A 62% Top Tax Rate?

[Parkbandit]

Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.

If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Here's the math behind that depressing calculation. Today's top federal income tax rate is 35%. Almost all Democrats in Washington want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than $250,000 and phase out certain deductions, so the effective income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%. The 3% millionaire surtax raises that rate to 44.5%.

But payroll taxes, which are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be included in the equation. So we have to add about 2.5 percentage points for the payroll tax for Medicare (employee and employer share after business deductions), which was applied to all income without a ceiling in 1993 as part of the Clinton tax hike. I am including in this analysis the employer share of all payroll taxes because it is a direct tax on a worker's salary and most economists agree that though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it is ultimately borne by the employee. That brings the tax rate to 47%.

Then last year, as part of the down payment for ObamaCare, Congress snuck in an extra 0.9% Medicare surtax on "high-income earners," meaning any individual earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000. This brings the total tax rate to 47.9%.

But that's not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.

Then we have to factor in state income taxes, which on average add after the deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we are at a tax rate of close to 62%.

Democrats have repeatedly stated they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. But after all these taxes on the "rich," we're headed back to the taxes that prevailed under Jimmy Carter, when the highest tax rate was 70%.

Taxes on investment income are also headed way up. Suspending the Bush tax cuts, which is favored by nearly every congressional Democrat, plus a 3.8% investment tax in the ObamaCare bill (which starts in 2014) brings the capital gains tax rate to 23.8% from 15%. The dividend tax would potentially climb to 45% from the current rate of 15%.

Now let's consider how our tax system today compares with the system that was in place in the late 1980s—when the deficit was only about one-quarter as large as a share of GDP as it is now. After the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which closed special-interest loopholes in exchange for top marginal rates of 28%, the highest combined federal-state marginal tax rate was about 33%. Now we may be headed to 62%. You don't have to be Jack Kemp or Arthur Laffer to understand that a 29 percentage point rise in top marginal rates would make America a highly uncompetitive place.

What is particularly worrisome about this trend is the deterioration of the U.S. tax position relative to the rest of our economic rivals. In 1990, the highest individual income tax rate of our major economic trading partners was 51%, while the U.S. was much lower at 33%. It's no wonder that during the 1980s and '90s the U.S. created more than twice as many new jobs as Japan and Western Europe combined.

It's true that the economy was able to absorb the Bush 41 and Clinton tax hikes and still grow at a very rapid pace. But what the soak-the-rich lobby ignores is how different the world is today versus the early 1990s. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past two decades the average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial nations has fallen to about 45%. Yet the highest U.S. tax rate would rise to more than 48% under the Obama/Democratic tax hikes. To make matters worse, if we include the average personal income tax rates of developing countries like India and China, the average tax rate around the world is closer to 30%, according to a new study by KPMG.

What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we're nearly the highest.

Despite all of this, the refrain from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and most of the Democrats in Congress is our fiscal mess is a result of "tax cuts for the rich." When? Where? Who? The Tax Foundation recently noted that in 2009 the U.S. collected a higher share of income and payroll taxes (45%) from the richest 10% of tax filers than any other nation, including such socialist welfare states as Sweden (27%), France (28%) and Germany (31%). And this was before the rate hikes that Democrats are now endorsing.

Perhaps there can still be a happy ending to this sad tale of U.S. decline. If there were ever a right time to trade in the junk heap of our federal tax code for a pro-growth Steve Forbes-style flat tax, now's the time.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html

I really hope the concept of a flat tax or fair tax gains some traction.

[HJFudge]

I pray for the day where I make enough to be in that tax bracket. 37 something percent of 1 million+ dollars a year? I'll take it!

[Latrinsorm]

- That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989.
- Today's top federal income tax rate is 35%.

But then...

- ...the effective income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%.
- But payroll taxes, which are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be included in the equation.
- Then we have to factor in state income taxes...

Seems a little suspicious, no?
If there were ever a right time to trade in the junk heap of our federal tax code for a pro-growth Steve Forbes-style flat tax, now's the time.Trickle-down economics? Really?

[Stretch]

There are pieces in there that are legitimate complaints and concerns, but the extent the author goes to make his point takes away enough to make me not want to read it.

[TheEschaton]

I love how it was all like, "the top federal + state tax rate will be 62%, which is MORE THAN DOUBLE THE TOP FEDERAL RATE UNDER REAGAN."

Ummm, yeah, cause you included the highest state tax rate in your calculation of the 62%, jackass.

[TheEschaton]

I also like how the WSJ can get awayu with calling the President "Mr. Obama", but when liberals called Bush "Mr. Bush" people were like, RESPECT HIS AUTHORITY YOU TRAITOROUS PUNK.

[Tgo01]

But that's not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate.

Shouldn't it have been this way all along? Things like this I don't see as 'tax increases' I see them as 'tax fixes.'

[Tgo01]

I also like how the WSJ can get awayu with calling the President "Mr. Obama", but when liberals called Bush "Mr. Bush" people were like, RESPECT HIS AUTHORITY YOU TRAITOROUS PUNK.

Concern troll!

[Parkbandit]

I also like how the WSJ can get awayu with calling the President "Mr. Obama", but when liberals called Bush "Mr. Bush" people were like, RESPECT HIS AUTHORITY YOU TRAITOROUS PUNK.

But you didn't have a problem with that... but now you do.

Hypocrite.

[Keller]

crb is fucked.

[~Rocktar~]

Ummm, yeah, cause you included the highest state tax rate in your calculation of the 62%, jackass.

And spouting a whiny distraction of no consequence really make your point. Removing the state tax still leaves a rate of around 58% which, by it's self is still substantially higher than the rest of the world. This is the point and your whiny retort can't change that.

Keep posting QQ distractions, WB needs some time off.

[4a6c1]

Poor poor rich people. Boo fucking hoo.

[Tgo01]

Poor poor rich people. Boo fucking hoo.

Hey it's not easy having to decide what color bentley you want.

[4a6c1]

They might even have to cut out some trips to Palm Springs/Myrtle Beach this year. Oh noes.

[Keller]

And spouting a whiny distraction of no consequence really make your point. Removing the state tax still leaves a rate of around 58% which, by it's self is still substantially higher than the rest of the world. This is the point and your whiny retort can't change that.

Keep posting QQ distractions, WB needs some time off.

Show your work on how you got to 58%, please.

[~Rocktar~]

Show your work on how you got to 58%, please.

Taken from this paragraph:


But that's not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.

[Stretch]

This is ridiculous.

FICA is 6.20%
Medicare is 1.45%
Top bracket is 35%

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire and then throwing on another 3% gets to something like 48.65%. Layering in employer payroll taxes is ridiculous and ends up getting double counted.

[Keller]

Taken from this paragraph:

Wait, so now we're comparing the effective aggregate federal tax burden under a proposed plan to the top marginal rate under Reagan and acting like it is a valid comparison?

That is a miserable attempt to troll morons.

Worked, but still pretty bad.

[~Rocktar~]

Wait, so now we're comparing the effective aggregate federal tax burden under a proposed plan to the top marginal rate under Reagan and acting like it is a valid comparison?

Along with the rest of the world's aggregate top marginal tax rate.


That is a miserable attempt to troll morons.

Worked, but still pretty bad.

Just because you want to discount the concept doesn't make it invalid. Even assuming that the effective aggregate rate under Reagan was higher, and it was, it still is no where near 50% which simply highlights how much the rate has increased. Again, just because you don't like it, doesn't make it conceptually wrong and nowhere is the rate comparison with the world incorrect either.

"The rich" pay more here than anywhere else and will pay still more and yet somehow the Liberal Socialists think this will fix the economy and our deficit/debt problem. The only thing that will fix that is slaughtering the sacred cows of defense spending, entitlement programs and tax breaks for the poor. Since Obama still has us in 2 conflicts, added a 3rd with Libya and has looked at adding others (Iran), has added to the rolls of unpaying masses and has greatly expanded entitlement programs I don't see any hope without some radical change. How's that "I will have the troops home in 18 months" working out for you? How about that "Making America respected around the world again"?

You could probably run an entire campaign on "I will have the troops home" speech and get Michael Savage elected President.

[Keller]

Along with the rest of the world's aggregate top marginal tax rate.

That is a big number!

[Latrinsorm]

Even assuming that the effective aggregate rate under Reagan was higher, and it was, it still is no where near 50% which simply highlights how much the rate has increased....?
"The rich" pay more here than anywhere else and will pay still more and yet somehow the Liberal Socialists think this will fix the economy and our deficit/debt problem.Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "the rich" have a higher tax rate here than "the average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial nations"? I don't see anything in this article that indicates that a higher tax rate actually means more taxes paid. This is not meant to suggest that Americans are swindlier than Germans, but isn't it conceivable that the American tax system offers credits and/or deductions that do not exist in the German tax system?

[~Rocktar~]

NOBODY GETS AROUND CAPITAL GAINS!!!! REALLY!!!!

More tax is avoided here by far.

As opposed to all that avoided in the old Soviet Republics, Columbia and so on, I call bullshit.

[Parkbandit]

NOBODY GETS AROUND CAPITAL GAINS!!!! REALLY!!!!

More tax is avoided here by far.

Let's bring around a Fair tax / Flat tax system then... with no loopholes to avoid.

[Warriorbird]

Let's bring around a Fair tax / Flat tax system then... with no loopholes to avoid.

The problem there comes in with low income Americans and making the system actually successfully fund the government. Things begin to fall apart.

Also, if you think any system won't be successfully gamed... why is it exactly the mid range wealthy who want that system?

[Keller]

with no loopholes to avoid.

Generally you try to find the loopholes, but I get your point.

In order for there to be no loopholes to find, you'll have to fire all the politicians.

[~Rocktar~]

The problem there comes in with low income Americans and making the system actually successfully fund the government. Things begin to fall apart.

A lot of pretty smart economist type people seem to think they have figured out how to make it work. I am pretty sure that it can't be much worse than what we have, other than reducing the number of tax lawyers and accountants needed in the world leaving them to have to find real jobs.


Also, if you think any system won't be successfully gamed... why is it exactly the mid range wealthy who want that system?

By that logic, we shouldn't try or do anything, ever since any system can be gamed or rigged.

