- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Recession ended 6-09
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
While it is arguable I am in my right mind, I certainly think it worth discussing what is "equitable" as far as wealth, income and taxes are concerned in this country. Using your statistics, and capital income household statistics taken from 2003 (which I'm sure have increased since then), there is a direct correlation that shows complete fairness, in fact, it shows %-wise that the top %'s are not paying enough:
Top 1% in income - paid 40.4% of income tax
Top 1% in income took in 57.5% of capital income to households (2003 numbers - guessing it's higher now)
Top 5% paid 60.6%
Top 5% in income took in 73.2% of capital income to households (2003 numbers - guessing it's higher now)
Top 10% paid 86.6%
Top 1% in income took in 79.4% of capital income to households (2003 numbers - guessing it's higher now)
Top 50% paid 97%
Bottom 80% in income took in 12.6% of capital income to households (2003 numbers - guessing it's higher now)
You can't just look at the percents these people pay, you have to compare it to how much they make. At least, I would assume anyone in their right mind would, I dunno...
If the people who make the most money don't pay more tax then where are they going to get the money from??
...................................................................
some things are just none of your business.
:142smilie
Thanks again Obama for giving us meaningfull health care reform and affordable insurance for
once in a century
only President in past 50 years to be able to pass a health care bill.
Wow I might vote for his ass again.
:142smilie
Hillbilly? You dont even have a clue who or what I am Spongee. Makes you feel big to lash out with name calling.
:mj07:
Believe what you will but the government debt is rising to levels never seen before with all the bullshit bailouts and programs the dems are pushing through. Bigger govenrnment and more debt better for the country? Yea right. We will be lucky to survive whats going on now for sure. You are right bleedingpurple they are both evil but I will take a chance with the group that does not want to grow more government and spending with higher taxes to follow. Thank you.
:facepalm:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Its also in the elite's best interest to keep everything the way it is. The last thing they want to see is a real revolution.
Last edited:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Exactly. Like I give a fuck what some insurance salesman thinks. It just makes him look pathetic.
DUH yep the 1% would have tough time paying no taxes and the other 50% would have field day with 40% less revenue--make sense--if your a liberal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Heres an oldie but goodie putting things in perspective--
10 of us from political forum go to lunch each day
The bill comes to $100 and tab is paid by our tax liabilities.
The 1st 4 (Tramp-Muff-Duff and Scott) pay nothing.
The 5th would pay $1 the 6th would pay $3
7th would pay $7 -8th $12- 9th $18- and Jack being the wealthiest gets stuck with biiggest portion $52.
This arrangement went along fine--until one day restaurant owner said--you all are such good customers I'm going to cut cost by $20 and only charge you $80.
Muff Duff Tramp and Scott were uneffected as they were freeloaders from the start and could still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving Jack with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to Jack, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled Tramp-Muff-Duff and Scott in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
Then, the nine men surrounded Jack (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night Jack didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!
"And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
Hey, thanks for the story DTB. I particularly liked the expatriation of your wealthy masters. They may as well live with their money, safely tucked away in their tax shelter havens. :sadwave:
I note nobody complaining about high taxes took a crack at my post. It's certainly an arguable position, or so I thought. Maybe it's something that's tougher to argue against than I envisioned, though... :shrug:
Chad:
That works at the lower end of the income brackets too - where many people with yearly income pay nothing in federal income tax (in fact, a vast number of people don't, since the bottom 50% only pay 3% of the Fed tax burden). Some people actually get money back, when they owed no federal tax.
So, it is clear that you are making the argument that the bottom 50% should pay vastly more in income taxes? Nobody should pay nothing, as long as they have earned income, right?
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be so much easier to tax everyone at, say 15% straight - all income, no matter how earned, and eliiminate all deductions (interest, family size, earned income credit, etc).
Wouldn't it be nice to take your W-2 and just multiply by .15 and come up with the tax? (which would apply to many people who don't have investment income)?
No more marriage penalty, no more games played by the rich with tax shelters, no more tax free municipal bonds, no more having the tax code favor large families (by the child credit).
Just straight forward taxes - paid by ALL on an equal pro-rata formula.
Who the heck could be against that?????
Lol! Almost everyone would be against it:
Homeowners who deduct mortgage interest.
Sick people who deduct medical expenses.
Savers who deduct 401K money,
Parents who take exemptions for dependents.
And everyone who now pays less than 15% of their gross income, which would include most single taxpayers up to about $30K and most families up to about $50K.
