Whitehouse.gov Tax Comparison To Millionares

[Buckwheet]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule

So I am confused as to what to put in here, but here is what I entered. I pulled my 2011 taxes and I entered in my "Taxable Income" amount listed on the return along with "Total Tax". It gave me a rate of 20%.

The site said that 48,700 millionaires payed an effective rate of less than that.

If I put in my adjusted gross income I get 15% effective tax rate. And it says 28,100 millionaires payed less than that as well.

I calculate my effective tax rate at like 16% when I add in state taxes. Where the hell is this site getting these numbers from?

[WRoss]

http://memecrunch.com/meme/5AF/aliens-meme/image.png

[Jarvan]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule

So I am confused as to what to put in here, but here is what I entered. I pulled my 2011 taxes and I entered in my "Taxable Income" amount listed on the return along with "Total Tax". It gave me a rate of 20%.

The site said that 48,700 millionaires payed an effective rate of less than that.

If I put in my adjusted gross income I get 15% effective tax rate. And it says 28,100 millionaires payed less than that as well.

I calculate my effective tax rate at like 16% when I add in state taxes. Where the hell is this site getting these numbers from?

They make it up as they go along.

Just like those websites that you enter your name in and it says you have like $82,431.93 waiting to be claimed.

Wait.. you thought a Government website would use REAL numbers?

[Kembal]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule

So I am confused as to what to put in here, but here is what I entered. I pulled my 2011 taxes and I entered in my "Taxable Income" amount listed on the return along with "Total Tax". It gave me a rate of 20%.

The site said that 48,700 millionaires payed an effective rate of less than that.

If I put in my adjusted gross income I get 15% effective tax rate. And it says 28,100 millionaires payed less than that as well.

I calculate my effective tax rate at like 16% when I add in state taxes. Where the hell is this site getting these numbers from?

The IRS. It publishes a report looking at tax distribution every year for a tax year 2 to 3 years prior. I think the most recent one is 2009, which is what's being cited on the website.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Well... if you put your income, and zero in taxes, it still says 5,700 millionaires paid less than zero...

[Ryvicke]

Well... if you put your income, and zero in taxes, it still says 5,700 millionaires paid less than zero...

That means they got paid.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It also doesn't let you put 18k and then -3k for EIC in the income tax paid line...

[Warriorbird]

It also doesn't let you put 18k and then -3k for EIC in the income tax paid line...

Because you're not at all about class warfare. Hate those poor people some more. "Your bigotry is showing."

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That means they got paid.

Or it could mean it's just a flawed, fluff tool meant to sway public opinion via viral adoption. The text of the site says nothing about millionaires getting money back.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Because you're not at all about class warfare. Hate those poor people some more. "Your bigotry is showing."

Awww, did I touch a nerve correctly pointing out your personal issues?

[Warriorbird]

Awww, did I touch a nerve correctly pointing out your personal issues?

I dunno. Not my tax bracket. You've still got that I can't look back or the people I rose from might get me so I'll vote the best I can to fuck everybody else up sheen though.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I dunno. Not my tax bracket. You've still got that I can't look back or the people I rose from might get me so I'll vote the best I can to fuck everybody else up sheen though.

Oh, now I understand. You hate people who work hard. That makes perfect sense given the majority of your posts.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Also, you should know that I'm not against the premise of the Buffet proposal. I think the loopholes should be removed.

[Warriorbird]

Oh, now I understand. You hate people who work hard. That makes perfect sense given the majority of your posts.

No. People who don't want anybody else to do well (like you) get some ire. I'm doing okay. 66,800 millionaires paid a lower federal tax rate than me.


Also, you should know that I'm not against the premise of the Buffet proposal. I think the loopholes should be removed.

All of your party pledged to Grover Norquist that removing loopholes was "tax increases." You might want to take it up with them.

[Ryvicke]

Or it could mean it's just a flawed, fluff tool meant to sway public opinion via viral adoption. The text of the site says nothing about millionaires getting money back.

Are you under the impression that the IRS keeping tax records is partisan? I'm sorry to blow your and Buckwheet's minds but these numbers are nothing new. You could even get them when W. was president!

Is it wrong for facts to sway public opinion?

[Ryvicke]

Oh, now I understand. You hate people who work hard. That makes perfect sense given the majority of your posts.

LOL you're actually the first person I've ever heard parrot PB's troll signature like it was fact.

[Buckwheet]

Are you under the impression that the IRS keeping tax records is partisan? I'm sorry to blow your and Buckwheet's minds but these numbers are nothing new. You could even get them when W. was president!

Is it wrong for facts to sway public opinion?

You are not blowing my mind at all. I want to know how the hell they are getting 20% when I am getting 16% which includes state taxes. It could just be fluff like people said, but I would like to think people are not that much of a moron to put this much bad propaganda out there. I could be naive tho!

I do my god damn hardest to limit my overall tax liability to 15%. This past year I fell just a little short. But I didn't pay no 20%.

[Wrathbringer]

This is the thing about Obama: He's smart enough to realize almost every problem, but then not smart enough to realize his "solutions" only exacerbate those problems (or he has an agenda). The Buffet rule is good campaign rhetoric for the masses who don't really care about politics or economics, but the additional tax revenue it would generate isn't enough to make any real difference no matter how you look at it when you consider the record rate at which he's spending/printing/borrowing/debasing our currency in spite of the so called "stalemate" between the house and the senate. He's already spent in four years what Bush spent in 8. Taking Warren's money won't even put a dent in that.

Edit: The only thing the Buffet rule does is help the masses feel better about being over taxed. "Well, at least now the rich will be over taxed too, so at least it's fair." Class warfare. It might get him re-elected, but it solves nothing.

[Parkbandit]

This is the thing about Obama: He's smart enough to realize almost every problem, but then not smart enough to realize his "solutions" only exacerbate those problems (or he has an agenda). The Buffet rule is good campaign rhetoric for the masses who don't really care about politics or economics, but the additional tax revenue it would generate isn't enough to make any real difference no matter how you look at it when you consider the record rate at which he's spending/printing/borrowing/debasing our currency in spite of the so called "stalemate" between the house and the senate. He's already spent in four years what Bush spent in 8. Taking Warren's money won't even put a dent in that.

Edit: The only thing the Buffet rule does is help the masses feel better about being over taxed. "Well, at least now the rich will be over taxed too, so at least it's fair." Class warfare. It might get him re-elected, but it solves nothing.

Solves nothing?? How dare you!

If this rule becomes law, it will actually pay the interest on our debt for 4 whole days every year. That's 4 days of interest we no longer have to worry about.

It's a pretty big deal.

[Wrathbringer]

Solves nothing?? How dare you!

If this rule becomes law, it will actually pay the interest on our debt for 4 whole days every year. That's 4 days of interest we no longer have to worry about.

It's a pretty big deal.

ha! To put it another way, I just read that the additional tax revenue will not even equal what the government spends in one day. This "fairness" and "doing their fair share" talk smacks of fascism, and that's disturbing, at least to me.

Edit: Obama even admits that this initiative is not about the money. It's about the "principle." The guy is brazenly promoting a fascist ideology. It's time to admit that he's not stupid. The man has an agenda.

[Ryvicke]

ha! To put it another way, I just read that the additional tax revenue will not even equal what the government spends in one day. This "fairness" and "doing their fair share" talk smacks of fascism, and that's disturbing, at least to me.

Edit: Obama even admits that this initiative is not about the money. It's about the "principle." The guy is brazenly promoting a fascist ideology. It's time to admit that he's not stupid. The man has an agenda.

I'd be interested to see your source on the "millionaire tax=1 day of gov't operation."

After you grab me that you can head out to the library and pick up a fucking book about what fascism is. While you're there see if they also have a book on socialism (UNLESS OBAMA ALREADY PULLED THEM ALL)--and as always, be sure to grab a big fat dictionary so you can look up all the words you don't know the meaning of but still use regularly.

[Wrathbringer]

I'd be interested to see your source on the "millionaire tax=1 day of gov't operation."

After you grab me that you can head out to the library and pick up a fucking book about what fascism is. While you're there see if they also have a book on socialism (UNLESS OBAMA ALREADY PULLED THEM ALL)--and as always, be sure to grab a big fat dictionary so you can look up all the words you don't know the meaning of but still use regularly.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/12/obama-willing-to-risk-accusations-socialism-for-chance-to-whack-romneys-wealth/

Not that I expect it to make any difference in your views.

fas⋅cism   [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

And for good measure:

so⋅cial⋅ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I stand behind my statements.

[Ryvicke]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/12/obama-willing-to-risk-accusations-socialism-for-chance-to-whack-romneys-wealth/

Not that I expect it to make any difference in your views.

fas⋅cism   [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

And for good measure:

so⋅cial⋅ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I stand behind my statements.

It was brave of you to post the link to the Fox News article that you just parroted here as your own "statement." Admitting you just slurp up whatever they write and then repeat it here is rare--PB's too smart to do that.

but also lol--you post two definitions that have absolutely no basis in reality and then you "stand behind" them? Are you pretending that you can't read?

[Wrathbringer]

Actually, I posted my first post, then took a dump. While there, I read the fox news article, then returned and posted in response to PB. So in reality Fox News must be parroting me.

Secondly, I did not say Obama was a full fledged fascist. I said that his "fairness" and "doing their fair share" smacked of fascism and that he was promoting a fascist ideology. That is to say that I believe his policies, followed to their logical conclusion, necessarily lead to fascism. If you disagree, and you obviously do, I'm okay with that.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, I posted my first post, then took a dump. While there, I read the fox news article, then returned and posted in response to PB. So in reality Fox News must be parroting me.

Secondly, I did not say Obama was a full fledged fascist. I said that his "fairness" and "doing their fair share" smacked of fascism and that he was promoting a fascist ideology. That is to say that I believe his policies, followed to their logical conclusion, necessarily lead to fascism. If you disagree, and you obviously do, I'm okay with that.

This is about as acceptable as liberals saying George Bush was a fascist. Does this even register with you? It insults the country and the memory and reality of all the people who fought to stop fascism.

[Wrathbringer]

This is about as acceptable as liberals saying George Bush was a fascist. Does this even register with you? It insults the country and the memory and reality of all the people who fought to stop fascism.

