'Taxing the Rich'

[OohPooPahDoo]

Got it. So a Mexican peasant making 100,000 Pesos a year is better off than an American making $20,000. 100,000 is more than 20,000...

I never said that. Is that what you're saying? All I said was the reason the rich pay more in taxes now is because they make more money, and the poor pay less because they make less. I'm not sure how you're reading anything into it about Mexican peasants - you must be on fucking crack or something.

Purchasing power is the only valid measure of income.

Its not the one the IRS uses to determine your tax liability. You asked why the rich pay more now than they did under Clinton. Its because they make more money.

The value of the dollar fluctuates. What determines the lifestyle one lives is the hours of labor one must expend to get the things they need and want.

Great. That's fine. I don't dispute it. You asked why the rich pay more now than they did under Clinton, and why the poor pay less. Its because the rich make more money and the poor make less. That's the reason. That's your answer. Are you done now?

So lower tax rates resulted in the rich paying a greater percentage of taxes, which in your alleged mind proves that the rich are not taxed enough?

No, the rich making more money resulted in the rich paying more taxes. I am really hoping this time you might finally be able to understand the fucking English language because I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over.

Essentially, this stipulates that laws must be applied to all citizens in an equal and equitable fashion. Graduated taxation violates this clause in that it applies tax law unequally based on income.

Applied tax isn't equal under a flat tax either, thus by your absurd logic, also unconstitutional. Homestead exemptions on property tax - also by your stupid logic - unconstitutional.Sales tax exemptions for things like food - also, according to stupid you, unconstitutional. In fact, by your utterly absurd and retarded logic, the only constitutional way for the government to raise revenue would be to send every man, woman, and child in America a bill for the exact same amount every year.

to which I pointed out that income actually is something we are born to,

I know you pointed that out - and its STILL wrong.

 

[georgephillip]

The adjusted gross income of the wealthiest 400 taxpayers jumped 277 percent in real terms between 1992 and 2008, nearly four times the increase for everyone else. Over that same period, the effective tax rate on the richest 400 taxpayers (note: not necessarily the same people year-to-year) fell from 30 percent in 1995 to the 18 percent rate in 2008

TaxVox » Blog Archive » The Very Rich Really Are Different

The Great Switch that has taken place over the last 40 years has seen wealthy Americans who once financed the US government mainly through tax payments now lending the government its operating capital.

Over 40% of US national debt is owned by rich Americans.

While tax rates have plunged over the last four decades for the very rich and loopholes have grown large enough that 18,000 US households earning more than a half-million dollars last year paid no income taxes at all (and the richest 400 Americans paid only 18% of their total incomes in federal income taxes), more and more of the nation's wealth and income have gone to the richest 1% of its citizens.

"In the late 1970s, the top 1 percent took home 9 percent of total national income. Now the top 1 percent's take is more than 20 percent.

"Over the same period, the top one-tenth of one percent has tripled its share."

"You hear a lot of worries about foreigners dumping Treasuries if they lose confidence in the dollar because of our future budget deficits. What you hear less about are these super-rich Americans, who are just as likely to abandon Treasuries if spooked by future budget deficits...

"The great irony is if America’s super rich financed the U.S. government the way they used to – by paying taxes rather than lending the government money – that long-term budget deficit would be far lower.

"This is why a tax increase on the super rich must be part of any budget agreement. Otherwise the great switch by the super rich will make the income and wealth gap far wider."

The Great Switch by the Super Rich | Truthout

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never said that.

In fact you did; let me refresh your memory.

In the context of what their annual income is, they just have to get paid less money in a year, obviously.

First of all, your claim is false, moreover it is spurious. Americans have greater purchasing power now than they did in the 90's, which is powerful considering the massive decline in 2008-09.

Great. That's fine. I don't dispute it. You asked why the rich pay more now than they did under Clinton, and why the poor pay less. Its because the rich make more money and the poor make less. That's the reason. That's your answer. Are you done now?

Except, what you claim is false. The rich make more money and the poor make MORE money.

The ones who advocate the rape of the "rich" are the apparatchiks, the government goons seeking to fund their own greed off of the earnings of others.

