Who Pays the Taxes? Who Should?

[bripat9643]

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.

You should read that in context: Abraham Lincoln: First Annual Message - December 3, 1861

It has nothing to do with taxes.

.

who said it did? It's still a Marxist conception.

 

[Dissent]

Taxation is theft.

Not if society as a whole agrees to the need for it, which is always the case. Where it gets complicated is when it comes to how much society wants to see itself taxed for the greater good. There is a need for taxation, and for the services provided by that taxation. The question is where do we draw the line.

I never signed a contract to belong to society. I am an individual and as such I don't believe in taxes. Its like putting a gun to someone's head and demanding their money. If I did it I get prison time if the government does it its ok.

 

[AmyNation]

Your thread is pointless because you are only addressing one tax, the federal income tax. Until you include all taxes, anything you say is pretty much meaningless.

On the federal level, the income tax is the largest source of revenues. The next largest source is corporate tax. We can talk about how much the lower 50% pay in corporate taxes, too, if you wish.

We know that a lot of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, but they do pay many other taxes. In some cases, even without paying any federal income taxes, their overall tax burden is heavier than for some of the super wealthy. At the state level, those not paying income taxes are paying the biggest percentage of their income than any others, and they're paying at least double what the wealthiest earners pay, in some states it's up to four times as much.

It's hilarious how we see one thread after another talking about those who don't pay any federal income taxes, but we never see any concerns as to why the wealthy pay so little at the state level.

What people pay at the state level is state business. State taxes don't pay for federal benefits, and it is federal outlays which are not being paid for by the lower 50%. And the federal budget is $16 trillion in the hole.

Do you know why the lower 50% pay a lot of state taxes? Because their states require a balanced budget. If it is good enough for the states, why is it not good enough for the federal government?

And where do you get the idea the wealthy pay so little at the state level? That's a complete lie. The states have a progressive income tax, too. And they are always trying to raise business taxes.



.

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf


This is a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, and it suggests that state taxes are mostly the burden of the lower 50%.

 

[Foxfyre]

Taxation is theft.

Not if society as a whole agrees to the need for it, which is always the case. Where it gets complicated is when it comes to how much society wants to see itself taxed for the greater good. There is a need for taxation, and for the services provided by that taxation. The question is where do we draw the line.

I never signed a contract to belong to society. I am an individual and as such I don't believe in taxes. Its like putting a gun to someone's head and demanding their money. If I did it I get prison time if the government does it its ok.

Certainly if you live on land that is off the tax rolls, grow or hunt all your food, make your own clothes, dig your own well, etc. etc. etc. and never utilize public roads or anything else others provide, and take all your own chances and expect nobody to provide you with anything, protect you from anything, make it possible for you to have anything, or bury you when you die, then you should be exempt from all taxes.

The minute that anybody else participates in what you have in any way, however, you are enjoying privilege and not a tax exempt unalienable right. And there is a cost to somebody involved whenever somebody else participates in any benefit you enjoy. And that's where taxes may come in.

 

[Dissent]

There is no natural right to steal a mans wages in the form of taxes. That's pretty simple.

 

[kiwiman127]

I say we don't raise taxes on the wealthy but that we restructure write-offs so that the wealthy are living on the same playing field that the rest of us play on by capping their deductions to a certain percentage (median average?) that would be shared by everyone.
Subsidies of the Rich and Famous by Senator Tom Coburn
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f

 

[Foxfyre]

I say we don't raise taxes on the wealthy but that we restructure write-offs so that the wealthy are living on the same playing field that the rest of us play on by capping their deductions to a certain percentage (median average?) that would be shared by everyone.
Subsidies of the Rich and Famous by Senator Tom Coburn
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f

But is the playing field really uneven simply because we all can't afford the vacation home or yacht or vacation in Vegas? As the rest of us hone our skills and obtain experience and expertise to move into the higher income brackets, we acquire the same tax breaks. And how many people fed their families and enjoyed some of the American dream building that yacht which never would have breen built if there wasn't somebody with the wherewithal to buy it?