I have no beef with that, WB. Given the attack on personal liberties with the Patriot Act, I can understand that sentiment. I think his heart was in the right place, but his method can be accurately described as fascist. Wouldn't you agree?

[Atlanteax]

Some stuff George W did could be perceived as fascist (Patriot Act being an example), Obama also did some things that can be perceived as fascist (Obamacare as an example).

The sad reality is that in the modern age, the Executive Branch has more potential to be 'fascist' (with help from Legislative), due to how the Media is a very ingrained part of everyday lives (we went from telephones/radio to TV/internet ... and iPod/Andriod/Blackberries are 'anywhere anytime' now).

Can only imagine how dangerous someone like Joseph Goebbels could be now.

[Latrinsorm]

ha! To put it another way, I just read that the additional tax revenue will not even equal what the government spends in one day. This "fairness" and "doing their fair share" talk smacks of fascism, and that's disturbing, at least to me.

Edit: Obama even admits that this initiative is not about the money. It's about the "principle." The guy is brazenly promoting a fascist ideology. It's time to admit that he's not stupid. The man has an agenda.Let us consider your definition point by point:

1. a governmental system
2. led by a dictator having complete power
3. forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism
4. regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.
5. and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

I'll give you (1). Which of (2-5) do you think slightly increasing the tax rate on millionaires falls under?
Some stuff George W did could be perceived as fascist (Patriot Act being an example), Obama also did some things that can be perceived as fascist (Obamacare as an example).

The sad reality is that in the modern age, the Executive Branch has more potential to be 'fascist' (with help from Legislative), due to how the Media is a very ingrained part of everyday lives (we went from telephones/radio to TV/internet ... and iPod/Andriod/Blackberries are 'anywhere anytime' now).

Can only imagine how dangerous someone like Joseph Goebbels could be now.Propaganda only really works when you can control the media, hence gleichschaltung. Bloggers have no headquarters to occupy with brownshirts, no party leaders to throw in concentration camps. Your only option (as a hypothetical fascist) is to shut down the internet entirely, and as we have seen even that isn't terribly effective.

[Wrathbringer]

Let us consider your definition point by point:

1. a governmental system
2. led by a dictator having complete power
3. forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism
4. regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.
5. and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

I'll give you (1). Which of (2-5) do you think slightly increasing the tax rate on millionaires falls under?Propaganda only really works when you can control the media, hence gleichschaltung. Bloggers have no headquarters to occupy with brownshirts, no party leaders to throw in concentration camps. Your only option (as a hypothetical fascist) is to shut down the internet entirely, and as we have seen even that isn't terribly effective.

If he were wanting to increasing taxes to achieve an economic goal, that would be one thing. By his own admission, that's not what he's doing. He's increasing taxes in the interest of what he perceives as "fairness" to "ensure that everyone is doing their fair share." He's not just raising taxes. He's promoting an ideology where he decides what a "fair share" is exactly and then implements his "solution." I would submit that perhaps the rich are already paying their fair share and that the rest of us are over taxed? Again, I did not call him a fascist. See post #24.

[ClydeR]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule

So I am confused as to what to put in here, but here is what I entered. I pulled my 2011 taxes and I entered in my "Taxable Income" amount listed on the return along with "Total Tax". It gave me a rate of 20%.

The site said that 48,700 millionaires payed an effective rate of less than that.

If I put in my adjusted gross income I get 15% effective tax rate. And it says 28,100 millionaires payed less than that as well.

I calculate my effective tax rate at like 16% when I add in state taxes. Where the hell is this site getting these numbers from?



Yeah, they need to explain how they come up with those numbers.

Just for fun, I put in $100,000 of wages, $0 of other income and $10,000 of taxes. It said my effective tax rate was 16%.

Then I put in $0 of wages, $100,000 of other income and $10,000 of taxes. It said my effective tax rate was 10%.

I think they're adding payroll taxes to the tax amount, which makes it look like working people pay more taxes than those who rely on investments for their income.

[ClydeR]

I just realized that would have looked a lot better in a table.


Wages|Other Income|
Taxes|Effective Rate

$100,000|
$0|
$10,000|
16%

$0|
$100,000|
$10,000|
10%

[Drylec]

I wanted to use this tool to compare my figures to the best husband and wife team ever, the Obamas.

Their most recent taxes were just released lately. I could post a link like I usually do but I figure it would be more fun if everyone found their own answers this time. I don't just like to be informative I like to make things fun also.

The Obamas made almost 800,000 dollars and their effective tax rate was 22% and 52,400 millionaires paid a lesser tax rate than that! I was outraged until I entered my own figures and that just made me more upset. I only earned a fraction of what the Obamas did and my tax rate was 26% and almost 75,000 millionaires paid a lower rate than I did! 75,000!

The Buffett Rule can not happen fast enough.

[Ryvicke]

I wanted to use this tool to compare my figures to the best husband and wife team ever, the Obamas.

Their most recent taxes were just released lately. I could post a link like I usually do but I figure it would be more fun if everyone found their own answers this time. I don't just like to be informative I like to make things fun also.

The Obamas made almost 800,000 dollars and their effective tax rate was 22% and 52,400 millionaires paid a lesser tax rate than that! I was outraged until I entered my own figures and that just made me more upset. I only earned a fraction of what the Obamas did and my tax rate was 26% and almost 75,000 millionaires paid a lower rate than I did! 75,000!

The Buffett Rule can not happen fast enough.

Agreed.

[Latrinsorm]

If he were wanting to increasing taxes to achieve an economic goal, that would be one thing. By his own admission, that's not what he's doing. He's increasing taxes in the interest of what he perceives as "fairness" to "ensure that everyone is doing their fair share." He's not just raising taxes. He's promoting an ideology where he decides what a "fair share" is exactly and then implements his "solution." I would submit that perhaps the rich are already paying their fair share and that the rest of us are over taxed? Again, I did not call him a fascist. See post #24.I did not say you called President Obama a fascist. I specifically asked you what was fascist about "slightly increasing the tax rate on millionaires".

We have had government officials deciding what our "fair share" is for over 150 years. Have all the Presidents of the past 150 years therefore been "brazenly promoting fascist ideolog"? Can you state which specific part of the definition [i]you cited this falls under?

[Parkbandit]

I wanted to use this tool to compare my figures to the best husband and wife team ever, the Obamas.

Their most recent taxes were just released lately. I could post a link like I usually do but I figure it would be more fun if everyone found their own answers this time. I don't just like to be informative I like to make things fun also.

The Obamas made almost 800,000 dollars and their effective tax rate was 22% and 52,400 millionaires paid a lesser tax rate than that! I was outraged until I entered my own figures and that just made me more upset. I only earned a fraction of what the Obamas did and my tax rate was 26% and almost 75,000 millionaires paid a lower rate than I did! 75,000!

The Buffett Rule can not happen fast enough.

Obama made 800K.. he wouldn't even qualify for the Buffett Rule.

[Parkbandit]

PB's too smart to do that.


Something I would never, ever accuse you of being.

Ever.

[Ryvicke]

If he were wanting to increasing taxes to achieve an economic goal, that would be one thing. By his own admission, that's not what he's doing. He's increasing taxes in the interest of what he perceives as "fairness" to "ensure that everyone is doing their fair share." He's not just raising taxes. He's promoting an ideology where he decides what a "fair share" is exactly and then implements his "solution." I would submit that perhaps the rich are already paying their fair share and that the rest of us are over taxed? Again, I did not call him a fascist. See post #24.

Source?

[Parkbandit]

Source?

Seriously?

Listen to any of his Buffett Rule speeches. He talks about fairness and paying their fair share as the reasons why this should become law.

Unless you believe 4 billion dollars a year will solve the budget problems this country faces....

[Buckwheet]

Seriously?

Listen to any of his Buffett Rule speeches. He talks about fairness and paying their fair share as the reasons why this should become law.

Unless you believe 4 billion dollars a year will solve the budget problems this country faces....

I think it would help if it came with a flat tax and a equal cutting in spending.

[Parkbandit]

I think it would help if it came with a flat tax and a equal cutting in spending.

Given that his last 2 budget proposals had neither (actually had spending INCREASES and didn't have a single YES vote in Congress...) I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Blazar]

PB... how could 4 billion dollars hurt? It's not like the rich need it. I live comfortably and support my children on just over $40k/year, and am still able to eat out, take vacations, take women on nice dates, play computer games, and I really don't want for much. I've also supported them (though admittedly not so comfortably) when I was 19 making $20k/year.

If someone making a million dollars a year has a problem with paying $250k leaving them $750k/year to live on, they're greedy. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to want more and work for it, but at what point is enough enough?

So... 4 billion dollars of additional income a year can't hurt the Government, wouldn't you agree? Combine that with some cuts to the amount we spend on hand outs and the military and I think we'd make some progress.

[Blazar]

Oh, let me cover this one for you PB...

"Stupid stoner, you're stupid."

[Parkbandit]

PB... how could 4 billion dollars hurt? It's not like the rich need it. I live comfortably and support my children on just over $40k/year, and am still able to eat out, take vacations, take women on nice dates, play computer games, and I really don't want for much. I've also supported them (though admittedly not so comfortably) when I was 19 making $20k/year.

There are many people who make less than 20K a year who live comfortably. Why do you need to make so much more than them?



If someone making a million dollars a year has a problem with paying $250k leaving them $750k/year to live on, they're greedy. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to want more and work for it, but at what point is enough enough?

I hope you are paying 10K a year in taxes.. otherwise, it looks like you are just being greedy.



So... 4 billion dollars of additional income a year can't hurt the Government, wouldn't you agree? Combine that with some cuts to the amount we spend on hand outs and the military and I think we'd make some progress.

4 billion won't hurt, absolutely.. but it won't fix the problem either. And there is an economic reason why Capital Gains taxes are lower than income taxes... it's to spur economic growth. Granted, maybe it doesn't have to be as low as 15%.. but it's such a small piece of the puzzle that is getting all of the attention and focus.

[Atlanteax]

PB... how could 4 billion dollars hurt? It's not like the rich need it. I live comfortably and support my children on just over $40k/year, and am still able to eat out, take vacations, take women on nice dates, play computer games, and I really don't want for much. I've also supported them (though admittedly not so comfortably) when I was 19 making $20k/year.

If someone making a million dollars a year has a problem with paying $250k leaving them $750k/year to live on, they're greedy. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to want more and work for it, but at what point is enough enough?

