Fuzzy Math

[Kefka]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news/economy/election_taxes.reut/


NEW YORK (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of the cuts benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers Friday.

The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, Sen. John Kerry.

The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.

Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to about $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post.

[Artha]

The richest 1 percent pay 20% of the taxes? Damn.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Artha
The richest 1 percent pay 20% of the taxes? Damn.

I'd wager they also earn at least 20% of the money.

Jorddyn

[peam]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Artha
The richest 1 percent pay 20% of the taxes? Damn.

I'd wager they also earn at least 20% of the money.

Jorddyn

That's shooting low.

[Valthissa]

Taxes aren't fair.

What test is there to say the 20.1% paid by the top 1% is too high or too low?

I guarantee you that I did not receive government services even approaching the amount I paid to the IRS this year.

I'm not complaining, owing lots of taxes means you're making a good living.

C/Valth

[Nieninque]

the top 1% own 38.1% of the wealth in the country, the next 4% own 21.3%, and the next 5% own 11.5%. That is to say, the top 10% of the country owns 70.9% of the wealth of this nation!

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Kefka
The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times.

In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report.


What it doesn't tell us is what the middle 20% pay for year in taxes. Is it more or less then the 20% that the richies are paying? Anyone clarify?

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Valthissa
I guarantee you that I did not receive government services even approaching the amount I paid to the IRS this year.
C/Valth

I'm not saying that you did or did not, but there are so many things that the government pays for that we don't realize.

(I'm also not saying that any of these subsidies should be paid, just that they are)

Subsidies to dairy farmers lowers the cost of milk.

Construction of highways for you to drive on. (Definitely can't price that one. Miles you drove on which roads divided by total miles driven on those roads times the total cost of construction and repair of those roads)

Subsidies to your electricity provider to keep costs low and improve lines. (Cheaper electricity)

Forgiveable loans to airlines to keep them running. (Cheaper flights)

Your education.

Your child's education (if you have one).

Access to local/state/national parks.

Clean water.

There's a million of them, those are just the ones that popped into my head first.

And no, I'm not championing taxes, I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of items that we tend to take for granted.

Jorddyn

[Wezas]

I'm an uneducated vegan hermit who doesn't have electricity and is terrified of water.

Gimme my money.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Wezas
I'm an uneducated vegan hermit who doesn't have electricity and is terrified of water.

Gimme my money.

So you live in Kentucky?

(Don't kill me, any Kentuckians)

[GSTamral]

The richest 1% own about 40% of the wealth yes, but they only earn about 14% of the income per year. That they are able to save and stockpile more easily aside, that wealth is mostly investments and savings.

You want fuzzy math? fuzzy math is saying that the majority of americans only saved an average of 1000 dollars a year. When you have a salary of 60,000, of which you take home 38,000 after taxes and deductions, then take away 15,000 for rent, 5000 for car payments, 8-10,000 for basic expenses such as food, gas, travel, and leave them with the 5-7,000 a year they are able to save up towards other things, and then tell them that an extra 1,000 is nothing big. The upper class is getting back more money to invest.

It has been proven time and time and time again, that money put into a bank or investment is between 4 and 7 times as effective as money spent by the government. The rich are stockpiling, but they are doing so in terms of property, bank accounts and investments. From a standard of living standpoint, the middle and upper middle classes are the ones that benefit the most. And considering that the upper middle class continuously gets crapped on by democratic policy, (inheritance taxes have murdered small business in america, trying to buy a home in any metropolitan area is damn near impossible due to the flat nature of property taxes).

People who move up tend to work very hard to do so. My mother struggled in school as a rather poor person until the age of 32, 3 years delayed getting out of medical school because she had to take semesters off to work and pay bills. She works over 60 hours a week and has done so for the last 25+ years as a highly specialized pathologist/cytologist. When your stupid lazy fucking ass feels like working that hard, then let's see how you feel about the disproportionate nature of taxes. I'd like to think we live in a country where people who work hard deserve to live better, and deserve better in general than lazy bums who try and get by on unskilled labor and choose not to struggle to educate themselves

[Trinitis]

I don't get it.

My step-father makes X amount of money per year. He pays Y amount of taxes, and is left with Z amount of money. His Z amount is a LOT more then the amount my mother is left with. He works a better job, and makes more money. Hince, in the end, he has more money. Whats to bitch about?

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by LordAdredrin]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral
The richest 1% own about 40% of the wealth yes, but they only earn about 14% of the income per year.

Would you mind sourcing that? I looked all over for one and couldn't find anything reliable.


Originally posted by GSTamral
When your stupid lazy fucking ass feels like working that hard, then let's see how you feel about the disproportionate nature of taxes. I'd like to think we live in a country where people who work hard deserve to live better, and deserve better in general than lazy bums who try and get by on unskilled labor and choose not to struggle to educate themselves


My stupid lazy fucking ass pays a rather high proportion of taxes based on my income. I'm single, which helps, but I have no dependents (no extra exemptions, no child care credit, no child tax credit) and don't pay enough mortgage interest or other items to itemize my deductions. My stupid lazy fucking ass has also learned empathy, and that not everything is as black and white as you see it, and my stupid lazy fucking ass is glad to pay the taxes I do because it makes the money I do.

Jorddyn, knows the stupid lazy fucking ass comment was not directed towards her, just really likes spouting hate because it is fun!

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Artha
The richest 1 percent pay 20% of the taxes? Damn.

And the richest 5% pay 53%, that number was 51% under Clinton. (Or so I've been told.)


OH TEH HUMANITY!111

[GSTamral]

The comment was not directed at anyone in particular, just people who like to bitch about how America is only for the rich.

They seem to forget principles such as hard work and effort. All to often I see people who complain about their position in their company who have only been trying hard to move ahead for a year, then giving up because it's "hopeless". All too many of them in general. They don't seem to understand the big picture, and then they complain about the people who get ahead.

If you CHOOSE to not get an education, and you CHOOSE to do nothing but work low wage hourly positions into your 30's, then you should not have the right to complain, because we all control our own fates, and no one is responsible for our own stupidity and laziness except ourselves.

[DeV]

I didn't see anyone in here complaining, yet. Way to go off on a tangent.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral
If you CHOOSE to not get an education, and you CHOOSE to do nothing but work low wage hourly positions into your 30's, then you should not have the right to complain, because we all control our own fates, and no one is responsible for our own stupidity and laziness except ourselves.

And if you CHOOSE to be rich, you CHOOSE to pay those tax rates. You knew what you were getting into, just as people working low paying jobs did. If you don't like it, ask for a pay cut to put yourself in a lower tax bracket. I'm sure your employer would oblige.

