The Rich Aren't Paying Their Fair Share?!?

#26
#26
allvol123 said:
Hell I would just move. Ease of travel along with modern technology can erase many of the cons that would have existed in the past, in terms of choosing to move.
Click to expand...

I'm not even close to the top 5% but I've already had cases where I've turned down extra income because the net of taxes amount is 50% or less of the gross - not worth it.

I suspect that as you move up the ladder, this effect becomes pronounced.
 
#27
#27
how exactly are you benefting by giving all your money to someone else? do you understand the way foundations work exactly?
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
I'm not even close to the top 5% but I've already had cases where I've turned down extra income because the net of taxes amount is 50% or less of the gross - not worth it.

I suspect that as you move up the ladder, this effect becomes pronounced.
Click to expand...


I would think you are right very near the tipping point, i.e. that $400,000 mark. But if you are making $50 million, you probably don't think "Gosh, wish I was only maiing $399,000."
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
I would think you are right very near the tipping point, i.e. that $400,000 mark. But if you are making $50 million, you probably don't think "Gosh, wish I was only maiing $399,000."
Click to expand...

no you think gosh i wish i had put $200 mil in munis rather than invested in a business and hired people where i get taxed at 50%.
 
#31
#31
I have found this to be true -

Tennessee wanted to have a state income tax, and may still have one. Many are for it.

But here's the problem with a new tax - although the govt said they would reduce some existing taxes, the already existing taxes would probably stay the same. That's why I was against it, we would get to pay more taxes. And once a tax is established, the govt has no trouble raising it.

When you are driving and your gas tank is empty, some say you are "running on fumes". I think that maybe our country/economy is doing something similar. We are spending money we don't have, and may never have. Someday someone will have to pay. Why not let the state, local and national govts live within their means? I have to.
 
#32
#32
Bar Stool Economics:

Let's suppose that a group of 10 graduate students regularly go out to a pub for beer, and the tab for the 10 comes to $100 total. If they pay for their bill the way Americans pay for our taxes (based on our so-called "progressive" tax system), the breakout would be like this:

The first 4 people (the poorest) pay nothing. They get to drink for free.

The fifth pays $1

The sixth pays $3

The seventh pays $7

The eighth pays $12

The ninth pays $18

The tenth person (the richest) pays $59.

Being good friends and liberal progressives, that's what they all agree to do. It seems only fair that each person should pay what they can afford to pay, remembering the old adage they learned in school: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx).

Every few days, the 10 good friends would meet up in the pub and would pay up as agreed upon.

Then one day, the proprietor gave them a deal. "Since you are such good customers, from now on", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your tab by $20. You can just pay me $80!"

Everyone wanted to continue to pay their bill just the same way as they had before. So the first four people (the poorest) are unaffected. They continue to get to drink for free.

But what about the remaining 6 people? How should they split up the unexpected $20 savings "windfall" so that everyone would get "his fair share"? They figured that $20 shared by 6 comes out to $3.33 each. But if they simply subtracted that amount from each of the 6 paying friends, then person #5 and person #6 would actually be paid to have their beers since person #5 only paid $1 anyway and person #6 only paid $3!

What to do?

The pub owner came to their rescue. He suggested that each person's bill should be reduced by roughly the same amount, and he used his calculator to work out what that should be:

Persons 1-4 continue to get to drink for free

The fifth person, like the first four, now pays nothing and drinks for free (100% savings!)

The sixth pays just $2 instead of the original $3 (33% savings!)

The seventh pays just $5 instead of the original $7 (28% savings!)

The eighth pays just $9 instead of the original $12 (25% savings!)

The ninth pays just $15 instead of the original $18 (17% savings!)

The tenth pays just $49 instead of the original $59 (16% savings!)

All 6 friends were better off then before. And their first four buddies continued to drink for free, because they didn't have a lot of money.

They all felt pretty good about it.

After they thanked the pub owner and left to walk back to campus, they began to compare their savings under this new deal.

The sixth person was very quiet, though. Finally he blurted out. "You know, splitting up the bill that way wasn't fair! I only got a dollar out of that $20 we all saved, and yet (he pointed to the tenth person) he got $10!"

"Hey, you're right", shouted the seventh person. "I got cheated too. I only saved 2 dollars. It's unfair that he got back 5 times more than me!"

"Damn it! I've been ripped off too", yelled the eighth. "Why should he get back $10 when I got back only $3. The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute", screamed friends one through four. "We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"

The first nine people surrounded the tenth person and beat him up.

The next day, tempers had cooled down and the nine friends showed back up at the pub. They were sorry for what they had done and they wanted to apologize to their tenth friend.

