Poll: Well-off say tax the rich

[LoneLaugher]

Wrong answer. WHY was the 16th written? And whom does it benefit? (Hint? It isn't the people).

I'll expect an answer post haste drone.

Your funny.

It's you're by the way. Answer the question.

Oh....thanks for catching that for me.

And....no....I won't be answering the question until you tell me to what question I gave the wrong answer? I can take being wrong.....but I at least need to know that I attempted an answer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Please tell me how a person gets a refund greater than what they paid in. Thanks.

It's called refundable tax credits.

A refundable tax credit can and does result in a refund that is greater than the amount actually paid in.

Credits

A refundable tax credit is a tax credit that can reduce your tax liability below zero (0). Because it is possible to receive a refund from this type of credit, they're referred to as refundable.


Refundable tax credits include:

Earned Income Credit
Adoption Credit (now refundable for adoptions finalized in 2010 or 2011, or for carryforwards)
First-time Homebuyer Credit
Excess Social Security Credit
Additional Child Tax Credit
Health Coverage Tax Credit
American Opportunity Credit - partly refundable
Making Work Pay Credit

That's a great source. But it's not exactly what you inferred. A tax credit....even if "refundable" is not a refund of taxes paid in. Now that I know
what you were really referring to, I see what you are saying. And....it does not bolster your argument at all.....they are credits. They are there for a reason.

Semantics.

It is a refundable credit and that credit is issued as an income tax refund meaning that one can receive a tax refund which is actually greater than the taxes they paid in.

 

[The T]

Your funny.

It's you're by the way. Answer the question.

Oh....thanks for catching that for me.

And....no....I won't be answering the question until you tell me to what question I gave the wrong answer? I can take being wrong.....but I at least need to know that I attempted an answer.

Go back follow the little blue icon in the converstaion. Stop playing stupid.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What are you talking about? The comment I made to which you said "Wrong answer" was not a responce to a question. I'm not playing stupid...I'm trying to figure out WTF you are trying to say.

 

[Money]

Seems you and I disagree, make it simple, get rid of the tax exemptions and "everyone" pay a flat tax rate. It would have "everyone" pay their "fair share".

Be easy, now. This is my first usmessageboard.com debate. =)

I am confused by whose benefit is served by the simplicity agenda on the matter of taxes. If you don't work 9-5 or make 9-5 money, it's not 'fair' to pay into a flat 9-5er tax system. 9-5ers can e-file an EZ and get their simple tax return. I don't think these same folks could do without the same share of their income as I have had to.

Now, I haven't had money back from withholding since 98 or 99, but neither of us stand to benefit from a flat tax rate. Who do you feel would?

Thanks for the debate!

Money

I don't think that 47% of the people should be exempt from paying taxes, then throwing the burden on the other 53% and the largest burden going to the top 5% of the wage earners. What's fair about that?
Getting rid of the tax deductions and exemptions, having a flat tax for all seems it would be "fair" to all. The 47% may not like it, but ........

I submit that by the time one has to shave every day, they should also come to grips with the fact that function is more important than fairness.

That said, make sure that you understand why there are deductions before knocking them. Be certain to understand the reasoning behind progressive taxation. These are both effective technologies within an economy.

Don't just assume that making it simpler will make it work better. The tax system has specific work to do above and beyond seeming fair to folks who don't make and spend large amounts of money.

Money

 

[Meister]

Be easy, now. This is my first usmessageboard.com debate. =)

I am confused by whose benefit is served by the simplicity agenda on the matter of taxes. If you don't work 9-5 or make 9-5 money, it's not 'fair' to pay into a flat 9-5er tax system. 9-5ers can e-file an EZ and get their simple tax return. I don't think these same folks could do without the same share of their income as I have had to.

Now, I haven't had money back from withholding since 98 or 99, but neither of us stand to benefit from a flat tax rate. Who do you feel would?

Thanks for the debate!

Money

I don't think that 47% of the people should be exempt from paying taxes, then throwing the burden on the other 53% and the largest burden going to the top 5% of the wage earners. What's fair about that?
Getting rid of the tax deductions and exemptions, having a flat tax for all seems it would be "fair" to all. The 47% may not like it, but ........

I submit that by the time one has to shave every day, they should also come to grips with the fact that function is more important than fairness.

That said, make sure that you understand why there are deductions before knocking them. Be certain to understand the reasoning behind progressive taxation. These are both effective technologies within an economy.

Don't just assume that making it simpler will make it work better. The tax system has specific work to do above and beyond seeming fair to folks who don't make and spend large amounts of money.

Money

I hear where your coming from, but those who pay nothing or near nothing, will always be for the other guy to pay their "fair share". That just isn't right, IMO.

 

[boedicca]

So, the majority of people making over $100,000 support taxing other people who make more than $1,000,000. This is why our government was designed (especially in the Senate) to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority".

 

[Dragon]

I hear where your coming from, but those who pay nothing or near nothing, will always be for the other guy to pay their "fair share". That just isn't right, IMO.

There are no such people, except for the completely unemployed.

The line about "47% pay no taxes" has become a widely-circulated lie on the right. It is, however, a lie. When called on it, those who have stated it will shift to something that conceivably might be true, that there are 47% of people who pay no income tax. But this is always a ground-shifting after being called on the lie.