Jorddyn, strangely serious

[xtc]

lol u gotta luv those socialist democrats. Somehow giving everyone a tax break at the same % rate is unfair. Yes you pay more taxes you get a bigger break. Just like when you pay taxes if you make more you pay more. 33% of $30000 is $9900 of course you will be taxed at a lower rate. If you make $1 000 000.....33 % is $330 000. Wow look at all the tax the rich man pays, how unfair. How about everyone pays the amount say $30 000 regardless of income. How would the democrats like that? Isn’t that the fairest and most equitable way of doing it?

It has been years since I took economics but I remember clearly that the rich pay for most of the services and use the least of them. The poor pay the least and use the most of them. I went to University at a Tier 1 school in Canada and we used statistics from Statistics Canada which is the Government.

Damn Democrats they must all have posters of Marx and Engle on their wall and a copy of the Communist Manifesto in their bookcase.

You want to punish people for working hard and becoming successful. Fuzzy Math is democrat math.

[Ilvane]

Don't you know, it's always the liberals fault.;)

Oh, and big surprise that Bush's tax cuts went to benefit the rich. He is supported and paid for by the uppercrust.

Why do rich people get a break? Don't you think we should all be taxed equally? It's not as if the rich give it back to us or anything. Trickle down economics never worked in the Reagan years(remember the huge deficits?)

-A

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Ilvane]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
lol u gotta luv those socialist democrats. Somehow giving everyone a tax break at the same % rate is unfair. Yes you pay more taxes you get a bigger break. Just like when you pay taxes if you make more you pay more. 33% of $30000 is $9900 of course you will be taxed at a lower rate. If you make $1 000 000.....33 % is $330 000. Wow look at all the tax the rich man pays, how unfair. How about everyone pays the amount say $30 000 regardless of income. How would the democrats like that? Isn’t that the fairest and most equitable way of doing it?

Not quite sure what point you're trying to get across here...


It has been years since I took economics but I remember clearly that the rich pay for most of the services and use the least of them. The poor pay the least and use the most of them.

Source, please. I'd wager that the poor use the more obvious services (welfare), while the rich use those we don't think of (airlines that are subsidized, courts to protect their patents). Am I going to say that the poor don't use more services? No. I just think it's not quite as bad as you say.



I went to University at a Tier 1 school in Canada and we used statistics from Statistics Canada which is the Government.

Nifty. Pull 'em up, give us a link.


Damn Democrats they must all have posters of Marx and Engle on their wall and a copy of the Communist Manifesto in their bookcase.

You want to punish people for working hard and becoming successful. Fuzzy Math is democrat math.

Personally, I love people whose entire argument is "Democrats are socialist and Marxist and communist and they suck LOL."

Seriously.

Jorddyn

[Latrinsorm]

Rich people pay (way) more taxes, by dollars and by percentage, than poorer people. I know, I've seen the tax returns. Now, I didn't have the access or the desire to make a group comparison, so I don't know about this upper-middle class greatest tax burden stuff, but I have much more confidence in the current system than an "equal" system.

[Artha]

Oh, and big surprise that Bush's tax cuts went to benefit the rich. He is supported and paid for by the uppercrust.

Except that he has more donations of less than 2000 dollars than Kerry. I also recall seeing a list of the biggest political contributors. A republican didn't even show up until 5th or 6th on the list.

[Jorddyn]

And, I forgot, the best part of making lots of money?

Once you make wages of $87,900, you stop paying Social Security OASDI. That means, instead of the 7.65% that comes out of your paycheck each week, they only take 1.45%. Voila! Instant 6.2% tax break because you make more money.

Needless to say that there is also no FICA on income from investments, rentals, and such.

Jorddyn, just saying

[DeV]

Newsflash: There are poor Republicans that live in this country and pay taxes. :eek: (like you didn't already know)

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Newsflash: There are poor Republicans that live in this country and pay taxes. :eek: (like you didn't already know)

Wait, wait. You're saying that everyone who is a Republican isn't rich? Does that mean everyone who is a Democrat isn't poor? My buckets are failing! Damn the individuals who think they should... well... think like individuals!!

Jorddyn, slow day at work

Edited to say that this may have come off sounding like I was mocking DEV, but that's not my intent at all. I was agreeing.

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Jorddyn]

[xtc]

I have been equally critical of democrats and Repubs if you read my posts.

The idea that using the same % across the board for tax breaks is unfair is ridiculous.

Poor tax uses
Subsidised housing
Welfare
Food stamps
Police
courts (here is a huge cost) most people who commit crimes are poor.
public defenders
Subsidised public transit
Health care

My point is it obvious that the rich pay more taxes 33% of $30K is much less than 33% of $1 Million. You can't honestly say you don't believe that the rich pay the Lions share of the taxes.

The way the Democrats approach taxes is socialist. I call it as it is.

My University
http://www.utoronto.ca/

Where we got our stats we studied.
http://www.statcan.ca/

You wanted a specific link to prove that the rich pay for most of the services well here it is

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/2002/04/09/news/nation/3026232.htm?1c

"The wealthiest 1 percent, those earning $293,415 or more, paid more than a third of the taxes; their share of the nation's taxable income was 19 percent. They pay income taxes at the top rate, now 38.6 percent, compared with a maximum rate of 15 percent for the majority of lower-earning taxpayers".

"The 63 million taxpayers in the bottom half paid only 4 percent of the income taxes in 1999, according to the IRS. They earned, on average, less than $26,415 a year"

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc

Where we got our stats we studied.
http://www.statcan.ca/


So, where is the link that shows that the poor use more services?



You wanted a specific link to prove that the rich pay for most of the services well here it is


I never questioned whether or not the rich pay more in income tax. Everyone knows they do.

Jorddyn

[DeV]

Please define subsidized public transit.

[Wezas]

Am I the only one that doesn't understand why we *shouldn't* have equal tax percentage for everyone?

Because people are making more money means they can pay less of a tax percentage? The only people that I would feel for with an equal tax percentage would be the poor (depending on how much they made).

[xtc]

Sorry don't have time to dig thru Stats Canada mammoth site. I have some old articles from Stats that will confirm that the poor use most of the services. But here are two examples

http://www2.ctcnet.org/ctc/Evansschool/lowincome0209.pdf

http://www.alliantenergy.com/stellent/groups/public/documents/pub/res_wi_ap_011162.hcsp

Here you can see all your tax dollars paying for poor people sevices.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/economics.html


Regarding public transit in Canada. municipal and Provinicial transit is subsidised by the tax payer. This includes subways, trains, and buses.

[Edaarin]

I'm sure I've made a post on this somewhere before. I'm sure Tamral has too. You're trading off between fairness and efficiency when you're comparing a flat tax and a staggered tax rate.

