Dems want tax on "rich": Whoever they are

[bigrebnc1775]

Everyone know that the pols are rich but they are not MOSTLY members of the top 1% of income earners.

a fine example of sheeple fodder.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Everyone know that the pols are rich but they are not MOSTLY members of the top 1% of income earners.

a fine example of sheeple fodder.

How's that? What of what I said is an example of "sheeple fodder"?

Are most members of Congress in the top 1% of income earners?

 

[Inthemiddle]

The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.

Whatever the reasons for fluctuations, they are there. As noted, a person making $X in some places, like Hawaii for example, is certainly nowhere near as well off as a person making $X in Alabama. So which frame of reference are we using to determine the tax rates for given brackets? If we're setting the tax rates on the premise of what $X equals in buying power in Alabama, then that sure creates a burden on Hawaiian citizens.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I don't know what a computational offset is, but progressive tax is based on the balance of after-tax earnings and the cost of living/poverty line as determining factors affecting your rate. As you deduct more kids, the cost of living is adjusted accordingly.

Actually, progressive taxation doesn't take cost of living into account at all. It assumes that cost of living is equal across the board. Cost of living isn't about how many dependents you have. It's about how much it takes to provide for yourself in one region compared to another region. For example, in Alabama a police officer might make a starting salary of $30,000 (about $26,000 in taxable income) a year. His living costs there might be about $10,000 and his tax bracket would put him relatively low. But in Hawaii that same person might start off at $80,000 (about $76,000 in taxable income) a year and have living expenses of about $45,000 a year. But he'll be in a higher tax bracket and taxed a higher rate. If the Alabama cop has a 20% tax rate, he pays $5200 in taxes and still lives comfortably with $14,800 a year with which to go to a football game, eat out, trade in his car for a new model, whatever luxury he wishes to afford himself. But the Hawaiian cop has a 30% tax rate, pays $22,800 in taxes. That leaves him with $12,200 a year for his own luxuries, which are of course much more expensive in his area on top of it all. It seems to me that the Hawaiian cop is being unjustly taxed a higher rate for making what is, for all important purposes, the same amount of money.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Everyone know that the pols are rich but they are not MOSTLY members of the top 1% of income earners.

a fine example of sheeple fodder.

How's that? What of what I said is an example of "sheeple fodder"?

Are most members of Congress in the top 1% of income earners?

pretty damn close

 

[Money]

I don't know what a computational offset is, but progressive tax is based on the balance of after-tax earnings and the cost of living/poverty line as determining factors affecting your rate. As you deduct more kids, the cost of living is adjusted accordingly.

Actually, progressive taxation doesn't take cost of living into account at all. It assumes that cost of living is equal across the board. Cost of living isn't about how many dependents you have. It's about how much it takes to provide for yourself in one region compared to another region. For example, in Alabama a police officer might make a starting salary of $30,000 (about $26,000 in taxable income) a year. His living costs there might be about $10,000 and his tax bracket would put him relatively low. But in Hawaii that same person might start off at $80,000 (about $76,000 in taxable income) a year and have living expenses of about $45,000 a year. But he'll be in a higher tax bracket and taxed a higher rate. If the Alabama cop has a 20% tax rate, he pays $5200 in taxes and still lives comfortably with $14,800 a year with which to go to a football game, eat out, trade in his car for a new model, whatever luxury he wishes to afford himself. But the Hawaiian cop has a 30% tax rate, pays $22,800 in taxes. That leaves him with $12,200 a year for his own luxuries, which are of course much more expensive in his area on top of it all. It seems to me that the Hawaiian cop is being unjustly taxed a higher rate for making what is, for all important purposes, the same amount of money.

Firstly, I don't think the federal government can engage in that kind of discrimination. The Constitution mandates that taxation is applied equally across the territory.

Most of the time states compensate for the cost of living by having locally acceptable wages and localized tax systems.The federal system is based on your distance from the poverty line. some states are really cheap to stay like Alabama I don't want to knock a place that I've never been, but I don't think I'd like to live in Alabama much as here in Miami.

It's important to have these trade-offs spread across the country.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Firstly, I don't think the federal government can engage in that kind of discrimination. The Constitution mandates that taxation is applied equally across the territory.

Well, that's my question that I'm trying to brainstorm. How could we go about doing it in a constitutional way? I'm thinking that the whole deduction and adjusted gross income system we currently have would have to be replaced by something more relative to determine one's adjusted gross income. Off the top of my head the first thing I think of is to perhaps use the price of one's rent, or the value of one's home, per square foot, and from that draw a progressive bracket system. That has flaws, of course. Open to abuse, etc. But I'm just trying to get creative. Another option I can think of is to allow states to determine their own rules to calculate adjusted gross income, which would reflect the economic circumstances of residents of the state, and then have an alternative calculation system as a "default" for states that don't have state income taxes. Again, probably open to abuse politically, though probably not as bad.