Why do you think they might? Could it have anything to do with the fact that they are tired of shouldering the majority of the tax burden without the wealth to avoid it all the while nearly 50% of the population is paying no income tax? I think that just might be a good bit of it. Besides, if people see that they are paying taxes even if refunded, then they just might vote a little more responsibly for those that are spending them. It could just optimistic wishful thinking on my part but I do think that if people actually got to see the money go around, they might wise up. None of this taking from the paycheck without you seeing it, you have to hand it over the counter any time you buy anything so you get to see it over and over. It might just make people think.

[Parkbandit]

The problem there comes in with low income Americans and making the system actually successfully fund the government. Things begin to fall apart.

You mean like the current system we're "working" under? Granted.. the low income Americans are doing quite well under the system.. since they take out more than they put in.



Also, if you think any system won't be successfully gamed...

I have never made such a stupid statement. All systems will be gamed.



why is it exactly the mid range wealthy who want that system?

Is that the only demographic that wants a fair tax system? Source?

[~Rocktar~]

Generally you try to find the loopholes, but I get your point.

In order for there to be no loopholes to find, you'll have to fire all the politicians.

And kill all the lawyers.

[Parkbandit]

Generally you try to find the loopholes, but I get your point.

A good tax system wouldn't be 44,000 pages with countless loopholes. You shouldn't have to hire a team of tax lawyers and accountants to simply pay what you owe... yet, if you don't, you will end up overpaying.



In order for there to be no loopholes to find, you'll have to fire all the politicians.

I'm fine with that. 2010 was a good start... let's get some more non-professional politicians in there.

[~Rocktar~]

...?Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "the rich" have a higher tax rate here than "the average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial nations"? I don't see anything in this article that indicates that a higher tax rate actually means more taxes paid. This is not meant to suggest that Americans are swindlier than Germans, but isn't it conceivable that the American tax system offers credits and/or deductions that do not exist in the German tax system?

I am pretty confident based on the fact that we have the largest economy on the planet and the tax percentage is the highest among developed nations that in fact, our "rich" pay more total taxes than anywhere else.

[Latrinsorm]

The problem there comes in with low income Americans and making the system actually successfully fund the government.Well if you want to be a perfectionist about it...
I am pretty confident based on the fact that we have the largest economy on the planet and the tax percentage is the highest among developed nations that in fact, our "rich" pay more total taxes than anywhere else.First, the article doesn't say we have the highest tax rate among developed nations. It says we have a higher than average rate among "the 20 major industrial nations", a group that's not clearly defined but somehow doesn't include India or China, so is not referring to the G20. The phrase doesn't occur on the OECD's website, so it's anyone's guess what the group actually consists of.

Second, that we have the largest economy doesn't have anything to do with the topics at hand.

Third, the tax rate is at best a third of the equation of determining who pays what. The article makes no mention of tax breaks or outright tax evasion. Without that information, there's no way to say who actually pays the most in taxes.

[~Rocktar~]

Third, the tax rate is at best a third of the equation of determining who pays what. The article makes no mention of tax breaks or outright tax evasion. Without that information, there's no way to say who actually pays the most in taxes.

Is there some point at which you stop being a Liberal apologist and stop making excuses for failed Socialist policies?

[Cephalopod]

Is there some point at which you stop being a Liberal apologist and stop making excuses for failed Socialist policies?

Probably the same point as when you stop being a conservative parrot and stop blaming imagined socialist policies for everything.

[Keller]

A good tax system wouldn't be 44,000 pages with countless loopholes. You shouldn't have to hire a team of tax lawyers and accountants to simply pay what you owe... yet, if you don't, you will end up overpaying.

Non responsive.

I've never disagreed with you. Get rid of the poltiicians who use the tax code as their personal campaign piggy bank.


I'm fine with that. 2010 was a good start... let's get some more non-professional politicians in there.

Sounds good.

[Keller]

And kill all the lawyers.

Spoken like a man whose wife fleeced him for everything after he was caught with his e-dick in his e-hypnolactation slut.

:)

[~Rocktar~]

Probably the same point as when you stop being a conservative parrot and stop blaming imagined socialist policies for everything.

Blaming real policies and rampant, irresponsible spending for our debt problems is what rational people call common sense. Add in the irrational Socialist tax schemes whereby you narrow the tax base and try and make it up in depth and you have a solid basis in fact. The only imagination going on here is the fantasy that you can continue to reduce the number of people paying taxes, increase the amount paid by those left and somehow you can support the rampant, uncontrolled social spending. Rome couldn't do it using slaves and the entire riches of 1/2 of the known world at the time stolen by military conquest.

[Parkbandit]

I've never disagreed with you.

http://gifnation.com/albums/funny/kobe_wtf.gif

[~Rocktar~]

Spoken like a man whose wife fleeced him for everything after he was caught with his e-dick in his e-hypnolactation slut.

:)

Spoken like an ignorant dumb fuck lawyer who has no fucking clue what he is talking about while continuing to fleece his clients by basically producing nothing.

:)

And if you had kept up with what I have posted here, you would know I left her for cause and generously left her with everything simply to be rid of her useless ass. When you pull your head out of your ass, maybe you will get enough oxygen to the brain to add a useful thought to some debate here. Until then, your jealousy at not being my playtoy is getting annoying, I told you no and I meant it, this is not how to earn my good graces and get your fantasies fulfilled.

[Warriorbird]

Spoken like an ignorant dumb fuck lawyer who has no fucking clue what he is talking about while continuing to fleece his clients by basically producing nothing.

:)

And if you had kept up with what I have posted here, you would know I left her for cause and generously left her with everything simply to be rid of her useless ass. When you pull your head out of your ass, maybe you will get enough oxygen to the brain to add a useful thought to some debate here. Until then, your jealousy at not being my playtoy is getting annoying, this is not how to earn my good graces and get your fantasies fulfilled.

+1 Internet, Keller

[Latrinsorm]

Is there some point at which you stop being a Liberal apologist and stop making excuses for failed Socialist policies?I guess we're done with the rational discussion part of this thread? Ok. See you next time.

[Keller]

http://gifnation.com/albums/funny/kobe_wtf.gif

Well played.

[Keller]

Spoken like an ignorant dumb fuck lawyer who has no fucking clue what he is talking about while continuing to fleece his clients by basically producing nothing.

:)

And if you had kept up with what I have posted here, you would know I left her for cause and generously left her with everything simply to be rid of her useless ass. When you pull your head out of your ass, maybe you will get enough oxygen to the brain to add a useful thought to some debate here. Until then, your jealousy at not being my playtoy is getting annoying, I told you no and I meant it, this is not how to earn my good graces and get your fantasies fulfilled.

You got your e-dick wet.

No reason to be ashamed, bro.

[crb]

...?Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "the rich" have a higher tax rate here than "the average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial nations"? I don't see anything in this article that indicates that a higher tax rate actually means more taxes paid. This is not meant to suggest that Americans are swindlier than Germans, but isn't it conceivable that the American tax system offers credits and/or deductions that do not exist in the German tax system?

A few weeks ago I posted those charts showing that the "rich" indeed pay a larger portion of the federal tax burden here than in so called socialist European countries. I'm sure you remember the thread.

Europe tax systems tend to have a much broader base than we have here with 51% not paying any federal income taxes. A tax base of only 49% of the population is broke.

[crb]

Shouldn't it have been this way all along? Things like this I don't see as 'tax increases' I see them as 'tax fixes.'

You should look into the social security system more, when it was created, why, how, etc.

The income it applies to is capped for a reason.

SS is the entitlement is the best financial shape as well, and it can easily be fixed by only a few small adjustments, such as means testing it (a GOP proposal).

Medicare and Medicaid are the entitlements that are out of control.

[Loagan]

I also like how the WSJ can get awayu with calling the President "Mr. Obama", but when liberals called Bush "Mr. Bush" people were like, RESPECT HIS AUTHORITY YOU TRAITOROUS PUNK.

Technically they started out the article with President Obama. The idea is that you've acknowleged his title, and therefore are able to shorten it afterwards to save space in writing your article ect.

[AnticorRifling]

Then you shorten it to Pres. not Mr.

[NocturnalRob]

Then you shorten it to Pres. not Mr.
Do you shorten it because he's black? You racist.

[AnticorRifling]

He's black?!

[Rinualdo]

This thread would be win if Firestorm Killa popped in.

[AnticorRifling]

He's too busy bar fighting.

[Bobmuhthol]

And spouting a whiny distraction of no consequence really make your point. Removing the state tax still leaves a rate of around 58% which, by it's self is still substantially higher than the rest of the world. This is the point and your whiny retort can't change that.

Keep posting QQ distractions, WB needs some time off.

No one pays federal income tax of 58% and no one is proposing a federal income tax of 58%. This cocksucker added in the full 12.6% payroll tax and then compared it to the federal income tax rate. Yeah, when you add things that aren't federal income tax to the existing federal income tax, you get a bigger number.

Anyone persuaded by this is fucking retarded.

[Bobmuhthol]

PS. Millions of employees are still part of labor unions, and if they weren't then wage rates would be lower, which I estimate to be about a -15% tax rate, so then the new tax rate is 43% and that's not so bad!

[Tgo01]

Red A 62% Top Tax Rate? 05-31-2011 09:41 AM fuck off

How did I know you left me this rep crb before I even read this thread this morning?


You should look into the social security system more, when it was created, why, how, etc.

Seriously?


The income it applies to is capped for a reason.

To give rich people a break?


SS is the entitlement is the best financial shape as well, and it can easily be fixed by only a few small adjustments, such as means testing it (a GOP proposal).

Medicare and Medicaid are the entitlements that are out of control.

I don't consider running out of money in 20 years to be in 'best financial shape.'

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

All I know is I feel I pay too much in taxes

[Back]

I think we all agree that everyone needs to pay their fair share. Is the republican party the one to ensure that happens? Not likely. Look to the democratic party for tough love.

[Loagan]

Then you shorten it to Pres. not Mr.

Is Pres. the correct abbrveviation to use though? It doesn't sound formal. I feel that Mr. would be more formal especially after you've addressed him by his appropriate title first. Also, I've never seen president shortened down to Pres. in a news article.

[Keller]

Anyone persuaded by this is fucking retarded.

Yup.

Like I said, it is a miserable attempt to troll morons.

It worked.

[Keller]

I think we all agree that everyone needs to pay their fair share. Is the republican party the one to ensure that happens? Not likely. Look to the democratic party for tough love.

They say every dog has its day. But you know what I think? I think that it is a dog eat dog world. So only half of the dogs will have their day.