Taxes take away 40% of household income on average (this includes state, federal, local, property, car, etc). The staggered, or marginal, system that we have now is progressive. Higher rates for higher incomes, this sort of lends a "Robin Hood" take from the rich give to the poor mentality. This is an inefficient method, for more than one reason, the least of which is on the complexity of the system. There are so many loopholes, so much paperwork, so many man hours put in by the IRS and lost by the private sector, that some people have estimated the cost of every tax dollar collected as high as $0.35. Secondly, you're essentially being punished for success. Say you make 49k, and are in one bracket, but you get a $50 a week raise that pushes your income to $51k. Look at that, you're in another bracket, and now your expendable income is less than it was when you were paying $49k because you're paying a higher rate.

Lump sum tax: most efficient. Everyone pays X dollars regardless of income. Not very fair though, is it. The people making < $30k a year get to give it all to taxes.

Finally, look up Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" theory.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
Sorry don't have time to dig thru Stats Canada mammoth site. I have some old articles from Stats that will confirm that the poor use most of the services. But here are two examples

http://www2.ctcnet.org/ctc/Evansschool/lowincome0209.pdf


Well, while the poor are busy using the library computers (which this article explains), the rich are busy flying on subsidized planes, or driving their SUVs using subsidized (and then taxed, strangely enough) gas on subsidized roads.



http://www.alliantenergy.com/stellent/groups/public/documents/pub/res_wi_ap_011162.hcsp


Yup, poor do receive assistance with their utility bills.


Here you can see all your tax dollars paying for poor people sevices.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/economics.html


Yup, that explains some governmental programs.

So, you've shown that the poor use programs. Show me that they use MORE, which is what I asked in the first place?

Jorddyn

Edited because I don't know what the hell I did. Again.

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Jorddyn]

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Jorddyn]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Edaarin
Say you make 49k, and are in one bracket, but you get a $50 a week raise that pushes your income to $51k. Look at that, you're in another bracket, and now your expendable income is less than it was when you were paying $49k because you're paying a higher rate.

Edaarin, that's not how the system works.

Let's say that you pay 10% up to 50,000, and 20% for over 50,000. (These are made up numbers for ease and clarity of calculation)

If you earn 49,000, you will pay 4,900 in taxes.

If you earn 51,000, you will pay 5,000 for the first 50,000 and $200 for the thousand over 50,000 that you make, for a total of $5,200, not the $10,200 that you suggest it will be.

It's a marginal tax rate. It only bumps taxes on the money you make above that amount.

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Edaarin
I'm sure I've made a post on this somewhere before. I'm sure Tamral has too. You're trading off between fairness and efficiency when you're comparing a flat tax and a staggered tax rate.


The complexity of our system is most certainly not because of the tax rate table. It's a page long at most. The complexity of our system comes from the exclusions and loopholes and deductions and exemptions and credits that keep getting added.

What we really need is a clean sweep and do-over of the tax code. Congress gets 20 pages. If they can't fit it on those 20 pages, it doesn't get in. If they want to add something, something else has to go.

Jorddyn

[Jorddyn]

Someone take away my posting privileges, I keep screwing it up.

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Jorddyn]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Jorddyn
Someone take away my posting privileges, I keep screwing it up.

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Jorddyn] No. You're doing just fine. ;)

[Hulkein]

Except for the whole quadruple post and not understanding how to put links down, she's doing just great.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Except for the whole quadruple post and not understanding how to put links down, she's doing just great.

Go ahead, mock me :cry:

[DeV]

See, even Hulkein agrees.

Seriously, the quoting mechanics are working against you today it seems.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by Hulkein
Except for the whole quadruple post and not understanding how to put links down, she's doing just great.

Go ahead, mock me :cry:

Just kidding. You fixed the quotes anyway, so now you won't look like a huge newb, just a machine gun poster. ;)

[xtc]

lol come on Jorddyn be honest your arguments are weak. Gas is heavily taxed in Canada, US , and Europe. The taxes from Gas shoud go to all those who pay them in the form of roads & highways. That is not subsidy. In Canada not all that tax is recycled back to drivers.

As far as the airplane argument goes do you really think if you make a million dollars & pay over a $100 000 in taxes the little you may save on a plane ticket adds up to a hill of beans? If I were rich I would rather pay less than 6 figures in taxes and eliminate the subsidies to airlines. Of course the airline subsidies help keep jobs after Sept 11 and the average joe able to buy a plane ticket. Who pays for these subsidies? the rich. If I was rich I would be all for eliminating these subsidies and reducing my taxes.

Do you really think poor people don't use more services? Higher crime cost Police more, courts more, jails more. Health services in the US I understand? shelters? Come on have you been near a courtroom lately I have friends who are lawyers the courts are filled with poor people who have committed crimes, they get free legal representation by the tax payer. IV drug users who contract AIDS represent a phenomenal cost to the tax payer in treatment. I am not saying that we shouldn't pay for these services. However let's not punish the rich, we all deserve tax breaks alike. What public services do the rich use on mass?

I don't think the poor in America understand how good they have it on everyone else's dime. Travel to a developing nation and see the poor their. No subsidised housing, no free healthcare, no food stamps, no public agencies to help them. If you are poor you are poor. It astounds me how people don't get this.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
lol come on Jorddyn be honest your arguments are weak. Gas is heavily taxed in Canada, US , and Europe. The taxes from Gas shoud go to all those who pay them in the form of roads & highways. That is not subsidy. In Canada not all that tax is recycled back to drivers.

As far as the airplane argument goes do you really think if you make a million dollars & pay over a $100 000 in taxes the little you may save on a plane ticket adds up to a hill of beans? If I were rich I would rather pay less than 6 figures in taxes and eliminate the subsidies to airlines. Of course the airline subsidies help keep jobs after Sept 11 and the average joe able to buy a plane ticket. Who pays for these subsidies? the rich. If I was rich I would be all for eliminating these subsidies and reducing my taxes.

Do you really think poor people don't use more services? Higher crime cost Police more, courts more, jails more. Health services in the US I understand? shelters? Come on have you been near a courtroom lately I have friends who are lawyers the courts are filled with poor people who have committed crimes, they get free legal representation by the tax payer. IV drug users who contract AIDS represent a phenomenal cost to the tax payer in treatment. I am not saying that we shouldn't pay for these services. However let's not punish the rich, we all deserve tax breaks alike. What public services do the rich use on mass?

I don't think the poor in America understand how good they have it on everyone else's dime. Travel to a developing nation and see the poor their. No subsidised housing, no free healthcare, no food stamps, no public agencies to help them. If you are poor you are poor. It astounds me how people don't get this.

So what you're saying is that you can't find proof that they use significantly more programs?

