The Rich Don't Pay Enough?!

[JoeB131]

The Rich Don't Pay Enough?


1. According to IRS 2007 data, the richest 1 percent of Americans... snip.

Oh, this tired old line about the POOOOOOR rich people being abused by the mean old tax code.

It's almost embarrassing to have to keep addressing this.

The income tax isn't the only tax, and nearly every other tax out there hits the poor and working class harder.

Social security is capped at low six figures. Meaningless if you are rich.

Same with Medicare.

Between them, they are 14% of your income when employer match is factored in.

Property taxes hit the working class hard, and so do sales taxes. Gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes. Shit, I'd even through the lottery in there. It's a tax on hope and desperation.


You know, the Assholes used to try to push their supply side koolaid by saying htat giving them tax cuts would stimulate the economy.

But since that never really happens, now they just whine about how UNFAAAAAAIR it is that they pay more of the money they don't really need to the government.

 

[eflatminor]

I'm not wrong. You're relying on an interpretation. Corporations, a tax paying entity, pay taxes on their net income. Those corporations then pass income to others, who pay taxes on the income.

The person is not double taxed. The corporation is not double taxed. I'd agree with you if you were right.

G'luck.

Read up pal. Start with the link provided. You're simply wrong, once more.

Pal, I can't be held responsible if you don't understand the issue. Just because you found a link that makes the claim doesn't make it true.

Try responding with your own thoughts instead of relying a foundation created to explicitly argue against government and taxes.

My thoughts mimic those in the link as well as any credible source on the topic of taxing capital gains. The issue is not up for debate among serious economists and tax experts. You're the one making the outlandish claim so why don't you start by supporting your false statement with a source...or hell, even logic and reason.

 

[francoHFW]

Classical Liberal= Moron Beckbot. LOL

 

[8537]

Read up pal. Start with the link provided. You're simply wrong, once more.

Pal, I can't be held responsible if you don't understand the issue. Just because you found a link that makes the claim doesn't make it true.

Try responding with your own thoughts instead of relying a foundation created to explicitly argue against government and taxes.

My thoughts mimic those in the link as well as any credible source on the topic of taxing capital gains. The issue is not up for debate among serious economists and tax experts. You're the one making the outlandish claim so why don't you start by supporting your false statement with a source...or hell, even logic and reason.

"not up for debate among serious economists"! LOL. That's funny.

Now, try to respond to what I said in your own words. I don't need a link - I provided logic.

Hint: The capital gains tax does not apply to the invested income.

 

[edthecynic]

Ah! The "Because I said so" defense.

Brilliant...

No. The because YOU edited it out offense.

You provided no such evidence.

Now where was the Phd from again???

What a hack!

If I provided no evidence, why did you edit it out like a third rate hack???

And economics is child's play for a Physicist.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

I thought Mittens only paid 13.9 percent in taxes. Where is this 71 percent you're bitching about?

 

[8537]

For those awaiting a "serious economist" for Flatminor:

The claim of double taxation comes via two erroneous claims. I'll explain why both are wrong:

1) The corporation pays taxes and then the person receiving the dividend income pays taxes.
This is wrong because the corporation and the person are both tax paying entities (That's why the SCOTUS defined corporations as having personhood. I doubt cons would like the results if corporate personhood was removed). In the US we tax income. In both cases ,the person is paying taxes in income.

2) The person is double taxed because they pay ordinary income tax on the money, then pay a tax on it when they cash in an investment. This is wrong for the obvious reason: The Capital Gains tax is applied to gains (additional income), not the initial investment.

Now For #2 you might make the case that the initial investment should be indexed. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the money is double taxed.

 

[eflatminor]

No. The because YOU edited it out offense.

You provided no such evidence.

Now where was the Phd from again???

What a hack!

If I provided no evidence, why did you edit it out like a third rate hack???

And economics is child's play for a Physicist.

