Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

The real situation is that frequently these folks don't pay taxes because they have writeoffs .

. I made no point about the fact that the affluent are paying no taxes at all .

Huh

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Huh

What part about the top quintile effectively not paying taxes on 30% of income do you not understand?

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I made several points...the primary one was that people make the affluent out to be victims based on the magnitude of the difference in tax rates. I made no point about the fact that the affluent are paying no taxes at all or made any inference as to it as a percentage of total tax revenue...or some other drift in your post.

I did make what you claim is the point above.

The top quintile should be paying about 34% in taxes on their income and they pay pretty much 25%. The difference accounts for no taxes on approximately 30% of their income.

So if they're getting 30% additional income on average without paying taxes on it...but not 'avoiding' paying taxes...just how are they getting that income?

You brought this up...so bring it home.

Do you have any idea how a graduated tax code works?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Do you have any idea how a graduated tax code works?

You said my point was false and your article showed it to be true...and you've shown nothing to the contrary. This is getting tiring.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

As for a balanced budget, balanced by whom in what manner would be my question...if Congress balances the budgets it will all be done on estimates and forecasts that a 9 year old could poke holes in. It will be balanced in the future based on forecasts that they pressured into happening.

Further, it will be balanced for one day and then out of balance the next, amendment or not...they'll change the rules, vote in exceptions, variances and exclusions and we'll be off to the races again.

No, 1995 balanced budget amendment just means that they couldn't run a deficit. although you re right that they had several loopholes. emergency spending in time of war (Iraq, afhganistan) etc... although you could include max debt to GDP ratio which means the emergency deficit will be thru revenue (increased taxes or drastic spending cuts ) to pay off the debt accured in the emergency.

And you're right taxing the rich will not solve the budget problem. but it wont hurt it either. it's time we raised the capital gains 15% back to where it used to be or treat is as ordinary income and raise the max taxcap back to 50%. And at the same time cut the spending across the board.

when we run a budget surplus we can lower taxes and increase spending.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

The thing with a balanced budget amendment, at least from a conservative point of view, is that the language will have to be pretty specific as to how to achieve that balanced budget. For example, Congress could choose to continue spending outrageously, and with a balanced budget forced upon them also choose to tax outrageously.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

You said my point was false and your article showed it to be true...and you've shown nothing to the contrary. This is getting tiring.

Since you seem to have ignored the links. Here are the effective tax rates (the percentage of income paid to the gov't)
lowest quintile: 4.3%
second quintile: 10.2%
middle quintile: 14.2%
fourth quintile: 17.6%
top quintile: 25.8%
top 10%: 27.5%
top 5%: 29%
top 1%: 31.2%
Where in these numbers does it show that the top earners "don't pay taxes because they have writeoffs"? It's quite obvious to those who can actually interpret data that the top is paying a greater percentage of their income federal taxes. To say that they need to shoulder a greater burden is certainly up for argument but to say they're not already paying a higher amount is simply false.

The top quintile earns an average of $250k. That would land that group squarely between the 33% and 35% tax bracket. Yet as the article says they only pay about 25% of their income in taxes. That's actually the tax bracket for someone earning $30-80k. In other words, they don't pay any taxes on about 30% of their income...and that doesn't include any other shady deals that a well paid tax consultant could come up with.

You seemingly have confused tax brackets with actual rates in our graduated system. A single filer making $70K is in the "25% bracket" but only pays 13.7% of his income while filer making $250K is in the "33% bracket" but pays 27% of his income. Someone making $500K is in the "35% bracket" pays 30.5% of his income. The "tax bracket" is not the percentage of income you pay in (except for those in the 10% bracket). But once again this shows that the higher earner is paying more $ and a greater percentage of his income. Your math based on false premises is therefore false.

I eagerly await your rebuttal (try and supply some facts this time rather than rhetoric) but expect to see the bus roll.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

You seemingly have confused tax brackets with actual rates in our graduated system. A single filer making $70K is in the "25% bracket" but only pays 13.7% of his income while filer making $250K is in the "33% bracket" but pays 27% of his income. Someone making $500K is in the "35% bracket" pays 30.5% of his income. The "tax bracket" is not the percentage of income you pay in (except for those in the 10% bracket). But once again this shows that the higher earner is paying more $ and a greater percentage of his income. Your math based on false premises is therefore false.

Most of your post had nothing to do with any point I made...again. As my point specifically was on whether the rich got out of paying some tax. The piece above is the only thing that's relevent. So here we go once more...