Jorddyn

[xtc]

So what you're saying is that you can't find proof that they use significantly more programs?

Jorddyn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing of the sort but thanks for ignoring the rest of my post lol.

I have emailed a respected west coast think tank called The Fraser Institute and I am waiting for a response. They published a lot of papers on public and social policy intiatives. They have published several papers on the benefits of a flat tax I would be pleased to show you.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by xtc
So what you're saying is that you can't find proof that they use significantly more programs?

Jorddyn
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing of the sort but thanks for ignoring the rest of my post lol.

I have emailed a respected west coast think tank called The Fraser Institute and I am waiting for a response. They published a lot of papers on public and social policy intiatives. They have published several papers on the benefits of a flat tax I would be pleased to show you.

I'm sure the results will be interesting, but let's not kid ourselves about the source. The Frasier Institute is a hard-core right-wing think tank whose views reflect hard-core conservative values.

I wouldn't exactly buy this as a legitimate call to authority unless you want to pull up opposing views from, say The Center for American Progress.

-P

[xtc]

The Fraser Institute is a respect think tank and source of information. It is quoted on a wide range of issues in all of Canada's National Daily Newspapers. It has no political affiliation and has been critical of intiatives by all National Parties and has had praise for Initiatives by both The Liberal and The Conservative party.

I think you fear the answer (which is obvious) and as such are attempting to discredit an Independent source.

[Valthissa]

I missed the part where it was determinedwhat a fair percentage of the total taxes each income group should pay....

I originally asked the question how does one arrive at the decision that the top 1% of taxpayers paying 20.1% of the taxes is too little or too much. I submit that unless you can answer this question (hopefully with some objective criteria), you do not appreciate the difficulty involved in constructing a 'fair' system of taxation.

C/Valth

[Nieninque]

I reckon you work it out by looking at how much wealth the top 1% has, and using that as a base percentage to the minimum amount of tax they should be paying.

So if the top 1% owns 20% of the wealth of the country, then they should be paying at least 20% of the total tax bill. Probably, they should pay more.

[xtc]

quote

I reckon you work it out by looking at how much wealth the top 1% has, and using that as a base percentage to the minimum amount of tax they should be paying.

So if the top 1% owns 20% of the wealth of the country, then they should be paying at least 20% of the total tax bill. Probably, they should pay more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Socialist Mathematics at work lol it amazes me.

Here is a novel idea, why not pay for the services you use? What could be fairer than that? How about eliminating Income Tax and implementing user fees on the services we use. Sounds good to me.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by xtc
The Fraser Institute is a respect think tank and source of information. It is quoted on a wide range of issues in all of Canada's National Daily Newspapers. It has no political affiliation and has been critical of intiatives by all National Parties and has had praise for Initiatives by both The Liberal and The Conservative party.

I think you fear the answer (which is obvious) and as such are attempting to discredit an Independent source.

Nope .. honestly don't care about the answer. I just think that part of the critical thinking process should involve asking what the source of the information is, that's all.

If we're looking for fearless answers, why don't you ask the same question of someplace like .. oh .. say The Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epinet.org/), which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy.

(aka a "Liberal Economic Think Tank") :-D

-P

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Wezas
Because people are making more money means they can pay less of a tax percentage?In fact, it's currently the opposite. I've seen people making 20k a year pay no taxes, and I've seen people making a mil+ a year pay like 40% taxes. They could each pay 10%, but I don't see a reason why they should.

[Jorddyn]

Now that I have time, I'll respond to all of your post, as requested.


Originally posted by xtc
lol come on Jorddyn be honest your arguments are weak.

I'm not trying to prove that poor people do not use more social services. I am asking you to prove that they do. What I am pointing out is that rich people do use social services, just different ones.

Might I point out that the study showing that poor people use the computers in libraries more often than rich people do is not exactly a debate winning fact, either?


Gas is heavily taxed in Canada, US , and Europe. The taxes from Gas shoud go to all those who pay them in the form of roads & highways. That is not subsidy. In Canada not all that tax is recycled back to drivers.

Yes, everyone pays tax on gases. My point is that rich people use more gas than poor people, and are thus helped more by subsidies to gas companies. The same argument applies to airline subsidies

Oil company subsidies , according to the treasury department, cost us approxmately 2 billion dollars a year (9.6 billion over 5 years) according to http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/docs/po71.pdf

However, I can't locate any information supporting that wealthy people drive more than poor people, so I'll let that go.


As far as the airplane argument goes do you really think if you make a million dollars & pay over a $100 000 in taxes the little you may save on a plane ticket adds up to a hill of beans?

For me? No, I fly once or twice a year. For the guy who flies cross country or across the ocean weekly? Yes.


If I were rich I would rather pay less than 6 figures in taxes and eliminate the subsidies to airlines.

This is irrelevant to the discussion, I believe. We're discussing who receives what benefits from our tax dollars, not what we would like to see.


Of course the airline subsidies help keep jobs after Sept 11 and the average joe able to buy a plane ticket.

I'm not arguing whether or not they should exist. They do, so we're discussing who benefits more. Who do you believe benefited more by the airlines not going under? The farmer who is dirt poor who has never left his home state, or the corporate executive who flies at least once a week?


Who pays for these subsidies? the rich.

And the middle class. The extremely poor are the only ones who do not pay Federal income tax. They do still have to pay FICA at 7.65%, though, while the rich pay it at a lower rate due to the ceiling.


If I was rich I would be all for eliminating these subsidies and reducing my taxes.

Again, irrelevant.


Do you really think poor people don't use more services? Higher crime cost Police more, courts more, jails more. Health services in the US I understand? shelters?

Patent protection, National parks, improved education (higher income areas have better schools), our national highway system, subsidized utilities (bigger houses use more utilities), subsidized drug research (remember, many poor have no health insurance). Hell, they get more out of anything income based. They receive more social security dollars after retirement, while paying in a lower percentage while working.

They have more to protect, so one might argue that the increased police costs you state below actually benefit them as much as they poor. If I've got $10 worth of stuff, what do I care if someone steals it? Let 'em at your VanGogh.

I am not saying that you are wrong that poor use more dollars in shelters, law enforcement, and the like. I'm asking you to realize that the rich use other services in higher proportion, though it is not as obvious.


Come on have you been near a courtroom lately I have friends who are lawyers the courts are filled with poor people who have committed crimes, they get free legal representation by the tax payer. IV drug users who contract AIDS represent a phenomenal cost to the tax payer in treatment. I am not saying that we shouldn't pay for these services. However let's not punish the rich, we all deserve tax breaks alike. What public services do the rich use on mass?

See above.


I don't think the poor in America understand how good they have it on everyone else's dime.