Yes, we get it, you have nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Read up pal. Start with the link provided. You're simply wrong, once more.

Pal, I can't be held responsible if you don't understand the issue. Just because you found a link that makes the claim doesn't make it true.

Try responding with your own thoughts instead of relying a foundation created to explicitly argue against government and taxes.

My thoughts mimic those in the link as well as any credible source on the topic of taxing capital gains. The issue is not up for debate among serious economists and tax experts. You're the one making the outlandish claim so why don't you start by supporting your false statement with a source...or hell, even logic and reason.

The pure bullshit of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Thank you.

 

[eflatminor]

For those awaiting a "serious economist" for Flatminor:

The claim of double taxation comes via two erroneous claims. I'll explain why both are wrong:

1) The corporation pays taxes and then the person receiving the dividend income pays taxes.
This is wrong because the corporation and the person are both tax paying entities (That's why the SCOTUS defined corporations as having personhood. I doubt cons would like the results if corporate personhood was removed). In the US we tax income. In both cases ,the person is paying taxes in income.

2) The person is double taxed because they pay ordinary income tax on the money, then pay a tax on it when they cash in an investment. This is wrong for the obvious reason: The Capital Gains tax is applied to gains (additional income), not the initial investment.

Now For #2 you might make the case that the initial investment should be indexed. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the money is double taxed.

Actually, it does.

 

[edthecynic]

You provided no such evidence.

Now where was the Phd from again???

What a hack!

If I provided no evidence, why did you edit it out like a third rate hack???

And economics is child's play for a Physicist.

Yes, we get it, you have nothing.

You didn't edit out "nothing," you edited out SOMETHING you couldn't rebut. You fool no one but yourself.

 

[eflatminor]

Pal, I can't be held responsible if you don't understand the issue. Just because you found a link that makes the claim doesn't make it true.

Try responding with your own thoughts instead of relying a foundation created to explicitly argue against government and taxes.

My thoughts mimic those in the link as well as any credible source on the topic of taxing capital gains. The issue is not up for debate among serious economists and tax experts. You're the one making the outlandish claim so why don't you start by supporting your false statement with a source...or hell, even logic and reason.

The pure bullshit of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Thank you.

So you've got nothing. Check.

 

[Ariux]

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.

Same neocon bullshit. That doesn't consider payroll taxes which rivals income taxes in collections, and the rich pay practically 0% of it. That statistic is also unfair to the middle class because it spreads their taxes over the poor, who pay no taxes.

The very rich pay under 15% of their income to federal taxes and the middle class pay about 25%. Everything else is bullshit.

 

[edthecynic]

For those awaiting a "serious economist" for Flatminor:

The claim of double taxation comes via two erroneous claims. I'll explain why both are wrong:

1) The corporation pays taxes and then the person receiving the dividend income pays taxes.
This is wrong because the corporation and the person are both tax paying entities (That's why the SCOTUS defined corporations as having personhood. I doubt cons would like the results if corporate personhood was removed). In the US we tax income. In both cases ,the person is paying taxes in income.

2) The person is double taxed because they pay ordinary income tax on the money, then pay a tax on it when they cash in an investment. This is wrong for the obvious reason: The Capital Gains tax is applied to gains (additional income), not the initial investment.

Now For #2 you might make the case that the initial investment should be indexed. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the money is double taxed.

Actually, it does.

Money is taxed every time it changes hands, so by your moronic "logic" wages are taxed an infinite amount of times and therefore wages should not be taxed.

Since money is taxed every time it changes hands, cap gains should be taxed as it changes hands just like all other forms of income. cap Gains Tycoons are not too elite to pay taxes.

 

[Steelplate]

You realize don't you if you tax the piss out of them they'll just move! Then what?

Then we revoke their citizenship....let them live in Communist China. We'll rebuild.

Sounds like you'd be right at home in Communist China. Why don't you move there, and stop trying to turn the US into Communist China? Kthnxbai.

get that job yet Leech?