[Parkbandit]

I don't consider running out of money in 20 years to be in 'best financial shape.'

The effort to fix Social Security is small compared to Medicare and Medicaid. Personally, I believe people should be responsible for themselves.. but it's a program people have grown accustomed to, so we're stuck with it.

[Parkbandit]

I think we all agree that everyone needs to pay their fair share. Is the republican party the one to ensure that happens? Not likely. Look to the democratic party for tough love.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

You should stick to being the PC creepy guy.. because being a self described "political pundit" has never worked out as you had hoped.

[Back]

They say every dog has its day. But you know what I think? I think that it is a dog eat dog world. So only half of the dogs will have their day.

Do you also smoke pot every day?

[Tgo01]

The effort to fix Social Security is small compared to Medicare and Medicaid. Personally, I believe people should be responsible for themselves.. but it's a program people have grown accustomed to, so we're stuck with it.

Very true. I don't think the program is such a bad idea, I do think it's bad that some people have grown to rely on it as their sole source of income for their retirement though.

[Bobmuhthol]

I do think it's bad that some people have grown to rely on it as their sole source of income for their retirement though.

???

That's why it was created in the first place.

[Back]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight I am. Your only argument against my saying the democrats are more likely to solve this problem than republicans is to attack me personally. Way to politic, I guess.




Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

You should stick to being the PC creepy guy.. because being a self described "political pundit" has never worked out as you had hoped.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

They say every dog has its day. But you know what I think? I think that it is a dog eat dog world. So only half of the dogs will have their day.

I owe a lot to my parents, especially my mother and father.

[Parkbandit]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight I am. Your only argument against my saying the democrats are more likely to solve this problem than republicans is to attack me personally. Way to politic, I guess.

It was a stupid post by a stupid person... why would I give it a second thought?

[Parkbandit]

???

That's why it was created in the first place.

It was meant to supplement income.. not as a sole source.

[Tgo01]

???

That's why it was created in the first place.

It was created so people would rely on it as their only source of income in their retirement?

[Back]

You sound like a certain percent of the population which I will let you fill in the blank on.

[SpiffyJr]

The effort to fix Social Security is small compared to Medicare and Medicaid. Personally, I believe people should be responsible for themselves.. but it's a program people have grown accustomed to, so we're stuck with it.

People get used to handouts? Nah, neva.

[Parkbandit]

You sound like a certain percent of the population which I will let you fill in the blank on.

Intelligent and self reliant.

Thanks.

You sould like a certain percent of the population which I will fill in the blanks:

Stupid and looking for a handout.

[NocturnalRob]

Stupid and looking for a handout.
Nah, the Democratic party would force these people to pay their fair share.

[Bobmuhthol]

It was created so people would rely on it as their only source of income in their retirement?

Women didn't retire very often, because women didn't work very often. Old men couldn't work but they still needed money to live. This sentence serves as a placeholder for a list of other situations that were dealt with by Social Security. All of these people had one thing in common: they were poor and couldn't do anything about it.

Thus, Social Security was born. Not because people were upset over their underwhelming retirement income, but because they had none at all.

[AnticorRifling]

Naggers. We were looking for naggers.

[Warriorbird]

It was meant to supplement income.. not as a sole source.

Source?


All I know is I feel I pay too much in taxes

I bet your life is so tough. You should get better tax help.

[HJFudge]

Our culture has a horribly short memory.

Social Security was created for a reason: Because there were old folk in poor houses and on the street in unacceptable numbers.

Social security is a wonderful thing.

[Keller]

Our culture has a horribly short memory.

Social Security was created for a reason: Because there were old folk in poor houses and on the street in unacceptable numbers.

Social security is a wonderful thing.

But I am rich and won't need it. I shouldn't have to pay for other people's misfortune.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I bet your life is so tough. You should get better tax help.

Actually I live quite comfortably; my taxes and my quality of life aren't related. Simply stated I feel I pay too much. For the benefits I receive, and what looks to be a defunct SS/Medicare system for when I'm ready to retire, I perceive I will receive even fewer benefits. Therefore, I feel I pay too much.

[Keller]

You should get better tax help.

Wages are damn near impossible to plan around without committing tax fraud.

[Warriorbird]

Actually I live quite comfortably; my taxes and my quality of life aren't related. Simply stated I feel I pay too much. For the benefits I receive, and what looks to be a defunct SS/Medicare system for when I'm ready to retire, I perceive I will receive even fewer benefits. Therefore, I feel I pay too much.


Taxation is totally based around the benefits you personally receive I hear.

[Bobmuhthol]

Food for thought: without a stable government and society and generally safe living conditions, you would make significantly less money than you do now. The cost of being afforded the ability to make a lot of money is represented by higher taxes.

[Parkbandit]

Our culture has a horribly short memory.

Social Security was created for a reason: Because there were old folk in poor houses and on the street in unacceptable numbers.

Social security is a wonderful thing.

To be honest, I'm not against Social Security. I believe there needs to be changes (raise the retirement age and increase the ceiling for contributions, etc..) but I am all for this program. There are 2 groups of people I believe we have the responsibility to help... elderly and disabled.

With that being said.. I also believe that there is enormous fraud with this program and that people are getting money from it that shouldn't be.

[Parkbandit]

Food for thought: without a stable government and society and generally safe living conditions, you would make significantly less money than you do now. The cost of being afforded the ability to make a lot of money is represented by higher taxes.

But everyone lives under this stable government... yet most are not paying into the system.

[crb]

Red A 62% Top Tax Rate? 05-31-2011 09:41 AM fuck off

How did I know you left me this rep crb before I even read this thread this morning?


I didn't leave any rep to anyone in this thread..... yet.



Seriously?



To give rich people a break?



I don't consider running out of money in 20 years to be in 'best financial shape.'

Like I said, look into it.

SS is not a tax, it is a forced savings program run by the government on a credit system. Maybe you're too young to get SS statements from the government, never held a real job? The rest of us get yearly statements saying how many credits we've earned, what our benefits would be if we got disabled, how many more credits we need, etc.

It was sold to the American people, and created, under this idea. Income is capped because you only need so much income to qualify for the credits the government has decided are necessary to fund your benefits when you retire.

Think of it like you're buying an annuity, once you've paid the purchase price of the annuity, you need not keep paying.

Truth is, the "rich" still do pay more. If you max out the wage cap (which, by the way, does grow every year), you earn enough credits to qualify for full benefits by your mid 30s or earlier. You could quit working at that point, and in your 60s start pulling benefits, but assuming you need to have an income from 35-65 you'll continue to work, and continue to pay FICA taxes on your income, and earn way more credits than are needed for full benefits.

And yes, SS is far more stable than the healthcare entitlements. If you look at a graph you'll see a slight bump up for the baby boomers, but overall a mere gentle rising over time, if it were a hill it wouldn't even qualify for downhill skiing, it'd be a cross country skiing course. Medicare however looks like a black diamond.

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/fall09mountain.jpg

Have you never bothered to look into these topics before?

[Bobmuhthol]

But everyone lives under this stable government... yet most are not paying into the system.

They aren't making as much money as the people paying taxes; ergo, their benefit for the government in place is smaller.

[AnticorRifling]

I've said it before and I'll say it again the posters of the player's corner neatly line up with the major characters in Animal Farm.

[Rinualdo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again the posters of the player's corner neatly line up with the major characters in Animal Farm.

2 legs good, 4 legs better.

[Keller]

Food for thought: without a stable government and society and generally safe living conditions, you would make significantly less money than you do now. The cost of being afforded the ability to make a lot of money is represented by higher taxes.

You're catching on.

[crb]

No one pays federal income tax of 58% and no one is proposing a federal income tax of 58%. This cocksucker added in the full 12.6% payroll tax and then compared it to the federal income tax rate. Yeah, when you add things that aren't federal income tax to the existing federal income tax, you get a bigger number.

Anyone persuaded by this is fucking retarded.

I think you fail to grasp the point of the original editorial.

Yes, the guy had a little fun with numbers with his Reagan comparisons, I thought so when I first read it, but his point still stands.

The US is moving from being one of the lowest taxed countries to being one of the highest taxed countries (among developed countries). Other countries are cutting taxes and reforming taxes and we're raising them.

In a world where countries are competing you need to consider all payments to the government when considering which country has the most attractive policies. So, in that respect, it is fully appropriate to add payroll, federal, state, local, property, and sales taxes all together (accounting for deductions and whatnot of course).

I'd gladly give up my bush tax cuts, but not to chase ever higher levels of wasteful spending. I would want spending capped at 20% of GDP. I also will not give them up just to further narrow the base, provide wealth transfer payments, and allow more people, now above average earners, to pay no federal income taxes (we're at 51% now, so any further cuts that allow even more people not to pay federal income taxes would be definition be from above average households).

Obama's policies do not do that however, he wants to spend 25% of GDP, and he wants to spend it on new entitlements.

[Bobmuhthol]

The US is moving from being one of the lowest taxed countries to being one of the highest taxed countries (among developed countries).

Woah, what? Where are you getting that idea from? Maybe an extreme example, but Sweden has something like a 32% income tax rate (average, not marginal) and a 25% VAT. You've got to be fucking me saying that the United States is even close to that.


In a world where countries are competing you need to consider all payments to the government when considering which country has the most attractive policies. So, in that respect, it is fully appropriate to add payroll, federal, state, local, property, and sales taxes all together (accounting for deductions and whatnot of course).

I don't know if you've ever done what I like to call "comparing two numbers" before, but you can't compare two numbers that are made up of different, noncomparable components. You can add in whatever stupid fucking tax rates you want, but when you say, "And look, the number we arrive at is larger than the original number we started with!" you have discredited yourself as an intelligent person.

Let's not forget that payroll taxes haven't changed in fucking forever, so saying that our precious 35% tax rate will soon rise to 47.6% is a total load of shit. Don't ever call that appropriate.


Obama's policies do not do that however, he wants to spend 25% of GDP, and he wants to spend it on new entitlements.

25% OF GDP? OH MY GOD RUN FOR THE HILLS! USA? MORE LIKE TAX-S-A!

Talk to me when any other developed country's government spends less than 30% of its GDP and then tell me the United States is "moving ... to being one of the highest taxed countries."

[crb]

They aren't making as much money as the people paying taxes; ergo, their benefit for the government in place is smaller.

That is an interesting and morally bankrupt opinion.