I will give you that our nation's poor are far better off than the poor in any other nation. However, it seems that the rich don't realize how good they have it either.

Did you know that the income tax rate in France is 49.58%? Did you know that in Sweden, the income tax rate is around 50%, plus VAT taxes that can range up to 25% of the cost of goods? Compare that to 35% income tax +1.45% medicare tax + a top rate of 6.2% OASDI (anyone paying 35% in income tax pays less) = less than 42.65 that we pay.


Travel to a developing nation and see the poor their. No subsidised housing, no free healthcare, no food stamps, no public agencies to help them. If you are poor you are poor. It astounds me how people don't get this.

Again, we are discussing which service that are available in our country are used more by the poor, and which are used more by the rich. What social services are available in Uganda has nothing to do with it.

There, I think I covered everything.

Socialist Mathematics at work lol it amazes me.


Here is a novel idea, why not pay for the services you use? What could be fairer than that? How about eliminating Income Tax and implementing user fees on the services we use. Sounds good to me.

Well, then, we'll start by billing everyone for which roads they drive on how many miles each day. We'll also send each 6 year old a bill for his first grade education, adjusted for how good/bad the school is. And if someone breaks into your house, please be prepared to pay the $5,000 it will cost you for the police work to solve the crime.

Jorddyn

Edited to respond to xtc's last post without creating another post. You're welcome :)

[Edited on 8-13-2004 by Jorddyn]

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Nieninque
I reckon you work it out by looking at how much wealth the top 1% has, and using that as a base percentage to the minimum amount of tax they should be paying.

So if the top 1% owns 20% of the wealth of the country, then they should be paying at least 20% of the total tax bill. Probably, they should pay more.

so your proposed formula is:

income tax owed = % total wealth

any takers?

(I fail to understand the probably more comment)

C/Valth

[xtc]

lol that post was funny I hope you really don't believe your posts.

ok here we go


quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, everyone pays tax on gases. My point is that rich people use more gas than poor people, and are thus helped more by subsidies to gas companies. The same argument applies to airline subsidies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The taxes on gas far outway the subsidies. Thus IF the rich use more gas they pay more tax once again. In Canada 37-47% of the gas price is tax
http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/bc/May23-00.htm






quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not arguing whether or not they should exist. They do, so we're discussing who benefits more. Who do you believe benefited more by the airlines not going under? The farmer who is dirt poor who has never left his home state, or the corporate executive who flies at least once a week
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subsidies once again help the little guy the most. The baggage handler, the check-in girl, the cleaning staff, the airline secretary, AP Clerk, Mailroom clerk etc. Then there are all the companies that provide goods and services to the airline whose jobs count on the airline being in business. For a Rich guy saving a few sheckles means nothing in the big picture. For the average or poor smoo it means a ton. I hope you get this. Remember also any company has many more lowly workers than Executives. When I company goes down it impacts the poorest employess the worst.


Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patent protection, National parks, improved education (higher income areas have better schools), our national highway system, subsidized utilities (bigger houses use more utilities), subsidized drug research (remember, many poor have no health insurance). Hell, they get more out of anything income based. They receive more social security dollars after retirement, while paying in a lower percentage while working.

They have more to protect, so one might argue that the increased police costs you state below actually benefit them as much as they poor. If I've got $10 worth of stuff, what do I care if someone steals it? Let 'em at your VanGogh.

I am not saying that you are wrong that poor use more dollars in shelters, law enforcement, and the like. I'm asking you to realize that the rich use other services in higher proportion, though it is not as obvious
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highways, drug research, National Parks?, Education lol get real these benefit everyone equally and you are not mistaking infrastructure for subsidies. These are no greater help to the rich.


Regarding the Police costs so now it is the rich person's fault they are robbed because they have EARNED more? Please what kind of thinking is this? The person who robbed them is responsible for the cost.

Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that the income tax rate in France is 49.58%? Did you know that in Sweden, the income tax rate is around 50%, plus VAT taxes that can range up to 25% of the cost of goods? Compare that to 35% income tax +1.45% medicare tax + a top rate of 6.2% OASDI (anyone paying 35% in income tax pays less) = less than 42.65 that we pay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes the Europeans get screwed royally because Marx and Engel took there Communist Manifesto thru Europe. I doubt most Americans or Canadians would want to adopt their tax structure.


Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then, we'll start by billing everyone for which roads they drive on how many miles each day. We'll also send each 6 year old a bill for his first grade education, adjusted for how good/bad the school is. And if someone breaks into your house, please be prepared to pay the $5,000 it will cost you for the police work to -solve the crime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok let's bill the child's parents for his true education cost, you have me there I agree. And on the highway issue I agree. What sort of socialist thinking wants a victim of a crime to pay for being robbed? Why not put the cost where it belongs with the thief.


Here is another novel concept. People taking personal responsibilty for their life? Stop expecting Gov't hand outs, stop smoking crack and stealing, get and job and contribute to society. I am so sick of this socialist mentality that believes that society owes them a living. How soft have we become, no wonder the likes of Bin Laden and his fanatics laugh at us. We have become a soft, sorry people.

[Edaarin]

Oops, duh moment there.

Guess it's a good thing I'm not an economics major anymore :whistle: I stand by the rest of my post though!

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
lol that post was funny I hope you really don't believe your posts.

I guarantee I'm not posting just to see my name in lights. If I were, I might forego all punctuation and grammar.


ok here we go


quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, everyone pays tax on gases. My point is that rich people use more gas than poor people, and are thus helped more by subsidies to gas companies. The same argument applies to airline subsidies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The taxes on gas far outway the subsidies. Thus IF the rich use more gas they pay more tax once again. In Canada 37-47% of the gas price is tax
http://www.taxpayer.com/ltts/bc/May23-00.htm


Again, my argument is not that the poor do not pay less taxes (on gas or otherwise). My argument is that the rich do use a substantial portion of government benefits, including lower gas prices.




quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not arguing whether or not they should exist. They do, so we're discussing who benefits more. Who do you believe benefited more by the airlines not going under? The farmer who is dirt poor who has never left his home state, or the corporate executive who flies at least once a week
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subsidies once again help the little guy the most. The baggage handler, the check-in girl, the cleaning staff, the airline secretary, AP Clerk, Mailroom clerk etc.

So your argument is the little guy is helped more by trickle down economics? If I remember correctly, that didn't go so well in the early 80s.


Then there are all the companies that provide goods and services to the airline whose jobs count on the airline being in business.

And, the profits from these companies go to the poor? Or you're saying that they're lucky enough to keep their jobs, so they benefit more, which again leads to the trickle down theory?



For a Rich guy saving a few sheckles means nothing in the big picture.

