Let's Tax the Rich More!

[sealybobo]

[
What free goodies?

If you ask me, the system takes care of the poor, as it should, and it certainly benefits the rich, so who's getting fucked?

The middle class!!!!! We're paying all the taxes. The rich have loopholes and write offs and they get their taxes back. Hell, they probably make money on the scam.

According to data published by the CBO, the wealthiest 20% pay 68% of all taxes. They also earn 55% of all income.

The figures are skewed a bit because CBO calculates corporate taxes as being completely paid by the owners, who tend to be the wealthiest. Many argue that corporate taxes are in whole or part paid by consumers, which would shift the tax burden on the lower classes. But still, because corporate taxes are only 10-15% of all tax revenue, the upper 20% are paying most the taxes.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf Table 1B

What about loopholes you don't even know about? Companies like Lehman Brothers got paid a lot of money to help rich people dodge paying taxes. There might be things you don't know that throw off those percentages.

Albert Einstein
[on filing for tax returns] This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher.

Albert Einstein
The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes ..." Leona Helmsley

Do you think she was kidding or maybe does she know something you don't?

Wall Street's biggest banks cooked up elaborate "derivatives gimmicks" over the past decade to help their best foreign clients dodge the tax man, U.S. Senate investigators allege, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning. The racket cost the country $100 billion a year in unpaid taxes, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations charges. The yearlong investigation, the newspaper says, "concludes that Wall Street firms actively competed with one another in dreaming up complex transactions that allowed hedge funds to avoid withholding taxes imposed on dividends paid by U.S. companies." The Financial Times says the biggest banks on the Street have been named in the tax-dodge probe, including Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, UBS, and Merrill Lynch. They will testify today, along with a variety of hedge funds, the newspaper adds.

And isn't it odd that these are the companies that we are bailing out?

Are we all insane to not get that something stinks???

 

[sealybobo]

Over 40% of people do not pay any income taxes. they pay SS at 7.5%. The employer pays 7.5% and cannot be counted as the employee's tax burden.

So if one pays no income tax and only pays half of the tax that funds an entitlement program that will pay him back what he paid in or more is that person actually paying taxes?

NO.

People are not exempt from sales taxes, excise taxes etc so why should anyone be exempt from income tax if they have an income?

No one should be exempt from any tax.

How much money do you want to take from someone who makes minimum wage?

And hell, we aren't even paying for what we spend now, and we can't fix the problem by cutting spending alone. We MUST raise taxes somewhere.

So, should we burden the poor any more than they already are? Or the middle class? Fuck that! We are certainly being overtaxed. You don't deny that, right? And we don't have loopholes or offshore accounts.

So are you now saying that YOU aren't paying your fair share? Because either you aren't or the rich aren't. Pick one. You won't pick though, because it'll prove you are wrong.

This is why we have a progressive tax.

If we taxed the rich and poor evenly, we wouldn't have enough money to pay for what we spend, and that includes all the defense spending that gives you a boner.

FYI entitlement spending is by far the biggest item in the budget not defense.

And where did i say tax the rich and poor evenly asshole?

I said no one should be exempt from any taxes.

Well of course, if you add up all the things that fall under ENTITLEMENT spending, you stupid fuck. Houseslave, fool, lapdog, little bitch to the rich.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not according to the CBO and most economists:

http://www.appwp.org/documents/bush_taxbenefits_1pager.pdf

So if one pays no income tax and only pays half of the tax that funds an entitlement program that will pay him back what he paid in or more is that person actually paying taxes?

NO.

So what if rich people buy shit if they pay their taxes. Those big ticket items create high paying jobs don't they?

Sure, Italian megayacht builders benefit.

Jobs are created when the poorer have money to pay for education, health care and other basics too.

You all piss and moan that rich people should pay their "fair share" but you can say that someone else is exempt from a tax. that's not "fair" is it. Especially when you realize that the people who are exempt from taxes use government services more than rich people.

everyone should have a stake in the country and that means no one should be exempt from any taxes. There should be a minimum income tax paid by everyone. Personally I think the first 5% of every dollar made should be the minimum that way everyone contributes something to the country.

That's "fair"

They pay effectively 15% now, more than fair by your standards.

SS is NOT income tax. And they don't pay 15% they pay 7.5% the employer pays the rest.