So a disabled person, with no arms, and no legs, who is alive because of the protections of the government, receives a monthly check, etc. Receives less from the government than the able bodied working man? Without the government, they'd be dead.

Rich people need police because without police the masses would rise up and steal all our crap like some post apocalyptic movie? Funny thing about all the post apocalypic movies I've seen, there are still rich people in them.

Go back through history, the rich, wealth, smart, successful, in this country and others, going back ages, have existed under every form of government, or lack there of. Even under communism you have those who are more equal than others (though, it has to do more with influence than any individual merit in those systems). It seems to me, when our government was very very very small, the rich did very very well, even better than today.

So the argument that the most successful are the most needful of large government holds absolutely no water. If you actually plotted such information on a graph you'd find either no correlation, or a reverse one.

And, you're not arguing that the rich should pay more than the poor, as if they don't already. The "rich" pay significantly more in taxes than the poor.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/tax2006_2.gif

So according to the CBO the top 20% make ~60% of the income in this country, and pay 70% of the federal tax burden. If that isn't their fair share, I don't know what is. The numbers get even more skewed if you break out the top 5%

So you're saying it isn't enough? We need even higher taxes on successful people and even lower taxes on people who already pay no federal income tax?

[Bobmuhthol]

Rich people need police because without police the masses would rise up and steal all our crap like some post apocalyptic movie? Funny thing about all the post apocalypic movies I've seen, there are still rich people in them.

Fantastic point, I rescind my argument.

Decided to read the rest of your post and, as expected, none of it was really relevant to my argument. As such, I won't address it out of a lack of interest for arguing with a bunch of speculation and breakdowns of tax rates.

Fuck it, I'll make an argument anyway. Money exists, so no matter what system of government is in place, there will always be some given amount of money and some distribution of wealth/income among the holders of that money. Under communism, shitty governments, rampant crime, whatever, the amount of money in place is a lot less than it otherwise would be under good sustainable growth conditions. So, no matter who has what amount of money under those systems, society is worse off and it doesn't really fucking matter anyway. Moving on, assuming identical societies with varying distributions of wealth/income, it is always the case that whoever holds the most money is best served by their government, and should be taxed accordingly (i.e. higher). Having a high income is not some genetic trait; someone will always have the most money, and whoever that person is at that time should pay the highest tax as compensation.

[Keller]

That is an interesting and morally bankrupt opinion.

So a disabled person, with no arms, and no legs, who is alive because of the protections of the government, receives a monthly check, etc. Receives less from the government than the able bodied working man? Without the government, they'd be dead.

Rich people need police because without police the masses would rise up and steal all our crap like some post apocalyptic movie? Funny thing about all the post apocalypic movies I've seen, there are still rich people in them.

Go back through history, the rich, wealth, smart, successful, in this country and others, going back ages, have existed under every form of government, or lack there of. Even under communism you have those who are more equal than others (though, it has to do more with influence than any individual merit in those systems). It seems to me, when our government was very very very small, the rich did very very well, even better than today.

So the argument that the most successful are the most needful of large government holds absolutely no water. If you actually plotted such information on a graph you'd find either no correlation, or a reverse one.


Do you not think hose rich people also hired their own personal police, paid for (or forced their serfs) to build them roads, etc.

So, instead of paying taxes, each person was raising their own armies, building/maintaining their own roads.

Maybe you should plot such information on a graph to see if there is a correlation.

You are a tremendously stupid individual, crb. That cannot be overstated.

[Keller]

Yes, the guy had a little fun with numbers with his Reagan comparisons, I thought so when I first read it, but his point still stands.

He forgot the "not intended to be a factual statement" tag.

[crb]

Woah, what? Where are you getting that idea from? Maybe an extreme example, but Sweden has something like a 32% income tax rate (average, not marginal) and a 25% VAT. You've got to be fucking me saying that the United States is even close to that.


So you're saying that the US is not increasing taxes and that much of the other developed world are not decreasing taxes? As much as I am blown away by your mention of Sweden, I try to consider more than one country.



I don't know if you've ever done what I like to call "comparing two numbers" before, but you can't compare two numbers that are made up of different, noncomparable components.

So, because two countries name and organize their taxes differently, you cannot do any possible comparison. There is no way to ever know which one has a lower overall tax burden? Right, let me introduce you to an amazing new invention, I believe from the greeks. It is called mathematics. Granted, this would be a story problem, including a bit of algebra, but I assure you, you can compare the tax burdens of two different countries.



25% OF GDP? OH MY GOD RUN FOR THE HILLS! USA? MORE LIKE TAX-S-A!


Do you realize that no president or congress, no matter how blue they were, or how high they taxed the rich, has ever been able to even get close to 25% of GDP in revenue since we fought Hitler.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2010/12/US_TAXGDP1210.gif

So, for Obama to have a balanced budget while spending 25% of GDP, he would need to collect 20% more taxes than any president has been able to do since FDR, who had a world war to fight.

You think this is possible, or sustainable? Do you not get that raising taxes results in significant diminishing returns as taxes are a drag on productivity and GDP growth? (which is why, no matter what the rates on those filthy evil rich successful people, no one President has been able to collect more than just a tad over 20% in generations.)

Meanwhile, inflation, which is the end result of all this profligate spending, is the world's most regressive tax, hitting the poor, who spend a higher proportion of their income on commodities, and who have the fewest investments that might appreciate, the hardest. Do you realize that? Rich people do fine with inflation, they tread water, our vaults of gold coins appreciate in value. The poor get fucked. More and more of their paycheck going to food and fuel.

[Bobmuhthol]

So, because two countries name and organize their taxes differently, you cannot do any possible comparison.

The comparison was between [federal tax rate] and [federal tax rate + social security tax + medicare tax + state tax + possible increase in tax rate], not between two countries. Don't be an idiot.


Do you realize that no president or congress, no matter how blue they were, or how high they taxed the rich, has ever been able to even get close to 25% of GDP in revenue since we fought Hitler.

Do you realize that no other country is close to being that low, either?

[Keller]

Rich people do fine with inflation, they tread water, our vaults of gold coins appreciate in value. The poor get fucked. More and more of their paycheck going to food and fuel.

It was only a matter of time.

[crb]

Fantastic point, I rescind my argument.

Decided to read the rest of your post and, as expected, none of it was really relevant to my argument. As such, I won't address it out of a lack of interest for arguing with a bunch of speculation and breakdowns of tax rates.

Fuck it, I'll make an argument anyway. Money exists, so no matter what system of government is in place, there will always be some given amount of money and some distribution of wealth/income among the holders of that money. Under communism, shitty governments, rampant crime, whatever, the amount of money in place is a lot less than it otherwise would be under good sustainable growth conditions. So, no matter who has what amount of money under those systems, society is worse off and it doesn't really fucking matter anyway. Moving on, assuming identical societies with varying distributions of wealth/income, it is always the case that whoever holds the most money is best served by their government, and should be taxed accordingly (i.e. higher). Having a high income is not some genetic trait; someone will always have the most money, and whoever that person is at that time should pay the highest tax as compensation.

Guess what, they do pay the highest tax. You need to justify making it even higher. No one here is arguing AGAINST a progressive tax system. I do, however, have a problem in a system where a majority doesn't pay in.

[Rinualdo]

You are a tremendously stupid individual, crb. That cannot be overstated.

QFT and all that.

[Keller]

http://carlsagansdanceparty.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ducktales.jpg

crb taking a rejuvenating dive into his VAULT OF GOLD COINS.

[crb]

The comparison was between [federal tax rate] and [federal tax rate + social security tax + medicare tax + state tax + possible increase in tax rate], not between two countries. Don't be an idiot.

I don't think you get it Bob.

Person X has to pay payroll taxes, and property taxes, state taxes, and local taxes, and sales taxes So, when he is deciding where to live, or where to have his business, he thinks about these things.

The overall tax burden matters.

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't think you get it...

[Keller]

I don't think you get it Bob.

Person X has to pay payroll taxes, and property taxes, state taxes, and local taxes, and sales taxes So, when he is deciding where to live, or where to have his business, he thinks about these things.

The overall tax burden matters.

Then why wasn't the comparison made between the all-in Reagan rate? You know, since overall tax burden matters?

[crb]

Do you not think hose rich people also hired their own personal police, paid for (or forced their serfs) to build them roads, etc.

So, instead of paying taxes, each person was raising their own armies, building/maintaining their own roads.

Maybe you should plot such information on a graph to see if there is a correlation.

You are a tremendously stupid individual, crb. That cannot be overstated.

Sure, if you go back far enough. But that doesn't refute my point, does it. The rich guy was still rich, wasn't he? Rich people don't exist at the grace of a large government.

Go back to the 1800s or early 1900s in the United States. Our government was much smaller, and the rich had far more power, didn't they? Or my name isn't Carnegie Rockerfeller Beetlejuice the Third.

So, there isn't a correlation between size of government and benefit to the rich, is there? And maybe the poor and helpless actually do receive more benefit from the government than the rich? Don't be vapid.

[Bobmuhthol]

Meanwhile, inflation, which is the end result of all this profligate spending, is the world's most regressive tax, hitting the poor, who spend a higher proportion of their income on commodities, and who have the fewest investments that might appreciate, the hardest. Do you realize that? Rich people do fine with inflation, they tread water, our vaults of gold coins appreciate in value. The poor get fucked. More and more of their paycheck going to food and fuel.

Did you really just waste a paragraph on this? Show me inflation numbers that markedly exceed 2.0%, please. Food and energy are equally volatile with or without higher taxes, so I'm pre-emptively banning the use of those price indices alone as evidence.

[crb]

Then why wasn't the comparison made between the all-in Reagan rate? You know, since overall tax burden matters?

I already said the guy fudged his numbers, which I freely admitted in my first post on the topic. It is, quite frankly, a poorly written essay, but....

I said his point about the US being competitive in a global economy is still valid. Not that his Reagan comparisons were valid.

Comparing to Reagan has no applicable use either. There is no time machine, we are not in competition with Ronald Reagan.

[Rinualdo]

Guess what, they do pay the highest tax. You need to justify making it even higher. No one here is arguing AGAINST a progressive tax system. I do, however, have a problem in a system where a majority doesn't pay in.

Your definition of majority uses a different scale then others. I prefer to define majority by the ownership of this country and its assets, not by the number of populace.