A tax is a tax is a tax is a tax. It's money out of my pocket paid to the government to support public expenses. No matter how that money is categorized by the government bureaucracy, it's still a tax as far as I'm concerned. Someone who pays zero income tax but 6.5% Social Security tax is not paying zero tax, he's paying 6.5% tax (at the federal level, not including state taxes). And of course, everyone who trots out that line about the 47% paying no taxes knows this perfectly well.

The claim that 47%, or even 1%, of the people pay no federal taxes is a lie.

 

[Full-Auto]

So, the majority of people making over $100,000 support taxing other people who make more than $1,000,000. This is why our government was designed (especially in the Senate) to protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority".

Was, being the key word there.

 

[Money]

I buy that, Meister, but the last laugh comes after the 47%ers cash their refund checks. That's always amounted to a big payday for me... usually more than Sam gaffled from me in the first place.

 

[Full-Auto]

The claim that 47%, or even 1%, of the people pay no federal taxes is a lie.

First the claim is no income tax and second that figure came from the IRS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The issue is not whether or not to ‘tax the rich.’

The question is are the rich paying their fair share in comparison to middle and lower income Americans.

And more to the point, with regard to addressing the deficit, will low and middle income Americans be forced to bear the greater tax burden to balance the budget while the wealthy continue to pay less tax.

 

[Dragon]

First the claim is no income tax and second that figure came from the IRS.

No, the claim is "no tax." It's clarified to income tax after someone calls them on it.

"No tax" is a lie. "No income tax" may be true, but it's meaningless. It's converted into "no tax" because that would actually mean something if it were true.

 

[JoeB131]

Poll: Well-off say tax the rich - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

President Barack Obama has a lot of support for his proposal to raise taxes on the wealthy, even among the financially well-off, new polls show.

Two polls show similar levels of support for a millionaire tax among those earning more than $100,000, and among Americans more broadly.

Among those earning at least $100,000, nearly two-thirds — 65 percent — would support income tax increases on households earning $1 million or more annually, says a poll commissioned by American Express.

The concept of raising taxes on millionaires drew similar support in a survey gauging support among all Americans, conducted by CBS. Sixty-four percent of respondents said they would support a tax on millionaires “in order to lower the deficit,” while only 30 percent would oppose it.

Read more: Poll: Well-off say tax the rich - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

So now the "wealthy" is down to 100K?

My own thought is that at some point, we are probably going to raise taxes to meet our obligations. But that is the LAST step. The first step is to get the government to spend money efficiently, wisely and with a minimum of waste, fraud and abuse, just like every private entity has to do before they go back to a bank for more loans or a customer with a price increase.

 

[JoeB131]

The issue is not whether or not to ‘tax the rich.’

The question is are the rich paying their fair share in comparison to middle and lower income Americans.

And more to the point, with regard to addressing the deficit, will low and middle income Americans be forced to bear the greater tax burden to balance the budget while the wealthy continue to pay less tax.

Who gets to define "fair share"?

More importantly, why does the government have a claim to any of our money?

The problem isn't that we aren't paying enough, the problem is the government spends too much. 6 trillion dollars out of a 14 trillion dollar economy.

The other problem is, because of idiotic trade policies, we are bleeding out 500 billion a year in wealth to other countries.

 

[Full-Auto]

The issue is not whether or not to ‘tax the rich.’

The question is are the rich paying their fair share in comparison to middle and lower income Americans.

And more to the point, with regard to addressing the deficit, will low and middle income Americans be forced to bear the greater tax burden to balance the budget while the wealthy continue to pay less tax.

Why dont you guys just come out and say what you mean. The left does not feel all men should be treated equally.
We reserve the right to discriminate for whatever reason we choose.

 

[Dragon]

Why dont you guys just come out and say what you mean. The left does not feel all men should be treated equally.

Taking a thousand dollars from someone who has ten million, and taking a thousand dollars from someone who has a thousand, is not treating the two equally. It is depriving the first of a pittance, and the second of his last cent and his means of survival.

 

[Meister]

Why dont you guys just come out and say what you mean. The left does not feel all men should be treated equally.

Taking a thousand dollars from someone who has ten million, and taking a thousand dollars from someone who has a thousand, is not treating the two equally. It is depriving the first of a pittance, and the second of his last cent and his means of survival.

Taking 15% from each would be equal....but that's not your mindset is it?

 

[Money]

So now the "wealthy" is down to 100K?

My own thought is that at some point, we are probably going to raise taxes to meet our obligations. But that is the LAST step. The first step is to get the government to spend money efficiently, wisely and with a minimum of waste, fraud and abuse, just like every private entity has to do before they go back to a bank for more loans or a customer with a price increase.

I'd actually like to see the government make a living on its own: start with collecting $ for visas and citizenships for starters.

 

[Full-Auto]

Why dont you guys just come out and say what you mean. The left does not feel all men should be treated equally.

Taking a thousand dollars from someone who has ten million, and taking a thousand dollars from someone who has a thousand, is not treating the two equally. It is depriving the first of a pittance, and the second of his last cent and his means of survival.

So I was correct. You do not feel all men should be treated equally.

There can always be a provision that the first $$$$ not be taxed at all.

Dont bitch when others respond in kind and feel you should not be treated equally.