The Rich Don't Pay Enough?!

[ilia25]

Since the conclusion of the report was "ZOMG we're gonna go back to the Dark Ages if we don't take money away from rich people!!!", I'd say the data was provided by Democrats in the White House.

In other words you are making baseless accusations only because you don't like the results.

I've backed up my accusations.

You've backed them where? You said that the White House provided data for the CBO report, where is the proof of that?

At the same time Ryan has no problem citing CBO when it suits him.

CBO is like a computer: Garbage in, garbage out.

Then Ryan must be a hypocritical liar, because he is regularly citing similar CBO reports when it suits him.

And now CBO says that Ryan is opposing cutting the deficit in half in 2013.

 

[eflatminor]

I've already given you the dual explanations. Instead of attempting to refute those, you simply fall back to "I can find a link that says differently!"




Here's evidence for scenario number one:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact.

We've heard your simpleton explanation before. As you stated, let's hear a serious economist back you up.

Can you refute the explanation? Find fault with anything that's been presented? You sure fall for an appeal to authority easily.

I can, and I did, refute your "explanation". I see still you have nothing to back it up. Got it.

Get thee to a library son!

 

[8537]

We've heard your simpleton explanation before. As you stated, let's hear a serious economist back you up.

Can you refute the explanation? Find fault with anything that's been presented? You sure fall for an appeal to authority easily.

I can, and I did, refute your "explanation". I see still you have nothing to back it up. Got it.

Get thee to a library son!

Pathetic. No, you didn't refute the explanation. You simply cut and pasted from the interwebs.

Try refuting it with your own words....Or at least, your own thoughts. I don't need more time in a library to understand the topic well enough to explain it with more than a simple appeal to the authority of a website.

 

[daveman]

In other words you are making baseless accusations only because you don't like the results.

I've backed up my accusations.

You've backed them where? You said that the White House provided data for the CBO report, where is the proof of that?

I said considering the conclusions of the report, it was a reasonable assumption that the White House provided data.

Here's the report itself: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43539-08-22-2012-Update_One-Col.pdf

Looks like I was wrong, unless they've hidden their sources.

Oh, well.

At the same time Ryan has no problem citing CBO when it suits him.

CBO is like a computer: Garbage in, garbage out.

Then Ryan must be hypocritical liar, because he is regularly citing similar CBO reports when it suits him.

And now CBO says that Ryan is opposing cutting the deficit in half in 2013.

Obama must be a liar, too, huh?

Or is that different? Somehow? It just is!

 

[Againsheila]

The Rich Don't Pay Enough?


1. According to IRS 2007 data, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes.

2. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax.

3. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes.

4. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.

5. President Obama and the Democratic Party harp about tax fairness. Here's my fairness question to you:

What standard of fairness dictates that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 71 percent of the federal income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing?

6. Here's the question for us:

Is the U.S. moving toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt to GDP ratio in the 1970s was 35 percent; now it's 106 percent of GDP. If you think we're immune from the economic chaos in some of the EU countries, you're whistling Dixie.

And when economic chaos comes, whom do you think will be more affected by it: rich people or poor people?

The Rich Don't Pay Enough? - Walter E. Williams - Page 2

These are the facts and they are being ignored by the MSM. Until the tax burden is shared by all, the entire population is not going to be talking or learning about tax cuts or raises and have no opinion about them. They will just be part of the 50% of the those willing to take government handouts regardless of the repercussions to the country as a whole.

The top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, they should be paying 90% of the taxes, not 40%.

 

[kaz]

No they didn't. Almost as much money is collected in payroll taxes as income taxes, and payroll taxes are both intentionally regressive and applied only to labor income, not capital gains.

In other words, they are far more likely to be paid, and paid at a higher rate, by people outside that 1% you mention.

So workers paying for their own retirement is a "regressive" tax?

And I like your dearth of data. You didn't provide it because it hardly changes the data.

Paying for their own retirement? Lemme guess: you believe there's a lockbox? FICA doesn't fund your future retirement.