When the richest 1% share more wealth then the combined wealth of 90% of the population, I do not think an equal tax system is appropriate. Troubling even more is the increase in this ownership year by year.

[Bobmuhthol]

I said his point about the US being competitive in a global economy is still valid.

That's weird, because I didn't address this at all and yet you told me what he did was "appropriate."

[Warriorbird]

Go back to the 1800s or early 1900s in the United States.

I heard those times were awesome for the average American, not. I heard that our economy grew the most after a period of empowerment for the average American though (WW2).

[Rinualdo]

Go back to the 1800s or early 1900s in the United States. Our government was much smaller, and the rich had far more power, didn't they? Or my name isn't Carnegie Rockerfeller Beetlejuice the Third.


If you define power as ownership of this country, no. They have far more now then they ever have in our country's history.

[Keller]

Sure, if you go back far enough. But that doesn't refute my point, does it. The rich guy was still rich, wasn't he? Rich people don't exist at the grace of a large government.

Go back to the 1800s or early 1900s in the United States. Our government was much smaller, and the rich had far more power, didn't they? Or my name isn't Carnegie Rockerfeller Beetlejuice the Third.

So, there isn't a correlation between size of government and benefit to the rich, is there? And maybe the poor and helpless actually do receive more benefit from the government than the rich? Don't be vapid.

I can't tell if you're dense or just being obtuse.

I'll assume the former (because it is consistent with everything else you've ever posted) and help you out.

Bob never argued that rich people do better when taxes are high. Or that rich people "exist at the grace of government." He said that rich people get the most benefit from a well-ordered society. That's not a novel point, and not one intelligent people disagree with (there is an ad-hominem argument for you ;) ).

Their benefit is not in the form of SSI payments (which is what you seem to be focused on, presumably because those are tangible and therefore all your pea brain can perceive), but in the form of having roads to ship their widgets and a police force that makes sure their shipment isn't highjacked.

[crb]

Did you really just waste a paragraph on this? Show me inflation numbers that markedly exceed 2.0%, please. Food and energy are equally volatile with or without higher taxes, so I'm pre-emptively banning the use of those price indices alone as evidence.

I said spending, not taxes. High taxes do not create inflation, high spending does (when the government devalues currency to get out of debt).

Why was there a revolution in Egypt, food price inflation was too high. Inflation was happening, you can't be Ben Bernanke and stick your head in the sand and factor out food and fuel, while over counting housing. People pay for food and fuel. The US is in a minority with our administration's position on inflation, the ECB is being very hawkish. Even among the Fed board members there is significant disagreement.

Here:


St. Louis Fed President James Bullard recently attacked the concept of core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices. The “core is rotten,” he argued in a speech last week. “One popular argument for focusing on core inflation is that core inflation is a good predictor of future headline inflation,” he said. “I think this is wrongheaded, as well as wrong.”

http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/bullard/pdf/Measuring_Inflation_May_18_2011_FINAL.pdf

[Bobmuhthol]

High spending creates high taxes, but okay, thanks for trying to correct me.

So you're admitting to inflation not being high (because it's not) and you want to blame government spending for increased food and energy prices. Really cool idea, but it makes no sense.

[Tgo01]

SS is not a tax, it is a forced savings program run by the government on a credit system. Maybe you're too young to get SS statements from the government, never held a real job? The rest of us get yearly statements saying how many credits we've earned, what our benefits would be if we got disabled, how many more credits we need, etc.

It was sold to the American people, and created, under this idea. Income is capped because you only need so much income to qualify for the credits the government has decided are necessary to fund your benefits when you retire.

It's a tax. You receive more than you paid into the system after you retire in a few years. If someone started working in 1960 and retired in the year 2000 and they earned more than the taxable ceiling every year it would take less than 8 years after retirement for that person to receive more than they paid into the system. People who paid less go through their money even faster since there are diminishing returns on how much you receive compared to how much you paid in.

Rather the way it works is the money you are paying right now is funding the program for the people who are currently on social security. When you retire the people paying into the system at that time will be paying for your social security.

Hence it's a tax, not a 'forced savings program.' If it was a 'forced savings program' then people would quickly find their savings dried up after retirement.

[crb]

I can't tell if you're dense or just being obtuse.

I'll assume the former (because it is consistent with everything else you've ever posted) and help you out.

Bob never argued that rich people do better when taxes are high. Or that rich people "exist at the grace of government." He said that rich people get the most benefit from a well-ordered society. That's not a novel point, and not one intelligent people disagree with (there is an ad-hominem argument for you ;) ).

Their benefit is not in the form of SSI payments (which is what you seem to be focused on, presumably because those are tangible and therefore all your pea brain can perceive), but in the form of having roads to ship their widgets and a police force that makes sure their shipment isn't highjacked.

I know it is not a novel point, I see it bandied about by many people arguing for socialist policies.

It is, however, not an intelligent point, nor a point with any basis in fact. No matter how many liberals might spout it.

Take your road argument, which is specious. So you're saying John Smith who owns the trucking company and receives 100% of his income from the trucking company owes his success to the existence of roads, whereas Jack Johnson, a trucker, who receives 100% of his income from his trucking job, is not reliant on roads for his income? Or Bob Richards, who cannot afford to live near his work, so must drive on the roads to get to his work, from which he receives 100% of his income?

All three men require the roads for their livelihood. All three men might have to do something else in the government did not make roads (maybe open a toll road business?)

It seems to me this is a difference in philosophy. You probably, in your heart of hearts, see all money, all economic activity, rightfully belonging to the government, and anything they let the private sector keep is a gift. So, John Smith's gift is bigger, so he owe's more thanks to the government.

I disagree, I see the benefit of an individual's productivity belonging 100% to the individual, and anything the government takes is a gift to them.

John Smith should not be lucky to have the government, the government should be lucky to have productive entrepreneurial people like John Smith, who provide jobs, create businesses, and drive economic growth forward.

This is one of the fundamental philosophical differences between the left and the right.

To the original point, I think inventive, entrepreneurial, innovative, intelligent, hard working people do not owe more thanks to the government, than those who are none of the above. In fact, it is quite the opposite. We should thank people who pay taxes for providing our government with funds to pay for entitlements. Every poor person who rides a bus should thank the local tax payers who subsidize the public transportation system, etc.

[crb]

High spending creates high taxes, but okay, thanks for trying to correct me.

So you're admitting to inflation not being high (because it's not) and you want to blame government spending for increased food and energy prices. Really cool idea, but it makes no sense.

No, congress creates high taxes. Not high spending. You can spend 100% of GDP and tax 0% of GDP if you want.

Using monetary policy to bail out fiscal policy DOES, however, cause inflation.

Commodity prices are on a tear due to the dollar weakening in value, that is a fact. CPI is up over 3% YoY, and individual commodities have gone up far more. These are facts, if you don't believe them, try Google, or watch the news.

[Back]

As far as I can tell no one is arguing to tax people unfairly. Quite the contrary. Flat fair equitable tax for all.

If you want to argue that your taxes are to high compared to other people tell it to someone who gives a fuck.

[crb]

It's a tax. You receive more than you paid into the system after you retire in a few years. If someone started working in 1960 and retired in the year 2000 and they earned more than the taxable ceiling every year it would take less than 8 years after retirement for that person to receive more than they paid into the system. People who paid less go through their money even faster since there are diminishing returns on how much you receive compared to how much you paid in.

Rather the way it works is the money you are paying right now is funding the program for the people who are currently on social security. When you retire the people paying into the system at that time will be paying for your social security.

Hence it's a tax, not a 'forced savings program.' If it was a 'forced savings program' then people would quickly find their savings dried up after retirement.

They do now, hence it is broken. That doesn't change how it is setup, or why it was setup that way. You also have to account for inflation. It is a ponzi scheme, so you're not really paying your own way, you're paying for the previous generation, and the next generation pays for you. As inflation, both normal and egregious, occurs the amount paid in goes up, which accounts for some of your difference.

We also need to do something about the COLAs, and about the retirement age, to reflect increases in longevity and productive years. I didn't say the system was perfect, just that it wasn't in as bad of shape as medicare.

But, it is a savings program based on a credits earning system, that IS a fact. And that is why the income the tax applies to is capped, which is the question you asked. It wasn't a giveaway to the rich, and if you think ~106k is rich, well, you'd be wrong, nor does it need to be changed to fix social security.

[Tgo01]

so you're not really paying your own way, you're paying for the previous generation, and the next generation pays for you.

Pretty much what I just said yes.


We also need to do something about the COLAs

What exactly is wrong with COLAs?


But, it is a savings program based on a credits earning system, that IS a fact. And that is why the income the tax applies to is capped, which is the question you asked. It wasn't a giveaway to the rich, and if you think ~106k is rich, well, you'd be wrong, nor does it need to be changed to fix social security.

No 106k a year isn't rich. Someone making 1 million dollars a year though is and their social security taxes end up being .6% of their income while someone making 50k a year pays 6% of their income. We have already gone over how this is not a 'savings program' so tell me how this makes sense.

[crb]

Your definition of majority uses a different scale then others. I prefer to define majority by the ownership of this country and its assets, not by the number of populace.

When the richest 1% share more wealth then the combined wealth of 90% of the population, I do not think an equal tax system is appropriate. Troubling even more is the increase in this ownership year by year.

If you want to do that, why don't we have voting by assets held then?

Bill Gates being rich, does not make you poor, by the way. His wealth does not decrease your standard of living, nor the rate at which it grows. It is not a zero sum competition. You're getting into realms of straight envy.

[crb]

Pretty much what I just said yes.



What exactly is wrong with COLAs?


They're too high, if you go look at historical data they increase beyond the rate of inflation. At the very least we should means test for COLAs.



No 106k a year isn't rich. Someone making 1 million dollars a year though is and their social security taxes end up being .6% of their income while someone making 50k a year pays 6% of their income. We have already gone over how this is not a 'savings program' so tell me how this makes sense.

The program was created and sold to the people on the basis that there would be a limit on how much you could receive in benefits (not everyone receives the same benefit) and a corresponding limit in how much you pay in. It is one of the fundamental principles of the system. You remove the limit, you change that, and make it more straight wealth redistribution.

You also don't need to do that to balance it. The limit was indexed to inflation, but the age to qualify for benefits was not indexed to life expectancy. That the system is out of wack can probably be attributed to the value that was not indexed to grow yearly.

[Back]

I propose that if the rich keep bitching we tax them more than the middle class. What are they gonna do? Move to China?

