Who Pays the Taxes? Who Should?

[Erand7899]

I like The Fair Tax

Americans For Fair Taxation

Should be called the unfair tax. Sales taxes like this are regressive (again) and unfair to the lowest income groups (again).
We want everyone to benefit from living in the richest country the world has ever seen. Sometimes that could mean someone doesn't do someone's fair share, but there is no excuse for making those who work at the lowest wages pay a disproportionate percentage of their hard-earned wages.

Although I am for a federal sales tax as a replacement for the income tax, I do not fully buy into the FAIR tax as outlined in the book cited above. However, that plan provides for those at the bottom of the income scale by compensating them for federal sales taxes paid.

 

[Foxfyre]

I like The Fair Tax

Americans For Fair Taxation

Should be called the unfair tax. Sales taxes like this are regressive (again) and unfair to the lowest income groups (again).
We want everyone to benefit from living in the richest country the world has ever seen. Sometimes that could mean someone doesn't do someone's fair share, but there is no excuse for making those who work at the lowest wages pay a disproportionate percentage of their hard-earned wages.

Although I am for a federal sales tax as a replacement for the income tax, I do not fully buy into the FAIR tax as outlined in the book cited above. However, that plan provides for those at the bottom of the income scale by compensating them for federal sales taxes paid.

And therein lies the major opportunity for Congressional mischief. What should the 'poor' be reimbursed for? How will that be structured? How much should that be? Etc. etc. etc. I can easily see a tax code more of an incomprehensible mishmash than it already is under such a system, and continue Congress's ability to use the tax code to buy votes, power, influence, and personal wealth.

A flat tax applied equally across the board with the exact same rules and no exceptions for everybody would be far less likely to enable Congress to use the tax code for their own benefit.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

You have the choice to stay, or leave. By staying you consent to be governed by the rules of the society that you are residing in. If you don't like the rules of this society, go somewhere where the rules suit you better. Meanwhile, you are enjoying the amenities of this society, and bitching about being picked on by the government.

 

[kwc57]

Should be called the unfair tax. Sales taxes like this are regressive (again) and unfair to the lowest income groups (again).
We want everyone to benefit from living in the richest country the world has ever seen. Sometimes that could mean someone doesn't do someone's fair share, but there is no excuse for making those who work at the lowest wages pay a disproportionate percentage of their hard-earned wages.

Although I am for a federal sales tax as a replacement for the income tax, I do not fully buy into the FAIR tax as outlined in the book cited above. However, that plan provides for those at the bottom of the income scale by compensating them for federal sales taxes paid.

And therein lies the major opportunity for Congressional mischief. What should the 'poor' be reimbursed for? How will that be structured? How much should that be? Etc. etc. etc. I can easily see a tax code more of an incomprehensible mishmash than it already is under such a system, and continue Congress's ability to use the tax code to buy votes, power, influence, and personal wealth.

A flat tax applied equally across the board with the exact same rules and no exceptions for everybody would be far less likely to enable Congress to use the tax code for their own benefit.

What is the FairTax | What is a Consumption Tax | Answers on Tax Reform - Americans For Fair Taxation

"Can Congress just simply raise the rate once the FairTax is passed into law?

Yes, of course Congress can raise the FairTax rate just as it could raise the flat tax rate or can and does raise the income tax rate. And if we in the grass roots allow them to do it, shame on us!

However, the FairTax is highly visible. And because there is only one tax rate, it will be very hard for Congress to adopt the typical divide-and-conquer, hide-and-disguise strategy employed today to ratchet up the burden gradually, by manipulating the income tax code. Ultimately, the tax rate will be dictated by the size of government. If government gets larger, higher tax rates will be required. If government shrinks relative to the economy, then the tax rate will fall. Federalist 21, by Alexander Hamilton, is a great read on the futility of government raising a consumption tax too high, and thus reducing revenues."

 

[Erand7899]

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.

What risk did you take in the development and sale of that idea? Who would have taken the loss, if it had not worked out? How much of producing such ideas was part of your regular job?

 

[Erand7899]

According to some polls, most Americans think the rich—several among the top 5% and all in the top 1%-- should be required to pay more.
Most Americans say rich should pay more taxes, according to new survey - CBS News

So what do you think?

Here’s the problem as I see it:

Who is paying the federal income taxes in the USA? Among all Americans:


National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

President Obama wants the rich to pay more. Challenger Romney wants lower taxes for at least the middle class.

Are they both right? One more right than the other? Both wrong?

Please read the following explanation:

I agree that the system is flawed, Amy, but Claudette wasn't blaming the people. She WAS blaming a system that allows half of the people to suffer no consequences from tax increases,but having ability to vote for people who will raise other people's taxes but not theirs. That is fundamentally wrong on the face of it, and nothing good can possibly come from it.

The solution is not to tax the income of those who currently pay no income taxes, but to eliminate the income tax altogether, and go to a federal sales tax. We could keep the capital gains tax, which is pretty much what the rich pay, and everyone would have skin in the game.

As I posted in Post # 90:

"That would mean higher taxes for the middle class and lower taxes for the wealthy. The middle class pays a much higher percentage of their expendable income for necessities than the wealthy, it isn't even close.
Nice try. It didn't work for Herman Cain and it's not going to work today."