No, the rich making more money resulted in the rich paying more taxes.

Not just more in taxes, a greater percentage of the total receipts. Lowering tax rates didn't "shift the burden" as the left claims, quite the opposite. So the basis of your class warfare is what, then?

Applied tax isn't equal under a flat tax either,

10% is 10% sparky, I think you can grasp this.

I know you pointed that out - and its STILL wrong.

No, it most certainly isn't.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Over 40% of US national debt is owned by rich Americans.

I don't think that's true. About 40% is owned by U.S. investors and institutions but they aren't all rich. Anyone whose got a 401(k) likely has money in treasuries. Ordinary middle class folks living in retirement have money in treasuries. Insurance companies have money in treasuries (they may be big companies but their policy holders are ordinary people)

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

First of all, your claim is false, moreover it is spurious. Americans have greater purchasing power now than they did in the 90's, which is powerful considering the massive decline in 2008-09.

I never said otherwise. All I said was that the reason the rich pay more in taxes now is because they make more money.

10% is 10% sparky, I think you can grasp this.

I'm sorry, but I pay my taxes in dollars, not %'s. If I pay $2000 in taxes and you pay $1000 - I have paid an unequal amount compared to you, and hence, according to you, unconstitutional.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How would it help the economy to take away everything that they earn?

it wouldn't. Considering no one is suggesting we do that - I fail to see your point.

The highest tax rates do not apply to just the top 400 taxpayers - they apply to people making over $379K per year.

The highest tax rates usually DON'T apply to the uber rich - that's the point. A doctor who worked his way through medical school and residency and applied himself to the fullest and now works 80 hour weeks as a highly paid specialist pays a higher rate than most of the uber rich because his income is earned income while most of theirs is capital gains.

Many of these are entrepreneurs / small business owners. Tax them more, they will invest less and create fewer jobs.

If your business nets over 400k a year its probably not a SMALL business. If you define a "small" business has having 500 or fewer employees (which is kinda a liberal definition) - the average income of small businesses is around 250k
Answers.com - What was the average income for small business owners in 2005

I find it interesting how little of your own source you chose to read. I find it even more interesting that you chose to define "small business" by Salary.com's estimate of the average income for small businesses, rather than the Small Business Administration's - which sets the legal definition for "small business" - criteria, of which you only bothered to notice one.

For those who make an effort to read ALL of the truth, rather than just those bits that confirm their chosen worldview, we can see from the SBA's definition that your statement of "if your business nets over 400k a year it's probably not small" is incorrect. For most industries, the receipts allowed while still meeting the criteria are in the millions.

Furthermore, the one criteria from the SBA that you deigned to acknowledge - 500 employees or less - and then dismissed as "kinda liberal" is only liberal if one accepts your incomplete and incorrect quoting of it. In fact, that number belongs to most manufacturing and mining industries. It is far from universal to all industries. It is also only one of several criteria a business in those industries must meet to qualify.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For most industries, the receipts allowed while still meeting the criteria are in the millions.

Income tax isn't levied on gross receipts, its levied on net profits
The average small business owner makes around 250k in net PROFIT, not receipts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes it is true...

Why the fuck you think all these dolts cant wait until April or May for their fucking tax returns???

Why the fuck do you think the government sends you a check??

How about 47% don't pay any income tax???

Yeah I forgot to include that - so I was wrong there but now I'm right.

Go look it up if you don't believe me.....

I apologize for not being able to read your mind and basing my reply on what you actually wrote, my bad.

Why the fuck you think all these dolts cant wait until April or May for their fucking tax returns???

I'm starting to wonder if YOU pay taxes. The due date is in April, not May, and someone who was trying to file as early as possible could probably get theirs done in February.

You can file your taxes whenever you want just as long as its between January and April.

If you file your taxes in say March and if an individual is getting a refund, that check could arrive as soon as the end of April..

My point was that 47% of the working populace receives a tax return - that means they paid little to no taxes. It means their deductions exceeded what was paid to uncle sam.

In short the government is giving the individual back what what the individual already paid in taxes to the government.