[Latrinsorm]

Seatbelts, please. Fasten your seatbelts. Crazy splinter post to follow.
A few weeks ago I posted those charts showing that the "rich" indeed pay a larger portion of the federal tax burden here than in so called socialist European countries. I'm sure you remember the thread.

Europe tax systems tend to have a much broader base than we have here with 51% not paying any federal income taxes. A tax base of only 49% of the population is broke.Aha, but my question was not who had the larger tax burden. It was to what degree a tax rate can be interpreted as rate of taxes paid. As you demonstrate, tax burden is another quantity that cannot be directly determined from tax rate: a larger context (in burden's case broadness of base) is required.
I also will not give them up just to further narrow the base, provide wealth transfer payments, and allow more people, now above average earners, to pay no federal income taxes (we're at 51% now, so any further cuts that allow even more people not to pay federal income taxes would be definition be from above average households).Oh, crb! I am very disappointed. A toy population for you:

2 people make 20 million dollars a year.
98 people make 20 thousand dollars a year.
The average income is therefore (2 * 20m + 98 * 20k) / 100 = 419,600 dollars a year.
98% of this population are therefore below average households.

Now, certainly the American population is not so neat, but I can assure you that it has the same top-heavy flavor.
Rich people need police because without police the masses would rise up and steal all our crap like some post apocalyptic movie? Funny thing about all the post apocalypic movies I've seen, there are still rich people in them. It may be more informative to consider post-apocalyptic scenarios that have occurred in the real world, such as the end of Tsarist Russia or the French Revolution. The aristocrats fared quite poorly in those scenarios.

Now, there is a certain Ostrog flavor to your comments that I agree with, that the empowered masses will inevitably seek out a tyranny, and the tyranny of the rich is a common choice. The key though is that these tyrants are not the same. Stalin behaved like a Tsar, but he was not Tsar Nicholas II. In the context of this discussion, it is presumably of no comfort to Rich Person A that if their civilization falls, in a few years Person B will become Rich. Person A would rather keep on being the Rich, naturally.
Do you realize that no president or congress, no matter how blue they were, or how high they taxed the rich, has ever been able to even get close to 25% of GDP in revenue since we fought Hitler.It's crazy how small corporate taxes have gotten as a percentage of GDP. Maybe a fifth of what they were in the 50s? I'm genuinely interested in how that works.
Sure, if you go back far enough. But that doesn't refute my point, does it. The rich guy was still rich, wasn't he? Rich people don't exist at the grace of a large government.

Go back to the 1800s or early 1900s in the United States. Our government was much smaller, and the rich had far more power, didn't they? Or my name isn't Carnegie Rockerfeller Beetlejuice the Third.

So, there isn't a correlation between size of government and benefit to the rich, is there? And maybe the poor and helpless actually do receive more benefit from the government than the rich? Don't be vapid.There is size of government to consider, but there is also inclination of the government. The laws were dramatically in favor of the rich in that era, and (many of) the rich prospered dramatically at the direct expense of the poor. Government is a vector, it would appear.
So you're saying John Smith who owns the trucking company and receives 100% of his income from the trucking company owes his success to the existence of roads, whereas Jack Johnson, a trucker, who receives 100% of his income from his trucking job, is not reliant on roads for his income?If Jack Johnson loses his trucker job and takes Unskilled Labor Job X, he doesn't lose much. If John Smith loses his trucking company and takes Unskilled Labor Job X, he loses much.
To the original point, I think inventive, entrepreneurial, innovative, intelligent, hard working people do not owe more thanks to the government, than those who are none of the above.I would suggest you left out "lucky", and the addition of that adjective dramatically changes the question of what is earned, deserved, owed, etc.

[Rinualdo]

If you want to do that, why don't we have voting by assets held then?

Bill Gates being rich, does not make you poor, by the way. His wealth does not decrease your standard of living, nor the rate at which it grows. It is not a zero sum competition. You're getting into realms of straight envy.

That is quite fantastic and not at all related to the point at hand. No where in my post or anyone else's that I can see related to a decrease in standard of living.

Is that how you make your arguments? Do you simply respond to any post to whatever drivel enters your head with no thought or rationale to the point being made? Although it may be fun to insert counter-arguments to fictional arguments made, it does nothing to further your point.

I'll try to make the statement simple- % of taxes paid should be based on % of wealth owned, not % of population. That is how I define equality, such as it is.

[Tgo01]

They're too high, if you go look at historical data they increase beyond the rate of inflation.

COLAs are based off of the CPI, close enough.


The program was created and sold to the people on the basis that there would be a limit on how much you could receive in benefits (not everyone receives the same benefit) and a corresponding limit in how much you pay in. It is one of the fundamental principles of the system. You remove the limit, you change that, and make it more straight wealth redistribution.

Let's do away with all 'wealth redistribution' programs while we're at it. Social security, unemployment, low income housing, welfare, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, energy assistance programs, pell grants. That will solve all our problems.

[Keller]

All I got from this thread is that crb has a vault of gold coins.

[Rinualdo]

Scrooge McDuck approves.

[Bobmuhthol]

Take your road argument, which is specious. So you're saying John Smith who owns the trucking company and receives 100% of his income from the trucking company owes his success to the existence of roads, whereas Jack Johnson, a trucker, who receives 100% of his income from his trucking job, is not reliant on roads for his income? Or Bob Richards, who cannot afford to live near his work, so must drive on the roads to get to his work, from which he receives 100% of his income?

All three men require the roads for their livelihood. All three men might have to do something else in the government did not make roads (maybe open a toll road business?)

It seems to me this is a difference in philosophy. You probably, in your heart of hearts, see all money, all economic activity, rightfully belonging to the government, and anything they let the private sector keep is a gift. So, John Smith's gift is bigger, so he owe's more thanks to the government.

There's a correlation I've found in life that the dumbest fucking people I know instinctively throw in apostrophes to words that end in s for absolutely no reason. I've plotted the data and everything. I'm not calling you stupid, but the correlation is there.

On a more relevant note, as has been pointed out, the business owner has the largest opportunity cost of the roads not being there. He makes disproportionately more money than anyone else who uses the roads, so he should pay disproportionately more taxes. And in fact, he does in the United States, so everything's cool.

I like your reading of people's "philosophies," but I am and forever will be in favor of smaller governments, more private activity, lower taxes, and so on. That doesn't change reality. There are people who we keep alive, there are services that we provide, etc., and all of those things cost money. The people with the money to sacrifice should be the ones to do so.


No, congress creates high taxes. Not high spending. You can spend 100% of GDP and tax 0% of GDP if you want.

Using monetary policy to bail out fiscal policy DOES, however, cause inflation.

If you really believe that there is a chance of the United States borrowing $15 trillion and collecting no tax revenue then you are totally right and I believe you.

Using monetary policy DOES NOT cause inflation, and that's why we use monetary policy to maintain inflation.

[Bobmuhthol]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif A 62% Top Tax Rate? (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1293685#post1293685) 05-31-2011 03:26 PM If only you had any real life experience and realized half the shit you "learn" in college is bullshit, I might actually take you seriously.

Four years ago I expect I'd get the same rep, except it would say high school instead of college and would address any point that I made exactly as much.

[TheEschaton]

Maybe we should get all our facts from stocking shelves at Walmart and reading blatantly obvious right wing op-eds, instead of our "educations" where a FULL HALF of the stuff we learn is bullshit.

[Rinualdo]

TheBlaze disapproves :(

[~Rocktar~]

No one pays federal income tax of 58% and no one is proposing a federal income tax of 58%. This cocksucker added in the full 12.6% payroll tax and then compared it to the federal income tax rate. Yeah, when you add things that aren't federal income tax to the existing federal income tax, you get a bigger number.

Anyone persuaded by this is fucking retarded.

I am pretty sure that he didn't limit his argument to income tax, he said Federal tax on your income. While payroll taxes are not, labeled an "income tax" they are based on income and are part of your total tax burden at the Federal level. You might want to try some reading comprehension once in a while.

[~Rocktar~]

I guess we're done with the rational discussion part of this thread? Ok. See you next time.

Yes we were, once your first post was made.

[~Rocktar~]

You got your e-dick wet.

No reason to be ashamed, bro.

Guess you can't read, but hey, that isn't anything new. Keep being useless, WB needs a break once in a while.

[Bobmuhthol]

I am pretty sure that he didn't limit his argument to income tax, he said Federal tax on your income.

Sure, and then he compared it to the highest marginal federal income tax and tried to shock people by saying tax1 + tax2 > tax1.

[Bobmuhthol]

I am pretty sure that he didn't limit his argument to income tax, he said Federal tax on your income. While payroll taxes are not, labeled an "income tax" they are based on income and are part of your total tax burden at the Federal level. You might want to try some reading comprehension once in a while.


If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.

You might want to try sucking a dick.

[~Rocktar~]

You might want to try sucking a dick.

One day you might join reality, I hope you survive. You do seem to have this dick fetish kind of thing going so maybe you and Keller should hook up.

[Keller]

One day you might join reality, I hope you survive. You do seem to have this dick fetish kind of thing going so maybe you and Keller should hook up.

There are people who can make gay jokes on the PC.

You're not one of them.

Anyone that has knowingly roleplayed hypno-lactation bondage with another dude just isn't allowed that type of latitude. At least not without mockery.

[crb]

I don't have time to keep doing this, I have to count my gold coins, but I wanted to correct two things...



Using monetary policy DOES NOT cause inflation, and that's why we use monetary policy to maintain inflation.


Yes. It. Does. What do you think happens when you vastly increase the money supply? You have more currency chasing the same amount of goods, which is the textbook cause of inflation. I said using monetary policy to bail out fiscal policy causes inflation, that is as immutable a fact as the sun rising in the east. That you would dispute it shows how wasteful I was with my time earlier by bothering to respond to you at all.

When government fiscal policy runs a deficit it has four options to correct it.

1. Raise taxes (and hope it doesn't hurt growth). Aka tax your way out of debt.
2. Cut spending (and hope it doesn't hurt growth). Aka cut your way out of debt.
3. Pray the economy grows really fast. Aka grow your way out of debt.
4. Use monetary policy to bail you out. Aka debase your currency, aka print money, aka quantitative easing. Aka inflate your way out of it.

#4 Causes inflation. That is a fact.