Then paying a few more dollars in taxes should mean little either. Though, I feel the need to restate that I am not arguing that the rich don't pay more taxes - They do, and I believe they should.


For the average or poor smoo it means a ton.

So, it means nothing to the rich guy. But, we shouldn't burden him more. It means tons to the little guy, but he should pay more? I guess I don't get your point.


I hope you get this. Remember also any company has many more lowly workers than Executives. When I company goes down it impacts the poorest employess the worst.

And since the executives make their money based off the work of the lowely workers, shouldn't the executives then bear a larger burden? But... we're venturing off topic yet again.



Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patent protection, National parks, improved education (higher income areas have better schools), our national highway system, subsidized utilities (bigger houses use more utilities), subsidized drug research (remember, many poor have no health insurance). Hell, they get more out of anything income based. They receive more social security dollars after retirement, while paying in a lower percentage while working.

They have more to protect, so one might argue that the increased police costs you state below actually benefit them as much as they poor. If I've got $10 worth of stuff, what do I care if someone steals it? Let 'em at your VanGogh.

I am not saying that you are wrong that poor use more dollars in shelters, law enforcement, and the like. I'm asking you to realize that there are other services that the rich use more often, though they are not as obvious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highways, drug research, National Parks?, Education lol get real these benefit everyone equally and you are not mistaking infrastructure for subsidies. These are no greater help to the rich.

Really? Who drives more? Who gets a better educations? Who visits more national parks? Who benefits more from prescription drugs?

Again, I'm not saying that the poor do not use these services. I'm asking you to recognize that the rich use these services in far larger numbers.


Regarding the Police costs so now it is the rich person's fault they are robbed because they have EARNED more? Please what kind of thinking is this? The person who robbed them is responsible for the cost.

Who pays for home security now? Do you insist that anyone that has committed a crime pay for the ADT monitoring of your home? Yes, the cost is on you to protect your belongings. How exactly do you expect to bill the would be thieves? Furthermore, how do you expect to bill the person who robbed your house, who you have not yet caught?



Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know that the income tax rate in France is 49.58%? Did you know that in Sweden, the income tax rate is around 50%, plus VAT taxes that can range up to 25% of the cost of goods? Compare that to 35% income tax +1.45% medicare tax + a top rate of 6.2% OASDI (anyone paying 35% in income tax pays less) = less than 42.65 that we pay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes the Europeans get screwed royally because Marx and Engel took there Communist Manifesto thru Europe. I doubt most Americans or Canadians would want to adopt their tax structure.


So we agree that what happens in foreign countries is irrelevant to this discussion?


Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, then, we'll start by billing everyone for which roads they drive on how many miles each day. We'll also send each 6 year old a bill for his first grade education, adjusted for how good/bad the school is. And if someone breaks into your house, please be prepared to pay the $5,000 it will cost you for the police work to -solve the crime.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok let's bill the child's parents for his true education cost, you have me there I agree. And on the highway issue I agree. What sort of socialist thinking wants a victim of a crime to pay for being robbed? Why not put the cost where it belongs with the thief.

See my answer above.



Here is another novel concept. People taking personal responsibilty for their life?

I agree that everyone is ultimately responsible for his or her own life. I just see no problem with giving a hand up to Joe Schmo who is trying to get through college while supporting his wife and two kids. I especially don't see the problem when this country also engages in corporate welfare (protect the investments of the rich).


Stop expecting Gov't hand outs, stop smoking crack and stealing, get and job and contribute to society.

I agree. Now, you go out to the crackheads on the street and explain your new "Get a job" program to them, and see how well it works.

I don't disagree that welfare is abused in this country. However, I'd rather see one crooked person get welfare and four needy people get help than to see four needy people starve in order to shut out the one needy person.



I am so sick of this socialist mentality that believes that society owes them a living. How soft have we become, no wonder the likes of Bin Laden and his fanatics laugh at us. We have become a soft, sorry people.

So, does bringing Bin Laden into a thread have the same effect as Hitler? That is, if you mention it, you have lost?

And, where was your proof that the poor use far more social services than the rich again? This must be my third or fourth request for the information, I'm sure it is getting annoying.

Jorddyn

[Kefka]

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

[xtc]

Jordan I don't mean to be insulting but you have proved none of your points. I have proven several of mine.

Where is your proof that the "rich" use more services?

Where have you disproven that the poor do not use more services?

What is corporate welfare? Tax breaks? Please give me a break when you pay a fortune in taxes you deserve a break. Guess what corporations hire people average Joe's. This is the socialist mentality that your money is my money. If you are not competitive on taxes companies will move to countries that are.

How to you make the guilty pay for what they have stolen, simple. You start off every convicted person with a victim fine, say $200. Then once the convicted person has finished their time in jail they are required to pay back the cost of their theft. You garnish their wages for x number of years until they pay back. While in person you have them work, and the money they earn goes to the prison to help pay for the cost of their incarceration.


Regarding crack addicts who commit crimes, we put them in jail for their crimes. We have them work in jail to pay for their cost of the jail and we make them complete a mandatory drug treatment program. Upon release they are required to attend a Narcotics Anonymous 3 times a week as a condition of their release. Violation means immediate back to jail.

Regarding stats for the poor using more services your request doesn't annoy me at all. I will repeat what I have said in previous posts I have emailed the Fraser Insitute yesterday requesting stats. When I receive them I will post them here.

Please if you are going to post again refer to statistics or at least to a link offer some kind of substantiation of your claims.

Referring to bin laden does mean that I have lost at all . I have proven many of my points. You have done the best job though of proving me right. You have offered nothing but criticism based on erroneous theories. You have proven nothing while I have proven most of what I have said. See socialism doesn't work never has, a simple study of history will vet this out. Capitalism has redistributed more money then any other system in the history of man. I suggest reading Adam Smith.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
Jordan I don't mean to be insulting but you have proved none of your points. I have proven several of mine.

My entire point has been that I want you to prove your statement that the poor use significantly more services.


Where is your proof that the "rich" use more services?

Where did I say that they do? If I remember correctly, I said that they use less visible services, and as such, people tend to forget that they're using them at all.


Where have you disproven that the poor do not use more services?

Why should I have to disprove something you have given no proof for? That is your theory, and I simply asked for a link.



What is corporate welfare? Tax breaks?

Corporate welfare is huge tax breaks, credits, and incentives given to corporations that make tons of money and pay little to no taxes as is.


Please give me a break when you pay a fortune in taxes you deserve a break.

Yes, that does seem to be your stance. Those who pay more deserve a break, though they can afford to pay it. Those who pay less don't deserve a break, though they can't afford to pay.


Guess what corporations hire people average Joe's.

I never said they did not.