So... 4 billion dollars of additional income a year can't hurt the Government, wouldn't you agree? Combine that with some cuts to the amount we spend on hand outs and the military and I think we'd make some progress.

See ... the basis of argument for reforming the tax code should not be:
"WAH ... it is *NOT FAIR*"

It should be:
"Let's close these loopholes ... here I have identified some (blah blah)"

In the meantime, I do not get why there is not greater emphasis on a "Flat Tax" (with a large deduction for basic living expenses)

Something like ... all annual income greater than $10k is taxed at 20%

The working poor would have a very low effective tax rate... and the super-rich will have a far higher effective tax rate than the middle class.

Income is income, whether manual labor, or stock dividends.

Would make for a nice crisp tax code... (and void of loopholes and ways to cheat taxation).

[4a6c1]

See ... the basis of argument for reforming the tax code should not be:
"WAH ... it is *NOT FAIR*"


Let them eat cake?

[Latrinsorm]

Why is it when we're talking about cutting spending, certain peoples' responses are "mind the pennies and the dollars will mind themselves", but when we're talking about increasing taxes, certain peoples' responses are more pessimistic?

[Parkbandit]

See ... the basis of argument for reforming the tax code should not be:
"WAH ... it is *NOT FAIR*"

It should be:
"Let's close these loopholes ... here I have identified some (blah blah)"

In the meantime, I do not get why there is not greater emphasis on a "Flat Tax" (with a large deduction for basic living expenses)

Something like ... all annual income greater than $10k is taxed at 20%

The working poor would have a very low effective tax rate... and the super-rich will have a far higher effective tax rate than the middle class.

Income is income, whether manual labor, or stock dividends.

Would make for a nice crisp tax code... (and void of loopholes and ways to cheat taxation).

There's no power to have in a flat tax system like that... and in politics, power is everything.

[Parkbandit]

Why is it when we're talking about cutting spending, certain peoples' responses are "mind the pennies and the dollars will mind themselves", but when we're talking about increasing taxes, certain peoples' responses are more pessimistic?

Why is it when we're talking about cutting spending, certain peoples' responses are "oh that won't make any difference", but when we're talking about increasing taxes on the rich, certain peoples' responses are more optimistic?

[Atlanteax]

I'd say that the backlash against "WAH ... it is *NOT FAIR*" as being a 'compelling' reason ... is due to it being reflective of the disturbing trend of increased self-entitlement?

ie "WAH ... it is not fair that he got first place, and I came in second" ... "my kid should had gotten all A's too" ... "xxx government services should cater to MY needs more" etc..

Stating that the taxation burden should be equitable and proposing how to accomplish it ... that would be rather more 'compelling' than "WAH ... it is NOT FAIR".

[Blazar]

I like your idea Atlanteax. Though living expenses are far greater than $10k/year, it's a great starting point.

And PB, show me one case of someone living comfortably in the U.S. making less than $20k/year. They live and survive, sure, but not comfortably. I know because I am friends and have been friends with numerous people that make under $20k/year, and without some other sort of supplement there's no way they are comfortable. In addition to having friends at this wage, as stated previously, I have been there and done that. Have you? Are you speaking from experience or just blowing smoke from your asshole?

So PB, what you're saying is that to encourage economic growth we have to give handouts (essentially giving one group a lower tax rate than another IS a handout), yet handouts to keep people alive and well are bad... yet without these people at the bottom, the top doesn't matter.

The fact is, you can tax the poor into oblivion so that they can't survive and keep all of the money with a small percentage of the population (this is completely possible). However, the "top" falls without the "bottom" so to speak, so without someone to serve you your latte and shine your shoes, or in my case fix your internet service by telling you how to turn on your wireless card, what the fuck are you going to spend your money on?

The truth is is that the "system" needs everyone to thrive, and it needs them to be in a healthy and sound state of mind and body. These should be our primary concerns, then worry about the excess. If someone makes $20k/year, they probably aren't going to be very healthy. If you tax them $5k of that, even less so. Conversely, someone making $1m/year and getting taxed $250k is not going to suffer the same detriments to their physical and mental health as the person making $20k/year. Sure, they may not be able to buy that Porsche this year, but there's always next year. Since the Government essentially feels like they own you, this is in their best interest.

People will always complain about "fairness" and will have different opinions on what "fair" is. My question of "when is enough enough?" still stands.

Personally, I wish the Government would just go away and people could form a Utopian society, but it won't happen because of greed, disrespect, and just plain fucked up people. Could I live in a society with no laws and still be a good person? Yes I can. That's my ideal, but it won't happen, just like most people's ideal situations. So... we have to find something that works... and taking more money from the bottom and less from the top is not the way to do it.

[Blazar]

And for the record, I am very supportive of cutting spending. The Government is simply too big and does too much, and they seemingly never do it right or even well. Take the small responsibilities off of the Government and put them back on the people so the Government can focus on the important things and maybe get something done the right way for once.

I am also supportive of taxing people that make a load of money their "fair" (sorry couldn't resist the use of such an awesome word) share.

[TheEschaton]

I'm still reading this post, and every time I try to get to page 3, I get a database error. It's like there's epic stupidity there just waiting for me and the PC is trying to protect my brain from exploding.

Wrathbringer and PB waded in right at the bottom of page 2, so I'm pretty sure this is what's up.

[TheEschaton]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/12/obama-willing-to-risk-accusations-socialism-for-chance-to-whack-romneys-wealth/

Not that I expect it to make any difference in your views.

fas⋅cism   [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

And for good measure:

so⋅cial⋅ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

If the shoe fits, wear it. I stand behind my statements.

I was so right. Thank you, PC, for holding it back as long as you could.

[Parkbandit]

And PB, show me one case of someone living comfortably in the U.S. making less than $20k/year. They live and survive, sure, but not comfortably. I know because I am friends and have been friends with numerous people that make under $20k/year, and without some other sort of supplement there's no way they are comfortable.

My uncle lives on less than 20K a year and he claims he is very comfortable. He lives in a small house on a very large plot of land that he lives off. He grows his own vegetables and has chickens, goats and sheep. Now, personally, that doesn't sound comfortable to me... but he claims it is.


In addition to having friends at this wage, as stated previously, I have been there and done that. Have you? Are you speaking from experience or just blowing smoke from your asshole?

I grew up very poor.


So PB, what you're saying is that to encourage economic growth we have to give handouts (essentially giving one group a lower tax rate than another IS a handout), yet handouts to keep people alive and well are bad... yet without these people at the bottom, the top doesn't matter.

See, this is why the War on the Rich works.. because people like you are brainwashed into thinking that not being forced to pay more in taxes is like a handout. March to the beat.. you're being played like a fool.


The fact is, you can tax the poor into oblivion so that they can't survive and keep all of the money with a small percentage of the population (this is completely possible). However, the "top" falls without the "bottom" so to speak, so without someone to serve you your latte and shine your shoes, or in my case fix your internet service by telling you how to turn on your wireless card, what the fuck are you going to spend your money on?


How is the poor being taxed into oblivion.. when they don't pay any income taxes and they get checks from the government?



People will always complain about "fairness" and will have different opinions on what "fair" is. My question of "when is enough enough?" still stands.

Who should determine what "enough" is.. the government? Someone like you?



Personally, I wish the Government would just go away and people could form a Utopian society, but it won't happen because of greed, disrespect, and just plain fucked up people. Could I live in a society with no laws and still be a good person? Yes I can. That's my ideal, but it won't happen, just like most people's ideal situations. So... we have to find something that works... and taking more money from the bottom and less from the top is not the way to do it.

Stupid stoner, you're stupid.

[Latrinsorm]

And for the record, I am very supportive of cutting spending. The Government is simply too big and does too much, and they seemingly never do it right or even well. Take the small responsibilities off of the Government and put them back on the people so the Government can focus on the important things and maybe get something done the right way for once.The question is not whether the government does something well, but if it does it better than the alternative. For instance, civil rights. It turns out that a massively bloated federal bureaucracy is the best alternative so far attempted to ensure those. In some cases the people and local governments were so recalcitrant that the federal government had to intervene with the military. When people are stubborn to the point where we have to say "knock it off or you get shot", they are not going to handle the responsibility responsibly, so to speak.
Why is it when we're talking about cutting spending, certain peoples' responses are "oh that won't make any difference", but when we're talking about increasing taxes on the rich, certain peoples' responses are more optimistic?In fact, no one in this thread has responded positively to the proposed initiative in and of itself. I know you get a lot of mileage out of the "switch words to their opposites" shtick, but it just fails completely here.

[Parkbandit]

I'm still reading this post, and every time I try to get to page 3, I get a database error. It's like there's epic stupidity there just waiting for me and the PC is trying to protect my brain from exploding.

Wrathbringer and PB waded in right at the bottom of page 2, so I'm pretty sure this is what's up.

Or, the PC is trying to prevent you from posting the same stupidity you generally post...

Fuck, PC failed again.

[Parkbandit]

In fact, no one in this thread has responded positively to the proposed initiative in and of itself. I know you get a lot of mileage out of the "switch words to their opposites" shtick, but it just fails completely here.

I switch words to the opposites to illustrate hypocrisy.

Your post worked far better than most...

[Blazar]

PB, I hope you can find help for your issues some day. I doubt you will, but one can dream for some positive change once in a while.

[Parkbandit]

PB, I hope you can find help for your issues some day. I doubt you will, but one can dream for some positive change once in a while.

If I don't, I can just blaze one up and my "issues" go away!

420 man!!

[Blazar]

If I don't, I can just blaze one up and my "issues" go away!

420 man!!

4srs. Because all potheads are irresponsible and lazy, amirite? Not one of them could be a responsible, hard working, intelligent person ever.

Although, since you're not fond of bud, I think lighting up some sort of fire arm in your mouth may be more beneficial. I don't think even bud can make your issues go away. I typically wouldn't make light of this under any circumstances, but I honestly think it's your only chance to make peace with your issues.

[ClydeR]

4 billion won't hurt, absolutely.. but it won't fix the problem either. And there is an economic reason why Capital Gains taxes are lower than income taxes... it's to spur economic growth. Granted, maybe it doesn't have to be as low as 15%.. but it's such a small piece of the puzzle that is getting all of the attention and focus.

PB is right about what should be a subject of discussion.