Fairest? I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
How about this for fair? Everyone who puts in an honest 40 hour week receives the same take-home pay? Hours worked beyond 40 are paid extra.
40 hours digging ditches = 40 hours filing briefs = 40 hours filling teeth = 40 hours teaching school.
Mags, I have always been very interested in that plan, although I don't know what the magic number would be. I do know, that I've posed this exact question many times here and asked those that currently make a very good living if they would be in favor of it - none (that I recall) have answered they would be if it meant no deductions or tax benefits of any kind. Does this mean you would be in favor of that - even say, if it was up to 20%, which is a number I've seen noted by a couple of major economists who have studied what it would take to keep our system going? I think I would be, and our family does benefit from several of those deductions during tax time.
I'm now saying, would you guys be in favor of a flat tax rate by cutting certain programs you don't favor. Because we'll never agree to that, unless we can all agree to cut all programs across the board.
To the point I was making, my point was simply that to complain about the top % taxation, without examining the % of capital income they take in. And this also does not examine the amount of taxes they can avoid with deductions, investments, etc. that lower incomes have no way to take advantage of. In many ways, these advantages can be looked at as offsetting what the below poverty folks, and even lower-middle class folks don't pay in taxes.
But, as I've said many times, I would be in favor of considering a flat tax - makes a lot of sense to me, and while I don't think the poverty stricken can afford anything else, I understand the supposed fairness angle.
I'm now saying, would you guys be in favor of a flat tax rate by cutting certain programs you don't favor. Because we'll never agree to that, unless we can all agree to cut all programs across the board.
To the point I was making, my point was simply that to complain about the top % taxation, without examining the % of capital income they take in. And this also does not examine the amount of taxes they can avoid with deductions, investments, etc. that lower incomes have no way to take advantage of. In many ways, these advantages can be looked at as offsetting what the below poverty folks, and even lower-middle class folks don't pay in taxes.
But, as I've said many times, I would be in favor of considering a flat tax - makes a lot of sense to me, and while I don't think the poverty stricken can afford anything else, I understand the supposed fairness angle.
Duff, I don't consider that fair, realistically. Professionals often take on additional expense and time spent not making money to become eligible for higher paying jobs. And, they have to pay that money back, taking even more time before making more money. People in blue collar jobs that make more money are often more valuable due to being hard workers or doing a better job, and they should make more money for those efforts.
I do have a problem with major corporations who have a combined interest of boards and management whose best interests are served by keeping themselves where they are at all costs, but that's another issue.
I personally would not want to live in a country where everyone was paid the same for everything they do. That would be a pretty boring place, where a lot of important jobs would never be undertaken, IMO.
Well, that is one way to eliminate capitalism (which is clearly your goal)
If you do that, they it would also make sense to make the cost of every good and service the same - cars, banana's, hamburgers, homes all cost $5.00. :shrug:
Uhhh, Chad. I was pulling Mags' leg by giving another "simple" example. The problem with simple answers is that they don't work. As you touched on, there are many considerations as to a "fair" wage in order to encourage people to work, and to do the sort of work which is needed.
There are also many considerations about taxing too. For example, we as a country decided long ago that we would encourage home ownership by making mortgage payments deductible, and we also give tax breaks to encourage education, charitable contributions, the rearing of children, certain kinds of saving and many other things.
A flat tax would discourage all things which are now tax advantaged.
Whether the tax codes are "fair" is an unproductive discussion, since it's all in your point of view.
I really don't see much difference between labor unions and corporations. Union leaders behave exactly the same as corporate heads - and many union leaders make big bucks and in many cases aren't even all the well educated.
Unions get a pass way to often (certainly by the current administration). The labor unions were the direct cause of the meltdown of the auto industry. Too much pay, too much benefits than the market should pay for those positions.
Which is why I'm so proud of our current Harley Davidson - they got sick of outrageous labor costs and said we'll take our company somewhere else if we can't renegotiate our contract.
And really, what is an job's worth? It should be at whatever you can get the appropriately skilled labor to do the job. And employees are at will - they can leave for another job at any time, just like employers can fire employees at any time, for any reason.
That is how it is in most of private industry.
Sorry about the slightly off-topic rant, but the real point is that government workers/unions are no different than corporations (which is also made up of real people, just like unions).
Which is why the change in campaign finance law was appropriate and correct. If you let labor unions do it, you have to let corporations do it. Same principle.