 

[MaggieMae]

Over 40% of people do not pay any income taxes. they pay SS at 7.5%. The employer pays 7.5% and cannot be counted as the employee's tax burden.

So if one pays no income tax and only pays half of the tax that funds an entitlement program that will pay him back what he paid in or more is that person actually paying taxes?

NO.

People are not exempt from sales taxes, excise taxes etc so why should anyone be exempt from income tax if they have an income?

No one should be exempt from any tax.

Including these guys:

Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax - CBS News

But then the question becomes would these corporations stop avoiding tax obligations even if the corporate tax rate was lowered? Morally, they should, but morals don't dictate the success of a company. Profits do.

 

[midcan5]

No time to read all the posts but that original post didn't make any sense to me?

A sales tax is only an invitation for a black market, already exists, know anyone who owns a cash business, or do this, the next time you need an estimate for work, ask the cash price.

This is my favorite quote, well not really but....

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
The rich get rich because of their merit.

 

[MaggieMae]

I will repeat what Newby said, because it's true:

The poor don't pay taxes.

There is a bottom line, if you earn less than that you pay nothing in income taxes.

I think I read/heard somewhere that something like 48% do not pay taxes, but I'd have to verify that b/c I'm not sure if it's really that high. And that's a big problem if it is that high, because then that 48% have absolutely no stake in what the feds do or how high they make the taxes. In fact the opposite is true, and they are voting to raise taxes and to keep all the free goodies coming. It's the basis, in my opinion, of what the Democratic party stands for. Vote for us, we'll take care of you, give you everything you need and pay for it all by taking the money from all the 'haves', and when it's a voting block of 48% and growing, then the stage it set and the pandering begins. It's a lousy system that we've allowed to evolve in this country.

I think it was 8K last year, I know I fall blow the "taxable" line, I don't really care personally, I just earn what makes my life comfortable and that's it, if I needed more I could and would work more. I live on about 750$ a month, pays the bills and give me some cool toys (I love computers if you can't guess) and the government doesn't even make me file, they say right on the tax papers that as long as I report what I earn that's it. It's called the poverty line, but in all honesty I don't feel like I am in poverty. Got a nice apartment with high ceilings, studio but meh, it's only me here. Food whenever I want it, eat out a lot. Internet and phone, a cheap TV which I may replace soon. Playstation if I ever get really bored again. I'm happy with what I have, but I don't have to pay taxes. If they taxed the rich more I don't think I want to ever earn more.

All on $750 a month? Wow. You need to write a how-to book.

 

[sealybobo]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings. We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

So the billionaire who has already paid taxes on the money he/she earned should be taxed again on it because they have more than everyone else? Why don't we just say that people in the US will only be permitted to accumulate a net worth of $1 million. After that, all assests are taxed at 100% since they already have everything they need. Sorry, I'm not buying into that.

What I will buy into however, is a flat tax rate across the board on all earnings (wages, capital gains dividends, everything), along with an inheritance tax equal to the going rate.

I think everyone would agree to the flat tax if it were established that simply, by one paragraph, insert percentage. But we KNOW it won't happen that way. There will be exceptions poorly drafted that will become loopholes and before long a one-paragraph tax code will once again become volumes. The poor and low/middle classes will wind up paying their "share" by way of sales tax increases to make up for the reduction in revenue achieved by writeoffs. There's already squabbling over removing the mortgage interest rate deduction entirely, and the tax reform battle hasn't even begun.

I heard they were trying to pass a bill to help with the mortgage crisis, and they were trying to do something specifically for people who have 3 or more homes.

How many homes does McCain have again?

Those mother fuckers!!!

 

[sealybobo]

No time to read all the posts but that original post didn't make any sense to me?

A sales tax is only an invitation for a black market, already exists, know anyone who owns a cash business, or do this, the next time you need an estimate for work, ask the cash price.

This is my favorite quote, well not really but....

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth
The Idolatry of Ideology-Why Tax Cuts Hurt the Economy by Russ Beaton
Spending Cuts Vs. Tax Increases at the State Level, 10/30/01
Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
The rich get rich because of their merit.

Will you and Maggie stop making so much sense?

