Why the poor should be taxed more heavily.

[edthecynic]

I was quite surprised to learn that ... less than 1% of the population in this country pay 65% of the entire tax base.

I'm not surprised to see you think parroting GOP Rate-Run media lies is "learning."

According to the below linked pdf of the CBO tax report, on page 19 Table 2 in 2008 the income tax share for the top 1% was 29.8%, and on bottom of page 18 their share of the total Fed tax liability was 20.7%. No matter how you spin "entire tax base" your 65% claim is a lie!!!
A PAPER

 

[Zander]

The poor..lol. Poor is a choice. If you are able bodied and you can't make it in America, you deserve to be poor.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do the wealthy seek out poverty to avoid taxes? Do you seek out poverty to avoid taxes? What makes you think the level of taxation the impetus to the creation of wealth, or lack of it?

Do you think the wealthy (and even not so wealthy) do not change their behavior in response to tax policies? Even Hillary Clinton did so. It is well established.
The idea that the poor ought to be taxed more is appealing. If you tax something, you get less of it because you make it mroe expensive. If we make being poor too expensive then people will work much harder to get out of it.

 

[edthecynic]

Question is, what are you going to tax from the poor? They're poor, they have nothing to tax.

Unless of course you wish to tax poor people, which will drive them to being unable to afford simple necessities if they cannot already.

That would be like saying lets tax the rich so they will be encouraged to earn more.

(I do hope you're not serious.)

40% of the people in this country are NOT poor--but they fall under the bar to pay federal income taxes. Either with lots of dependant right-offs--deductions, etc.

They basically get a free ride on the backs of others who acted more responsibly--& earn more.

These are the EXACT same people that continually want to tax--tax--tax the 1% of this country--(the wealthy) who already pay 65% of the entire tax base in this country.

The majority of these people can contribute also--& I don't care if it's $100 to $1000 per year--they need to be "patriotic" (as Joe Biden stated) & get on board.

They don't appear to mind soaring deficits to get everything they want--so they can pay too.

Repeating that lie will not make it any less of a lie.

I say the top 1% should actually pay the 65% they lie about paying so they will not be liars any more.

 

[rightwinger]

The idea that the poor ought to be taxed more is appealing. If you tax something, you get less of it because you make it mroe expensive. If we make being poor too expensive then people will work much harder to get out of it.

A Hall of Fame Quote!

 

[xotoxi]

The idea that the poor ought to be taxed more is appealing. If you tax something, you get less of it because you make it mroe expensive. If we make being poor too expensive then people will work much harder to get out of it.

A Hall of Fame Quote!

"Being poor is SO EXPENSIVE!"

 

[edthecynic]

I just love that whole fallacious argument that tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. According to the percentages, the wealthy still pay a higher percentage in tax than the poor.
So tell me, who is benefiting? Who pays more in taxes, the guy that has his taxes cut from 12% to 10% or the guy that has his taxes cut from 35% to 30%. As far as I can tell, the guy that pays a 30% rate is still paying more in taxes than the guy that has a 10% rate. Seems like pretty simple math to me.

Even America's Hemorrhoid, Stuttering LimpBoy admits the wealthy pay no taxes. It's the wage earner who pays the bulk of the taxes.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...
But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[xotoxi]

Thank you for responding to my post.

However, this...

So this is the dilemma of many hard working Americans that just aren't as well off as others. And you want to tax them to teach them some kind of lesson? I never said anything about "teaching them a lesson", take that comment and shove it up your ass where it belongs.

...earns you a nice big

There's no need to be an inflamed anus when I call you out for saying...

Just maybe, if the poor were taxed more heavily than the wealthy, it would encourage them to better their position in life so that they could avoid paying so much in taxes.

...which is essentially taxing them to teach them not to be poor.

End of conversation.

 

[The Rabbi]

The idea that the poor ought to be taxed more is appealing. If you tax something, you get less of it because you make it mroe expensive. If we make being poor too expensive then people will work much harder to get out of it.

A Hall of Fame Quote!

"Being poor is SO EXPENSIVE!"

