand? Can you just see a thousand well-dressed individuals holding a press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol to proclaim, "We're rich and we think it's unfair that we pay a larger portion of income taxes?"
In other words, it's safe to pick on The Rich because: 1) they're easy to resent; and 2) they're not going to defend themselves.
Just remember that politicians don't have to adhere to any rules about being "fair and balanced."
Gail
Dogs - the share increases because the the gap between rich and other is increasing at an even greater rate. There's no other option. More and more people don't make enough to even be taxed at all.
The notion of what is fair is all relative. If our government was more efficient, all rates could decrease. If minimum wage was high enough to eliminate Earned Income Credit, then everyone else's rates could drop, if there were less loopholes and tricky accountants, then we'd have a more level playing field and definitley more money in the coffers. And what Chadman says is true too - wealth is usually created because of what the system has to offer. The opportunities are generally there as a result of what this country provides. By that logic, it makes sense that those who succeed do in fact owe something to the system in place.
Then there's reality. Record deficits should not mean tax cuts. It makes no sense. Can't you see that ultimately we will have to pay much more in the long run by doing that?
The notion of what is fair is all relative. If our government was more efficient, all rates could decrease. If minimum wage was high enough to eliminate Earned Income Credit, then everyone else's rates could drop, if there were less loopholes and tricky accountants, then we'd have a more level playing field and definitley more money in the coffers. And what Chadman says is true too - wealth is usually created because of what the system has to offer. The opportunities are generally there as a result of what this country provides. By that logic, it makes sense that those who succeed do in fact owe something to the system in place.
Then there's reality. Record deficits should not mean tax cuts. It makes no sense. Can't you see that ultimately we will have to pay much more in the long run by doing that?