You can also request an extension and file a bit later, if you're having some sort of problem getting it done on time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're either stupid or a liar. I used to make less than 35k a year and I paid net taxes.

Nope, below $33,048 pays zero in federal income tax.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

The tax rate on the 20000th of AGI is 15% for EVERYONE.

False.

47% of American wage earners pay no federal income tax at all.

Who Pays Taxes? Not As Many As You Think : NPR

For this 47%, the taxe on the 20000 dollar is zero.

How? Well, the "adjustments" make the income of those earning $33,048 zero.

That's absolutely false. I don't need your source to tell me that either. I do some people's taxes and I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that people making 33K a year's return is not greater than what they've paid in Federal.

Oh, WELL, then. As long as we have YOUR anecdotal observations, we'll just say "fuck you" to the studies and statistics from the National Taxpayers Union, shall we? Your word for it is much more reliable evidence.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But it'll help and it's the right thing to do.

We need to increase revenue AND cut spending, the GOPer's are a one trick pony these days.

It's the stupid thing to do. It simply amazes me that lefties can breezily raise taxes on rich people and think there will be no consequences.

Consquenses like increased revenue?


Don't we need to increase revenue?

Or are you suggesting that there is some kind of threat in the offing?

Wherever did you get the ridiculous idea that raising tax rates automatically corresponds to raising tax revenues? They aren't the same thing at all, you know.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wherever did you get the ridiculous idea that raising tax rates automatically corresponds to raising tax revenues? They aren't the same thing at all, you know.

It doesn't "automatically" - but right now it would. Historically tax receipts as a % of GDP is about 20%. Attempts to raise taxes far past that usually fail because of the de-stimulating effect on the economy. But right now taxation as a % of GDP is around 17%. We've got some room to raise taxes and get higher revenues.


Right wing morons like yourself will say "raising taxes will result in lower revenues" ALWAYS - but if that were ALWAYS true, then obviously we could maximum revenues with a 0.01% tax rate, which is absurd.

 

[daveman]

Funnel money to the top percent and then cut wages and benefits for the working poor...it's wrong on so many levels.

Why does the GOP insist on wealth redistribution through tax breaks for the wealthy and then complain that a fair tax rate would amount to wealth redistribution?

Why does the left insist on punishing success and rewarding lack of effort?

Why does the right insist on punishing work so they can reward investment?

Where did you pick up that particularly wrong-headed bit of leftist bulls --

Oh. I think I just answered my own question.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why does the left insist on punishing success and rewarding lack of effort?

Why does the right insist on punishing work so they can reward investment?

Where did you pick up that particularly wrong-headed bit of leftist bulls --

Oh. I think I just answered my own question.

Its not bull. The right wing heavily favors the special capital gains taxation rate - which is 15% - while the top rate on earned income is 35%. In supporting a lower capital gains taxation rate than earned income, Republicans are rewarding investment income and punishing earned income. Clearly we could raise the capital gains rate and lower the top earned income rate so they are both the same and somewhere in between 15% and 35% - and be revenue neutral - thus taxing and hence punishing/rewarding earned income and investment income the same. The right does not favor this. They prefer to reward investment income at the expense of punishing earned income. Its kind of messed up if you ask me. Republicans are always talking about how work should be rewarded - yet they want to tax a doctor or a businessman who makes $1,00,000 a year $170,000 MORE than a stock investor making the same amount.

 

[daveman]

Funnel money to the top percent and then cut wages and benefits for the working poor...it's wrong on so many levels.

Why does the GOP insist on wealth redistribution through tax breaks for the wealthy and then complain that a fair tax rate would amount to wealth redistribution?

Why does the left insist on punishing success and rewarding lack of effort?


Oh, yeah. To get people to vote for them. Kerry on.

Why does the left insist on punishing success and rewarding lack of effort?

You are a liar...

Fuck off, you braindead moonbat.

 

[boedicca]

Wherever did you get the ridiculous idea that raising tax rates automatically corresponds to raising tax revenues? They aren't the same thing at all, you know.

It doesn't "automatically" - but right now it would. Historically tax receipts as a % of GDP is about 20%. Attempts to raise taxes far past that usually fail because of the de-stimulating effect on the economy. But right now taxation as a % of GDP is around 17%. We've got some room to raise taxes and get higher revenues.