It is. How many discounts do you get on paying for stuff up front? Or buying in bulk? It costs a lot more to be poor than not.

 

[bodecea]

If you are speaking of the federal government, I don't approve of the tax setup as it is, As such, I can't say yes to your idea. If you are speaking of the respective states, I would say that is their call.

The federal government has already decided to use taxation as a method to discourage certain behavior. Why haven't they discouraged poverty via taxation if that is such a good method?

Let's see....encourage them to make more money by taking more money away from them.


I see no flaws in that plan.

 

[Care4all]

A Hall of Fame Quote!

"Being poor is SO EXPENSIVE!"

It is. How many discounts do you get on paying for stuff up front? Or buying in bulk? It costs a lot more to be poor than not.

Even a Walmart in a lower end area, charges MORE than a walmart in a better neighborhood.

My sister is a teacher in a lower end white neighborhood area of a florida town, and she lives in a nicer area. The walmart near her school charges more, sometimes as much as 25% more for the precise same merchandise than the store her home neighborhood utilizes....IT INFURIATES her...because the one near her school is on the way home and the one servicing her town is a little past her town, so she would prefer to buy from the walmart on the way home from her school for convenience...but she just REFUSES to pay their higher price that they charge the lower income people in that neighborhood.

Truthfully, when i was there visiting and she told me that, I just could not believe it...but during the 3 weeks visiting, I did the 2 walmarts myself and low and behold, she was CORRECT.

I just can't understand why they need to charge their customers more for the precise same things?

Care

 

[bodecea]

"Being poor is SO EXPENSIVE!"

It is. How many discounts do you get on paying for stuff up front? Or buying in bulk? It costs a lot more to be poor than not.

Even a Walmart in a lower end area, charges MORE than a walmart in a better neighborhood.

My sister is a teacher in a lower end white neighborhood area of a florida town, and she lives in a nicer area. The walmart near her school charges more, sometimes as much as 25% more for the precise same merchandise than the store her home neighborhood utilizes....IT INFURIATES her...because the one near her school is on the way home and the one servicing her town is a little past her town, so she would prefer to buy from the walmart on the way home from her school for convenience...but she just REFUSES to pay their higher price that they charge the lower income people in that neighborhood.

Truthfully, when i was there visiting and she told me that, I just could not believe it...but during the 3 weeks visiting, I did the 2 walmarts myself and low and behold, she was CORRECT.

I just can't understand why they need to charge their customers more for the precise same things?

Care

Some might say it's to pay for the enhanced security because, you know, you just can't trust them poor people to not steal things.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is. How many discounts do you get on paying for stuff up front? Or buying in bulk? It costs a lot more to be poor than not.

Even a Walmart in a lower end area, charges MORE than a walmart in a better neighborhood.

My sister is a teacher in a lower end white neighborhood area of a florida town, and she lives in a nicer area. The walmart near her school charges more, sometimes as much as 25% more for the precise same merchandise than the store her home neighborhood utilizes....IT INFURIATES her...because the one near her school is on the way home and the one servicing her town is a little past her town, so she would prefer to buy from the walmart on the way home from her school for convenience...but she just REFUSES to pay their higher price that they charge the lower income people in that neighborhood.

Truthfully, when i was there visiting and she told me that, I just could not believe it...but during the 3 weeks visiting, I did the 2 walmarts myself and low and behold, she was CORRECT.

I just can't understand why they need to charge their customers more for the precise same things?

Care

Some might say it's to pay for the enhanced security because, you know, you just can't trust them poor people to not steal things.

It isn't a matter of trust. It is well established that stores in poor neighborhoods experience higher levels of theft and vandalism than stores in better neighborhoods. Ergo things must cost more.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you are speaking of the federal government, I don't approve of the tax setup as it is, As such, I can't say yes to your idea. If you are speaking of the respective states, I would say that is their call.

The federal government has already decided to use taxation as a method to discourage certain behavior. Why haven't they discouraged poverty via taxation if that is such a good method?

Let's see....encourage them to make more money by taking more money away from them.


I see no flaws in that plan.