This is the socialist mentality that your money is my money. If you are not competitive on taxes companies will move to countries that are.

What does this have to do with the poor using significantly more services than the rich in this country, as you claim?


How to you make the guilty pay for what they have stolen, simple. You start off every convicted person with a victim fine, say $200. Then once the convicted person has finished their time in jail they are required to pay back the cost of their theft. You garnish their wages for x number of years until they pay back. While in person you have them work, and the money they earn goes to the prison to help pay for the cost of their incarceration.

Interesting idea.


Regarding crack addicts who commit crimes, we put them in jail for their crimes. We have them work in jail to pay for their cost of the jail and we make them complete a mandatory drug treatment program. Upon release they are required to attend a Narcotics Anonymous 3 times a week as a condition of their release. Violation means immediate back to jail.

Another interesting idea. You've still yet to show where you got your facts that the poor use significantly more services than the rich


Regarding stats for the poor using more services your request doesn't annoy me at all. I will repeat what I have said in previous posts I have emailed the Fraser Insitute yesterday requesting stats. When I receive them I will post them here.

I look forward to reading it, though I expected that since you studied the topic so thorougly, you'd have something a little closer at hand.


Please if you are going to post again refer to statistics or at least to a link offer some kind of substantiation of your claims.

My claim is that you have not proved your point. My link? This entire thread. All I'm asking for is proof of your claim. I have not claimed that the rich use less, I have simply pointed out services that they do use since people tend to forget those.


Referring to bin laden does mean that I have lost at all .

It's called Godwin's Law, though it applies to Hitler rather than Bin Laden. I'd like to see Bin Laden added to the law, though, as he's looked upon as a modern day Hitler.


I have proven many of my points. You have done the best job though of proving me right.

Please direct me to these posts. I seem to have missed them.


You have offered nothing but criticism based on erroneous theories.

I've offered criticism of your theories that you claim as fact, while having no back up.


You have proven nothing while I have proven most of what I have said.

Your proof has consisted of: a link showing that the poor use library computers more, a link explaining some governmental services, and a link saying that the poor get assistance with their utility bills. You have yet to prove your original statement that "The poor pay the least and use the most of them"

I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply asking you to prove your points that you're stating as fact.


See socialism doesn't work never has, a simple study of history will vet this out. Capitalism has redistributed more money then any other system in the history of man. I suggest reading Adam Smith.

That is not at all surprising :)

Let's redirect this to the original point of the debate, since you seem to be veering off into debate on who pays more taxes (yes, I agree that the rich pay more) and whether the subsidies given to the rich actually benefit the poor more (if you give my boss $100 in hopes that he'll spend it on me, am I really better off than if you give me $100?).

So! Back on topic! In Post 219349, you said


It has been years since I took economics but I remember clearly that the rich pay for most of the services and use the least of them. The poor pay the least and use the most of them. I went to University at a Tier 1 school in Canada and we used statistics from Statistics Canada which is the Government.


My response in post ID 219361 was


Source, please. I'd wager that the poor use the more obvious services (welfare), while the rich use those we don't think of (airlines that are subsidized, courts to protect their patents). Am I going to say that the poor don't use more services? No. I just think it's not quite as bad as you say.

(I bolded and italicized the part where I specifically did not say that the rich use more services, for your convenience)

So, I'll repeat my request. Please give proof that on a whole the poor use substantially more social services.

Jorddyn

[xtc]

You have not substantiated a single claim you have asserted nor have you disproved a single one of mine. You have offered no evidence of any kind. You have no links to articles, Gov't sites, or statistics. You use words like corporate welfare. There is no reasoning with such obvious socialism. You can't say a link to your thread is proof....your say so is not proof or evidence of anything.

Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Corporate welfare is huge tax breaks, credits, and incentives given to corporations that make tons of money and pay little to no taxes as is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof please? and do you not understand that if we tax companies unreasonably they will move to other countries? What right does the Government have to that money to start with?



Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I remember correctly, I said that they use less visible services, and as such, people tend to forget that they're using them at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof please?



Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that does seem to be your stance. Those who pay more deserve a break, though they can afford to pay it. Those who pay less don't deserve a break, though they can't afford to pay
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are incorrect about my stance. Why is unfair to give everyone say a 5% tax cut across the board. Everyone gets the same % tax cut and everyone gets a break. Why if I earn more does the Government deserve more of my money. I DON'T THINK YOU GET THIS. IT IS MY MONEY NOT YOURS, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS, AND NOT THOSE LAZY ASSES WHO SIT ON THEIR BUTTS WAITING FOR A HANDOUT. Am I being punished for working hard, for going to University, for ambition, for success?


Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should I have to disprove something you have given no proof for? That is your theory, and I simply asked for a link.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you make assertions as you have, prove them?, if you are saying mine are incorrect prove it? seems fair to me. Are you unable to prove your claims or disprove mine?



Regarding stats for the poor using more services. I WILL SAY THIS ONE LAST TIME WHEN THE FRASER INSTITUTE emails me the stats I will post them here. In the interim on top of my previous links that proved some of the high cost of services to the poor I will add welfare to the mix.

"Between 1996 and 2000, the federal government will spend $1.6 trillion on welfare.
Add the cost of welfare to the states and that number increases to $2.38 trillion"

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED062995b.cfm


"Godwin's law" is a farce it means none of the criteria for a scientific or a legal law.
It is some guy called Godwin's opinion noting more.

I asked you not to post if you couldn't prove anything. Your assertions are preposterous and have no foundation in economics and monetary theory. If you can’t do this please refrain from posting anything else, except for this one thing. How do feel about abolitioning taxes and implementing user fees on all services. If the rich really do use more services this should be a break for the poor?

[xtc]

Prior thread please disregard typos as I am uber tried

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by xtc
Quote
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Corporate welfare is huge tax breaks, credits, and incentives given to corporations that make tons of money and pay little to no taxes as is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof please? and do you not understand that if we tax companies unreasonably they will move to other countries? What right does the Government have to that money to start with?


You realize that you just asked me to prove a definition? Alright, here...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=corporate%20welfare


Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I remember correctly, I said that they use less visible services, and as such, people tend to forget that they're using them at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof please?


Rich kids go to school -

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/school/p20-479/tab06.pdf

Rich people fly on planes -

http://www.abditum.com/~rabbi/S3B3_Roark.pdf

Rich people go to parks -

http://www.discoversouthcarolina.com/documents/National_and_State_Parks.htm


I DON'T THINK YOU GET THIS. IT IS MY MONEY NOT YOURS, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS, AND NOT THOSE LAZY ASSES WHO SIT ON THEIR BUTTS WAITING FOR A HANDOUT.