Here's an article to get the discussion started. Somebody find a counter article.


The chart displayed above shows top tax rates on long-term capital gains and economic growth (measured as the percentage change in real GDP) from 1950 to 2011. If low capital gains tax rates catalyzed economic growth, you’d expect to see a negative relationship–high gains rates, low growth, and vice versa–but there is no apparent relationship between the two time series. The correlation is 0.12, the wrong sign and not statistically different from zero. I’ve tried lags up to five years and also looking at moving averages of the tax rates and growth. There is never a statistically significant relationship.

More... (http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/)

[Ryvicke]

Oh noes--giving rich people millions in tax cuts doesn't spur the economy in any way? Holy fuck!

[Blazar]

Whoda thunk it?

[Warriorbird]

They cut corporate property taxes 87% in VA and got nada. So they've axed school funding for hundreds of millions of dollars because Republicans would love to destroy public education. There's no unions here, so teachers can't do much.

Wisconsin went crazy for a cut 1/3 as big.

[Ryvicke]

They cut corporate property taxes 87% in VA and got nada. So they've axed school funding for hundreds of millions of dollars because Republicans would love to destroy public education. There's no unions here, so teachers can't do much.

Wisconsin went crazy for a cut 1/3 as big.

I hate to keep harping on Christie today but this was my favorite recent instance of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/nyregion/christie-gives-new-jersey-firms-tax-breaks-for-short-moves.html

Since 2010 Christie has given 1.57 BILLION in tax cuts to corporations in NJ. The funnest part of that article is Prudential being quoted as saying they were not at any risk to move to another state and were planning to just renew their leases in their Newark office space, but Christie gave them 250 million in tax credits to build a new tower in Newark instead so what the hell, they're building it.

Essentially if you're a huge corporation NJ will pay you $387,537 in tax credits per job you pledge to create in NJ.

It's like Republicans don't understand the definition of "spending."

[Wrathbringer]

I think the flat income tax would be an improvement, but again, who would be paying the flat tax? Only those who work to earn an income. Meanwhile, those not working continue to collect entitlement checks. This seems to penalize folks for having a job, and reward folks for not working and seeking entitlement handouts. As long as this is the case, the number of people receiving entitlements will continue to increase and their vote will always go to the person who vows to continue to send them a check, pushing us further and further down the Socialist road. Instead, I'd propose doing away with income taxes altogether and instituting a national sales tax on non-necessities. No tax on food and medicine and the like, so as to not burden the poor, but if you buy a plasma tv or a car, you pay it. I'm no economist, but this way everyone has skin in the game, so to speak.

[Wrathbringer]

I did not say you called President Obama a fascist. I specifically asked you what was fascist about "slightly increasing the tax rate on millionaires".

We have had government officials deciding what our "fair share" is for over 150 years. Have all the Presidents of the past 150 years therefore been "brazenly promoting fascist ideolog"? Can you state which specific part of the definition [i]you cited this falls under?

Can you show me one case in the past where taxes were raised on one particular segment of the population, not for any financial reason, but rather because our government alone decided that it was fair to do so in the interest of everyone doing "their fair share?" If you don't see any hint of fascist ideology in this, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I wonder if you would concede that at the very least a Socialist ideology is at work in such a practice?

[Back]

I think the flat income tax would be an improvement, but again, who would be paying the flat tax? Only those who work to earn an income. Meanwhile, those not working continue to collect entitlement checks. This seems to penalize folks for having a job, and reward folks for not working and seeking entitlement handouts. As long as this is the case, the number of people receiving entitlements will continue to increase and their vote will always go to the person who vows to continue to send them a check, pushing us further and further down the Socialist road. Instead, I'd propose doing away with income taxes altogether and instituting a national sales tax on non-necessities. No tax on food and medicine and the like, so as to not burden the poor, but if you buy a plasma tv or a car, you pay it. I'm no economist, but this way everyone has skin in the game, so to speak.

I love this argument. We shouldn't tax the rich like we tax everyone else because the poor collect handouts. Yeah, people are just lining up to live the welfare lifestyle. You can get some great deals with food stamps! You get to live in a great neighborhood too. So what if the haters ridicule you for shopping at Walmart. You don't have to work! Its the life of luxury and the man pays for it all. Shit, collect unemployment and you can get a bus to Vegas to play the slots and you might just get rich!

Yeah, man. Al those damn poor people lining up to live in the ghetto are ruining it for us all.

[Bobmuhthol]

Something like ... all annual income greater than $10k is taxed at 20%

The working poor would have a very low effective tax rate

Someone with $40,000 in income would have an effective rate of 15%. Using http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/09/30/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/ that same person would be taxed at 11.7%. I would call $40,000 "the working poor," but maybe not everyone would.

[Parkbandit]

I love this argument. We shouldn't tax the rich like we tax everyone else because the poor collect handouts. Yeah, people are just lining up to live the welfare lifestyle. You can get some great deals with food stamps! You get to live in a great neighborhood too. So what if the haters ridicule you for shopping at Walmart. You don't have to work! Its the life of luxury and the man pays for it all. Shit, collect unemployment and you can get a bus to Vegas to play the slots and you might just get rich!

Yeah, man. Al those damn poor people lining up to live in the ghetto are ruining it for us all.

http://allisondykstra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/product-preview-adult-hyperbole-large1.gif

[Latrinsorm]

Can you show me one case in the past where taxes were raised on one particular segment of the population, not for any financial reason, but rather because our government alone decided that it was fair to do so in the interest of everyone doing "their fair share?" If you don't see any hint of fascist ideology in this, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I wonder if you would concede that at the very least a Socialist ideology is at work in such a practice?Of course it's socialist, like income taxes have been since their inception. I can cite a specific tenet of socialism this falls under: ownership of (a portion of) capital by the community as a whole, or put succinctly "wealth redistribution". You still haven't done so for fascism. At least give me a hint, give me a number between 2 and 5 from your definition that this falls under.

[Back]

Hyperbole

You hit the nail on the head. The rich have been using it for years to convince people they should pay less than everyone else.

[Wrathbringer]

I love this argument. We shouldn't tax the rich like we tax everyone else because the poor collect handouts. Yeah, people are just lining up to live the welfare lifestyle.

Apparently, they are. My post had nothing to do with taxing or not taxing the rich. I was simply proposing an alternative to income taxes. Just to prove my point though, I dug this up for you. This from the huffington post on 11/3/2011:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/394096/SNAP-DATA.jpg

Check out the entire article entitled, "Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Hits Another High Years After Recession's End" here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/number-of-americans-on-snap_n_1074344.html

Recession over, yet number of people on food stamps continues to rise. They don't call Obama the food stamp president for nothing, you know. Get in line. If we give him another four years maybe we can get everyone on food stamps. That would only be "fair" right?

[Wrathbringer]

Of course it's socialist, like income taxes have been since their inception. I can cite a specific tenet of socialism this falls under: ownership of (a portion of) capital by the community as a whole, or put succinctly "wealth redistribution". You still haven't done so for fascism. At least give me a hint, give me a number between 2 and 5 from your definition that this falls under.

Oh, I thought I'd made that point. Apparently I've done a poor job of illustrating it. "I'll tell you what's fair for you" sounds much more like a dictator than an elected public servant to me. That's my opinion, and is why I said he's brazenly promoting fascist ideology by presuming to place himself in such a role over us, whom he serves at our pleasure. The very idea that he would attempt to legislate his opinions -for admittedly no valid reason other than that they are his opinions- smacks of fascism to me. This seems tantamount to, "Because I said so." Strong language, I know, but that's my opinion. That would be definition part number 2 which refers to "a dictator having complete power."

[Latrinsorm]

Oh, I thought I'd made that point. Apparently I've done a poor job of illustrating it. "I'll tell you what's fair for you" sounds much more like a dictator than an elected public servant to me. That's my opinion, and is why I said he's brazenly promoting fascist ideology by presuming to place himself in such a role over us, whom he serves at our pleasure. The very idea that he would attempt to legislate his opinions -for admittedly no valid reason other than that they are his opinions- smacks of fascism to me. This seems tantamount to, "Because I said so." Strong language, I know, but that's my opinion. That would be definition part number 2 which refers to "a dictator having complete power."I think a more charitable interpretation is that of republicanism (small r). We don't have a pure democracy, we don't (ideally) select representatives based on their ability to follow polling. We select representatives based on their ability to serve our interests, even if we don't like it because it hurts us individually. Inherent in this, however, is the point that our representatives are only human too. They're not legislating/enforcing universal truths, they're necessarily only using their opinions.

For instance, many politicians are of the opinion that it is in our best interests to have a strong military, but the only way to do that is to pay for it via taxes. (Incidentally, the Founders disagreed with both of these concepts, and in this case we can agree that the Founders were completely wrong.) All other things being equal, I would prefer not to pay taxes, because I would prefer to have more money. I am not so shortsighted as to believe that all other things are equal, but there are people that are. Does this mean that the government is fascistic, paternalistic, oppressive, etc. to impose taxes on these people for their own good, and for the good of us all? I don't think so. Just because the government is doing something you disagree with doesn't make it fascist.

Secondly, the Presidency is a far cry from a dictatorship. Just look at Obamacare. There were compromises in the President's vision to get it legislated in Congress, and it is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court. This is not how a dictatorship works, and it is certainly not absolute control. Do you think Mussolini ever had to worry about a supermajority?

[Back]

Apparently, they are. My post had nothing to do with taxing or not taxing the rich. I was simply proposing an alternative to income taxes. Just to prove my point though, I dug this up for you. This from the huffington post on 11/3/2011:

Check out the entire article entitled, "Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Hits Another High Years After Recession's End" here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/number-of-americans-on-snap_n_1074344.html

Recession over, yet number of people on food stamps continues to rise. They don't call Obama the food stamp president for nothing, you know. Get in line. If we give him another four years maybe we can get everyone on food stamps. That would only be "fair" right?

My point was people don't aspire to be on welfare, live in a ghetto, or receive food stamps. The fact that there are more people using food stamps isn't because people want to use food stamps. Its because the economy really really sucks at the lowest levels.

[Wrathbringer]

I think a more charitable interpretation is that of republicanism (small r). We don't have a pure democracy, we don't (ideally) select representatives based on their ability to follow polling. We select representatives based on their ability to serve our interests, even if we don't like it because it hurts us individually. Inherent in this, however, is the point that our representatives are only human too. They're not legislating/enforcing universal truths, they're necessarily only using their opinions.