Good. Because the plan is good.
On the off chance you aren't being serious, let's review: if you tax something you get less of it. If you tax incomes at regressive rates you encourage people to work harder to reach the next level and keep more of what they have made.
DOesn't seem hard to understand. Unless you think people are incapable of working harder.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I think a fair tax is the only option. I was quite surprised to learn that a whopping 40% of this country fall under the bar & pay no federal income tax what-so-ever. And that less than 1% of the population in this country pay 65% of the entire tax base. Yet--these same people (under the bar--want the rich to pay more???)

More than likely Obama voters--who continually want their way paid for by others.

A little dose of contributing to this country--may wake them up to reality--& get them to become more productive citizens themselves.

I am just thrilled that you are so worried over where Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison, the Waltons, Michael Bloomberg, and the Koch brothers' next meal is coming from.

However, you might want to consider that those that make nearly ALL the money should be payong the taxes on what they make.

Wealth Inequality Destroys US Ideals

By Don Monkerud
July 4, 2009

Editor’s Note: Since the national rise of Ronald Reagan three decades ago, the United States has been on a deadly course for a Republic, with wealth rapidly concentrating at the top and average Americans sinking or struggling to stay afloat.

<B>On the 233rd anniversary of American independence – a war fought for the equality of all mankind – writer Don Monkerud examines how these gross economic imbalances threaten that vision:

In June 2009, the U.S. economy saw its second steepest decline in 27 years. New jobless claims increased, business inventories fell and exports plunged as bad economic news persisted.
​

</B>
<B>

Will the once high-flying American wealth machine continue to produce the vast inequalities of the past?
​

</B>
Only two years ago, Steve Forbes, CEO of Forbes magazine, declared 2007 "the richest year ever in human history." During eight years of the Bush Administration, the 400 richest Americans, who now own more than the bottom 150 million Americans, increased their net worth by $700 billion.

In 2005, the top one percent claimed 22 percent of the national income, while the top ten percent took half of the total income, the largest share since 1928.

In June 2009, the Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Report estimated the number of the world's wealthiest people declined by 15 percent, the steepest decline in the report's 13-year history. The number of millionaires in the U.S. fell by 19 percent to 2.5 million people.

Analysts tell us the economy is being restructured, but how will the disparities in wealth between the rich and the poor play out?

"The source of wealth has changed over the past 30 years; corporations have become the engine of inequality in the U.S.," says Sam Pizzigati, associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. "In the past, wealth came from ownership: Today it comes increasingly from income."

The highest incomes come from executive pay at top corporations. In 2007, the ratio of CEO pay to the average paycheck was 344 to one, lower than the record 525 to one ratio set in 2001, but substantial. This year's ratio is estimated to decrease to 317 to one. In the 60s, 70s and 80s, the average ratio fluctuated between 30 and 40 to one.

Over 40 percent of GNP comes from Fortune 500 companies. According to the World Institute for Development Economics Research, the 500 largest conglomerates in the U.S. "control over two-thirds of the business resources, employ two-thirds of the industrial workers, account for 60 percent of the sales, and collect over 70 percent of the profits."

Corporations systematically created a wealth gap over the last 30 years. In 1955, IRS records indicated the 400 richest people in the country were worth an average $12.6 million, adjusted for inflation. In 2006, the 400 richest increased their average to $263 million, representing an epochal shift of wealth upward in the U.S.

In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2 percent of their income in taxes under a progressive federal income tax that included loopholes. By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2 percent of their income in taxes.

In 1955, the proportion of federal income from corporate taxes was 33 percent; by 2003, it decreased to 7.4 percent. Today, the top taxpayers pay the same percentage of their incomes in taxes as those making $50,000 to $75,000, although they doubled their share of total U.S. income.

"Over the past 30 years, the income of the top one percent, adjusted for inflation, doubled: the top one-tenth of one percent tripled, and the one-one-hundredth quadrupled," says Pizzigati. "Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 90 percent has gone down slightly. This is a stunning transformation."