 

[sealybobo]

I think I read/heard somewhere that something like 48% do not pay taxes, but I'd have to verify that b/c I'm not sure if it's really that high. And that's a big problem if it is that high, because then that 48% have absolutely no stake in what the feds do or how high they make the taxes. In fact the opposite is true, and they are voting to raise taxes and to keep all the free goodies coming. It's the basis, in my opinion, of what the Democratic party stands for. Vote for us, we'll take care of you, give you everything you need and pay for it all by taking the money from all the 'haves', and when it's a voting block of 48% and growing, then the stage it set and the pandering begins. It's a lousy system that we've allowed to evolve in this country.

I think it was 8K last year, I know I fall blow the "taxable" line, I don't really care personally, I just earn what makes my life comfortable and that's it, if I needed more I could and would work more. I live on about 750$ a month, pays the bills and give me some cool toys (I love computers if you can't guess) and the government doesn't even make me file, they say right on the tax papers that as long as I report what I earn that's it. It's called the poverty line, but in all honesty I don't feel like I am in poverty. Got a nice apartment with high ceilings, studio but meh, it's only me here. Food whenever I want it, eat out a lot. Internet and phone, a cheap TV which I may replace soon. Playstation if I ever get really bored again. I'm happy with what I have, but I don't have to pay taxes. If they taxed the rich more I don't think I want to ever earn more.

All on $750 a month? Wow. You need to write a how-to book.

Here is my favorite line from his post:

"If they taxed the rich more I don't think I want to ever earn more."

As if taxing the rich will EVER affect his broke ass.

So wouldn't want to make more because the government is taxing people who make over $250K a little bit more than people who make under $250K?

I don't know which emoticon is most appropriate so I used all three.

And trust me Newby, you will NEVER be affected by these taxes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the fact is that government spending is out of control. And since taxes are the largest source of government revenue, it follows that taxes will follow government spending and rise for everyone not just one class or another.

at what point does government spending hamper growth?

Government Size and Economic Growth

Borrowing a graphical technique popularized by Arthur Laffer, Representative Richard Armey, an economist by training, developed what he termed the Armey Curve (see Figure 1).1 In a state of anarchy, output per capita is low. Similarly, where all input and output decisions are made by government, output per capita is likewise low. Where there is a mix of private and government decisions on the allocation of resources, however, output often is larger. The output-enhancing features of government dominate when government is very small, and expansions in governmental size are associated with expansions in output. At some point, however, further expansion of government no longer leads to output expansion, as the growth-reducing aspects of government grow larger, and the growth-enhancing features of government diminish. Further expansion of government contributes to economic stagnation and decline.

As governments grow, the law of diminishing returns begins operating. While the construction of roads initially assists output expansion, the construction of secondary roads and upgrading primary roads start to have less added positive impact per dollar spent. Moreover, the taxes and/or borrowing levied to finance government impose increasing burdens. Low tax rates become higher. New taxes, such as income taxes, are added to low consumption levies, with increasingly adverse effects on human economic behavior. Tariffs are raised, thwarting trade. New government spending no longer enhances economic growth.

The data here suggest that a further reduction in government size to 17.45 percent of GDP would be growth enhancing.

So what percentage of GDP is Obama using to fund government?

Over 22%.

where does that put us on the Armey curve?

 

[MaggieMae]

Over 40% of people do not pay any income taxes. they pay SS at 7.5%. The employer pays 7.5% and cannot be counted as the employee's tax burden.

So if one pays no income tax and only pays half of the tax that funds an entitlement program that will pay him back what he paid in or more is that person actually paying taxes?

NO.

People are not exempt from sales taxes, excise taxes etc so why should anyone be exempt from income tax if they have an income?

No one should be exempt from any tax.

How much money do you want to take from someone who makes minimum wage?

And hell, we aren't even paying for what we spend now, and we can't fix the problem by cutting spending alone. We MUST raise taxes somewhere.

So, should we burden the poor any more than they already are? Or the middle class? Fuck that! We are certainly being overtaxed. You don't deny that, right? And we don't have loopholes or offshore accounts.

So are you now saying that YOU aren't paying your fair share? Because either you aren't or the rich aren't. Pick one. You won't pick though, because it'll prove you are wrong.

This is why we have a progressive tax.