If you look at almost the whole bottom 40% of US taxpayers...pretty much the only reason that they're paying less than their actual tax rate is because of the standard deduction...which is instituted to keep larger less affluent families from going bankrupt. The standard deduction...kind a figured this would have been obvious. The top quintile? Their tax also includes the standard deduction...plus not paying taxes on about an additional $50K a year. All based on the report that was supposed to refute me somehow. Now again...how is the rich not paying taxes large sums...really paying taxes on that sum?

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Most of your post had nothing to do with any point I made...again. As my point specifically was on whether the rich got out of paying some tax. The piece above is the only thing that's relevent. So here we go once more...

If you look at almost the whole bottom 40% of US taxpayers...pretty much the only reason that they're paying less than their actual tax rate is because of the standard deduction...which is instituted to keep larger less affluent families from going bankrupt. The standard deduction...kind a figured this would have been obvious. The top quintile? Their tax also includes the standard deduction...plus not paying taxes on about an additional $50K a year. All based on the report that was supposed to refute me somehow. Now again...how is the rich not paying taxes large sums...really paying taxes on that sum?

?????????????????????????

At this time, I have absolutely no idea what point/points you are trying to make here. So, unless someone else can translate your posts into something comprehensible, I give up. You win. But, as James Downey said in BIlly Madison.........

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Why not?

I live in Minnesota...all you need to do is have a (D) after your name as candidate and you get our electoral votes. The only way an (R) or (I) would have a shot is if he was from here and even then it would be close.

Reason number 210 why the Electoral College needs to go by way of the 3/5ths Compromise.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

At this time, I have absolutely no idea what point/points you are trying to make here. So, unless someone else can translate your posts into something comprehensible, I give up. You win. But, as James Downey said in BIlly Madison.........

What a shock

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

?????????????????????????

At this time, I have absolutely no idea what point/points you are trying to make here. So, unless someone else can translate your posts into something comprehensible, I give up. You win. But, as James Downey said in BIlly Madison.........

they added 10% tax bracket so noone escaped taxes. And the current tax "increase" proposal is nothing more than going back to the old tax rate from 1993-2000. And people seems to get into a frenzy over 3% and 4.9%... geez.

1993 saw a tax hike on the wealthy (via two new brackets at the top), and then 2001 through 2003 saw a series of tax cuts that lowered the tax brackets as follows:

1992 93-00 2001 2002 3-10 2011?
none none none 10% 10% 10%
15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
28% 28% 27.5% 27% 25% 25%
31% 31% 30.5% 30% 28% 28%
nada 36% 35.5% 35% 33% 36%
nada 39.6% 39.1% 38.6%35% 39.6%

From 2000 to 2002 most brackets dropped by one percent, and there was a new low bracket

And if you want figure out the difference between tax bracket and actual taxes paid. and your own taxes. the site has a tax calculator.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00

This puts you in the 28% tax bracket, since that's the highest rate applied to any of your income; but as a percentage of the whole $100,000, your tax is about 22.37%.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Since you seem to have ignored the links. Here are the effective tax rates (the percentage of income paid to the gov't)
lowest quintile: 4.3%
second quintile: 10.2%
middle quintile: 14.2%
fourth quintile: 17.6%
top quintile: 25.8%
top 10%: 27.5%
top 5%: 29%
top 1%: 31.2%
Where in these numbers does it show that the top earners "don't pay taxes because they have writeoffs"? It's quite obvious to those who can actually interpret data that the top is paying a greater percentage of their income federal taxes.

Thats the percentage of the total income tax broken down by bracket. And that number does NOT show the tax shelters and writeoffs.

since they make more money. by definition they will pay more taxes even with flat tax. so you're 100% right that most of the income tax collected is from the top 1% (31%). If you like we can say 1% is shouldering the tax burden. And we should kiss their butts for keeping our country afloat.

That number also shows that if you want to generate more tax revenue, you have to raise taxes on the top 50% tile ... since they make up 96% of the federal income revenue. And most palatable is to raise taxes on the 1% (which makes up 31% of the federal income tax). or 5% (which makes up 60% of the federal revenue).

Personally, I think we should just raise the taxrate across the board to let everyone feel the pain of overspending.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

don't forget to include tax credits/exemptions/refunds in your equation guys. Which of those quintiles actually end up paying net taxes after they file?

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

If you look at almost the whole bottom 40% of US taxpayers...pretty much the only reason that they're paying less than their actual tax rate is because of the standard deduction...which is instituted to keep larger less affluent families from going bankrupt.