But the tenth person didn't show up for drinks. So the nine proceeded to drink without him.

When it came time to pay the tab, they discovered that they had a problem. They didn't have enough money among all nine of them to pay for even half of the bill!
 
#33
#33
The tax system in our country is totally screwed up. I see no reason why a person making $20,000 a year should pay no taxes, while a person making $500,000 a year should be paying out the ass. Nobody should be punished for being successful.
 
#34
#34
Vol_4_Life said:
The tax system in our country is totally screwed up. I see no reason why a person making $20,000 a year should pay no taxes, while a person making $500,000 a year should be paying out the ass. Nobody should be punished for being successful.
Click to expand...


There is much to be said for the notion that our tax system retards investment, is so complicated it has generated its own wasteful and large systemic transaction cost to figure it out, and that it treats (albeit dissimilarly situated persons) unequally.

But to change it now seems to me to be politically impossible, pure and simple. And as a result, the politics of running for federal office in this country has become largely about whether you are for the little guy or the special interests.

Well, at least who you say you're for, anyway.

Its a shame, really. Pretty destructive situation. Causes a lot of waste. But I don't see it changing any time soon. Just going to be that constant tug of war between tax cuts for your constituency and tax hikes for the bad guys, reversed every 8 years.
 
#35
#35
I love how you have this belief that the wave of idiocy that got obama elected (something that has happened maybe twice in 50 years) is somehow the new norm and will continue forever. and i'm waiting for that detailed list of tax loopholes that the rich are currently exploiting seeing as how you are an expert on this and all.
 
#36
#36
Here's another thing that scares me about the situation our country is in. Suppose the tax system was fixed to it was fair to everyone. And then to be fair, the govt quit keeping people up, made an effort to make unwed fathers support their children instead of the tax payers, and only spent what they needed to govern the country.

Can you imagine what those who get govt checks, food stamps, etc. each month would do? I mean, they think they deserve these things. They are conditioned not to work for anything.

You would not be safe in your own home. They would kill you - and your family - if necessary, to get what you have. Maybe this welfare state we live in is the lesser of two evils. And if so, that is sad.
 
#38
#38
Here's the other side:

Behind the Income Tax Numbers: Top 1% Paid 40% of Total -- Seeking Alpha

It would be more fair to see what percentage of all taxes--state, local, and federal--are paid by the top 10% rather than just income taxes.
Click to expand...

This increased burden could mean two things: one, the rich are getting bilked; and/or two, the recession has hit the middle class and poor harder than the rich, so they are getting smaller slices of the income pie and paying less taxes as a result of receiving less income.
Click to expand...
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Just going to be that constant tug of war between tax cuts for your constituency and tax hikes for the bad guys, reversed every 8 years.
Click to expand...


Although some of your post makes sense you continue to come up with such such inane remarks as the above quote.

How do figure anything has been reversed???

The Democrats were in control of congress most of the last 60 years of the twentieth century, sometimes overwhelmingly so.

Congress controls the purse strings.

While it's true the Republicans did win majorities in the second term of Clinton and held a slight majority in Ws first term, any reform they might have made was effectively blocked by the Democrats.

Now the dims have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and you can obviously see the socialist agenda they mean to ram through.

Not to say the republican party should be blameless at all.

One bottom line is this, in most cases the longer a congressman or senator remains in Washington, the more it seems he less represents his constituents and the more he represents the interests of the financial elite.

I once asked my congressman why he had lied about a particular item and he said to me; "you can't tell the truth in Washington for fear of being crucified in the media."

That's a pretty sorry situation imo.
 
#40
#40
droski said:
I love how you have this belief that the wave of idiocy that got obama elected (something that has happened maybe twice in 50 years) is somehow the new norm and will continue forever. and i'm waiting for that detailed list of tax loopholes that the rich are currently exploiting seeing as how you are an expert on this and all.
Click to expand...


I do think that, in the broadest sense, the tax policies of Democrats favor increasing taxes on the wealthiest and reducing them on the middle class and the poor, whereas Republicans have generally supported tax breaks for the wealthiest and for businesses.

Not always, but for the most part that seems to be the correct general characterization.
 
#41
#41
Last edited:
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
I do think that, in the broadest sense, the tax policies of Democrats favor increasing taxes on the wealthiest and reducing them on the middle class and the poor, whereas Republicans have generally supported tax breaks for the wealthiest and for businesses.