In 1990, George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and imposed higher taxes on those with yachts, private planes, and expensive jewelry etc--all the rich man's toys. Congress had agreed tio cut spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. It was well intended as a deficit reduction act.

The result? We got the new taxes but of course no corresponding cut in spending. (Congress considers increasing spending a little less than what they would like to spend as a 'cut'.) And we prompted the rich to go elsewhere to buy their yachts, and private planes, and other toys. The new taxes brought in about $50 million net. And it horribly decimated our private boat building and private plane industries and drove our high value jewelry industry off shore. Tens of thousands of people were out of work and none of those industries have fully recovered to this day.

You simply cannot tax the rich more or punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor more. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no natural right to steal a mans wages in the form of taxes. That's pretty simple.

If you are a member of a society there is

 

[kiwiman127]

I say we don't raise taxes on the wealthy but that we restructure write-offs so that the wealthy are living on the same playing field that the rest of us play on by capping their deductions to a certain percentage (median average?) that would be shared by everyone.
Subsidies of the Rich and Famous by Senator Tom Coburn
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f

But is the playing field really uneven simply because we all can't afford the vacation home or yacht or vacation in Vegas? As the rest of us hone our skills and obtain experience and expertise to move into the higher income brackets, we acquire the same tax breaks. And how many people fed their families and enjoyed some of the American dream building that yacht which never would have breen built if there wasn't somebody with the wherewithal to buy it?

In 1990, George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and imposed higher taxes on those with yachts, private planes, and expensive jewelry etc--all the rich man's toys. Congress had agreed tio cut spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. It was well intended as a deficit reduction act.

The result? We got the new taxes but of course no corresponding cut in spending. (Congress considers increasing spending a little less than what they would like to spend as a 'cut'.) And we prompted the rich to go elsewhere to buy their yachts, and private planes, and other toys. The new taxes brought in about $50 million net. And it horribly decimated our private boat building and private plane industries and drove our high value jewelry industry off shore. Tens of thousands of people were out of work and none of those industries have fully recovered to this day.

You simply cannot tax the rich more or punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor more. Be careful what you wish for.

Hi Foxfyre!
"You simply cannot tax the rich more or punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor more".
So, the rich should be rewarded for their success by being able to write-off their vacation homes, yachts; etc? Many folks who can't afford those luxury items are also successful in their lives. Is it their fault that their stuck in a not-so upper mobility nation, where they don't see the large rewards for their success because of their place in society?
A little over ten years ago I was working for a technology company. I came up with an idea that could bring in residual income, so I polled their current client base and the concept was overwhelming approved. I then addressed the Product Development Team and then upper-management. The product was developed and did bring in 100s of thousands dollars for the company annuallly. My reward? A $5,000 bonus and a 5% raise.
This is a personal example of being successful and getting a token reward. This happens to many people in the working class who are in the "middle", they are successful within their work environment and the reward is "hey, you still have a job", or some token monitory reward. They don't get rewarded with the ability too buy expensive toys that they can take a tax deduction on.

 

[Foxfyre]

I say we don't raise taxes on the wealthy but that we restructure write-offs so that the wealthy are living on the same playing field that the rest of us play on by capping their deductions to a certain percentage (median average?) that would be shared by everyone.
Subsidies of the Rich and Famous by Senator Tom Coburn
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f

But is the playing field really uneven simply because we all can't afford the vacation home or yacht or vacation in Vegas? As the rest of us hone our skills and obtain experience and expertise to move into the higher income brackets, we acquire the same tax breaks. And how many people fed their families and enjoyed some of the American dream building that yacht which never would have breen built if there wasn't somebody with the wherewithal to buy it?

In 1990, George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and imposed higher taxes on those with yachts, private planes, and expensive jewelry etc--all the rich man's toys. Congress had agreed tio cut spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. It was well intended as a deficit reduction act.