Then I wanted to respond to this:



Oh, crb! I am very disappointed. A toy population for you:

2 people make 20 million dollars a year.
98 people make 20 thousand dollars a year.
The average income is therefore (2 * 20m + 98 * 20k) / 100 = 419,600 dollars a year.
98% of this population are therefore below average households.


???? What does that mean? I said, that 51% of households pay no federal income taxes, so any new households paying no income taxes would be, by definition, above average. I'm not talking about an average like how you can drown in a river with an average depth of 2 inches. This isn't theoretical. I don't mean people in the 51st income percentile don't pay federal income taxes. It isn't about income, it isn't an income percentage, it is a population percentage. 51% of households pay no federal income tax as of this year.



If Jack Johnson loses his trucker job and takes Unskilled Labor Job X, he doesn't lose much. If John Smith loses his trucking company and takes Unskilled Labor Job X, he loses much.

Percentage wise, they lose the same, all of their income.

Different story problem. John and Jack are both truckers working for a trucking company making 45,000 a year. Using your specious logic the money they earn is a gift from the government for providing them with roads to drive on (nevermind the fact that if the government did not exist, roads would be made, and in fact are made privately where government does not meet a need. They're called toll roads, and are generally nice roads to drive on) (also nevermind gas taxes, which both truckers would pay, which are in fact tolls for driving). Nevermind that... so these people owe their livelihood to the government.

Jack is content, he has no further ambition, and isn't that bright either. John is the opposite, he is diligent, ambitious, and entrepreneurial. Jack clocks in and out and turns in his logs and that is in. John doesn't, John tries to learn as much as possible about the business.

Eventually, John starts his own trucking business and his income rises to $90,000. That $45,000 in incremental income is thanks to the government providing roads still? If it is from the government, why did Jack not get it as well? If all our work effort is by the grace of the government why aren't we all equally paid then? We all have the same government, don't we? Why did Jack not get a trucking company like John did?

Could it be, that the greater success John achieved is a result of his own merits, not the government? Does John owe his success relative to Jack to government roads? Or to his merits? Does John really depend more on the government and have more need for the government than Jack, or Bob the dropout?

Saying successful people receive more from the government because they're successful is specious, and utterly disregards the value of individual merit. Luckily, we're not in a communist system, no matter how some may wish it.

Tell me the rich should pay the lion's share of taxes because they can afford to do so and you'll have a far stronger argument than telling me that the rich should pay more because they owe it to the government for the "greater benefit" they derive.

[Bobmuhthol]

Yes. It. Does. What do you think happens when you vastly increase the money supply? You have more currency chasing the same amount of goods, which is the textbook cause of inflation. I said using monetary policy to bail out fiscal policy causes inflation, that is as immutable a fact as the sun rising in the east. That you would dispute it shows how wasteful I was with my time earlier by bothering to respond to you at all.

This is extremely misleading. The Fed used monetary policy to stop deflation, and you're implying that this is a bad thing. Additionally, "monetary policy" is not "increasing the money supply." Fiscal policy does not go in one direction, and neither does anything else.

[Bobmuhthol]

They're called toll roads, and are generally nice roads to drive on

What fucking country do you live in? Every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road.

[~Rocktar~]

There are people who can make gay jokes on the PC.

You're not one of them.

Anyone that has knowingly roleplayed hypno-lactation bondage with another dude just isn't allowed that type of latitude. At least not without mockery.

Well, since I haven't done such, I pretty sure I'm in the clear. But hey, you and others never let facts get in the way of your fantasy realm before so I don't expect you to now. Keep it up, WB is enjoying his vacation.

[~Rocktar~]

What fucking country do you live in? Every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road.

You don't get out much, we know.

[Bobmuhthol]

Eventually, John starts his own trucking business and his income rises to $90,000. That $45,000 in incremental income is thanks to the government providing roads still? If it is from the government, why did Jack not get it as well? If all our work effort is by the grace of the government why aren't we all equally paid then? We all have the same government, don't we? Why did Jack not get a trucking company like John did?

You're projecting your deep and obvious anger with the government onto everyone else. No one is even coming close to the arguments you make, and yet your counterargument to everyone is the same irrelevant one.

[Parkbandit]

What fucking country do you live in? Every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road.

It might be because you've only had your license for a couple of years... there are plenty of non-federal roads with tolls.

One is located 2 miles from my house... STATE Road 589... otherwise known as the Veterans Expressway.

[Rinualdo]

What fucking country do you live in? Every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road.

There are many non-federal toll roads.

[Bobmuhthol]

You people live in undeveloped areas apparently, because there are absolutely zero of them in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Edit: There are some state portions that are separate from the interstate highways but the point is that they're not privately owned.

[Parkbandit]

You people live in undeveloped areas apparently, because there are absolutely zero of them in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Edit: There are some state portions that are separate from the interstate highways but the point is that they're not privately owned.

State isn't Federal. Big difference.

Civics 101.

[Bobmuhthol]

Yes I understand that, but what I said was accurate (I still haven't paid a toll that wasn't on an interstate highway), and I was responding to the notion that there is some expansive system of privately owned toll roads (not within 100 miles of me).

[Apathy]

What about the troll toll?

[Parkbandit]

Yes I understand that, but what I said was accurate (I still haven't paid a toll that wasn't on an interstate highway), and I was responding to the notion that there is some expansive system of privately owned toll roads (not within 100 miles of me).

Do you even know what the term "accurate" means?


What fucking country do you live in? Every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road.

Not accurate, as illustrated above.

[Bobmuhthol]

No, it is accurate -- every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road. How can you even begin to try to argue that with me?

[Latrinsorm]

???? What does that mean? I said, that 51% of households pay no federal income taxes, so any new households paying no income taxes would be, by definition, above average. I'm not talking about an average like how you can drown in a river with an average depth of 2 inches. This isn't theoretical. I don't mean people in the 51st income percentile don't pay federal income taxes. It isn't about income, it isn't an income percentage, it is a population percentage. 51% of households pay no federal income tax as of this year. What are you averaging, that a particular household can be above that average? You say not income - ok, I believe you. What then?
Percentage wise, they lose the same, all of their income.If you like, yes, they both lost all of their income before they took their new jobs. Then Jack gained perhaps 90% of it back, and John gained perhaps 20% of it. Who has lost more? The guy who lost 10%, or the guy who lost 80%? Which number is bigger?
Different story problem. John and Jack are both truckers working for a trucking company making 45,000 a year. Using your specious logic the money they earn is a gift from the government for providing them with roads to drive on (nevermind the fact that if the government did not exist, roads would be made, and in fact are made privately where government does not meet a need. They're called toll roads, and are generally nice roads to drive on) (also nevermind gas taxes, which both truckers would pay, which are in fact tolls for driving). Nevermind that... so these people owe their livelihood to the government.I encourage you to specifically describe what logic you think I am using. I have not claimed that anything is a gift. I am only comparing who has more to lose given a certain change of environment. I do not care at all what the people who stand to lose should feel because of this, or how they attained what they have. Who has more to lose? That is it. The rest of your question follows from this odd interpretation, so I will wait for you to correct it before continuing.

Now, you seem to be very caught up in this concept of what is "owed". You repeatedly challenge the claim that a person receives their success from the government. What makes this strange is that no one has made that claim. I'm not going to speculate on where this is coming from, but I would encourage you in the interests of dialog to reconsider what people of my ilk are saying.

In closing, consider this crude analogy. You receive your biological life from your biological mother and father. You continue to enjoy that life only in an environment with sufficient oxygen, water, food, etc. In this analogy, the government is not the biological parents - that which generates the life. The government is the environment - that necessary to sustain it. Please do not read any further into or otherwise extend this analogy. There are no further implications to it. It is meant only to help you get pass your confused reading of my position.

[~Rocktar~]

Yes I understand that, but what I said was accurate (I still haven't paid a toll that wasn't on an interstate highway), and I was responding to the notion that there is some expansive system of privately owned toll roads (not within 100 miles of me).

Expansive, no, but they are out there and there are a fair number of them. By your logic, if you haven't seen something in person, it doesn't exist, right, so how about the dark side of the moon, or perhaps Mongolia? Do you see how absurd your assertion is based of anecdotal personal experience, which you love to rail on other people about? Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_toll_roads_in_the_United_States

[Bobmuhthol]

I'll go back to my usual response about people who try to explain something by "someone else's logic": you don't know what logic means, and I never made a logical connection that would imply that nothing can exist unless I've seen it. How fucking useful is it to say, "Hey, there are these great roads you can take, as long as you don't mind that none of them are where you're going"? It's none useful.

Do you see how absurd it is that you make connections that aren't there, you fucking idiot?

[Bobmuhthol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_toll_roads_in_the_United_States)

Count the number of those that are not operated by the government, please.

[Parkbandit]

No, it is accurate -- every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road. How can you even begin to try to argue that with me?

Yea, you are right. I misread your statement.

[~Rocktar~]

What fucking country do you live in? Every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road.

Remember this argument Bob?

Your argument was about Federal toll roads and a strong implication that the only toll roads that exist are Federal. You were wrong deal with it. You then try and change your argument into a mess about private toll roads which is simply a distraction from your original mistake. And then, on top of it all you go off on how I make these leaps and put words in your mouth when I simply point out your inane original argument based on anecdotal personal experience.

There are loads of private roads out there, the issue then becomes that most of them are restricted to the use of those that made them because they are on private property. Just look at all the mining, logging, construction and farming roads for examples. No, they aren't toll roads because if enough people want a road, the government tends to put one in, or if one is made, take it over with eminent domain.

[Cephalopod]

No, it is accurate -- every toll I've ever paid has been on a federal road. How can you even begin to try to argue that with me?

Ever cross the Tobin bridge?

[Keller]

Remember this argument Bob?

Your argument was about Federal toll roads and I misread you to be saying that the only toll roads that exist are Federal. I was wrong, deal with it.

FTFY

[Rinualdo]

Saw this roll across today.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

[Parkbandit]

Say this roll across today.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

So wait, this guy is using the measure of total federal income tax revenue as compared to GDP?

[Rinualdo]

So wait, this guy is using the measure of total federal income tax revenue as compared to GDP?

He was an economic advisor to Reagan.
I'm not an economist, so I'm unsure how accurate this statement is

Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

Its certainly an interesting article, particularly the table on taxes of corporate income as compared to gdp, as compared to other countries.

edit: Also this part relevant to the original debate point:


For example, Stephen Moore of The Wall Street Journal recently asserted that Democrats were trying to raise the top income tax rate to 62 percent from 35 percent. But most of the difference between these two rates is the payroll tax and state taxes that are already in existence. The rest consists largely of assuming tax increases that no one has formally proposed and that would be politically impossible to enact at the present time.

[Parkbandit]

He was an economic advisor to Reagan.
I'm not an economist, so I'm unsure how accurate this statement is


How does that measurement counter the assertion that the top tax rate is too high?

If anything, it highlights the problem that is addressed with our current tax system.. that 51% of the population pays nothing.

[Rinualdo]

How does that measurement counter the assertion that the top tax rate is too high?

If anything, it highlights the problem that is addressed with our current tax system.. that 51% of the population pays nothing.

Or that we pay the lowest corporate tax rate as compared to gdp then any other country?

[Bobmuhthol]

There are loads of private roads out there, the issue then becomes that most of them are restricted to the use of those that made them because they are on private property. Just look at all the mining, logging, construction and farming roads for examples. No, they aren't toll roads because if enough people want a road, the government tends to put one in, or if one is made, take it over with eminent domain.

Thanks for making my argument for me: the government operates almost every road.

[Bobmuhthol]

Ever cross the Tobin bridge?

If you know anything about me, it's that I fucking hate driving in Boston, so no.

[Parkbandit]

Thanks for making my argument for me: the government operates almost every road.

Seriously? You are still making the argument that YOU have never paid a toll that was not on a federal road?

AWESOME!!!!

Seriously though, it's a stupid argument. Let it go...

[Parkbandit]

Or that we pay the lowest corporate tax rate as compared to gdp then any other country?

I'm fine with that... argue that then. Your argument that the total tax revenue as a percent of GDP shows that the top tax rate is too low is retarded though.

[Bobmuhthol]

So wait, this guy is using the measure of total federal income tax revenue as compared to GDP?

Total federal tax receipts (as compared to strictly personal income, for clarity) as a share of income, yes. What is significant about this?

[Bobmuhthol]

Seriously? You are still making the argument that YOU have never paid a toll that was not on a federal road?

AWESOME!!!!

Seriously though, it's a stupid argument. Let it go...

No, actually, the post you quoted had nothing to do with my experience; and I'm not the one perpetuating the discussion of who owns the roads because I'm not the one who's fucking retarded enough not to understand it (see Rocktar).

[Rinualdo]

I'm fine with that... argue that then. Your argument that the total tax revenue as a percent of GDP shows that the top tax rate is too low is retarded though.

I don't believe I've made any argument in this thread one way or another.

[~Rocktar~]

Nice article. I particularly like the focus on corporate burden vs GDP which has nothing to do with if the rate is too high. Since a massive amount of our GDP is produced by "small business" and not always subject to corporate taxes, that would tend to skew the chart. In addition, the author uses this lovely chart of burden vs GDP as a measure of tax rate and it is not. If a corporation is taxed 20% in France and 30% in the US, which tax rate is higher? (fake made up numbers so don't have an aneurysm) Since corporations look at over all tax paid and tax rate comes into that, they pretty much don't give a shit what the total percent of taxes vs GDP is, only what they pay and so the tax rate matters.

Nice distraction since the article that has not one damn thing to do with personal income tax rate or over all personal tax burden and ignores glaring holes in the data for corporate tax rates.

[Rinualdo]

Perhaps you would prefer this article then.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_62_percent_tax_rate_wsj.php

[Rinualdo]

Nice article. I particularly like the focus on corporate burden vs GDP which has nothing to do with if the rate is too high. .

From the article for emphasis
They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.

[Bobmuhthol]

If a corporation is taxed 20% in France and 30% in the US, which tax rate is higher? (fake made up numbers so don't have an aneurysm) Since corporations look at over all tax paid and tax rate comes into that, they pretty much don't give a shit what the total percent of taxes vs GDP is, only what they pay and so the tax rate matters.

Are you fucking retarded?


In addition, the author uses this lovely chart of burden vs GDP as a measure of tax rate and it is not.

You're confirmed retarded.

[Parkbandit]

Perhaps you would prefer this article then.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_62_percent_tax_rate_wsj.php

That article actually speaks about this thread.. which is fine. At least you are comparing apples to apples.. and not just linking an article that has the word "tax" in it and believing it has anything to do with the discussion in this thread.

[TheEschaton]

Whether a toll road is a state toll road or a federal toll road, the premise is the same - *a* government operates it, and, as it pertains to the original argument about the rich benefiting most from stable government, whether the state is keeping the stability of the roads or the federal government is irrelevant.

So good job burying the lead there, Rocktar and PB. The original point remains unchanged.

[~Rocktar~]

Nice article there. I particularly like this line:


Hey, throw enough stuff against the wall and something’s going to stick.

Which applies to any and every newspaper and news program out there. The only difference is, there are a hell of a lot more Liberal/Socialist rags out there throwing more shit against the wall than any other POV.

Oh, and theE, the original point does still stand, tax rates on those already paying the most are rising and too many people are paying nothing or even less than nothing. When Rome ran out of places to conquer and rob to support it's welfare state, it collapsed. If the sacred cows are not slaughtered, the US will too.

[Tgo01]

Oh, and theE, the original point does still stand, tax rates on those already paying the most are rising and too many people are paying nothing or even less than nothing. When Rome ran out of places to conquer and rob to support it's welfare state, it collapsed.

Oh is that why Rome fell?

[Keller]

Oh is that why Rome fell?

According to the chain email Rocktar forwarded to me. Yes.

[~Rocktar~]

According to the chain email Rocktar forwarded to me. Yes.

You only wish you were on my list.

[Keller]

:help:

[Rinualdo]

I think Rocktar jumped the shark on this one.


Again.

[Warriorbird]

You only wish you were on my list.

What type of list is it exactly?

[Parkbandit]

What type of list is it exactly?

I would guess an email list...



According to the chain email Rocktar forwarded to me. Yes.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The conclusions drawn from my statement that I feel I pay too much in taxes is amazing.


Taxation is totally based around the benefits you personally receive I hear.

When voicing your opinion on the tax law and it's benefits or lack of benefits to yourself, who would you base that opinion on? This should be entertaining.


Food for thought: without a stable government and society and generally safe living conditions, you would make significantly less money than you do now. The cost of being afforded the ability to make a lot of money is represented by higher taxes.

Since we are playing hypothetical’s, were the government unstable and society and living conditions generally unsafe, I'd take to selling water from the natural well I discovered which hosts the only safe drinking water for miles and miles. Then, when I possessed the last known copy of the Bible I would hold all the power, increasing my personal net worth exponentially. As supreme ruler I, obviously, would not pay taxes - high OR low.

Your move!

But seriously, I think the significantly wealthy should pay more in taxes, but I honestly feel it should go down as wealth increases dramatically. If I net a billion dollars in a year, I don't believe the government should get a larger percent of it just because I'm rich. In terms of contribution I think once you've hit some level, there should be diminished returns in terms of contribution. In other words, as a percent of income it might reduce, but overall contribution increases. Clearly a simple example but this is kind of what I mean -

Income $1k - Taxes paid $100 or 10%
Income $10k - Taxes paid $1500 or 15%
.
.
.
Income $500k - Taxes paid $150k or 30%
Income $1M - Taxes paid $290k or 29%
Income $10M – Taxes paid $2.5M or 25%
Income $100M – Taxes paid $25M or 25%
.
.

I haven't done any significant math on it and arbitrarily used $1m as my demarcation for the diminished returns, but you get the idea. Contribution increases while percent goes down, and at some point, percent becomes flat. Let's just say, $10M or more all pay 25% or something.

The numbers are examples only, don't fixate on them. I believe those with more should pay more, but not on a linear scale. It’s not a stretch from today’s plan, and you could code the tax law onto a single sheet of paper, not 5000. Again, I’m oversimplifying, but you get my point I hope.

Anyway, all of this is wasted time – changing our tax law would be monumental – akin to universal healthcare, our current political system will not let this occur.

[TheEschaton]

The top tax rate already does flatten out. Everyone in the top bracket pays 35%, 38% if we let the Bush tax cuts expire (which we haven't).

[Warriorbird]

When voicing your opinion on the tax law and it's benefits or lack of benefits to yourself, who would you base that opinion on? This should be entertaining.
]

Interesting attempt to frame things. I'd look at a slightly broader view of what benefits or lack of benefits to myself are.

I'd have already realized that we don't base taxes off individual happiness. Possessing the idea means you'd fit in quite well with the sovereign citizen movement.

[Latrinsorm]

But seriously, I think the significantly wealthy should pay more in taxes, but I honestly feel it should go down as wealth increases dramatically. If I net a billion dollars in a year, I don't believe the government should get a larger percent of it just because I'm rich. In terms of contribution I think once you've hit some level, there should be diminished returns in terms of contribution. In other words, as a percent of income it might reduce, but overall contribution increases. Clearly a simple example but this is kind of what I mean -

Income $1k - Taxes paid $100 or 10%
Income $10k - Taxes paid $1500 or 15%
.
.
.
Income $500k - Taxes paid $150k or 30%
Income $1M - Taxes paid $290k or 29%
Income $10M – Taxes paid $2.5M or 25%
Income $100M – Taxes paid $25M or 25%
.
.

I haven't done any significant math on it and arbitrarily used $1m as my demarcation for the diminished returns, but you get the idea. Contribution increases while percent goes down, and at some point, percent becomes flat. Let's just say, $10M or more all pay 25% or something.

The numbers are examples only, don't fixate on them. I believe those with more should pay more, but not on a linear scale. It’s not a stretch from today’s plan, and you could code the tax law onto a single sheet of paper, not 5000. Again, I’m oversimplifying, but you get my point I hope.I don't believe I've seen a proposal like this before. Can you elaborate on why you think it's a good idea?

[Bobmuhthol]

In order for the average tax rate to decrease, the marginal tax rate must also decrease, and that's inherently regressive (granted, we're talking about people who can certainly afford it anyway). Taxing the slightly wealthy at a higher rate than the mega wealthy doesn't make sense to me, but that's because I would never consider tax burden in terms of dollars instead of percent. I just don't think that the tax rate should increase, peak somewhere, and then decrease for people who make more money than the peak.

[4a6c1]

This thread is goddamn hilarious. I love you all. I'm going to go make popcorn and then read read read!