OK, so you admit that social security checks are welfare?

Here's the data: Personal income taxes amount to about 1,116B in revenue in 2011. FICA taxes amount to about 840B. (for comparison, corporate income taxes amount to about 240B during a period of record profits)

That's irrelevant data to the point. The question isn't what is the split of taxes between payroll and income taxes, it's what's the split between the rich bastards you despise and the poor, oppressed masses who toil to keep them rich.

 

[eflatminor]

Can you refute the explanation? Find fault with anything that's been presented? You sure fall for an appeal to authority easily.

I can, and I did, refute your "explanation". I see still you have nothing to back it up. Got it.

Get thee to a library son!

Pathetic. No, you didn't refute the explanation. You simply cut and pasted from the interwebs.

Try refuting it with your own words....Or at least, your own thoughts. I don't need more time in a library to understand the topic well enough to explain it with more than a simple appeal to the authority of a website.

So...nothing. Check.

 

[8537]

OK, so you admit that social security checks are welfare?

Well of course! It's a program to provide for the welfare of aged people. Hence the name.

That's irrelevant data to the point. The question isn't what is the split of taxes between payroll and income taxes, it's what's the split between the rich bastards you despise and the poor, oppressed masses who toil to keep them rich.

The people you refer to as rich bastards don't contribute to the 840B in payroll taxes. You claimed they pay the top1% paid 37% of all federal taxes, but they contribute at MOST $8,100 per person no matter how much they earn - and that's assuming they earn it through labor, which many do not.

Every family in America making more than 106,000 from labor contribute that same amount.

It's OK, you've been duped by the rightwing talking heads. It happens.

 

[8537]

I can, and I did, refute your "explanation". I see still you have nothing to back it up. Got it.

Get thee to a library son!

Pathetic. No, you didn't refute the explanation. You simply cut and pasted from the interwebs.

Try refuting it with your own words....Or at least, your own thoughts. I don't need more time in a library to understand the topic well enough to explain it with more than a simple appeal to the authority of a website.

So...nothing. Check.

How pathetic. Nothing what? You're the one claiming you can refute the following. Well, refute it then:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact. I'm sure it feels bad to be duped by the Tax Foundation but it happens. Check your facts next time.

 

[daveman]

Pathetic. No, you didn't refute the explanation. You simply cut and pasted from the interwebs.

Try refuting it with your own words....Or at least, your own thoughts. I don't need more time in a library to understand the topic well enough to explain it with more than a simple appeal to the authority of a website.

So...nothing. Check.

How pathetic. Nothing what? You're the one claiming you can refute the following. Well, refute it then:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact. I'm sure it feels bad to be duped by the Tax Foundation but it happens. Check your facts next time.

Really? This is your argument?

The initial investment was taxed as labor income.

 

[8537]

So...nothing. Check.

How pathetic. Nothing what? You're the one claiming you can refute the following. Well, refute it then:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact. I'm sure it feels bad to be duped by the Tax Foundation but it happens. Check your facts next time.

Really? This is your argument?

The initial investment was taxed as labor income.

What in the world are you talking about? The initial investment was $10 dollars out of take-home pay of the individual. It was not taxed as anything.

And it also wasn't taxed when it was invested. His labor income in total was taxed, but his investment is never taxed.

 

[ilia25]

I've backed up my accusations.

You've backed them where? You said that the White House provided data for the CBO report, where is the proof of that?

I said considering the conclusions of the report, it was a reasonable assumption that the White House provided data.

Here's the report itself: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43539-08-22-2012-Update_One-Col.pdf

Looks like I was wrong, unless they've hidden their sources.

Oh, well.

CBO is like a computer: Garbage in, garbage out.

Then Ryan must be hypocritical liar, because he is regularly citing similar CBO reports when it suits him.

And now CBO says that Ryan is opposing cutting the deficit in half in 2013.

Obama must be a liar, too, huh?