This is well stated, but I'd argue that most, if not all times, there is a measurable goal to achieve when they take opinions into account. In this case, there is not. It is legislating opinion for opinion's sake.


For instance, many politicians are of the opinion that it is in our best interests to have a strong military, but the only way to do that is to pay for it via taxes. (Incidentally, the Founders disagreed with both of these concepts, and in this case we can agree that the Founders were completely wrong.) All other things being equal, I would prefer not to pay taxes, because I would prefer to have more money. I am not so shortsighted as to believe that all other things are equal, but there are people that are. Does this mean that the government is fascistic, paternalistic, oppressive, etc. to impose taxes on these people for their own good, and for the good of us all? I don't think so. Just because the government is doing something you disagree with doesn't make it fascist.

Again, well stated, but when it is doing something for opinion's sake only, with no justifiable goal but rather simply to legislate opinion, I'd disagree.


Secondly, the Presidency is a far cry from a dictatorship. Just look at Obamacare. There were compromises in the President's vision to get it legislated in Congress, and it is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court. This is not how a dictatorship works, and it is certainly not absolute control. Do you think Mussolini ever had to worry about a supermajority?

Completely agree. The Presidency is indeed still a far cry from dictatorship. I don't even expect this tax hike legislation to pass. It just troubles me that if Obama had his way, he'd do this simply because he deems it "fair."

I appreciate the dialogue here. Enjoying it. Just hope I've gotten my (possibly completely wrong) point of view across to you. Rest assured yours has to me and it's been well stated.

[ClydeR]

There's a better calculator here http://mittrate.com

[Parkbandit]

It's weird.. Obama keeps saying how bad these tax loopholes are for people making more than $250,000... yet.. he took full advantage of them.

He should have paid 35%.. yet only paid 22%.

Maybe he should lead by example?

[Wrathbringer]

It's weird.. Obama keeps saying how bad these tax loopholes are for people making more than $250,000... yet.. he took full advantage of them.

He should have paid 35%.. yet only paid 22%.

Maybe he should lead by example?

Wow. That's not "fair." He's not doing his "fair share." I'm outraged.

[Atlanteax]

Don't need "Buffet Rule" if we just close said loopholes in the tax code...

[Warriorbird]

Don't need "Buffet Rule" if we just close said loopholes in the tax code...

Closing loopholes is tax increases according to Grover Norquist and 99.9% of the Republican Congress.

[Atlanteax]

Closing loopholes is tax increases according to Grover Norquist and 99.9% of the Republican Congress.

Still trolling?

[Warriorbird]

Still trolling?

How exactly is pointing out that the party a person belongs to won't follow their ideals trolling? I'm merely illustrating fact.

[Atlanteax]

Was attempting to find an existing thread for this... but this one works, as it tends to 'disprove' the Obama Administration claims that 'the Rich are not paying their fair share'.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html?iid=Lead

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130311153403-tax-share-chart-620xa.jpg


The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. That's up from 55% in 1986.

Clearly seems like the Rich are paying more in Taxes...

[Tgo01]

There is no reason the top 10% shouldn't be paying 110% of the federal taxes. The extra 10% should cover all state and local taxes so the bottom 90% can pay no taxes at all.

[Whirlin]

Not really... The discussion on this thread (from what I've read) has been about individual tax rates of what is meant to be a progressive tax structure, yet becomes incredibly regressive above 1m. It's not about total revenue from the aggregated taxation, it's about the tax structure working as a progressive tax as intended .

Just saying they pay more overall doesn't mean they're paying a higher percentage individually. Additionally, that article does not define a taxpayer. Corporations could also be considered taxpayers, skewing the metrics on the top 10% of income earning taxpayers.

[Keller]

Atl, is that graph the result of higher effective tax rates on the wealthy or is it the result of the widening income gap?

Given the growing income gap, I'd be surprised if it weren't the latter.

[Bobmuhthol]

Was attempting to find an existing thread for this... but this one works, as it tends to 'disprove' the Obama Administration claims that 'the Rich are not paying their fair share'.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html?iid=Lead

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130311153403-tax-share-chart-620xa.jpg



Clearly seems like the Rich are paying more in Taxes...This all assumes constant income and wealth distribution, which there hasn't been. You are very easily persuaded by bullshit statistics. Or, more cynically, you're just happy to see that someone attempted to provide "evidence" for a position you agree with, despite reality.

[Whirlin]

This all assumes constant income and wealth distribution, which there hasn't been. You are very easily persuaded by bullshit statistics. Or, more cynically, you're just happy to see that someone attempted to provide "evidence" for a position you agree with, despite reality.

I thought Republicans didn't believe in statistics unless it was proving things that they thought. Like when the Fox News anchors were saying that Nate Silver and all polling agencies ever were liberal propaganda machines, and their election night rage refusing to acknowledge that Obama won.

[Atlanteax]

Atl, is that graph the result of higher effective tax rates on the wealthy or is it the result of the widening income gap?

Given the growing income gap, I'd be surprised if it weren't the latter.

I'd say it's a combination of the two.


The tax code is getting more progressive, said Roberton Williams, a senior economist at the centrist Tax Policy Center. In 1986 there were just two tax rates -- 15% and 28%. Now there are seven income tax brackets, going from a low of 10% to a high of nearly 40%.

A widening income gap probably exists due to inflation on lower-income and the wealthy's ability to gain income off investments.

In the meantime, capital gains taxes *is* progressive, as if your normal income bracket is 15% or less, your capital gains are taxed at 0%. Starting in 2013, the capital gains of the highest income bracket is to be taxed at 20% while everyone else remains 15%.

.

What I was getting at with the link/graph is that the suggestion by some liberals (who happen to be of the naive sort) that the rich has been 'under-taxed' for years (thereby mandating that their taxes need to be raised further to be 'fairly-taxed') is essentially bull-shit.

My philosophy would be to significantly cut spending overall, while significantly increasing the amount of income that is exempt from taxation (which would predominantly benefit the poor and the lower middle class).

[Bobmuhthol]

If your argument that the tax rate is more progressive is that there are seven brackets instead of two, you might be a redneck.

The rich have been under-taxed for years, and they still are. If taxes were fair, the rich would not be able to compound their advantage so heavily. Extrapolate out a few decades, and you get a situation where one in one thousand people collectively own 999/1000 shares of wealth. That's not progressive, that's not fair, and that's not sustainable.

[Latrinsorm]

My philosophy would be to significantly cut spending overall, while significantly increasing the amount of income that is exempt from taxation (which would predominantly benefit the poor and the lower middle class).You former semi-conservative you!

[Whirlin]

A widening income gap probably exists due to inflation on lower-income and the wealthy's ability to gain income off investments.

In the meantime, capital gains taxes *is* progressive, as if your normal income bracket is 15% or less, your capital gains are taxed at 0%. Starting in 2013, the capital gains of the highest income bracket is to be taxed at 20% while everyone else remains 15%.
That's only for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. However, the concept of the three different income buckets in Taxation forms regressive loopholes to avoid the taxation at ordinary income levels, which unequally benefit the rich. If you're only making 35k a year, how can you afford to be investing substantial money in capital investments to lower overall tax burden? Furthermore, the benefit for the marginal tax rate difference between capital gains' minimums and ordinary income tax rates are nominal at that low percentage. It ends up being regressive relative toward ordinary income, thus reducing the overall tax rate on the rich, and forming regressive taxation loopholes.




What I was getting at with the link/graph is that the suggestion by some liberals (who happen to be of the naive sort) that the rich has been 'under-taxed' for years (thereby mandating that their taxes need to be raised further to be 'fairly-taxed') is essentially bull-shit.
Yes... but you haven't made your point. I pay 30% in taxes. Why does someone that's rich only pay 10%, when the systems of ordinary income taxation were created to be a progressive tax where he should be paying a higher % than me when his income is hundreds of times my income? It's not about macro level, it's about individual level, which you still haven't addressed.



My philosophy would be to significantly cut spending overall, while significantly increasing the amount of income that is exempt from taxation (which would predominantly benefit the poor and the lower middle class).
Completely irrelevant to this discussion, but reducing both income and expenses is not adequate to deal with this current spending deficit. As it stands now, even with the more aggressive taxation (ie: more revenue), cuts will need to be made to the big three (Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) in order to accommodate for the spending deficit, which then gets into a subjective matter for which you feel is unnecessary.

[Latrinsorm]

If you're only making 35k a year, how can you afford to be investing substantial money in capital investments to lower overall tax burden?It's called personal responsibility.

[Bobmuhthol]

It's called personal responsibility.Love it.

[Atlanteax]

If you're only making 35k a year, how can you afford to be investing substantial money in capital investments to lower overall tax burden?


It's called personal responsibility.

Which has been replaced, for the most part, by the social security system ... which functions as a forced savings account.

Unfortunately, most Americans are not capable of being fiscally responsible for their well-being.

Of course, nowadays it is a chicken/egg discussion. Are they incapable because the government insists on doing it for them ... or is it because they were incapable previously that the government had to get involved in such a manner that they are now predominantly incapable? This goes back to the Great Depression era, where incidentally many economic issues were predominantly caused by government.

[Whirlin]

I think you may be underestimating how little 35k/yr a is.. But then again, many people think that getting $130 a month in food stamps means that you're rolling in the dough and eating like a king.

But, I was also considering maxing Roth contributions annually when I did out the anticipated expenses for 35k/yr. I was more referring to having adequate additional discretionary income after all living expenses to be able to invest adequately to maximize the beneficial marginal tax preferences of the capital gains tax structure. It inherently and extravagantly benefits the rich with that particular income bucket.

Let me rephrase for my main point as a tl;dr:
If Long Term Capital Gains and qualified dividends did not have ridiculously preferential tax treatment over ordinary income, we wouldn't see the 1m+ income individuals with lower actual tax rates relative to the middle/lower class.

[Bobmuhthol]

Roth or traditional doesn't make a difference here, as an aside.

[Whirlin]

Roth or traditional doesn't make a difference here, as an aside.
True... However, traditional have no limit on contributions, while Roth have a 5.5k annual contribution maximum. So it's a quick and easy way to skim off the top if you wanted to do an in depth analysis of how little 35k/yr goes.