If we taxed the rich and poor evenly, we wouldn't have enough money to pay for what we spend, and that includes all the defense spending that gives you a boner.

This whole rich v. poor entitlement debate is really silly. I worked my way up the ladder working for wealthy attorneys who, come April 15th, paid their taxes which were a helluva lot more than mine. But so were their salaries and draws. Nobody complained. Eventually my tax bracket crept up too, but still no complaints like the screaming we hear about it today. As my tax bracket increased, so did my ability to write off more on my 1040.

What's the big beef all of a sudden? It is what it is: You earn more, you spend more, you're taxed more.

 

[Iriemon]

So what if rich people buy shit if they pay their taxes. Those big ticket items create high paying jobs don't they?

Sure, Italian megayacht builders benefit.

Jobs are created when the poorer have money to pay for education, health care and other basics too.

You all piss and moan that rich people should pay their "fair share" but you can say that someone else is exempt from a tax. that's not "fair" is it. Especially when you realize that the people who are exempt from taxes use government services more than rich people.

everyone should have a stake in the country and that means no one should be exempt from any taxes. There should be a minimum income tax paid by everyone. Personally I think the first 5% of every dollar made should be the minimum that way everyone contributes something to the country.

That's "fair"

They pay effectively 15% now, more than fair by your standards.

SS is NOT income tax. And they don't pay 15% they pay 7.5% the employer pays the rest.

SS is most definitely a tax. The employee pays 7.5% directly. According to most economist, the employer's contribution would be paid as higher salary to the employee, so it is effectively coming from their wages.

http://www.appwp.org/documents/bush_taxbenefits_1pager.pdf

Congressional Budget Office:
"CBO's analysis of effective tax rates assumes that households bear the burden of the
taxes that they pay directly, such as individual income taxes and employees' share of
payroll taxes. CBO assumes-as do most economists-that employers' share of
payroll taxes is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages than would
otherwise be paid. Therefore, the amount of taxes is included in employees' income,
and the taxes are counted as part of employees' tax burden."
"Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004." Congressional Budget Office, December 2006.

"Public finance theorists generally agree that the employer's share of [payroll] taxes is
passed on to workers in the form of lower wages. CBO follows that assumption and
treats payroll taxes as if employees paid both shares."
"Effective Marginal Tax Rates on Labor Income." Congressional Budget Office, November 2005.

Joint Committee on Taxation:
"Most analysts conclude that both the employee's and employer's share of the payroll
tax is borne by the employee and that therefore the marginal payroll tax rate would
include both the employee's and employer's share."
"Overview of Present Law and Economic Analysis Relating to Marginal Tax Rates and the President's Individual
Income Tax Rate Proposals." Joint Committee on Taxation, 6 March 2001.

 

[Iriemon]

A scary element of the recent election was related to the division of what classifies "rich". Unfortunately, both parties GREATLY missed the mark by focusing the debate on annual earnings, something that is both naive and archaic in nature.

With an income tax system that is progressive, we inhibit growth of individuals from one class to a higher class through taxation on earnings. We do this by labeling them as wealthy if they earn more than a certain dollar amount per year without regard to their actual net worth.

If we want a progressive tax system, it should be based, at least partially, on the net worth of the individual. Currently, someone worth $1 billion that earns $100k per year will pay less in taxes than someone worth -$200k (student loans perhaps) that earns $250k per year. This makes it very difficult for the one who assumed significant debt to be a success to become one.

I like the national sales tax concept, but only as a replacement. We already have too much taxation. If we had both a sales tax and an income tax, we would end up with only 1% of our earnings that we decide how to use.

So the billionaire who has already paid taxes on the money he/she earned should be taxed again on it because they have more than everyone else? Why don't we just say that people in the US will only be permitted to accumulate a net worth of $1 million. After that, all assests are taxed at 100% since they already have everything they need. Sorry, I'm not buying into that.

What I will buy into however, is a flat tax rate across the board on all earnings (wages, capital gains dividends, everything), along with an inheritance tax equal to the going rate.

I think everyone would agree to the flat tax if it were established that simply, by one paragraph, insert percentage. But we KNOW it won't happen that way. There will be exceptions poorly drafted that will become loopholes and before long a one-paragraph tax code will once again become volumes. The poor and low/middle classes will wind up paying their "share" by way of sales tax increases to make up for the reduction in revenue achieved by writeoffs. There's already squabbling over removing the mortgage interest rate deduction entirely, and the tax reform battle hasn't even begun.