The result? We got the new taxes but of course no corresponding cut in spending. (Congress considers increasing spending a little less than what they would like to spend as a 'cut'.) And we prompted the rich to go elsewhere to buy their yachts, and private planes, and other toys. The new taxes brought in about $50 million net. And it horribly decimated our private boat building and private plane industries and drove our high value jewelry industry off shore. Tens of thousands of people were out of work and none of those industries have fully recovered to this day.

You simply cannot tax the rich more or punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor more. Be careful what you wish for.

Hi Foxfyre!
"You simply cannot tax the rich more or punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor more".
So, the rich should be rewarded for their success by being able to write-off their vacation homes, yachts; etc? Many folks who can't afford those luxury items are also successful in their lives. Is it their fault that their stuck in a not-so upper mobility nation, where they don't see the large rewards for their success because of their place in society?
A little over ten years ago I was working for a technology company. I came up with an idea that could bring in residual income, so I polled their current client base and the concept was overwhelming approved. I then addressed the Product Development Team and then upper-management. The product was developed and did bring in 100s of thousands dollars for the company annuallly. My reward? A $5,000 bonus and a 5% raise.
This is a personal example of being successful and getting a token reward. This happens to many people in the working class who are in the "middle", they are successful within their work environment and the reward is "hey, you still have a job", or some token monitory reward. They don't get rewarded with the ability too buy expensive toys that they can take a tax deduction on.

But everybody in America has the full, unrestricted right to grab for the brass ring and achieve anything that he or she is capable of achieving and has the gumption to go after. Most people don't even try to reach their full potential and that is their choice, but those who do take the risks and succeed should not be punished because some lack ambition or willingness to ability.

If you agreed to work for your employer for a percentage of the employer's profits, that is one thing, in which case you would have profited nicely from the product you developed. But if you agreed to work for a fixed wage and you received that, then the contract you negotiated with your employer gave you exactly what you expected. A bonus and raise is a nice icing on that cake.

But what if the product had failed after a considerable investment and lost the company money. Would you expect to be paid less or pay for your employer's loss as a result of your idea? Of course you wouldn't. You would not likely have agreed to work for him with that kind of risk hanging over your head.

Those who do make the investment, who take on the risks, who accept the consequences for failure are the oines who are most likely to achieve considerable wealth. And they deserve whatever they enjoy as a result of that success. And they are generally the ones who make it possible for people like you to make a good living.

There is nothing stopping you from taking the risks yourself. Go on your own, develop your own product, and you too can afford yachts and vacation homes and expensive vacations. And you will likely provide a lot of jobs for others who may or may not resent your success. Of course that success was achieved at the risk of losing everything. They don't ever seem to want to consider that in the equation though,

 

[kiwiman127]

I think you're living in the past. Upward mobility in the US ain't what it used to be. And with the demise of upward mobility, so does the American Dream become more of a dream.

The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S.
Read more: The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S. | Moneyland | TIME.com

A Dream Deferred
A Dream Deferred - NationalJournal.com

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you're living in the past. Upward mobility in the US ain't what it used to be. And with the demise of upward mobility, so does the American Dream become more of a dream.

The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S.
Read more: The Loss of Upward Mobility in the U.S. | Moneyland | TIME.com

A Dream Deferred
A Dream Deferred - NationalJournal.com

Well, after four years of Obama, I would think there is a lot less opportunity, but there are still people achieving millionare status every day. Sometimes it is because of a one time investment and millionaires often cycle in and out of millionaire status. There is still opportunity to become wealthy if you do what you have to do to become wealthy. There will be a lot more opportunity if the next administration is more business friendly than the current one.

We all have three choices. Accept our status in life without question - or - do what we need to do to improve it - or - moan and groan and resent others who succeed.

 

[Steelplate]

Your thread is pointless because you are only addressing one tax, the federal income tax. Until you include all taxes, anything you say is pretty much meaningless.

On the federal level, the income tax is the largest source of revenues. The next largest source is corporate tax. We can talk about how much the lower 50% pay in corporate taxes, too, if you wish.