 

[editec]

When there is a perceieved persistent problem, it is likely that the folks complaining about it, will continue to propose the same solution.

 

[Claudette]

I sort of agree with you. What I disagree with is the suggestion that this is somehow unusual. As one of the administration's top economists acknowledged in the article,

"There is economic literature on optimal taxation, but that ain't what motivates these decisions," said Jared Bernstein, an economist and former economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden.

In short, the laws passed by Congress are indeed political. That isn't an inherent quality either of the current Congress or of the Democratic party, though. Despite the fact that there tends to be more consensus on economic issues in the Republican party than in the Democratic party, the Republican policies are still see some disagreement, and of course they are politically motivated.

Much of the current disagreement stems from issues other than ideology. For Senators like Schumer who represent constituencies with a high cost of living, keeping the bar at which new taxes would kick in high is a parochial concern. For other Senators, their goal is to craft legislation that can pass, regardless of what tax policy their personal ideology points them towards.

It isn't unusual that a president with failing ratings is now campaigning against "The Rich"? When was the last time you remember that happening? Bush? No. Clinton? No. Bush? No. Reagan? No. Carter? No.
Nope, I cannot remember a single time that a president ran against "The Rich".
Maybe FDR.

Bingo!!

Barry can't run on his sucky record so its the old class warfare bs.

He hopes to rev up his " tax the evil rich" theme. It appears to be the only way he can win in 2012.

Of course he won't be advertising the fact that the "evil rich" already pay the lions share of the Fed taxes in this country. He also won't be talking about the 47% who pay no Fed taxes at all.

I guess any port in a storm when your running for POTUS.

 

[The Rabbi]

Barry's speeches continue to drift from any moorings of reality. He charges the GOP is blocking his jobs bill when in fact the GOP sponsored a move to introduce it. He blames them for not acting when in fact it is the Senate that is not acting. He claims his bill will create jobs when everyone knows this is jsut a repeat of the smaller failed stimulus. And Barry thinks demonizing "millionaires and billlionaires" will get him somewhere. I wonder where his campaign contributions are coming from.

 

[Money]

Firstly, I don't think the federal government can engage in that kind of discrimination. The Constitution mandates that taxation is applied equally across the territory.

Well, that's my question that I'm trying to brainstorm. How could we go about doing it in a constitutional way? I'm thinking that the whole deduction and adjusted gross income system we currently have would have to be replaced by something more relative to determine one's adjusted gross income. Off the top of my head the first thing I think of is to perhaps use the price of one's rent, or the value of one's home, per square foot, and from that draw a progressive bracket system. That has flaws, of course. Open to abuse, etc. But I'm just trying to get creative. Another option I can think of is to allow states to determine their own rules to calculate adjusted gross income, which would reflect the economic circumstances of residents of the state, and then have an alternative calculation system as a "default" for states that don't have state income taxes. Again, probably open to abuse politically, though probably not as bad.

You know, I'm not sure if that's really that important a feature to have in the tax system. I would think if there's any concern about the cost of living that that demographic is not the ideal tax target.

Otherwise, what I would suggest to achieve your goal is having the federal government back away from funding the states to the extent that they do and have the states largely fund themselves. They can determine that sort of tax burden that they want to levy. I don't like the idea of circumventing the Constitution in any way to pull that off. That provision was put there for a reason: states with a low cost of living are meant to be in play to attract folks who are looking for low cost of living.… They've got a have something going for them.

 

[Ragnar]

The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.

Whatever the reasons for fluctuations, they are there. As noted, a person making $X in some places, like Hawaii for example, is certainly nowhere near as well off as a person making $X in Alabama. So which frame of reference are we using to determine the tax rates for given brackets? If we're setting the tax rates on the premise of what $X equals in buying power in Alabama, then that sure creates a burden on Hawaiian citizens.

I agree. It's one of the top reasons I support a flat tax for everyone. (as far as the federal government is concerned) States are better off setting the rates that work best for themselves, more-so for local taxes.

The smaller and closer government gets to the individual, the more reasonable and responsible it becomes.

 

[Money]

The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.

Whatever the reasons for fluctuations, they are there. As noted, a person making $X in some places, like Hawaii for example, is certainly nowhere near as well off as a person making $X in Alabama. So which frame of reference are we using to determine the tax rates for given brackets? If we're setting the tax rates on the premise of what $X equals in buying power in Alabama, then that sure creates a burden on Hawaiian citizens.