Right wing morons like yourself will say "raising taxes will result in lower revenues" ALWAYS - but if that were ALWAYS true, then obviously we could maximum revenues with a 0.01% tax rate, which is absurd.

God you are dumb.

We have the highest levels of sustained unemployment since the Great Depresssion.

The reason that tax receipts are down is that far less people are working and paying taxes, and more of them are receiving transfer payments for a record low (since women entered the workforce) Labor Force Participation Level.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We have the highest levels of sustained unemployment since the Great Depresssion.

Under what particular measure? unemployment under Reagan peaked at 10.8% and was over 7% for years. Really depends on what you define as "sustained" unemployment. I'm sure it will be convenient to your point whatever it is.

The reason that tax receipts are down is that far less people are working and paying taxes, and more of them are receiving transfer payments for a record low (since women entered the workforce) Labor Force Participation Level.

Did you read what I said? I said tax receipts are down as a PERCENT of GDP. If the rate of taxation remains the same but the GDP goes down - the rate as a PERCENT of GDP remains the same.

 

[daveman]

Why does the right insist on punishing work so they can reward investment?

Where did you pick up that particularly wrong-headed bit of leftist bulls --

Oh. I think I just answered my own question.

Its not bull. The right wing heavily favors the special capital gains taxation rate - which is 15% - while the top rate on earned income is 35%. In supporting a lower capital gains taxation rate than earned income, Republicans are rewarding investment income and punishing earned income. Clearly we could raise the capital gains rate and lower the top earned income rate so they are both the same and somewhere in between 15% and 35% - and be revenue neutral - thus taxing and hence punishing/rewarding earned income and investment income the same. The right does not favor this. They prefer to reward investment income at the expense of punishing earned income. Its kind of messed up if you ask me. Republicans are always talking about how work should be rewarded - yet they want to tax a doctor or a businessman who makes $1,00,000 a year $170,000 MORE than a stock investor making the same amount.

Rather hypocritical of you, isn't it? You want to tax the doctor and businessman who make a million a year AND the investor far more than Republicans want to in order to pay for your leftist Utopian schemes.

Tell me: After you've run out of other people's money to be generous with, what are you going to spend?

 

[Rozman]

Nothing wrong in creating wealth. The people, the CEOs of the companies that created the crash of 2008 did not create wealth for anybody other than themselves. For everybody else, they created poverty. Yet you defend them from having to pay their fair share of the tax burden.

Can you tell everyone out there in TV land what YOU think their fair share is?

 

[DiamondDave]

Nothing wrong in creating wealth. The people, the CEOs of the companies that created the crash of 2008 did not create wealth for anybody other than themselves. For everybody else, they created poverty. Yet you defend them from having to pay their fair share of the tax burden.

Can you tell everyone out there in TV land what YOU think their fair share is?

Exactly.. it is not about equal treatment... it's about subjective 'fairness' to these putzes... not about the freedom to succeed or fail... it's jealousy.. it's class warfare at it's finest

I mean.. how DARE these successful people earn riches and be successful... it should be ILLEGAL for them to do better than anyone else from their own efforts, choices, etc

 

[boedicca]

We have the highest levels of sustained unemployment since the Great Depresssion.

Under what particular measure? unemployment under Reagan peaked at 10.8% and was over 7% for years. Really depends on what you define as "sustained" unemployment. I'm sure it will be convenient to your point whatever it is.

The reason that tax receipts are down is that far less people are working and paying taxes, and more of them are receiving transfer payments for a record low (since women entered the workforce) Labor Force Participation Level.

Did you read what I said? I said tax receipts are down as a PERCENT of GDP. If the rate of taxation remains the same but the GDP goes down - the rate as a PERCENT of GDP remains the same.

No, if you raise taxes when GDP growth is anemic, you will just further deflate GDP growth, resulting in no real increase in tax receipts. You may actually reduce receipts.

U6 unemployment has been above 15% for quite a long time - i.e., during the entire Obama Administration to date.

Here, learn something:

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm