The Great Tax Lie

[Toro]

Huh! I think you are assuming. Again do you know rich people who are being dragged down by taxes? Please relate their story. Thanks

Considering that incomes grew faster over the past decade for the top 1% than at any time in 100 years, its pretty safe to assume that the rich aren't being dragged down by taxes.

 

[jreeves]

No, but maybe another 1% or 2%.

Did you know that if you are a white male with less than a grade 12 education, your real income has fallen by 13% over the past 40 years?

Broad structural forces over the past four decades, particularly the effects of globalization and the advents of technology, have benefited the wealthiest the most and have hurt some of the lowest income earners the hardest. For example, the opening of China has been enormously beneficial to the owners of capital and has put pressure on a very significant portion of society, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how hard you work.

This wouldn't be so bad if social mobility hasn't been falling over the past decade or two, but it has. Why? Because those with the most education are the ones benefiting the most. This creates structural impediments for anyone wishing to climb the ladder because 100% of those who want cannot continue to earn ever-higher education because there is not enough capacity in the country to do so.

Everyone should pay their own way, ok, ok socialistic misstatements(trying to be nice here) all of your hypothetical applies to me... I am a white male but I have higher than a 12th grade education. My income is fine, although I could have given into societal inequalities, what I mean I wasn't raised in a wealthy household. My dad worked his hands to the bone and did without so that I could have. But I am proud to say my dad and my family never recieved welfare, foodstamps or any of the such. When I graduated from high school, I worked full time and went to college at night.

 

[jreeves]

Everyone should pay their own way, ok, ok socialistic misstatements(trying to be nice here) all of your hypothetical applies to me... I am a white male but I have higher than a 12th grade education. My income is fine, although I could have given into societal inequalities, what I mean I wasn't raised in a wealthy household. My dad worked his hands to the bone and did without so that I could have. But I am proud to say my dad and my family never recieved welfare, foodstamps or any of the such. When I graduated from high school, I worked full time and went to college at night.

I work as a manager in multi-family housing. I see people recieving public funds and abusing the system everyday. There are people living in low income housing, that drive Escalades and have a total rent of less than 20 dollars when the rent for their place usually goes for 1200 dollars a month. I see people going out on disability that are healthier than I am. You have to help yourself before others can help you. Besides charity isn't the place of the government. No where in the Constitution does it guarantee you welfare if you fall on bad time, on the expense of a taxpayer. Socialist programs have costed this country dearly. Every sixty or seventy years we turn out a whole new generation that holds their hands for governmental charity. Think about it.

 

[jreeves]

Not sure I understand the logic of these sort of posts? Why would anyone spend time defending the rich or arguing about whether they pay enough taxes? Are you rich and feel you want to keep more?

The rich must laugh at this sort of stuff, if you have millions there is not much need to worry about taxes at all. Does the poster know lots of rich people who are suffering under this great burden? I know many and I gotta say they ain't suffering. And if your income is several million or even a measly million 10% of that is a great deal more than 10% of 30K, so yes, they pay more and a higher percentage - SO WHAT!

"If you believe the conservative rhetoric on economics, this combination of high taxes, a large public sector, and lavish welfare benefits ought to be killing the Danish economy. But it's not. In fact, Denmark's economy has thrived. And nowhere is that more apparent than in the job market. By the time Rasmussen left office in 2001, the unemployment rate had fallen from a 1994 peak of 9.6 percent to 4.3 percent; in 2002, it fell below the U.S. rate, where it has remained ever since. For the most recent quarter of 2006, Denmark's standardized unemployment rate was 3.6 percent, compared with 4.7 percent in the United States. Moreover, while Europe has a reputation for fostering cadres of idle youth (a reputation that, in countries like France, has at least some basis in reality), in Denmark, a mere 3 percent of its 15- to 19-year-olds are neither in school nor working--the second-best rate in the developed world. (Tiny Luxembourg is first.) In the United States, by comparison, the figure is about 7 percent.

Another important measure of overall economic health is GDP per capita, which in effect approximates the wealth generated per person per year. Here, the United States remains near the top of the developed world, at $39,732. Denmark, though also in the top fifth of the oecd, is at just $31,932. It's a significant difference, but one that reflects, in part, the fact that Americans simply work more hours, don't get as much vacation, and can't take such generous pregnancy or sick leaves. GDP per capita is also an average, pulled up by the extraordinary wealth of America's elite. Once you consider the distribution of income and material goods, it becomes apparent that typical citizens in Denmark are doing as well as--and quite possibly better than--their American counterparts."

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf010507.htm


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

Your saying the rich as if it's Bill Gates. I am talking about the top 50% which is over like $32,000 a year. That's hardly rich but all too often is defined as Rich by the democrats. You cannot deny that their budget is a lot more simplistic than the American federal budget. And Danish people aren't robbing from Social Security with IOUS, running defecits in excess of 9.3 trillion dollars either so the two hardly compare.

 

[jreeves]

I thought most of the truly wealthy people in this country don't pay taxes on their working income, they pay taxes on their investments and interest. Why should people who do nothing to help this country but sit on their butts and move money into different accounts be able to pay a lower percentage of their income than people who actually DO real things to make this country work? People who actually work and try to make things better should have to pay a higher percentage of their income than the idle rich?
Yep, laziness is what this country was founded on.

Typical class-warfare statement, I am not rich by any means but I am still in the top 50% of wage earners, I help pay that 97%. People should earn their own way, not be carried by the government.

 

[jreeves]

Considering that incomes grew faster over the past decade for the top 1% than at any time in 100 years, its pretty safe to assume that the rich aren't being dragged down by taxes.

I stated the top 50% pays 97% of the taxes, well I will expound on that further, if you make $60,000 or more you will pay 85% of the taxes this is classic class warfare especially considering;

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) sometimes called the Earned Income Credit (EIC), is a refundable federal income tax credit for low-income working individuals and families. Congress originally approved the tax credit legislation in 1975 in part to offset the burden of social security taxes and to provide an incentive to work. When the EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those who claim and qualify for the credit.

To qualify, taxpayers must meet certain requirements and file a tax return, even if they did not earn enough money to be obligated to file a tax return.

The EITC has no effect on certain welfare benefits. In most cases, EITC payments will not be used to determine eligibility for Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, low-income housing or most Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments.
Workers with low wages who do not have a child might be able to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Childress workers with low-income are believed to be the largest number of taxpayers who do not claim the credit.

If you are 25 years old but under age 65 at the end of the year and had low wages or other earned income you may be able to claim the credit. If you are married, either you or your husband or wife must be 25 but under 65 at the end of the year. Check here for the income levels for this year and prior years. Also, you may be able to claim the credit for the last few years.

You can find out if you are eligible for the EITC by answering a few questions and providing basic income information, using the IRS' online EITC Assistant web tool. It's available in English and Spanish.

In short, to qualify for EITC, you must meet the following rules:

Must have a valid Social Security Number
You must have earned income from employment or self-employment
Your filing status cannot be married, filing separately
You must be a U.S. citizen or resident alien all year, or a nonresident alien married to a U.S. citizen or resident alien filing a joint return
You cannot be the qualifying child of another person
If you do not have a qualifying child, you must:
be age 25 but under 65 at the end of the year,
live in the United States for more than half the year, and
not qualify as a dependent of another person
Cannot file Form 2555 or 2555-EZ (related to foreign earned income)
For 2007, you investment income must be $2,900 or less.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96406,00.html


On top of this, 680 billion dollars, the highest expenditure by government, was spent on social programs. Hence contributing to the national debt which the U.S paid 480 billion dollars in interest payments....see how social programs and an unfair tax system pulls down the country??

 

[Bern80]

I thought most of the truly wealthy people in this country don't pay taxes on their working income, they pay taxes on their investments and interest. Why should people who do nothing to help this country but sit on their butts and move money into different accounts be able to pay a lower percentage of their income than people who actually DO real things to make this country work? People who actually work and try to make things better should have to pay a higher percentage of their income than the idle rich?
Yep, laziness is what this country was founded on.

you thought wrong, which makes the rest of your point, well, pointless. Everyone has to pay taxes on their working income. You don't an exemption cause you're rich. If you are profiting, no matter what form that may take, the government is taxing. But again you're whole rant is predicated on a hugely generalized assumption (rich people got rich, sitting on theri butts). When you have to do that to make your argument fly, it's time to try a new argument.

 

[Brubricker]

There's a bedrock fundamental principle which everyone here seems to be missing. The American people DEMAND expensive government programs and since that fact is not going to change we need to find a way to fund the deamnds of the American people. If you want to say the rich should pay less tax, then fine. Give us plan that will fund the budget and give the rich a tax break. I don't see that kind of plan being offered by anyone.

America demands heavy government spending in three very expensive areas: 1) Defense, 2) Social Security, and 3) Healthcare. The public overwhelmingly says they want high spending in all these areas. Poll numbers consistently show that anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans are strongly opposed to big spending cuts in any of these areas. You cannot get around this fact. It's politically impossible to cut any of them no matter much you may hate any one of these big-spending programs.

I take no pleasure in soaking the rich any more than I would want to soak anyone else. The real question here is how are you going to fund the spending that America overwhelmingly demands. When public opinion is so gigantically in favor of sustaining all of these programs then you have to ask yourself how you're going to fund them in the real world. I don't see too many people taking that real-world question seriously. If you want a tax plan that suits your agenda then it's going to have to pay for ALL of those things. You can rage against the injustice of this or that tax scheme all you want but STILL have to come up with a way to fund the things that America plainly expects from government. I don't anyone here who's prepared to try and be serious about meeting the needs that America demands. Ultimately, that's what a democratic republic has to do, meet the needs which the OVERWHELMING majority is clearly demanding. You can only deal with this problem if you first adopt a positive attitude towards funding the things the huge majority says they expect. I don't see anyone doing that here.

 

[jreeves]

There's a bedrock fundamental principle which everyone here seems to be missing. The American people DEMAND expensive government programs and since that fact is not going to change we need to find a way to fund the deamnds of the American people. If you want to say the rich should pay less tax, then fine. Give us plan that will fund the budget and give the rich a tax break. I don't see that kind of plan being offered by anyone.

America demands heavy government spending in three very expensive areas: 1) Defense, 2) Social Security, and 3) Healthcare. The public overwhelmingly says they want high spending in all these areas. Poll numbers consistently show that anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans are strongly opposed to big spending cuts in any of these areas. You cannot get around this fact. It's politically impossible to cut any of them no matter much you may hate any one of these big-spending programs.

I take no pleasure in soaking the rich any more than I would want to soak anyone else. The real question here is how are you going to fund the spending that America overwhelmingly demands. When public opinion is so gigantically in favor of sustaining all of these programs then you have to ask yourself how you're going to fund them in the real world. I don't see too many people taking that real-world question seriously. If you want a tax plan that suits your agenda then it's going to have to pay for ALL of those things. You can rage against the injustice of this or that tax scheme all you want but STILL have to come up with a way to fund the things that America plainly expects from government. I don't anyone here who's prepared to try and be serious about meeting the needs that America demands. Ultimately, that's what a democratic republic has to do, meet the needs which the OVERWHELMING majority is clearly demanding. You can only deal with this problem if you first adopt a positive attitude towards funding the things the huge majority says they expect. I don't see anyone doing that here.

I think there is an operating priniciple here its called income redistribution. Also if you think I can I write out a federal budget, then there is no way I can show you an injustice anyway. I don't have the resources or the time, I have to work so that I can pay for one of my resident's to pay 20 dollars a month for rent and drive around in an Escalade. I would like to see your source on those polls as well. Cause I'm sure the young people of this country want to continue to dump money in failed Social Security program, that will be unavailable to them when they need it (because of political posturing on both sides). By the way when is $60 K rich where I live or I suppose where you live also(60k and up pay 85% of the taxes). Governmental money is taxpayer money. Stop giving rebate checks to people that don't pay into the system I think that would be a start(that's not a social program, just a socialistic agenda).

 

[indago]

jreeves wrote:

I have to work so that I can pay for one of my resident's to pay 20 dollars a month for rent and drive around in an Escalade. I would like to see your source on those polls as well. Cause I'm sure the young people of this country want to continue to dump money in failed Social Security program, that will be unavailable to them when they need it (because of political posturing on both sides).

FISCAL CHILD ABUSE

On the television program Adam Smith, aired 8 October 1992, Adam Smith proposed a scenario for the year 1995: "It's 1995 in America and something terrible has happened. You've lost your job. Your company has closed. They've canceled your credit cards and your bank has failed. And the money in your pocket is practically worthless. Why? Because we, the American people, allowed the national debt to go on rising and now it's out of control. ...The coming debt crisis is the one issue that politicians would rather not talk about. Collectively, they produced this terrible mess."

Interviewing two young people who have formed a coalition to prevent further damage to the economic future of the young people, one of the individuals, Rob Nelson, noted: "We're at the beginning of what could become a generational war. Our generation, those that follow us are being denied the opportunity to dream big. We're being denied the resources to invest in our future. We're being left a legacy of debt, and that is a scandal."

John Cowan, another member of the coalition, noted, concerning the present generation: "What they have done is mortgage their children's future and that's nothing less than fiscal child abuse. Four trillion dollars of debt could be $8 trillion of debt in the next 10 years. They've mortgaged our future and it's going to have to stop."

Has anything changed??? NO! Life goes on…

Only now, the "fiscal child abuse" is worse. The young people have their elders to thank for the mess that has been created, a shameful legacy to pass on to our posterity. In retaliation, they could work to eliminate the Social Security System. PAYBACK IS HELL!

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

And Skull was talking ABOUT income tax. A flat 15 percent tax on all income.

And that brings us back to square one:

A Constitutional Amendment would have to be passed to grant government the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

Direct taxes are taxes upon the person and his property. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. Direct taxes must be apportioned to the States.

 

[Bern80]

There's a bedrock fundamental principle which everyone here seems to be missing. The American people DEMAND expensive government programs and since that fact is not going to change we need to find a way to fund the deamnds of the American people. If you want to say the rich should pay less tax, then fine. Give us plan that will fund the budget and give the rich a tax break. I don't see that kind of plan being offered by anyone.

America demands heavy government spending in three very expensive areas: 1) Defense, 2) Social Security, and 3) Healthcare. The public overwhelmingly says they want high spending in all these areas. Poll numbers consistently show that anywhere from two-thirds to three-quarters of Americans are strongly opposed to big spending cuts in any of these areas. You cannot get around this fact. It's politically impossible to cut any of them no matter much you may hate any one of these big-spending programs.

I'll give you 1 out of 3. Is everybody here just lieing to themselves? I'm not sure where you pulled you're 'bedrock principle' out of, but most on this thread are also fed up with how much government spends. Demand government pay for healthcare, yeah that'll work great. SS is a joke as well and needs to be massively overhauled.

I take no pleasure in soaking the rich any more than I would want to soak anyone else. The real question here is how are you going to fund the spending that America overwhelmingly demands. When public opinion is so gigantically in favor of sustaining all of these programs then you have to ask yourself how you're going to fund them in the real world. I don't see too many people taking that real-world question seriously. If you want a tax plan that suits your agenda then it's going to have to pay for ALL of those things. You can rage against the injustice of this or that tax scheme all you want but STILL have to come up with a way to fund the things that America plainly expects from government. I don't anyone here who's prepared to try and be serious about meeting the needs that America demands. Ultimately, that's what a democratic republic has to do, meet the needs which the OVERWHELMING majority is clearly demanding. You can only deal with this problem if you first adopt a positive attitude towards funding the things the huge majority says they expect. I don't see anyone doing that here.

Seriously, where did you get this idea when American's a telling government and candidates are running saying they will control spending?

 

[bennylava]

Let's get rid of corporate welfare first. Sound good?

 

[Bern80]

Let's get rid of corporate welfare first. Sound good?

What corporate wellfare would that be. See this is the point. Despite the facts that the wealthy pay the overwhelming amount of the tax burden, you still piss and moan about the 'breaks' they get. They pay an unfair portion of the tax burden already, but that still isn't enough for you is it?

 

[DeadCanDance]

I have heard a lot of class warfare these days. I thought I would make this posting to show who pays the most in this country. I believe under our current system, that we all pay too much. But the most successful are penalized unfairly and forced to pay for governmental charities in the tune of 680 billion for social programs according to www.federalbudget.com. Here's the facts. So before you criticize the Rich for not paying enough look at this.
http://money.aol.com/kiplingers/tax/canvas3/_a/how-do-you-rank-as-a-taxpayer/20061211141809990001

The top-earning 50% pays 97% of all federal income taxes.

The bottom 50% of earners pay just 3% of those taxes.

INCOME taxes account for less than half of all federal revenue.

At least half, or more, of federal revenue comes from payroll taxes and excise taxes, which are predominantly paid by the working poor and middle class.

 

[jreeves]

INCOME taxes account for less than half of all federal revenue.

At least half, or more, of federal revenue comes from payroll taxes and excise taxes, which are predominantly paid by the working poor and middle class.

Excise taxes are charged across the board by everyone(double taxation by the way), my guess would be that the Rich and middle class pay a majority of those as well. Considering that they buy more goods and services.

Excise Tax

noun
a tax that is measured by the amount of business done (not on property or income from real estate) [syn: excise]

So your now telling me that poor people do more business than the Rich...thanks for making my point.

Your federal income tax is a direct result of the amount you withhold from your check through payroll taxes.....Come on get real

That's ok, I understand that you evidently don't think for yourself you have democratic blinders on.

 

[bennylava]

Well for starters: some examples of corporate welfare:
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

 

[jreeves]

Well for starters: some examples of corporate welfare:
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/26/pf/taxes/business_tax_conference/index.htm

Just to let you know I think, that corporate subsidies should be structured to growing the economy. For example, increasing the demand for that corporations products, and decreasing the unemployment rate. I don't believe that under the current subsidies programs that they are. But the principle is sound in that it gives corporations money to grow the economy.

 

[Bern80]

Well for starters: some examples of corporate welfare:
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

Okay, I get that. Reading through some of the link, the crux is that corporations receive subsidies because they are unable to compete in the global market.

This makes your position a little confusing. You originally had some gripe that seemed to amount to the notion that corporate America is getting a break where paying taxes are concerned. Several have pointed out that corporate america and the rich pay the overwhelming share of the tax burden. So what is it as far as taxes are concerned do you want to have happen to corprations? Are you suggesting we end subsidies to corporations and force them to compete? That's probably not a dumb idea. But again what does it have to do with this whole corporate tax issue you have? Removing the subsidies would do what, exacltey? It would remove that money the government pays to the corporations to offset their competitive disadvantage. That money comes from the tax payers (all of them).

This is why I'm confused. You're argument (based on your link, anyway) is that corporations tax burden is being offset or being given straight out tax breaks. In short, what you seem to be after is that the corporate tax burden really isn't as high as it should be. But if we were to actually do what your link proposes, that should result in less tax burden for everyone. Afterall if the government (via the citizen) isn't giving that money out anymore they shouldn't need to tax us for it right? Or do you still propose raising taxes on corporations once those subsidies are removed? Rembering again that they are being subsidized under the auspice that if they weren't they would go out of business, in which case increasing their taxes would be a nice kick in the head.

 

[pegwinn]

the only air tax is a flat tax

just think if everyone paid 15% of their gross income with no deductions and no tax breaks we would be able to get rid of the ******* IRS and realize billions of dollars in savings from that alone. not to mention the ease of paying. just think you would have more $$$ in your paycheck and you wouldn't have to file income taxes if you has your employer send in your cut every week.

this is such a no brainer that of course the idiots in Washington can't figure it out

I'm afraid that plan has a major flaw. Because it is still based on income the employer will have to report your income to the IRS. You will still get a W2 and have to file IOT to verify that you didn't earn at another job. So long as tax is based on income you will have an IRS as an enforcement agency.

A truly fair tax is ..... the Fairtax. A simple sales tax collected at the final point of sale. No IRS for you. Instead it piggybacks on the existing infrastructure of the states who already collect a sales tax.

Best of all there are no forms for you. And, everyone pays. When the drug dealer pays cash for the escalade...... he pays. When the illegal alien buys food...... he pays. Tourists pay. Paris Hilton Pays.

Another advantage, the Fairtax is already submitted in legislation. Read the actual bill, here. For a less boring and dry read..... go here.