We know that a lot of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, but they do pay many other taxes. In some cases, even without paying any federal income taxes, their overall tax burden is heavier than for some of the super wealthy. At the state level, those not paying income taxes are paying the biggest percentage of their income than any others, and they're paying at least double what the wealthiest earners pay, in some states it's up to four times as much.

It's hilarious how we see one thread after another talking about those who don't pay any federal income taxes, but we never see any concerns as to why the wealthy pay so little at the state level.

What people pay at the state level is state business. State taxes don't pay for federal benefits, and it is federal outlays which are not being paid for by the lower 50%. And the federal budget is $16 trillion in the hole.

Do you know why the lower 50% pay a lot of state taxes? Because their states require a balanced budget. If it is good enough for the states, why is it not good enough for the federal government?

And where do you get the idea the wealthy pay so little at the state level? That's a complete lie. The states have a progressive income tax, too. And they are always trying to raise business taxes.



.

The upper 50% don't pay corporate tax...their companies do. IIRC, corporate owners pay themselves a salary.....they pay THAT tax. The company itself pays the corporate tax.

Revenues and salary are two different animals.

 

[Steelplate]

But is the playing field really uneven simply because we all can't afford the vacation home or yacht or vacation in Vegas? As the rest of us hone our skills and obtain experience and expertise to move into the higher income brackets, we acquire the same tax breaks. And how many people fed their families and enjoyed some of the American dream building that yacht which never would have breen built if there wasn't somebody with the wherewithal to buy it?

In 1990, George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and imposed higher taxes on those with yachts, private planes, and expensive jewelry etc--all the rich man's toys. Congress had agreed tio cut spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. It was well intended as a deficit reduction act.

The result? We got the new taxes but of course no corresponding cut in spending. (Congress considers increasing spending a little less than what they would like to spend as a 'cut'.) And we prompted the rich to go elsewhere to buy their yachts, and private planes, and other toys. The new taxes brought in about $50 million net. And it horribly decimated our private boat building and private plane industries and drove our high value jewelry industry off shore. Tens of thousands of people were out of work and none of those industries have fully recovered to this day.

You simply cannot tax the rich more or punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor more. Be careful what you wish for.

Hi Foxfyre!
"You simply cannot tax the rich more or punish the rich for their success without hurting the poor more".
So, the rich should be rewarded for their success by being able to write-off their vacation homes, yachts; etc? Many folks who can't afford those luxury items are also successful in their lives. Is it their fault that their stuck in a not-so upper mobility nation, where they don't see the large rewards for their success because of their place in society?
A little over ten years ago I was working for a technology company. I came up with an idea that could bring in residual income, so I polled their current client base and the concept was overwhelming approved. I then addressed the Product Development Team and then upper-management. The product was developed and did bring in 100s of thousands dollars for the company annuallly. My reward? A $5,000 bonus and a 5% raise.
This is a personal example of being successful and getting a token reward. This happens to many people in the working class who are in the "middle", they are successful within their work environment and the reward is "hey, you still have a job", or some token monitory reward. They don't get rewarded with the ability too buy expensive toys that they can take a tax deduction on.

But everybody in America has the full, unrestricted right to grab for the brass ring and achieve anything that he or she is capable of achieving and has the gumption to go after. Most people don't even try to reach their full potential and that is their choice, but those who do take the risks and succeed should not be punished because some lack ambition or willingness to ability.

If you agreed to work for your employer for a percentage of the employer's profits, that is one thing, in which case you would have profited nicely from the product you developed. But if you agreed to work for a fixed wage and you received that, then the contract you negotiated with your employer gave you exactly what you expected. A bonus and raise is a nice icing on that cake.

But what if the product had failed after a considerable investment and lost the company money. Would you expect to be paid less or pay for your employer's loss as a result of your idea? Of course you wouldn't. You would not likely have agreed to work for him with that kind of risk hanging over your head.