No, that would not mean higher taxes for the middle class, nor would it mean higher taxes for the poor. The wealthy mostly pay capital gains, and that tax would remain under my concept, so they wouldn't pay less, and they would also pay sales taxes. And, since they live higher on the hog, and buy more expensive toys, they would pay considerably more.

You don't understand the plan put forth by Herman Cain, and you obviously do not understand my proposal.

And, I don't give a damn whether you like the idea or not. You are free to play and reply, but I don't need your consent, or approval, for submitting my ideas. So, take your, "Nice try," and put it where the sun don't shine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Property taxes based on the assessed value of the property are taxes on wealth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you believe in a flat tax to replace the current income tax then you must believe the Rich are overtaxed and poor/low income/moderate income Americans are undertaxed.

Do you?

 

[amrchaos]

Let make sure I understand this right


Top 1%
AGI earnings: $343,927 and over
% of all income taxes paid: 36.73

Top 5%
AGI earnings: $154,643
% of all income taxes paid: 58.66

Top 10%
AGI earnings: $112,124
% of income taxes paid: 70.47

Top 25%
AGI earnings: $66,193
% of income taxes paid: 87.30

Top 50%
AGI earnings: $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 97.75

Bottom 50%
AGI earnings: below $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 2.25

In other words.

top 0-1% pays 36.73% of taxes

top 1.001 to 5% pays 58.66-36.73%= 21.93% of taxes

top 5.001 to 10% pays 70.47-58.66%=11.71% of taxes

top 10.001 to 25% pays 87.30-70.47%=16.93% of taxes

25.001 to 50% pays 97.75-87.30%= 10.45% of taxes.

and the bottom 50% pays 2.25% of taxes

and since the top 1% pays the most taxes(almost twice any other bracket considered), we should raise taxes on every until everyone is paying the proper amount of taxes despite the amount they actually make. Is that what you are implying??

 

[Foxfyre]

If you believe in a flat tax to replace the current income tax then you must believe the Rich are overtaxed and poor/low income/moderate income Americans are undertaxed.

Do you?

So far as income taxes are concerned--and it is income taxes that this thread addresses--yes I do. For sure the more money you leave in the pockets of the most successful, the more money will be put to work in the economy in ways that benefit all.

And for sure, it is a dangerous thing when 50% of Americans experience no obvious consequences for a tax increase on the others, and therefore have incentive to vote for those who will pledgeto tax the other 50% while they get a free ride at everybody else's expense. And I say that as one who this year will get that free ride and who still thinks that it is dangerous and wrong that I do.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There should be no federal taxation upon the people. The states should be required to pay yearly membership fees to the Union, proportioned to the populations therein.

 

[Claudette]

But they do not have skin in the income tax game, which is the point... and I believe it was the point that Claudette was trying to make..

You are saying this like some pay tax I and some pay taxes P, S, and Z... when in fact some pay tax P, S, and Z and some pay I, P, S, and Z... it is not like those paying income tax are not paying the other taxes... it is bullshit to argue that because these people pay the 'other taxes' so it is ok that they do not pay income tax... and before you start, don't bring the bullshit subjective 'fairness' into it

YES Finally. Jeeze.

LOL, but that's not what you just said. I understand now Claudette. You seem like a nice person, you're just obviously in way over your head and you don't want to understand. So go ahead and let other people do your arguments for you, even though it contradicts what you said.

Thanks anyway.

So I'm in over my head there RD. Thanks for that little bit of snark. LOL But I understand quite well that some folks pay no Fed Income taxes. They may pay other Fed taxes but not income taxes.

You are a nice man. Hell. You didn't tell me to STFU, **** off or eat shit and die. LOL.

Thanks anyway.

 

[Foxfyre]

There should be no federal taxation upon the people. The states should be required to pay yearly membership fees to the Union, proportioned to the populations therein.

Now this is a different and interesting concept. And I am thinking about it. The only problem with it that I can see is that those states with low unemployment and high incomes would benefit greatly from such a system while those states with higher unemployment and lower incomes could find such a payment system pretty regressive. And it could be an incentive for poorer states to do less and less for their 'poor' and encourage them to move. Which might or might not be a good thing. The possibility or probability of long range consequences I haven't figured out yet though.

A flat tax, however, affects every single person exactly in the same proportion as everybody else without imposing any kind of penalty or consequence on states with fewer income producing resources. And because every person incurs the very same consequences as everybody else, there is much incentive for everybody to demand that Congress control spending, balance its budget, and keep taxes as low as possible.

 

[RDD_1210]

YES Finally. Jeeze.

LOL, but that's not what you just said. I understand now Claudette. You seem like a nice person, you're just obviously in way over your head and you don't want to understand. So go ahead and let other people do your arguments for you, even though it contradicts what you said.

Thanks anyway.

So I'm in over my head there RD. Thanks for that little bit of snark. LOL But I understand quite well that some folks pay no Fed Income taxes. They may pay other Fed taxes but not income taxes.