 

[eflatminor]

For those awaiting a "serious economist" for Flatminor:

The claim of double taxation comes via two erroneous claims. I'll explain why both are wrong:

1) The corporation pays taxes and then the person receiving the dividend income pays taxes.
This is wrong because the corporation and the person are both tax paying entities (That's why the SCOTUS defined corporations as having personhood. I doubt cons would like the results if corporate personhood was removed). In the US we tax income. In both cases ,the person is paying taxes in income.

2) The person is double taxed because they pay ordinary income tax on the money, then pay a tax on it when they cash in an investment. This is wrong for the obvious reason: The Capital Gains tax is applied to gains (additional income), not the initial investment.

Now For #2 you might make the case that the initial investment should be indexed. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the money is double taxed.

Actually, it does.

Money is taxed every time it changes hands, so by your moronic "logic" wages are taxed an infinite amount of times and therefore wages should not be taxed.

Since money is taxed every time it changes hands, cap gains should be taxed as it changes hands just like all other forms of income. cap Gains Tycoons are not too elite to pay taxes.

Well there's an ass kicking to decades of economists and tax experts. You must be right cuz you're on the internet! Go read something of value and get back to us.

 

[8537]

For those awaiting a "serious economist" for Flatminor:

The claim of double taxation comes via two erroneous claims. I'll explain why both are wrong:

1) The corporation pays taxes and then the person receiving the dividend income pays taxes.
This is wrong because the corporation and the person are both tax paying entities (That's why the SCOTUS defined corporations as having personhood. I doubt cons would like the results if corporate personhood was removed). In the US we tax income. In both cases ,the person is paying taxes in income.

2) The person is double taxed because they pay ordinary income tax on the money, then pay a tax on it when they cash in an investment. This is wrong for the obvious reason: The Capital Gains tax is applied to gains (additional income), not the initial investment.

Now For #2 you might make the case that the initial investment should be indexed. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the money is double taxed.

Actually, it does.

You've got to be kidding me. Let's try it this way:

I earn $100 from labor and pay $20 in income taxes. I now have $80.

I invest $10 of my remaining $80 at 10% for one year. At the end of that year I have $11.

My initial investment of $10 is not taxed. At all.

The NEW dollar ofrealized income created by the investment is taxed.

You can keep just responding with "you're wrong" and "it does!". But that doesn't make your claims correct. It just makes them short.

 

[8537]

Actually, it does.

Money is taxed every time it changes hands, so by your moronic "logic" wages are taxed an infinite amount of times and therefore wages should not be taxed.

Since money is taxed every time it changes hands, cap gains should be taxed as it changes hands just like all other forms of income. cap Gains Tycoons are not too elite to pay taxes.

Well there's an ass kicking to decades of economists and tax experts.

No, it's an ass-kicking to decades of the economist you chose to read.

It is not a consensus belief among economists.

And you don't even seem capable of explaining in your own words why you agree with them.

 

[eflatminor]

Money is taxed every time it changes hands, so by your moronic "logic" wages are taxed an infinite amount of times and therefore wages should not be taxed.

Since money is taxed every time it changes hands, cap gains should be taxed as it changes hands just like all other forms of income. cap Gains Tycoons are not too elite to pay taxes.

Well there's an ass kicking to decades of economists and tax experts.

No, it's an ass-kicking to decades of the economist you chose to read.

It is not a consensus belief among economists.

And you don't even seem capable of explaining in your own words why you agree with them.

Yes, I can see that from all the links in support of your position...

 

[daveman]

Then we revoke their citizenship....let them live in Communist China. We'll rebuild.

Sounds like you'd be right at home in Communist China. Why don't you move there, and stop trying to turn the US into Communist China? Kthnxbai.

get that job yet Leech?

For almost a year, now. Meanwhile, you won't hear me saying I'm entitled to what I haven't earned.

You know -- like you do.

Leech.