Those who do make the investment, who take on the risks, who accept the consequences for failure are the oines who are most likely to achieve considerable wealth. And they deserve whatever they enjoy as a result of that success. And they are generally the ones who make it possible for people like you to make a good living.

There is nothing stopping you from taking the risks yourself. Go on your own, develop your own product, and you too can afford yachts and vacation homes and expensive vacations. And you will likely provide a lot of jobs for others who may or may not resent your success. Of course that success was achieved at the risk of losing everything. They don't ever seem to want to consider that in the equation though,

so what? if you manage to get a grip on that brass ring.....your troubles are over. They aren't being taxed into poverty.....or even down to the level of the "regular folk".....They are still incredibly wealthy and could probably stop what they are doing today and their great grandchildren wouldn't have to work a day in their lives.

Why does the concept of greed never enter you guy's minds unless it's a poor person.

Don't get me wrong...I have nothing against the wealthy....they.achieved.it....they deserve it....but.don't go crying the blues when the Taxman comes....it's.part of the price of success.

I'll tell you what......I'll agree to CUT their taxes another 5%, but they give up every loophole known to man....then we'll raise taxes on the rest of the people by the same rate.....and allow them to deduct.mortgage interest on cheap homes, automobile interest on vehicles that they NEED to get back and forth to work....and.even personal debt like the.credit cards they've been using to make it from one paycheck to the next.....sound.good? after all, turnabout is fair play...

didn't think so.

 

[AmyNation]

I think trying to argue the rich are overburdened by are current tax system is a bad argument, largely because as we all know in the last 10 years, the rich have made out like bandits, and the poor and middle class have suffered serious loses.

However, the federal tax system is big, bloated, and in desperate need of restructuring. Talking about making taxes less complicated, eliminating loopholes, and downsizing the IRS, those are things I think most Americans can agree on.

 

[Too Tall]

The Fair Tax is the only proposal that taxes consumption and eliminates all other Federal taxes, including the payroll taxes. Even drug dealers would have to pay this tax when they buy their expensive toys.

 

[Clementine]

I am wondering if those who feel the wealthy should pay more taxes also think they should pay a higher price for everything else. Perhaps they should pay $10 for a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk since they can afford it. Maybe all businesses should charge people for goods and services according to their income.

It's the same thing as saying they should pay more to keep government running. Of course, it's not really about paying for a service from our government. It's about making politicians wealthy so they aren't mere public servants, as was intended. They have hefty benefit and retirement packages. It's also about a redistribution of wealth.

Some simply feel that people did a little too well when it came to earning a living and they begrudge them the money they earned.

Meanwhile, some are doing a little too well when it comes to taking from people. Able bodied people, like the ones partying and pooping in the streets while "occupying" complained loudly and it's too bad they couldn't use that energy to get themselves out of the rut they are in.

 

[Too Tall]

Don't you think it would be important to include a look at what % of wealth those groups hold compared with the tax %?

Did that thought never cross your mind?

Never in the history of the USA has there been a tax on wealth. Why do you think it necessary to start taxing wealth now? And how do you square that with property rights being included in our unalienable rights protected by the Constitution?

OK, how about you include the income of those groups so we can see how much they pay compared to how much they earn?

Huh? Income taxes are paid by individuals, not groups. And, each person pays what the tax law requires at the risk of being audited.

 

[Dissent]

There is no natural right to steal a mans wages in the form of taxes. That's pretty simple.

If you are a member of a society there is

I am not a member of anything I am an individual. You give a government the power to steal your money they get power hungry as we can see and decided to go further. I don't need a government to look over me I can manage just fine by myself...I can manage to buy everything I need and have the things I need without a bunch of idiots running things.

 

[Too Tall]

I like The Fair Tax

Americans For Fair Taxation

That looks very interesting.

The only problem that I see with the Fair Tax is that the Congress would NEVER pass such a law. And I am one that used to say "never say never."

There aren't enough honest men and women in either party to relinquish the power they have over peoples lives with the current tax system.

A damned shame it is I say!