And why is it that some people turn into greedy second graders and throw tantrums whenever taxes are mentioned?

I'm quite done with this discussion, as we're getting nowhere.

Jorddyn

[xtc]

lol what a lark. You claimed that the rich used those services more than other people. Your links don't prove that at all.

So I am greedy for wanting to keep my money. Here is a tidbit of information for you. Taxes were suppose to be a temporary measure. Yes I resent paying for others who won't pay for themselves.

The reason I find the term corporate welfare so laughable is because it isn't welfare at all. Welfare is money that the Government gives you. Getting a break on your taxes isn't welfare, it is keeping a little more of the money that you earned. Welfare isn't earned.

Here are some links for the astronimical cost of services to the poor from various Gov't websites. Keep in mind these numbers are in the 1000's i.e add 3 zero's to the numbers on the speadsheet

The first is money for unemployed people in Canada population 30 Million
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab240e.shtml

Child Tax Benefit for low income people
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab107e.shtml

Family Allowance for low income people
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab113e.shtml

Federal Child Tax Benefit for low income people
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab118e.shtml

Guaranteed INcome Supplement for low income people
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab124e.shtml

Social assistance for registered Indians
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab142e.shtml

Federal Goods & Service tax credit for low income people
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab160e.shtml

Canada Assistance plan for low income people
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab434e.shtml

Municpal Social Assistance Programs
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab438e.shtml

Provincial Welfare
http://www11.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/socpol/publications/statistics/9999-002455/tab524e.shtml



I have more stats for England & Sweden.

My point was rich people pay more taxes and poor people use the services, I have proved both in spades. My other question was why is it so unfair to give everyone a 5% tax break/

I have proved my points here easily Game, Set, and Match. I am done with this thread










Pro

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
Prior thread please disregard typos as I am uber tried Not to mention who gives a fuck about the welfare system in Canada, unless you live there of course.

[Parkbandit]

I have yet to see anyone describe the tax cut in simple terms... so for your reading pleasure, here it is again.




This is how the cookie crumbles. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall University of Georgia

[Wezas]

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

Pwned.

[Kefka]

Or more like this:

“Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle.” [Washington Post headline, 8/13/04]

“Budget Office Says Biggest Tax Cuts Go to Richest 1%.” [Wall Street Journal headline, 8/13/04]

“Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy.” [New York Times headline, 8/13/04]

Bush Tax Cuts Shifted Tax Burden to the Middle Class

“Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found.” [Washington Post, “Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle,” 8/13/04]

Wealthiest taxpayers saw share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. “the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year.” [Washington Post, “Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle,” 8/13/04]

Middle-class families saw their tax burden jump from 18.7 percent of Federal taxes to 19.5 percent of Federal taxes. Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent. [Washington Post, “Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle,” 8/13/04]

Middle-class Got Disproportionately Smaller Tax Cuts

Middle-class got disproportionately small tax cuts. “The report, made at the Democrats’ request, confirms what the Democrats and their presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, have charged – that the wealthy disproportionately benefit.” [WSJ,

Budget Office Says Biggest Tax Cuts Go the Richest 1%, 8/13/04]

The richest got the largest boost to their income from the Bush tax cuts. “The average after-tax income for people in the top 1 percent of income earners climbed 10.1 percent, while that of those in the middle 20 percent climbed 2.3 percent, and that of those in the bottom fifth only 1.6 percent.” [New York Times, “Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy,” 8/13/04]

[Parkbandit]

How was it pwned? It's not contradicting the information in the post, only the author.

"Origins: The
only question we're covering about this humorous parable explaining "how taxes really work" is its authorship, and the investigation reveals this item to be one of those favored pieces of writing adopted and reprinted by numerous columnists without their knowing (or necessarily caring) who originally penned it."

Unpwned

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
How was it pwned? It's not contradicting the information in the post, only the author.

Unpwned

Pwned = You putting the Author's name w/ it to it to make it sound more legit.

[Parkbandit]

Naw.. I received the email and the source was there. I know enough about the tax system to understand the comparison.. but I didn't bother to make sure that the author was the actual author.

The message though remains the same.

[Tsa`ah]

Please remove the education argument from this debate.

Most of the tax burden for education is at the state level and given to property owners.

Uncle Sam now contributes less than 10% nationally to education.

Most grant money (is not required to be paid back) is deducted from subsidized loan interest.

The government and the working man do nearly zilch for education. Property taxes do, and the lottery if you swallow that line.

[Tsa`ah]

Also, please remove the park argument.

The Dept of the interior spends more in DC by washing Lincoln's balls and spending millions upon millions for balls, parties, hosting dignitaries and buying pretzels for Dubya to choke on (all things that the taxpayer will never participate in) than it has spent fighting brush fires and keeping Ol Faithful regular.

[Tsa`ah]

Also remove subsidies to the AG industry. Most of these subsidies are paid to NOT milk cows and plant fields. Thus tend to increase the cost of food rather than reduce.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Please remove the education argument from this debate.

Uncle Sam now contributes less than 10% nationally to education.


I'll restate my point. Rich people use services provided by the government, too. My point is not that they don't pay enough, nor is it that they use more than the poor, my point is that they use services.

The fact that Uncle Sam "only" provides 10%, while the rest is provided by other taxes does not invalidate the fact that rich kids get good educations paid for by taxes of some kind or another.



Also, please remove the park argument.

The Dept of the interior spends more in DC by washing Lincoln's balls and spending millions upon millions for balls, parties, hosting dignitaries and buying pretzels for Dubya to choke on (all things that the taxpayer will never participate in) than it has spent fighting brush fires and keeping Ol Faithful regular


... all of which benefits the rich more than the poor. Though it wasn't my intended point, hey, it works, too.



Also remove subsidies to the AG industry.


Take the milk subsidies.

Jorddyn

[Tsa`ah]

Rich kids don't generally attend public school.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

The message though remains the same.

You mean a simplistic, flawed straw-man argument that fails to take into account the fact that Federal Income tax is only one part of the tax liability and ignores things like payroll taxes, sales tax, and state and local taxes which are a lot more regressive and are a larger percentage tax bite on the poor than the rich?

-P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Parkbandit

The message though remains the same.

You mean a simplistic, flawed straw-man argument that fails to take into account the fact that Federal Income tax is only one part of the tax liability and ignores things like payroll taxes, sales tax, and state and local taxes which are a lot more regressive and are a larger percentage tax bite on the poor than the rich?

-P

Since we are discussing Federal Income Tax.. the analagy works.

By the way, we are also not discussing the following taxes:

Inheritance tax
Capital Gains tax
Occupancy tax
Liquor tax
Gas tax
Business license tax
Estate tax
Luxury tax
Excise tax
Property tax