For those that don't understand the difference: Roth contributions are done post tax, with no taxation when you remove them, while traditional are pre-tax (well, pre-federal, post SS/Med), and are taxed at time of removal.

Given this person's income level, it would be a feasible assumption that income will grow with age, thus the future tax rate will be higher than current tax rate, therefore it would be tax advantageous to realize the tax now, rather than to defer.

[Atlanteax]

Let me rephrase for my main point as a tl;dr:
If Long Term Capital Gains and qualified dividends did not have ridiculously preferential tax treatment over ordinary income, we wouldn't see the 1m+ income individuals with lower actual tax rates relative to the middle/lower class.

One could argue that LTCG get preferential tax treatment due to the role that investing capital plays in developing an economy.

In the meantime, while some $1m+ individuals have lower actual tax rates, due to a greater portion of their income being investment-related, they are still paying significantly more in total taxes (which would support such an illustration as the chart above).

[msconstrew]

..? There's a maximum on traditional 401(k)'s. It's like $17,500 right now.

It's $17,500 for employee contributions. If you get an employer match, the total amount contributed in 2013 can exceed that amount.

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't know how feasible an assumption is that people with 35k incomes can be expected to have a growing income over time. And traditional IRAs have the same limit as Roths, which is actually what makes Roths more attractive -- the contribution is done post-tax for the same nominal amount, so it's a higher real amount.

[msconstrew]

In the meantime, while some $1m+ individuals have lower actual tax rates, due to a greater portion of their income being investment-related, they are still paying significantly more in total taxes (which would support such an illustration as the chart above).

Since I am paying almost $20k in taxes this year (meaning $20k AFTER the amount taken out of my paycheck), this attitude/argument makes me inordinately angry.

[Bobmuhthol]

One could argue that LTCG get preferential tax treatment due to the role that investing capital plays in developing an economy.

In the meantime, while some $1m+ individuals have lower actual tax rates, due to a greater portion of their income being investment-related, they are still paying significantly more in total taxes (which would support such an illustration as the chart above).The second you make an argument about total dollars spent, you've immediately disqualified yourself to talk about whether something is progressive.

[Atlanteax]

The second you make an argument about total dollars spent, you've immediately disqualified yourself to talk about whether something is progressive.

But we are not. The discussion was whether it was True or False that the Rich are paying the significant majority of the tax revenue that goes to the Government.

Apparently WB has taught you well in how to seize upon a minor facet and extrapolate it as to 'disprove' the entire body of content.

[Bobmuhthol]

No one argued that the rich do not pay most of the tax revenue. Everyone with a brain argued that the tax system is unfair. You even posted your deceptive graph with a comment along the lines of, "People think that the rich are not being fairly taxed, but look, they clearly are!" It was never a question of how much tax revenue is paid by the rich, and it was always a question of how much of their income goes to taxes.

There's no "minor facet" to the fact that you addressed an argument about progressive tax systems with total dollars spent. If you said that inflation is too high, and I said, "But look, I started with $1000, inflation is 50% a year, and after one year I have $1500! Everyone is richer, this is amazing!!" would you think I'm an idiot? I certainly hope so. But that's what you just did.

[Jarvan]

If your argument that the tax rate is more progressive is that there are seven brackets instead of two, you might be a redneck.

The rich have been under-taxed for years, and they still are. If taxes were fair, the rich would not be able to compound their advantage so heavily. Extrapolate out a few decades, and you get a situation where one in one thousand people collectively own 999/1000 shares of wealth. That's not progressive, that's not fair, and that's not sustainable.

I really wish you would state exactly what you think a fair tax for the rich is.

Even better, please describe the word "fair" when applied to taxes.

Lastly, please advise me as to how exactly you would create policies to not allow the rich to use their own money to increase their wealth, and why.


It's $17,500 for employee contributions. If you get an employer match, the total amount contributed in 2013 can exceed that amount.

I believe the cap is on tax free contributions, you can generally contribute as much as your company allows. I once worked at a place that allowed up to 99% of a person's pay. Which I think is silly, but still.


Since I am paying almost $20k in taxes this year (meaning $20k AFTER the amount taken out of my paycheck), this attitude/argument makes me inordinately angry.


This sounds like you have a number of non-income investments you are paying taxes on. I am sure the CEO that gets paid 1 million a year but has investments earning 50 million has to pay more then comes out of their paycheck as well.

Maybe you should just be happy that you make enough money to require you to pay an additional 20k in taxes and release it's only fair that you pay more.

[Bobmuhthol]

I really wish you would state exactly what you think a fair tax for the rich is.

Even better, please describe the word "fair" when applied to taxes.

Lastly, please advise me as to how exactly you would create policies to not allow the rich to use their own money to increase their wealth, and why.I think that there should be a monotonically increasing relationship between income and effective tax rate.

Fair allows for equal footing to keep up. If you give growth accelerants to people with a larger wealth, you aren't being fair. Wealth-rewarding tax systems are like handing out steroids to the best natural athletes, and then having them play an exhibition game against the local tee ball team.

I would raise taxes, because that's what we need.

[msconstrew]

This sounds like you have a number of non-income investments you are paying taxes on. I am sure the CEO that gets paid 1 million a year but has investments earning 50 million has to pay more then comes out of their paycheck as well.

Maybe you should just be happy that you make enough money to require you to pay an additional 20k in taxes and release it's only fair that you pay more.

I am happy about it, actually. I think it's great, and I am grateful for the education and all that other shit that lets me make that much. What I am not happy about is that people who are paid much, much more than I am pay a lower percentage in taxes than I do.

[Jarvan]

I think that there should be a monotonically increasing relationship between income and effective tax rate.

Fair allows for equal footing to keep up. If you give growth accelerants to people with a larger wealth, you aren't being fair. Wealth-rewarding tax systems are like handing out steroids to the best natural athletes, and then having them play an exhibition game against the local tee ball team.

I would raise taxes, because that's what we need.

So in other words, you don't have a number, you just want the tax rates to go up as a persons income goes up. Always great when a person won't state a number just basically says "more".

What you are saying with the second part is you want everyone to be poor, because you think it's more fair that way. Technically speaking, a fair tax system would be everyone pays the same rate. That is fair and even across the board. The rich would still pay MORE in total taxes. Actually, a progressive tax structure is anything but fair. But, then again, some people really don't believe in fair. Just in what they deem is right.

So you think we need more taxes huh, To do what exactly? To fund what? There is not some expenses we can cut in the fed? Do you personally think we need to spend 1 million dollars for some labcoats to watch a shrimp on a treadmill? Or spend 10's of million to update an airfield that has only 2 flights a week?

Also, realistically speaking, we would get more money if we taxes the masses then if we taxed the rich.

I still would love to see proposed tax brackets from you. I think it would be interesting. I also have a feeling that once you get into the real world, and if you ever make a decent income, you will either think very differently, or you will use whatever means possible to avoid paying the "fair share" you think others should.

[Tgo01]

Do you personally think we need to spend 1 million dollars for some labcoats to watch a shrimp on a treadmill?

Hey that video is awesome.

[Jarvan]

I am happy about it, actually. I think it's great, and I am grateful for the education and all that other shit that lets me make that much. What I am not happy about is that people who are paid much, much more than I am pay a lower percentage in taxes than I do.

So, for example.. a person who makes 200 Million a year in investments and only pays say 20% tax rate now, which would be 40 million. Your pissed that he is only paying 40 million? When you are paying (very likely) less then 100k? Here is the part that I just can't grasp. You people (meaning all the tax them more, they don't pay enough % of their money) focus on the %. I don't really think the % matters. Do I care that Bill Gates pays less % then I do? Fuck no. He pays WAY more in money in one year then I will pay in my life.

Frankly, I just think people want to punish the rich. "it's all those evil rich people's fault" "Make them pay more, they can afford it" "They pay less % then I do, disregard the fact that they pay more in one year then I will in my entire life, they can afford more!" It's like they feel the rich only got there by evil nefarious means, and don't deserve their money.

[Bobmuhthol]

So in other words, you don't have a number, you just want the tax rates to go up as a persons income goes up.So in other words, I am a real person with a real capacity for thought. Anyone who says "this is the number that solves the general equilibrium of the economy," which is what you're implying, would be a fucking moron. So no, I'm not a fucking moron, thank you for acknowledging that.
Always great when a person won't state a number just basically says "more".It is not my responsibility to solve precisely the government's problems. You aren't even agreeing with me on the direction, so what fucking difference does it make what the magnitude is?
What you are saying with the second part is you want everyone to be poor, because you think it's more fair that way. Technically speaking, a fair tax system would be everyone pays the same rate. That is fair and even across the board. The rich would still pay MORE in total taxes. Actually, a progressive tax structure is anything but fair. But, then again, some people really don't believe in fair. Just in what they deem is right.Don't precede your thought with "technically speaking" when what you're saying, technically speaking, is not actually true, technically speaking. If you think it's fair to take a group of people starting at different points, and then impose a system that doesn't discriminate based on where they start, then you need to rethink your definition of fair.
So you think we need more taxes huh, To do what exactly? To fund what? There is not some expenses we can cut in the fed? Do you personally think we need to spend 1 million dollars for some labcoats to watch a shrimp on a treadmill? Or spend 10's of million to update an airfield that has only 2 flights a week?I'm not addressing this because it is irrelevant. Nothing I say will impact the actual argument.
Also, realistically speaking, we would get more money if we taxes the masses then if we taxed the rich. Realistically, no, you won't. See, we came to opposite conclusions with the same amount of evidence. It's amazing.
I still would love to see proposed tax brackets from you.I'm not running a budget, I don't have to set a fucking thing. My single criterion was monotonically increasing effective rates.

[Whirlin]

I really wish you would state exactly what you think a fair tax for the rich is.

Even better, please describe the word "fair" when applied to taxes.

Lastly, please advise me as to how exactly you would create policies to not allow the rich to use their own money to increase their wealth, and why.
The initial creation of the taxation system was a combination of both flat rate, and progressive taxes. However, flawed implementation has created an environment of regressive tax systems.

I see no reason why the rich would not be allowed to use their own money to increase their wealth even if they were taxed at the maximum ordinary income tax rate of 38% (I think that's the current rate for 2013?). If people are making the argument that an individual can grow their own wealth when they have minimal discretionary income at 35k at a 15% tax rate, then there's no reason why a rich magically be prohibited from doing so.



I believe the cap is on tax free contributions, you can generally contribute as much as your company allows. I once worked at a place that allowed up to 99% of a person's pay. Which I think is silly, but still.

You can always contribute additional money outside of your employer's 401k... But if you have the cash flow to be contributing 17.5k traditional, then I don't see any benefit of investing in a restricted retirement account over a traditional investment account, especially while capital gains taxes are stupidly low.



This sounds like you have a number of non-income investments you are paying taxes on. I am sure the CEO that gets paid 1 million a year but has investments earning 50 million has to pay more then comes out of their paycheck as well.

Maybe you should just be happy that you make enough money to require you to pay an additional 20k in taxes and release it's only fair that you pay more.
Well, now you're just belittling her emotions, which makes you come across as a douche rather than taking the time to understand why she's upset.
It's basic sales: Anticipated service being delivered versus actual services received.
The American People are told that we have a progressive tax structure, where the rich pay more (on the individual basis... not this macro level nonsense that Atlanteax keeps harping on), yet upon application, they're paying substantially lower actual tax rate than the middle class.

I am currently in the 28% ordinary income tax rate. I am successful, I have done well. I have worked my way up to this from the 25% bracket. If I do even better, I work myself up to 33% tax rate. Yet those that have done 10 times better than that, end up paying less than 10%. The system isn't functioning as intended. Or it's functioning as intended, and we were sold on a lie that we're living in a progressive tax structure.

Either way, it's cause for outrage, either as a result of the propaganda released, or by poor implementation. Both of these causes for outrage span beyond party lines, and envelop both Republicans and Democrats as responsible parties.

[Atlanteax]

No one argued that the rich do not pay most of the tax revenue. Everyone with a brain argued that the tax system is unfair. You even posted your deceptive graph with a comment along the lines of, "People think that the rich are not being fairly taxed, but look, they clearly are!" It was never a question of how much tax revenue is paid by the rich, and it was always a question of how much of their income goes to taxes.

There's no "minor facet" to the fact that you addressed an argument about progressive tax systems with total dollars spent. If you said that inflation is too high, and I said, "But look, I started with $1000, inflation is 50% a year, and after one year I have $1500! Everyone is richer, this is amazing!!" would you think I'm an idiot? I certainly hope so. But that's what you just did.

Sure I would think you were being an idiot.

But let me restructure it in a different way.

Let's say we got someone making $50k, but paid $12.5k in taxes, an effective rate of 25%.
Now there is a multimillionaire who paid $850,000 in taxes, and he was taxed at an effective rate of 21%.
So while the multimillionaire is paying a relatively lower rate overall, between the two of them, he paid 98.6% of the total combined taxes.

Let's do 10x $50k at same rate (total of $125k), and the same multimillionaire.
The multimillionaire paid 87.2% of the total.

Now to make it about the 99% vs the 1% ...

Expanding this to 99x at $50k (total of $1,237,500) with the sole MM, the later (Mr 1%) paid 40.7%.
Each of the 99 individuals paid 0.6%.

Now let's go another step further and say all 100 of them get $5k back from the government in direct goods/services
(afterall, this is part of why everyone pays taxes, right?)
Those who made $50k, paid $12.5k, only 'lost' $7.5k to the government, 15% rate off what they earned.
This obviously has a negligible impact on the MM individually.

Then if we were to do 99x at $7.5k ($742,500 total 'lost' to the government) and the MM at $845k, the later was responsible for 53.2% of the burden (everyone else drops to 0.47%)

.

Obviously there is much more to consider than how the 99% paying an effective rate of 25% (which actually dropped to 15% as above) vs the 1% paying an effective rate of 21% is "unfair" ...

[Bobmuhthol]

So you just made up a bunch of numbers constructed carefully to be consistent with your argument, and I'm supposed to walk away convinced that the actual tax data is different?

[Candor]

So you just made up a bunch of numbers constructed carefully to be consistent with your argument, and I'm supposed to walk away convinced that the actual tax data is different?

That approach is straight from the Liberal Handbook, Chapter 4, pages 138-160.

[Jarvan]

So in other words, I am a real person with a real capacity for thought. Anyone who says "this is the number that solves the general equilibrium of the economy," which is what you're implying, would be a fucking moron. So no, I'm not a fucking moron, thank you for acknowledging that.It is not my responsibility to solve precisely the government's problems. You aren't even agreeing with me on the direction, so what fucking difference does it make what the magnitude is?Don't precede your thought with "technically speaking" when what you're saying, technically speaking, is not actually true, technically speaking. If you think it's fair to take a group of people starting at different points, and then impose a system that doesn't discriminate based on where they start, then you need to rethink your definition of fair.I'm not addressing this because it is irrelevant. Nothing I say will impact the actual argument.Realistically, no, you won't. See, we came to opposite conclusions with the same amount of evidence. It's amazing.I'm not running a budget, I don't have to set a fucking thing. My single criterion was monotonically increasing effective rates.[/COLOR]


Can always tell the morons in the room tho, because they love to use big words they think others won't understand.

That being said. You don't have a number, because frankly there is no number that would please you. You don't actually have a thought of your own, only what others tell you. You want "more". That's about it. "more" would never satisfy you really.

As for taxing the masses... how much did the middle class tax cut from bush cost the country according to the dems, and how much the top tax cut cost? Hmmm?

Here.. I will help you...

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

I may not be going to MIT for economics.. but even I grasp that $463 billion is more then $81.5 billion. How exactly did you get into MIT again?

[Bobmuhthol]

God you're a fucking piece of work.

It's laughable that you think I think that words like "equilibrium" are scary and confusing, so nobody will understand me.

I've made legitimate points. You've simply challenged (blindly) everything I've said as baseless, called me brainwashed, and criticized me for not being specific enough. Meanwhile, your entire position is "everything is fine as is and nothing needs adjusting." You've put yourself in a perfect position to sit around and call everyone else stupid because you're getting your way, but it solves nothing, and it's completely transparent.

You're not more intelligent than I am. That's a fact, and you don't necessarily have to get over it, but it's in your best interest to do so. But even more importantly, you're not more informed, more reasonable, or more in touch with reality on this topic. And again, you don't really have to come to terms with it, but do yourself the favor of believing it silently.

[Jarvan]

So you are saying that 81.5 is more then 463?

I am dying to hear this explained.

I wonder how long I will have to wait.


God you're a fucking piece of work.

It's laughable that you think I think that words like "equilibrium" are scary and confusing, so nobody will understand me.

I've made legitimate points. You've simply challenged (blindly) everything I've said as baseless, called me brainwashed, and criticized me for not being specific enough. Meanwhile, your entire position is "everything is fine as is and nothing needs adjusting." You've put yourself in a perfect position to sit around and call everyone else stupid because you're getting your way, but it solves nothing, and it's completely transparent.

You're not more intelligent than I am. That's a fact, and you don't necessarily have to get over it, but it's in your best interest to do so. But even more importantly, you're not more informed, more reasonable, or more in touch with reality on this topic. And again, you don't really have to come to terms with it, but do yourself the favor of believing it silently.

So.. where exactly was I wrong when I said raising taxes on the middle class back would net us more money then increasing on the rich?

Do I think things need to be changed? Yes, but not your simplistic idea of "Oh, lets tax the rich more!". Honestly, I think the system is fine, I just think it needs to be tweaked. Loopholes removed, deductions decreased. Frankly, I think the home owner deduction is stupid, but that's just me. I do not think people should get more back in taxes then they put in, period, ever. Oh your a single mother who works part time with 7 kids? Yeah well, sorry, but maybe learn to close your legs.

People that pay ZERO into the system, and in fact get way more out then even I pay into it, don't care at all about the system EXCEPT that they keep getting more out of the system. Do you in your all powerful intelligence (which I still seriously doubt) think said mother would EVER vote to remove her largesse from the System?

[Ryvicke]

Jarvan--you fail to comprehend that a tax cut on those making $250k or less applies to everyone that is also making more than that. Their first $250k is taxed at the same rate as anyone else's. So you can't just hold up 463 to 81 and say "look one is bigger!" cause a huge part of that 463 is going to the people that you think are only part of the 81.

Also: your graph of total tax share is skewed because it doesn't show the same data for share of total wealth over the same period. Please believe that anyone that knows what the fuck has been going on in America for the last 50 years understands very clearly that the wealthy pay fewer taxes now than ever before. The reason the graph has gone up is only because the top 10% of incomes have so outpaced the bottom 90% in the last 50 years that the graph has to go up. Get it? You must have seen something about this in the oh, 17 billion mentions of it in the last 10 years.

[Jarvan]

Jarvan--you fail to comprehend that a tax cut on those making $250k or less applies to everyone that is also making more than that. Their first $250k is taxed at the same rate as anyone else's. So you can't just hold up 463 to 81 and say "look one is bigger!" cause a huge part of that 463 is going to the people that you think are only part of the 81.

Also: your graph of total tax share is skewed because it doesn't show the same data for share of total wealth over the same period. Please believe that anyone that knows what the fuck has been going on in America for the last 50 years understands very clearly that the wealthy pay fewer taxes now than ever before. The reason the graph has gone up is only because the top 10% of incomes have so outpaced the bottom 90% in the last 50 years that the graph has to go up. Get it? You must have seen something about this in the oh, 17 billion mentions of it in the last 10 years.

Sorry, I think you may have failed logic class.

Yes, it applies to the rich as well, but only their first 250k. After that they are taxed at the highest amount. So how exactly would that be a HUGE part of 463 billion? lets just remove the 81.5 from the 463. That leaves a 381.5 billion difference. Now, lets just say that by huge you mean more then 50%. so 190.75 billion. Not realistically the difference in tax rates is about 3%. So under Bush tax cuts, the rich got a 3% tax break on their first 250k. Which equals 7.5k a year. So, what does this mean. This would mean that to reach 190.75 billion in middle class tax breaks that really went to the rich, there would need to have been 2,543,333 people making 250k or more. Now according to the IRS website, in 2010 there were 2,761,934 total returns of 250K and more in adjusted gross income. Now, this doesn't say exactly where the income comes from, frankly I don't feel like taking the hours at least to break it down further really, we will just consider it all taxable income at personal rates.

As you can see, yes there is enough people to be considered slightly more then half of the "middle class" tax cuts go towards the wealthy. Is this a "huge" amount though? But honestly, does that make my statement less accurate? I said we would get more revenue from increasing taxes on the middle class. This is still accurate. Since by doing so, we also increase taxes on the rich. Once again, 463 is greater then 81.5. People cried and screamed about 81.5 billion, and how it would bankrupt the country. yet the bigger number of 463 was never mentioned.

[Ryvicke]

Sorry, I think you may have failed logic class.

Yes, it applies to the rich as well, but only their first 250k. After that they are taxed at the highest amount. So how exactly would that be a HUGE part of 463 billion? lets just remove the 81.5 from the 463. That leaves a 381.5 billion difference. Now, lets just say that by huge you mean more then 50%. so 190.75 billion. Not realistically the difference in tax rates is about 3%. So under Bush tax cuts, the rich got a 3% tax break on their first 250k. Which equals 7.5k a year. So, what does this mean. This would mean that to reach 190.75 billion in middle class tax breaks that really went to the rich, there would need to have been 2,543,333 people making 250k or more. Now according to the IRS website, in 2010 there were 2,761,934 total returns of 250K and more in adjusted gross income. Now, this doesn't say exactly where the income comes from, frankly I don't feel like taking the hours at least to break it down further really, we will just consider it all taxable income at personal rates.

As you can see, yes there is enough people to be considered slightly more then half of the "middle class" tax cuts go towards the wealthy. Is this a "huge" amount though? But honestly, does that make my statement less accurate? I said we would get more revenue from increasing taxes on the middle class. This is still accurate. Since by doing so, we also increase taxes on the rich. Once again, 463 is greater then 81.5. People cried and screamed about 81.5 billion, and how it would bankrupt the country. yet the bigger number of 463 was never mentioned.

Do the second paragraph now.

[Jarvan]

Follow the logic Ryvicke.. Middle class tax cuts were more then the upper income tax cuts.

Does it matter that the upper income also received some from those tax cuts? No, it doesn't. Unless you are saying we need a new tax code where IF you make more then 250k you get one rate say, 13, 18, 28, 31, 36, and 38 Rates.. compared to those under 250k that would pay 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 rates.

OTHERWISE, if you increase the rates the middle class would pay, you are also increasing those same rates on the upper class, INCREASING the total amount you gain in revenue. I know it's a hard concept for people to understand. But the "middle class tax cuts" cost more of revenue then the "upper class" tax cuts did. It's basic math. Now, you can argue that the "rich" benefited just as much if not slightly more from the middle class cuts, but you CAN NOT argue that the middle class cuts cost more then the Rich cuts did.

It's simple math.

463 > 81.5

[Jarvan]

Then again, Maybe you really do want to apply the tax code differently to different people.

There we go, that will solve it, have different rates for those that reach 250k. if you are luckily enough to reach 250k in a year, your taxes are retroactively changed to a higher base rate. That way Being an "evil rich person" you don't get any benefit from a change in the tax system that would normally affect everyone.

There, now the thought that the "middle class" tax cut part was in fact less then the tax cut to the rich.

[Atlanteax]

More of Obama hating on 'the rich' ... going after their IRAs!!

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/10/retirement/obama-retirement-saving/

[Bobmuhthol]

I don't like that idea on the merits that the money in an IRA is already subject to a bunch of rules, and high income individuals don't have access to them at all iirc. If someone makes a maximum contribution every year for 50 years to plan for retirement, and makes smart investments along the way, it's ridiculous to then turn around and tax them. Wealth taxes make no sense.

[Latrinsorm]

It's always iffy to go off a newspaper writer's impression of a technical issue, especially when "Many other details are still unknown as well.", but it sounds equivalent to adding another tax bracket...?

I am pretty shocked to find that only 6,180 accounts would be impacted. Do the rich spread it out to multiple IRAs, or what?

[Bobmuhthol]

It's extremely difficult to build up $3 million in an IRA, and all of your different IRA accounts are aggregated into one for the purpose of contribution limits, etc. It's not like adding a tax bracket because the tax is on assets and not income. The IRA was explicitly created to receive better tax treatment for retirement savings. To turn around and point to IRAs as a quick source of tax revenue is extremely troubling.

[crb]

Ya, Bob is actually not talking out of his ass here. IRAs already are highly restricted, starting at around 150k of income you can't use a roth at all, and traditional IRA deposits are also not tax favored (it lowers your present AGI, but the growth is not tax free), and also have annual limits. The exception being a roll over. Someone who makes more than 150k can open a traditional IRA, and then roll it over into a ROTH (paying taxes in the process). That is a new thing though, congress made some messy laws that allow it. You can also combine 401ks into IRAs. Theoretically, its possible, if you're successful, and start saving very early (20s) you could reach 3m by retirement, if you invest the maximum each year, and the market helps you out, but how many people do that?

In reality, the most common way to get that much is to hit a home run. You put a nontraditional investment in there, a private business, pre-ipo stock options from the techcompany you work for, or just get really lucky with investing. You need an investment with a 1000%+ return.

On the other hand, $3m is not a lot for retirement. Conservative financial planners will tell retirees that they should spend 4% of their principal yearly to make sure they don't outlive their money. $120k a year, a good living, but not a wallstreet fat cat by any stretch of the imagination, and before that is before taxes (if it were a traditional IRA, ROTHS have taxes paid on the front end).

[crb]

I read this the other day which is on topic:

http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=9359

He makes some good points. Marshmallow eaters, by the way, refer to either people who want instant gratification (one marshmallow people) or people who save to they can have more (two marshmallow people) based on this study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment).



What bothers me is when I see attempts to redistribute wealth from the two marshmallow eaters to the one marshmallow eaters. For instance, by the time I retire in 6 years I will have probably averaged about $80,000/year over my working life, which makes me comfortably upper middle class. Because I am a two marshmallow personality, I’ve probably saved about half of that income. So I’m doing fine. Most Americans with similar incomes are one marshmallow types, and save something closer to 10% of their incomes.

What do we do if Social Security needs to be trimmed in order to balance the budget? I hear lots of talk about cutting back on benefits for those who “don’t need it.” That would be people like me. Here’s why I don’t trust the Dems—I see them as the party of one marshmallow eaters. They represent people who have less self-control. I fear they will cut my benefits, but not cut the benefits of people who didn’t save for retirement. I fear they will use “wealth” as the criterion to determine who is needy and who isn’t; not lifetime wage earnings.

In my view there is nothing egalitarian about redistributing income from two marshmallow eaters to one marshmallow eaters. They’ve already had their fun when young, loading up their three car garages with all sorts of fun toys. I’ve never even had a garage.

I’m not saying that the rich shouldn’t be the ones who accept cutbacks in Social Security to save the system, that is a defensible argument (although interestingly many progressives oppose the idea, hoping that Social Security doesn’t become seen as “welfare.”) But if you are going to do means-testing, it should be on lifetime wage income, not wealth. If they do that then I need not fear for my SS benefits, as most Americans who have averaged about $80,000 a year over their lifetime have not saved much, and would march on Washington if their SS benefits were cut back.

Why should we take from the ants and give to grasshoppers? The responsible middle class person who saved so he could live better during retirement should pay a penalty to bail out the profligate middle class person who did not save?

Plus, when you do such a thing, you incentivize the wrong behavior, and incentives matter, because human beings respond to them. The whole reason congress created tax favored retirement accounts in the first place was to provide an incentive for responsible retirement saving.

[Candor]

On the other hand, $3m is not a lot for retirement. Conservative financial planners will tell retirees that they should spend 4% of their principal yearly to make sure they don't outlive their money. $120k a year, a good living, but not a wallstreet fat cat by any stretch of the imagination, and before that is before taxes (if it were a traditional IRA, ROTHS have taxes paid on the front end).

120K is pretty good if you own your house outright...IE no mortgage payment...unless you live in a high cost area (NYC for example).

[crb]

And will it be so in 30 years?

Younger generations have to take into account the invariable lower buying power of money in the future.

[Bobmuhthol]

I think it's hilarious that crb referenced Scott Sumner, my professor.

I am mentioned in one of his posts.

[crb]

I think it's hilarious that crb referenced Scott Sumner, my professor.

I am mentioned in one of his posts.

He sounds like a cool dude, unlike yourself.



I am a libertarian...Here’s why I don’t trust the Dems

Yup, definitely sounds like a cool dude.

[Bobmuhthol]

He's really popular and well respected, so yes, I would agree he's unlike me.

[crb]

He's really popular and well respected, so yes, I would agree he's unlike me.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bobmuhthol again.

You must instead settle for this karmic thumbs up:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1291131680_two-thumbs-up.jpg

[Bobmuhthol]

And will it be so in 30 years?

Younger generations have to take into account the invariable lower buying power of money in the future.If your investments do not outpace inflation over a 30 year horizon, you've done something horribly wrong. We're talking about present value dollars.

[crb]

If your investments do not outpace inflation over a 30 year horizon, you've done something horribly wrong. We're talking about present value dollars.

Sure, although lots of people do do horribly wrong things. The point was about that 3m cap though. Is it indexed to inflation? Real inflation? You know there are different ways to do that, some better than others. Could it end up being another AMT that catches more and more people? It doesn't have a chance of passing so this is all academic in the end.

[Atlanteax]

Wanted to avoid creating a new thread...

But poor people are TAX CHEATS!!! OUTRAGE OUTRAGE!!

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/23/irs-overpaid-eitc-earned-income-tax-credit/?ncid=webmail23


On Tuesday, The Hill reported that the IRS overpaid the benefit for the Earned Income Tax Credit program by between 21 percent and 25 percent -- or $11.6 billion to $13.6 billion -- in 2012.


In terms of sequestration cuts, the EITC's overpayment exceeds the $9.9 billion that has been cut from Medicare, and is equal to a little less than half of the $28.7 billion that is getting stripped from all discretionary federal spending.


On the bright side, the IRS estimates that 2012 overpayment was lower than in most years; then again, over the last decade, the IRS has overpaid by up to $132.6 billion. For that matter, the program has broad bipartisan support, and most politicians agree that the overpayments have gone to a good cause: The EITC directly helps the country's poorest workers.

IRS has overpaid by $132.6 billion the last 10 years ... but hey, it's cool, it all went to the working poor ... we just need to raise taxes on everyone else to offset this!