Meanwhile, wages for most Americans didn't improve from 1979 to 1998, and the median male wage in 2000 was below the 1979 level, despite productivity increases of 44.5 percent. Between 2002 and 2004, inflation-adjusted median household income declined $1669 a year.

To make up for lost income, credit card debt soared 315 percent between 1989 and 2006, representing 138 percent of disposable income in 2007.

According to Pizzigati, the wealth disparity is the result of corporations squeezing more profits from workers.

"In the past corporations laid off workers because business was bad," Pizzigati says. "But over the past few decades, downsizing has been a corporate wealth generating strategy. Today, CEOs don't spend their time making, trying to make better products: they maneuver to take over other companies, steal their customers and fire their workers."

Progressive taxation used to prevent the rich from capturing a disproportionate share of national compensation, and the labor movement, which represented 35 percent of private sector employees and today represents 8 percent, once served as a political force to limit excessive executive pay.
The Reagan backlash cut the top income tax rates, and saw the creation of right-wing think tanks that spent $30 billion over the past 30 years, propagandizing for deregulation, privatization, and wealth worship.

Bubble economies over the past 30 years helped CEOs pump up their income, and efforts to corral their pay are weak and ineffective. CEO pay may fall during these economic hard times, but disparity isn't going away. Without a strong movement for change, the wealth gap will only increase in this downturn.

"There won't be a restructuring of the economy unless we take on executive compensation," concludes Pizzigati. "Outrageously large rewards give executives an incentive to behave outrageously. If we allow these incentives to continue, we will just see more of the reckless behavior that has driven the global economy into the ditch."

Don Monkerud is a California-based writer who follows cultural, social and political issues. Copyright 2009.

and:
Wealth Distribution



Just out of curiosity, when did stomping the shit out of people who have nothing become the AMERICAN WAY??????

 

[VaYank5150]

" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-- Benjamin Franklin, November 1776

Just maybe, if the poor were taxed more heavily than the wealthy, it would encourage them to better their position in life so that they could avoid paying so much in taxes.
The government frequently taxes things to discourage it. Things like tobacco and alcohol come to mind. The cap and trade will be a tax to discourage certain types of energy usage the government doesn't want.

Speaking of alcohol, were you drunk when you typed this?

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

Even a Walmart in a lower end area, charges MORE than a walmart in a better neighborhood.

My sister is a teacher in a lower end white neighborhood area of a florida town, and she lives in a nicer area. The walmart near her school charges more, sometimes as much as 25% more for the precise same merchandise than the store her home neighborhood utilizes....IT INFURIATES her...because the one near her school is on the way home and the one servicing her town is a little past her town, so she would prefer to buy from the walmart on the way home from her school for convenience...but she just REFUSES to pay their higher price that they charge the lower income people in that neighborhood.

Truthfully, when i was there visiting and she told me that, I just could not believe it...but during the 3 weeks visiting, I did the 2 walmarts myself and low and behold, she was CORRECT.

I just can't understand why they need to charge their customers more for the precise same things?

Care

They do because they can, and they can because of a "captive audience."

People who are poor have a much harder time getting around to comparison shop!


Isolated areas have some of the same issues.

Example; Fort Bragg, California, where the Safeway there had the highest profit margin of any Safeway, in a town where so many are so very poor, and at $3. plus a gallon for gas, traveling a nearly 200 mile round trip to have access is just not a viable solution.

Captive audiernce, they can take advantage, so they do.

 

[obama2ndterm]

It's been said there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes.

Now one of those certainties is under attack from an unlikely source: Warren Buffett. Wednesday, the billionaire founder of the investment firm Berkshire Hathaway Inc. went to Washington to ask Congress not to cut his taxes. Buffett says the super-rich should be taxed more, not less.

In particular Buffett urged the Senate Finance Committee not to repeal the estate tax. It is scheduled to come up for a vote, perhaps as soon as this week.

He told the committee that he recently compared how much he pays in taxes in terms of a percentage of his salary to what his employees pay.
Related
How the Rich Hide Their Wealth

The results? Buffett says he pays 18 percent of his salary to the IRS while the rest of his staff pays nearly twice that &#8212; 33 percent, a lopsided equation that put Buffett in a Robin Hood frame of mind.