Huh? Is that supposed to be another "reasonable assumption" of yours -- if Paul Ryan is a pathetic liar, than Barack Obama must be liar too?

 

[eflatminor]

Pathetic. No, you didn't refute the explanation. You simply cut and pasted from the interwebs.

Try refuting it with your own words....Or at least, your own thoughts. I don't need more time in a library to understand the topic well enough to explain it with more than a simple appeal to the authority of a website.

So...nothing. Check.

How pathetic. Nothing what? You're the one claiming you can refute the following. Well, refute it then:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact. I'm sure it feels bad to be duped by the Tax Foundation but it happens. Check your facts next time.

Okay...looking, looking...still looking. Nope, nothing.

 

[8537]

So...nothing. Check.

How pathetic. Nothing what? You're the one claiming you can refute the following. Well, refute it then:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact. I'm sure it feels bad to be duped by the Tax Foundation but it happens. Check your facts next time.

Okay...looking, looking...still looking. Nope, nothing.

You're right Eflat - you have no way to refute the above information. Ya know why?

Because it's fact.

 

[eflatminor]

How pathetic. Nothing what? You're the one claiming you can refute the following. Well, refute it then:

You earn $100 in labor income. You pay $20 in taxes. Of the remaining $80, you invest $10 in a pin factory.

Five years later, that pin factory is booming and your investment is now worth $25. Fearing a crash, you realize those gains....

And when you do so, you pay a tax - on the gain of $15. Not on the initial investment. The initial investment is not taxed. You pay a tax on the realized new income.

Now you can scream "I want a link to a "serious" economist", but the above is a fact. I'm sure it feels bad to be duped by the Tax Foundation but it happens. Check your facts next time.

Okay...looking, looking...still looking. Nope, nothing.

You're right Eflat - you have no way to refute the above information. Ya know why?

Because it's fact.

Ah! There it is...oh wait, no, still nothing. Gosh, you'd think "fact" would be easy to back up. Guess not.

 

[8537]

Okay...looking, looking...still looking. Nope, nothing.

You're right Eflat - you have no way to refute the above information. Ya know why?

Because it's fact.

Ah! There it is...oh wait, no, still nothing. Gosh, you'd think "fact" would be easy to back up. Guess not.

Which information I provided do you dispute? Go ahead, explain. I can't be held accountable if you don't understand the most basic aspects of US taxes.

I've seen some pathetic attempts at denial and diverting on this site, but this might be a new low.

 

[eflatminor]

I've seen some pathetic attempts at denial and diverting on this site, but this might be a new low.

Ditto.

That said, I may have missed the evidence you provided for your simpleton explanation...the "because I said so" link...it was right there all along!

 

[Steelplate]

Ah yes, another brilliant retort from the left we've come to know and love...



And with such a low number (4% of those consider below the poverty level), real charity could easily supplement their nutritional needs. Real charity, not the kind that involves theft.



And that extra money you get beyond what you've put in, where does that come from? Oh yes, it's stolen from other citizens. When government takes from some to give to others, it damn well is an entitlement.



I want the choice to opt out. If you want to depend on the government to keep your retirement money, fine, but stop forcing others into your Ponzi schemes.



Not sure what you're trying to say here.



The average person on Medicare takes out THREE TIMES what they pay in. But that's not an entitlement either...

once again....real slow this time....Did you ever consider that the 96% number of poor people without hunger issues is that high BECAUSE OF PROGRAMS LIKE FOOD STAMPS? You do away with them and that number plummets.

I disagree. The number is that high because this country still maintains a modicum of the best welfare program of all, a job. It is the success of American capitalism that keep everyone fed. Besides, we have far more people on food stamps than are truly in danger of going hungry, FAR more. Take food stamps away and America's poor might have fewer television, cell phones and the latest Nike sneakers, but nobody's starving. For the very few folks that are truly incapable of meeting the most basic of needs and that have no family or friends to lend a hand, American charity has long proved capable of responding. Again, real charity.