I wouldn't agree to a flat tax. A flat tax IMO is unfair to the poor because it requires them to pay taxes from money they need for necessities while the wealthies pay taxes with money they'd otherwise use to buy a bigger yacht.

There is a very good reason why guys like Steve Forbes push the flat tax. And its not because it will supposedly help the economy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sure, Italian megayacht builders benefit.

Jobs are created when the poorer have money to pay for education, health care and other basics too.



They pay effectively 15% now, more than fair by your standards.

SS is NOT income tax. And they don't pay 15% they pay 7.5% the employer pays the rest.

SS is most definitely a tax. The employee pays 7.5% directly. According to most economist, the employer's contribution would be paid as higher salary to the employee, so it is effectively coming from their wages.

http://www.appwp.org/documents/bush_taxbenefits_1pager.pdf

Congressional Budget Office:
"CBO's analysis of effective tax rates assumes that households bear the burden of the
taxes that they pay directly, such as individual income taxes and employees' share of
payroll taxes. CBO assumes-as do most economists-that employers' share of
payroll taxes is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages than would
otherwise be paid. Therefore, the amount of taxes is included in employees' income,
and the taxes are counted as part of employees' tax burden."
"Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004." Congressional Budget Office, December 2006.

"Public finance theorists generally agree that the employer's share of [payroll] taxes is
passed on to workers in the form of lower wages. CBO follows that assumption and
treats payroll taxes as if employees paid both shares."
"Effective Marginal Tax Rates on Labor Income." Congressional Budget Office, November 2005.

Joint Committee on Taxation:
"Most analysts conclude that both the employee's and employer's share of the payroll
tax is borne by the employee and that therefore the marginal payroll tax rate would
include both the employee's and employer's share."
"Overview of Present Law and Economic Analysis Relating to Marginal Tax Rates and the President's Individual
Income Tax Rate Proposals." Joint Committee on Taxation, 6 March 2001.

and?

so called poor people are not exempt from SS taxes but they are exempt from regular income taxes. they should not be exempt and should have to pay some minimum income tax above and beyond SS and payroll taxes.

What is so hard to understand about that statement?

 

[MaggieMae]

Over 40% of people do not pay any income taxes. they pay SS at 7.5%. The employer pays 7.5% and cannot be counted as the employee's tax burden.

So if one pays no income tax and only pays half of the tax that funds an entitlement program that will pay him back what he paid in or more is that person actually paying taxes?

NO.

People are not exempt from sales taxes, excise taxes etc so why should anyone be exempt from income tax if they have an income?

No one should be exempt from any tax.

How much money do you want to take from someone who makes minimum wage?

And hell, we aren't even paying for what we spend now, and we can't fix the problem by cutting spending alone. We MUST raise taxes somewhere.

So, should we burden the poor any more than they already are? Or the middle class? Fuck that! We are certainly being overtaxed. You don't deny that, right? And we don't have loopholes or offshore accounts.

So are you now saying that YOU aren't paying your fair share? Because either you aren't or the rich aren't. Pick one. You won't pick though, because it'll prove you are wrong.

This is why we have a progressive tax.

If we taxed the rich and poor evenly, we wouldn't have enough money to pay for what we spend, and that includes all the defense spending that gives you a boner.

FYI entitlement spending is by far the biggest item in the budget not defense.

And where did i say tax the rich and poor evenly asshole?

I said no one should be exempt from any taxes.

When all defense spending is added to the budget, the Pentagon's is indeed bigger than entitlement spending.

The Federal Pie Chart

 

[Iriemon]

I think I read/heard somewhere that something like 48% do not pay taxes, but I'd have to verify that b/c I'm not sure if it's really that high. And that's a big problem if it is that high, because then that 48% have absolutely no stake in what the feds do or how high they make the taxes. In fact the opposite is true, and they are voting to raise taxes and to keep all the free goodies coming. It's the basis, in my opinion, of what the Democratic party stands for. Vote for us, we'll take care of you, give you everything you need and pay for it all by taking the money from all the 'haves', and when it's a voting block of 48% and growing, then the stage it set and the pandering begins. It's a lousy system that we've allowed to evolve in this country.