Earned Income Credit

First the rich were paying no tax, now its down to not paying on 50,000 of their income.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

we all pay too much taxes

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

First the rich were paying no tax, now its down to not paying on 50,000 of their income.

walrus, the $50k number is not for an individual...this is an average for a very large group. The statement of many upper income taxpayers not paying taxes on their full income or for some, any of their income...is quite consistent with the statistic of $50k, a high percentage of this group's income, not being taxed.

Isn't this stuff obvious?

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

And if you want figure out the difference between tax bracket and actual taxes paid. and your own taxes. the site has a tax calculator.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

I used examples from the same site to try and show 5min that "tax brackets" don't equal tax rates. I was, of course, unsuccessful.

Thats the percentage of the total income tax broken down by bracket. And that number does NOT show the tax shelters and writeoffs.

since they make more money. by definition they will pay more taxes even with flat tax. so you're 100% right that most of the income tax collected is from the top 1% (31%). If you like we can say 1% is shouldering the tax burden. And we should kiss their butts for keeping our country afloat.

That number also shows that if you want to generate more tax revenue, you have to raise taxes on the top 50% tile ... since they make up 96% of the federal income revenue. And most palatable is to raise taxes on the 1% (which makes up 31% of the federal income tax). or 5% (which makes up 60% of the federal revenue).

Personally, I think we should just raise the taxrate across the board to let everyone feel the pain of overspending.

The numbers were from the CBO's attempt to show overall effective tax rates. They were estimates. But, when compared to IRS data of income tax PAID as a percentage of AGI (thus taking into account deductions, shelters and maybe even the $50K that 5min keeps quoting from some unknown source), the numbers don't really change much. The more you make, the more you pay in taxes. As you correctly point out, and 5min ignores, the wealthy shoulder a greater burden of the taxes. Again, to say that they should shoulder a greater amount is up for argument, but to imply they are able to routinely avoid paying higher rates if simply false. Do we need to kiss their arses? No, but we certainly shouldn't accuse them of not paying either. I agree, raise everybody's rate and share the burden we deserve for voting in these clowns.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Since the discussion belongs here and not the illegal immigration thread:

I think you're right, which is disappointing to me because I think there are still a number of committed Republicans, or Republicans who are trying to use the Tea Party to their own ends without being overly interested in the reasons behind the movement.

The reality is that while the Tea Party does represent a the focus on fiscal conservatism GOP has had as a lip service line for decades. So it's good to ask - why stay with the GOP when they've promised and never delivered (or haven't delivered in a quarter century, depending on your outlook)? Two reasons - A) the Republicans are not the party in power at present, and the basic genesis for the movement was the frustration with the current government kicking spending into overdrive, and B) the GOP at least has had fiscal conservatism as part of its platform even if they haven't governed with it. Encouraging the GOP to govern that way is easier than encouraging the Democrats to do so.

Your scenario for the movement splintering if the GOP gains power and continues the tax/borrow and spend trend is certainly plausible, but there's another one out there too... while a unified movement could potentially start supporting the Democrats, the B) section above makes that a difficult proposition. At present, the majority of the movement wants to work within the two-party system to get what they want, but if the GOP decides to maintain the status quo, the tactics may change. The movement by and large is seeking to punish the Democrats by electing Republicans, but if that doesn't work, supporting Democrats to punish the GOP doesn't get them anywhere. I think in that situation you are going to see some more third-party challenges that will have the election of Democrats as the end result, but the point will be made.

This is definitely way off topic, but I wanted to touch on it in the thread it was brought up in.

With the Dems and the GOP continually acting like petulant children, it's only a matter of time before a viable third party starts to rise. It would not shock me if starting in 2012, we had a Republican president and congress that will make us long for W. It would shock me less if that meant that in 2016 we got a Democrat president and congress that makes us long for Obama.

At that point, I don't care if I'm voting for the Female Circumcision Party, I'm voting third party on the principle of not being the lab rat that reaches for the same electrically charged food pellet. I can only hope that the third party is somewhat of a centrist movement, because the fringes are getting out of hand.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

The optimist in me says the situation is crying out for a third party...the cynic says the two parties have so much money and so much to lose, they will fight with every low class, dirty politics tricks they have to prevent it...if money were no object it wouldn't be hard to make a ticket of two centrists (1 R and 1 D) and go after the center of the country (politically)

Throw out a few fringe issues on each side and you could get 60% of the populace to vote for the Center Party candidate...as long as they were good looking, were funny on Letterman, didn't scream on TV and didn't show up anywhere dressed in a costume or driving a tank. Those last few would actually be the biggest factors for being elected; the platform, integrity and leadership...yeah, that would be nice and all but let's not get crazy.