Now....onto the next part of your lack of reading comprehension....

We understand the Left is incapable of debate without ad hominem attacks. Thank you for demonstrating that once again...

What I was saying is that if you want to do away with SS and Medicare, do it so that older folks who are still working don't get fucked. Decide on a fair cutoff age....say 35 or 40....those older than that age will keep their SS benefits as is....those younger than that can decide what to do.

The idea of making the cutoff at 55, like Ryan's proposal fucks over a lot of people who didn't have the time to prepare for higher out of pocket costs.

Interesting. I'd say that depends. A 54 year old has plenty of time to plan for retirement, unless we're expecting to retire Greece-style at 61. That said, I'm impressed you're open to the idea. Rep coming your way...

maybe not 61.... I'm thinking more like 65....but maybe 61 too. You have to realize that most workers don't sit on their asses behind a desk. Most if us work physical jobs that throw a lot of wear and tear on the body. Hell.... I'm only 47 and have had a two level spinal fusion, have to have my knee scoped intermittently to clear debris floating around...and just got home from work today and am sitting on my recliner right now with my foot elevated with ice on my left ankle because I have a current case of tendonitis that I've been fighting all week. All of which is either work related(back/knee), or work aggravated(ankle).

Lucky for me, I work for the Commonwealth of PA, and I'll actually have a pension to work with after I hit 35 years of service...maybe longer if I still can do it. I love my job and take pride in what I do, as well as knowing that I am serving the people of my State and helping people who GENUINELY can't take care of themselves.....and, not to brag....but I'm very good at what I do. But pain may take it's toll and depending on how the rods and screws hold up in my back, I may just be lucky to gut it out for the twelve years I need for 35.

And I'm just a guy who works with the intellectually disabled(profoundly w/severe behavioral/psychiatric/social-sexual issues). There are many, many people out there that wreck their bodies working too....without the security that guaranteed pension brings....sure, they may have a 401k or an IRA....but those are subject to Wall Street and their Casino tactics with other people's money. If I retire at 35 years of service, I'll be not quite 60....It'll be tight, but I can wait 5-6 years for SS to kick in.

BTW....before you start ranting about Public sector employees....I'm low level.....pay range 3 out of 9...I am a direct care person....an aide. Not a bureaucrat by any means....I work and work hard for the money I earn. Just thought I'd get that out if the way.....

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that depending on what one does for a living and how that occupation affects their bodies....retiring at 61 and needing to draw on SS is a possible, perhaps even probable scenario for some people....but even if you bumped it up to 65....for a 54 year to prepare is going to be tough....that's 11 years.....kids in college is a huge expense for a Middle class family. They make too much for grants, and they make too little to pay out of pocket....that means Parent Plus Loans to pay back....that is unless they are OK with hamstringing their kids with debt before they even start their lives. We made sure they(son who graduated, daughter who's attending now) had/have some skin in the game, so we make them take out the Stafford Loan, but we take care of the rest.

Sorry for rambling, BTW....

 

[8537]

I've seen some pathetic attempts at denial and diverting on this site, but this might be a new low.

Ditto.

That said, I may have missed the evidence you provided for your simpleton explanation...the "because I said so" link...it was right there all along!

The evidence is the tax code. Anyone who's done more than flip burgers is familiar with it. Why don't you explain which part you disagree with?

Oh, wait. You can't. Because instead of admitting you're wrong, you'd rather dodge and weave. Happy dodging!

 

[eflatminor]

I've seen some pathetic attempts at denial and diverting on this site, but this might be a new low.

Ditto.

That said, I may have missed the evidence you provided for your simpleton explanation...the "because I said so" link...it was right there all along!

The evidence is the tax code. Anyone who's done more than flip burgers is familiar with it. Why don't you explain which part you disagree with?

Oh, wait. You can't. Because instead of admitting you're wrong, you'd rather dodge and weave. Happy dodging!

I posted my position with logic and reason and backed it with a credible link. You...not so much.

Now where is that link?