"Frankly, an economy where my receptionist pays a lot higher tax rate than, than I do does not strike me as a just economy," he told lawmakers.

Buffet has challenged the elite members of the Forbes 400 list to do their own calculations and compare their tax rate with their receptionists, and then consider his challenge that the rich should pay more.

"I see nothing wrong with those who have been blessed by this society to give a larger portion of their income to the society than somebody that's working very, very hard to make ends meet," Buffett said.

ABC even offered to help Buffett by calling some of the richest 400 and offering to do the tax calculations for them. There were no takers, although the few that returned ABC's calls were polite and left nice voice mails.

"We must regretfully decline," said one.

"Unfortunately he has decided to decline," proclaimed another

"He'd like to decline the interview. &#8230; Thank you anyway."

More then 25 billionaires including Ted Turner and Michael Bloomberg declined to talk to ABC News. But some of them sounded off to Forbes magazine. One suggested that Buffett should keep to his area of expertise, calling his ideas "grossly simplistic." Another wondered whether Buffett is going senile.

It was no surprise, of course, that these comments were anonymously submitted, says the Wall Street Journals' Wendy Bounds "The worry is that if they go on the record, the rich people &#8230; it puts them in a position of having to cheerlead for something that they're not entirely sure they're comfortable with."

But is it simplistic? We polled some tax experts to get a second opinion. .

"I don't think it's a gross oversimplification at all," said Gene Sperling, from the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

 

[The Rabbi]

Buffet is a genius at investing. He is a moron when it comes to public policy. The idea of a billionaire lecturing the rest of us on how we ought to distribute our estates is galling in the extreme.
And how old is that story exactly?

 

[obama2ndterm]

Reducing inequality: how to pay for it
April 17, 2009

The Labour Party returned to power in the U.K. in 1997 based in part on a pledge by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown not to raise taxes&#8217; share of the British economy. In his 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to reduce taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans. In both instances this commitment succeeded in insulating the progressive candidate from what had become the right&#8217;s most powerful electoral club: stoking fear of tax increases by the left.

But while it may be smart electoral politics, committing not to increase taxes&#8217; share of GDP, as Blair did, or to lower taxes for most of the population, as Obama has done, makes it difficult for a government to make much headway in addressing income inequality. Obama has some leeway; the economic crisis has necessitated increases in government spending that can justifiably excuse some backtracking on his campaign pledge. Fully consistent with his promise, he should increase the tax rate on high-end incomes (beyond simply letting the Bush reductions expire). Two other progressive tax reforms are worth pursuing, though they would affect some in the bottom 95%. One is to reduce or end the homeownership subsidy. More than 80% of the $160 billion in foregone revenues from the deduction for mortgage interest and property tax payments goes to households in the top income quintile. The other is to introduce a modest tax on financial transactions.

But should the focus be confined to steps that make the tax system more progressive? Many on the left view heightened progressivity as the key to inequality reduction. Yet in the United States and other rich countries the tax system overall, including taxes of all types and at all levels of government, is essentially flat; households throughout the income distribution pay roughly similar shares of their market income in taxes. As the following chart shows, inequality reduction is achieved not through taxation but with government transfers (and services).

Taxes help to reduce inequality mainly via their quantity rather than their progressivity. The greater the tax revenues, the more government is able to boost incomes and living standards of those in the lower half of the distribution with transfers and services.

Moderate or high levels of tax revenue can&#8217;t come solely from higher rates or new taxes on the rich; the math simply doesn&#8217;t work. To significantly increase spending on transfers and/or services, President Obama and/or his successors will need to increase taxes on the middle class. One way to do this would be via a federal consumption tax, such as a value-added tax (VAT). We have state and local consumption (sales) taxes, but we raise less money from consumption taxes than any other rich country. Consumption taxes are regressive, and for that reason they&#8217;re often dismissed by the American left. But they can be tweaked to limit the degree of resistivity. And if the money is put to progressive use, the benefits may outweigh this drawback.