I think it was 8K last year, I know I fall blow the "taxable" line, I don't really care personally, I just earn what makes my life comfortable and that's it, if I needed more I could and would work more. I live on about 750$ a month, pays the bills and give me some cool toys (I love computers if you can't guess) and the government doesn't even make me file, they say right on the tax papers that as long as I report what I earn that's it. It's called the poverty line, but in all honesty I don't feel like I am in poverty. Got a nice apartment with high ceilings, studio but meh, it's only me here. Food whenever I want it, eat out a lot. Internet and phone, a cheap TV which I may replace soon. Playstation if I ever get really bored again. I'm happy with what I have, but I don't have to pay taxes. If they taxed the rich more I don't think I want to ever earn more.

All on $750 a month? Wow. You need to write a how-to book.

It is amazing. Here in Miami you could barely find a dinky 1 bedroom apt in a bad section of town for that. Much less everything else.

 

[Iriemon]

SS is NOT income tax. And they don't pay 15% they pay 7.5% the employer pays the rest.

SS is most definitely a tax. The employee pays 7.5% directly. According to most economist, the employer's contribution would be paid as higher salary to the employee, so it is effectively coming from their wages.

http://www.appwp.org/documents/bush_taxbenefits_1pager.pdf

Congressional Budget Office:
"CBO's analysis of effective tax rates assumes that households bear the burden of the
taxes that they pay directly, such as individual income taxes and employees' share of
payroll taxes. CBO assumes-as do most economists-that employers' share of
payroll taxes is passed on to employees in the form of lower wages than would
otherwise be paid. Therefore, the amount of taxes is included in employees' income,
and the taxes are counted as part of employees' tax burden."
"Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004." Congressional Budget Office, December 2006.

"Public finance theorists generally agree that the employer's share of [payroll] taxes is
passed on to workers in the form of lower wages. CBO follows that assumption and
treats payroll taxes as if employees paid both shares."
"Effective Marginal Tax Rates on Labor Income." Congressional Budget Office, November 2005.

Joint Committee on Taxation:
"Most analysts conclude that both the employee's and employer's share of the payroll
tax is borne by the employee and that therefore the marginal payroll tax rate would
include both the employee's and employer's share."
"Overview of Present Law and Economic Analysis Relating to Marginal Tax Rates and the President's Individual
Income Tax Rate Proposals." Joint Committee on Taxation, 6 March 2001.

and?

so called poor people are not exempt from SS taxes but they are exempt from regular income taxes. they should not be exempt and should have to pay some minimum income tax above and beyond SS and payroll taxes.

What is so hard to understand about that statement?

Nothing. You said you thought it would be fair if they paid 5% tax. I showed you they effectively paid closer to 15% already. I think that's plenty, but everyone has their own opinion as to what is "fair".

 

[Newby]

Are they not getting the amount they are paying into SS back at some point?

Your argument is lame, imo.

 

[Iriemon]

Are they not getting the amount they are paying into SS back at some point?

Depends on when they die.

Your argument is lame, imo.

That is what is great about forums like these. Everyone can decide for themselves which arguement is lame, regardless of your opinion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How much money do you want to take from someone who makes minimum wage?

And hell, we aren't even paying for what we spend now, and we can't fix the problem by cutting spending alone. We MUST raise taxes somewhere.

So, should we burden the poor any more than they already are? Or the middle class? Fuck that! We are certainly being overtaxed. You don't deny that, right? And we don't have loopholes or offshore accounts.

So are you now saying that YOU aren't paying your fair share? Because either you aren't or the rich aren't. Pick one. You won't pick though, because it'll prove you are wrong.

This is why we have a progressive tax.

If we taxed the rich and poor evenly, we wouldn't have enough money to pay for what we spend, and that includes all the defense spending that gives you a boner.

FYI entitlement spending is by far the biggest item in the budget not defense.

And where did i say tax the rich and poor evenly asshole?

I said no one should be exempt from any taxes.

When all defense spending is added to the budget, the Pentagon's is indeed bigger than entitlement spending.

The Federal Pie Chart

remove the portion of military spending for fighting 2 wars we should not be fighting and what do you get?