You are a nice man. Hell. You didn't tell me to STFU, **** off or eat shit and die. LOL.

Thanks anyway.

Thanks and some people (elderly and disabled) that pay absolutely nothing. I don't think they should have to pay, but I guess we can just agree to disagree.

You've always treated me with respect, so no reason to start the name calling with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let make sure I understand this right


Top 1%
AGI earnings: $343,927 and over
% of all income taxes paid: 36.73

Top 5%
AGI earnings: $154,643
% of all income taxes paid: 58.66

Top 10%
AGI earnings: $112,124
% of income taxes paid: 70.47

Top 25%
AGI earnings: $66,193
% of income taxes paid: 87.30

Top 50%
AGI earnings: $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 97.75

Bottom 50%
AGI earnings: below $32,396
% of income taxes paid: 2.25

In other words.

top 0-1% pays 36.73% of taxes

top 1.001 to 5% pays 58.66-36.73%= 21.93% of taxes

top 5.001 to 10% pays 70.47-58.66%=11.71% of taxes

top 10.001 to 25% pays 87.30-70.47%=16.93% of taxes

25.001 to 50% pays 97.75-87.30%= 10.45% of taxes.

and the bottom 50% pays 2.25% of taxes

and since the top 1% pays the most taxes(almost twice any other bracket considered), we should raise taxes on every until everyone is paying the proper amount of taxes despite the amount they actually make. Is that what you are implying??

What I am saying is that the federal government needs a hell of lot less money that it collects to do its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and every citizen should feel and have responsibility to help fund those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

A flat tax is the most equitable and fair way to accomplish that without putting excessive pressure on the poor and without encouraging the rich to take and invest their money elsewhere.

In a true flat tax system, the person earning one million dollars would pay one thousand times more in federal income taxes than the one who makes one thousand dollars. But both would pay something and both would experience a proportional increase or decrease in the tax rate. That puts both on equal footing as citizens with comparable motives to demand good government rather than promote government that increases its own power and fortune via income redistribution. It takes class warfare out of the equation and provides excellent motives for all to do what they can to improve their circumstances.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

Property taxes based on the assessed value of the property are taxes on wealth.

You assume that all property equals wealth and you are wrong again.

The market value of anything does not equal wealth.

If your house is valued at 100K and you owe 200K on it you have no wealth.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That is true. The highest tax rate is lower now than it was then, but there are far fewer ways to deduct or shelter income now than there was then. And for that reason much less of the income is deducted or sheltered which actually increased the revenues to the treasury because the wealthy were punished less for using their money.

And this goes to the heart of the matter.

Are you so resentful and envious of the rich that you want them punished even though that punishment is a drag on the economy and reduces treasury revenues? (See why this is in the example provided in the OP.)

Or do you want a tax system that best encourages the private sector to prosper at all levels? (The same example supports this concept.)

There are also more bullshit deductions and refundable tax credits now than then

Only for the poor. Not for the rich.

Define poor because a lot of those bullshit deductions and tax credits go to people living well above the poverty line

 

[Skull Pilot]

What I am inferring is they pay no Fed taxes.

Not no taxes at all. State and Local taxes are not Fed taxes.

But I've shown you that they do in fact pay federal taxes. Did you ignore that part? Did it not make sense? I am not sure why you are refusing to understand this.

Remember before when I said you are unable to have a rational discussion? This is what I was talking about. When you are presented with facts, that you either refused to read of didn't have any disagreement with, you still revert back to your original statement which is blatantly false.

So whats the problem here with what we're discussing? Do you just not want to listen to the facts or do you not understand what they mean?

THEY PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

How many times do you you have to hear that explanation before it penetrates that thick ovine skull?

 

[Foxfyre]

There are also more bullshit deductions and refundable tax credits now than then

Only for the poor. Not for the rich.

Define poor because a lot of those bullshit deductions and tax credits go to people living well above the poverty line

And yet those living well above the poverty line are paying the huge lion's share of all the federal income taxes aren't they? While the bottom 75% pays very little--the bottom 50% pays nothing at all.

Believe me, we small business owners could not be in business at all without some deductions and tax credits. But at least if we weren't in business, our employees wouldn't have to pay any taxes at all.

So who is benefitting the most from deductions and tax credits?

 

[RDD_1210]

What I am inferring is they pay no Fed taxes.

Not no taxes at all. State and Local taxes are not Fed taxes.

But I've shown you that they do in fact pay federal taxes. Did you ignore that part? Did it not make sense? I am not sure why you are refusing to understand this.

Remember before when I said you are unable to have a rational discussion? This is what I was talking about. When you are presented with facts, that you either refused to read of didn't have any disagreement with, you still revert back to your original statement which is blatantly false.

So whats the problem here with what we're discussing? Do you just not want to listen to the facts or do you not understand what they mean?

THEY PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

How many times do you you have to hear that explanation before it penetrates that thick ovine skull?

LOL, do you want me to link you to every instance on this site of your fellow idiots saying they "pay no taxes". There is a huge difference between that and paying no federal income taxes, which greatly waters down the argument about having "no skin in the game".

How many times do I need to correct you idiots before it penetrates your thick skulls?