I agree. It's one of the top reasons I support a flat tax for everyone. (as far as the federal government is concerned) States are better off setting the rates that work best for themselves, more-so for local taxes.

The smaller and closer government gets to the individual, the more reasonable and responsible it becomes.

The biggest concern I think you bump into with a more confederate taxation approach is that the federal government prints the US dollar and needs to be solvent for that reason. Federal help in the case of emergencies would also be something challenging to fund. Lastly, keeping some semblance of uniformity across the union is necessary. I advocate that states should have some individual characteristics which set them apart economically, but you don't want those lines to grow to wide. We don't want 20-some Third World nations within our national borders.

I couldn't begin to see how a flat tax plays into any of this.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Much of the current disagreement stems from issues other than ideology. For Senators like Schumer who represent constituencies with a high cost of living, keeping the bar at which new taxes would kick in high is a parochial concern. For other Senators, their goal is to craft legislation that can pass, regardless of what tax policy their personal ideology points them towards.

Makes me think that perhaps income taxes shouldn't be bracketed strictly by income, but with a computational offset for cost of living. How could we do that?

With a flat tax.

But then what use is demagoguery?

The problem with a cost of living computation is that cost of living is so strongly determined by government policy itself. Various State taxes, various State minimum wage laws, regulations of various industry which differs from region to region etc etc.

Food utility and housing costs as well.
For example, A single family home in the NW Suburbs of DC averages $500k where as an identical home on the same sized lot in Suburban Charlotte, NC would be just $175,000 to around $225,000. Property taxes would be 10 to 20% of the property taxes in MD.
I meet people here who've moved here from Long Island in New York who have bought twice as much house for less than half the price and were paying over $1500 per month in property taxes are now paying $1500 per year.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dems want tax on "rich": Whoever they are

Who are they you ask? Most of congress makes up the 1 percent class.

They do? That is incredible and unbelievable at the same time. Do you know how much income those in the top 1% have?

You're covering two different issues. Earnings and wealth.
All Senators and House members are paid $174,000 per year not including benefits plus expenses.
I'd say that's pretty well off. It puts them in the top 3 or 4% of wage earners.
BTW there are Democrats which are some of the wealthiest people in the country.
Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives - Member FAQs
Oh but there's more.....Many Senators and Reps make lots of side money.....
LegiStorm: Transparency's Sidekick - Congressional Staff Salaries and More

Members of Congress tripled their outside income between 2006 and 2010, as lawmakers earned a total of nearly $30 million last year outside of their official salaries.

The numbers come from an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, which used LegiStorm's database of personal financial disclosures to compare filings. The forms require lawmakers to disclose outside income along with other information.

According to the Journal, members of Congress earned at least $27.5 million last year. Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) topped the list with at least $6.3 million earned from Subway and UPS franchises. At the other end of the spectrum was former Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) who reported earning $280 from the sale of chestnuts. In 2006, outside income for senators and representatives totaled at least $7.8 million.
These people are not rich?

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is why some people have difficulty. I never said they are not rich. I said that most of them do not fall withiun the top 1% of income earners.

When someone makes an inaccurate statement as fact, it is important for us to note the error. Otherwise, we will continue to have all these friggn' lies floating around.

 

[Lovebears65]

Its a shame that congress makes so much but our soldiers barely make it paycheck to paycheck.. I think our priorities are messed up

 

[LoneLaugher]

Its a shame that congress makes so much but our soldiers barely make it paycheck to paycheck.. I think our priorities are messed up

........and cops.......and firefighters..........and teachers........

 

[Toro]

It's not just the Democrats who want higher taxes on the rich. Poll and poll over the past year or so has shown that about two-thirds of Americans want higher taxes on the rich, about the only economic policy Americans seem to have a clear majority on. Here is the latest. In this poll, even the majority of Republicans want higher taxes on the rich.

Cain Even With Romney on Economy for Republican Backers in Poll - Bloomberg

The good news in this poll is that an overwhelming majority think that the middle class will have to burden some of the pain of closing the deficit. However, they haven't quite come to terms on how or when.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It's not just the Democrats who want higher taxes on the rich. Poll and poll over the past year or so has shown that about two-thirds of Americans want higher taxes on the rich, about the only economic policy Americans seem to have a clear majority on. Here is the latest. In this poll, even the majority of Republicans want higher taxes on the rich.

Cain Even With Romney on Economy for Republican Backers in Poll - Bloomberg

The good news in this poll is that an overwhelming majority think that the middle class will have to burden some of the pain of closing the deficit. However, they haven't quite come to terms on how or when.

The how is with an increase in taxes. The when is reserved until the middle class realizes an increase in income. If closing the gap between the wealthy and the middle class is accomplished, the middle class will, I think, accept an increase in taxes to Clinton-era levels.