Not always, but for the most part that seems to be the correct general characterization.
Click to expand...

i'm still waiting for some examples of those tax loopholes.

two republicans in recent memory have lowered taxes. bush and reagan lowered them across the board, not just for the wealthy and for businesses. now reagan did lower the maximum tax rate from 70%, but even the most delusional liberal must admit 70% isn't healthy for the economy. and as i have pointed out 50 times before reagan eliminated many of the tax loopholes that liberals like you seem tot hink still exist and therefore the effective maximum tax rate for the wealthiest americans didnt' drop very much at all and in reality if obama get's his way he will have the highest taxes on wealthy americans in history.
 
#43
#43
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
I would think you are right very near the tipping point, i.e. that $400,000 mark. But if you are making $50 million, you probably don't think "Gosh, wish I was only maiing $399,000."
Click to expand...

Well now that I look at it that way, things seem totally fair.
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
I do think that, in the broadest sense, the tax policies of Democrats favor increasing taxes on the wealthiest and reducing them on the middle class and the poor, whereas Republicans have generally supported tax breaks for the wealthiest and for businesses.

Not always, but for the most part that seems to be the correct general characterization.
Click to expand...

You are leaving out a few critical points:

1. Overall, the R philosophy is to reduce the total amount which ALL are taxed at by,

2. Advocating less government spending

3. The R tax breaks are targeted at economic growth drivers (e.g. capital gains tax).

To characterize R tax policies as attempts to help the rich is simply not understanding the goals behind tax policy.
 
#46
#46
rjd970 said:
Here's the other side:

Behind the Income Tax Numbers: Top 1% Paid 40% of Total -- Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


The author may change his tune a bit when he sees the inflation adjusted #'s.

Interesting that part of his theory (that the recession destroyed the middle class more than the wealthy) is retracted since the data is pre-recession. He still clings to his feeling that the rich paying more is BECAUSE the middle class essentially lost wealth eventhough he provides ZERO evidence for his assertion.

I just saw on the news that tax receipts are down massively (most since the Great Depression % - wise). I'm betting it was a collapse in wealth at the top end that is most responsible which supports the point the author criticizes - it's not smart to rely so heavily on so few.
 
#47
#47
volinbham said:
You are leaving out a few critical points:

1. Overall, the R philosophy is to reduce the total amount which ALL are taxed at by,

2. Advocating less government spending

3. The R tax breaks are targeted at economic growth drivers (e.g. capital gains tax).

To characterize R tax policies as attempts to help the rich is simply not understanding the goals behind tax policy.
Click to expand...

I think the Rs no longer resemble your comments, but fiscal conservatives do. Unfortunately, fiscal conservatives can't win win vote buying with tax dollars is the rule of the day.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
volinbham said:
The author may change his tune a bit when he sees the inflation adjusted #'s.

Interesting that part of his theory (that the recession destroyed the middle class more than the wealthy) is retracted since the data is pre-recession. He still clings to his feeling that the rich paying more is BECAUSE the middle class essentially lost wealth eventhough he provides ZERO evidence for his assertion.

I just saw on the news that tax receipts are down massively (most since the Great Depression % - wise). I'm betting it was a collapse in wealth at the top end that is most responsible which supports the point the author criticizes - it's not smart to rely so heavily on so few.
Click to expand...


Very true. But I also think that the wealth disparity between the top 1% vs. the top 10% is significant enough even pre-recession where his point still has merit. I don't know the numbers, but it would be interesting to see how the "middle class" (whatever that is) grew/shrunk during economic booms and busts.
 
#49
#49
volinbham said:
You are leaving out a few critical points:

1. Overall, the R philosophy is to reduce the total amount which ALL are taxed at by,

2. Advocating less government spending

3. The R tax breaks are targeted at economic growth drivers (e.g. capital gains tax).

To characterize R tax policies as attempts to help the rich is simply not understanding the goals behind tax policy.
Click to expand...


I do agree that in a perfect world the Republicans would favor lower taxes on everybody. But it is far from a perfect world, and generally speaking the two parties seem at this point to be running on opposite sides of a zero-sum game.

Which is to say we need x amount of revenue, and the Republicans would try to get there with lower taxes on the wealthy, cutting social spending, and theorizing that the tax breaks they author will have made up the difference in gross tax receipts by spurring economic growth and broadening the tax base. Whereas the Democrats will get there by increasing taxes on the wealthy and cutting programs they see as wasteful and/or subsidizing the business friends of the Republicans.

Both are total frauds. The Republicans are frauds because they don't reduce the social spending in a way that makes any sense. They deliver increased spending to their supporters and contributors.

The Democrats are even worse, because they pretend to plan to increase social spending, but frequently do it by awarding wasteful contracts to their friends and supporters.

Both of them -- Republicans and Democrats -- deal with the immediate political consequences of their actions by changing the zero-sum game such that the sum of the parts (spending and taxes) just goes up and up and up. But not for awhile, yet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top