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

[5mn_Major]

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

The 19% income tax rate PAID remains the highest for all groups (CBO Data) and the overall effective tax rate is 31% which is again the highest percentage. That top 1% is currently paying 28% of the fed tax. All the numbers I've posted and now the numbers you've posted show that the rich pay at a greater rate and pay out a greater portion of their income. This pretty much shoots down your theory of

Now....as to the $50K.....to quote Judge Smails "Well, we're waiting!"

You accused me of 'being wrong' on...

The real situation is that frequently these folks don't pay taxes because they have writeoffs and the best advice that money can buy to avoid paying taxes.

...which you've failed to prove, again and again. So now your changing the subject to something else?

Income of the top 5%... $611k. The difference of the original bracket tax of 31% minus the effective tax of 18% equals taxes of $80k in income with no tax. Is this the point where you say you don't understand...or where you change the subject?

...and regarding the data, I take Wall Street Journals interpretation over yours...sorry.

"A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of Americans paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19% in 2007, the last year when data were available. The top 5% of earners paid an average rate of less than 18%."

- WSJ

 

[walrus]

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

He did even better than that. He came in 2nd, ahead of GHWB.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1992&fips=23&f=1&off=0&elect=0

I thought it was 30% but was too lazy to look it up.

 

[MinnFan]

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

Millions of additional 1099 forms will have to be filed due to Obamacare

This is a good example of how excessive regulation hurts business. Think of the time and money that will be spent on these forms. Many businesses will be forced to hire accountants to keep up with all of it. Its all a net drain on the economy.

 

[joecct]

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

First, I'm not going to play word games about whether someone gets 20% off their taxes...or they get 20% of the income tax free. So don't bother taking that line.

But assuming your serious about the numbers...I've taken a close look. If you're looking for math, they're too messy to explain on a message board as it requires averaging numbers and the like. Yet the WSJ (Marketwatch here) summed it up...

"A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of Americans paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19% in 2007, the last year when data were available. The top 5% of earners paid an average rate of less than 18%. There are ways and means to minimize tax -- like calling your income "capital gains." That's what private equity honchos do, where possible. In many cases, it means people making tens of millions a year are paying lower tax rates than their chauffeurs and receptionists.

So above are the most recent numbers summarized...and unlike less affluent quintiles, we aren't talking about $5,000 here. Again, say what you will...but there is absolutely no question that there are many tax advantages that allow the rich to frequently get out of paying full taxes. How does one get a private jet? You never buy one out of your personal income...start a company and it buys it for you.

The article goes on to expand on income inequity in the US is very wide compared to other countries...the gap is more than that of Russia and as extreme as Zimbabwe. I still am of the opinion that actual tax rates are about where they should be...but as I've said all along, there is still waay too much complaining that the rich are over taxed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-hom...love_money&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

Duh! The reason they have all that money is that they pay accountants and tax lawyers to make sure that the taxable income is as low as possible while the cash deposits to ye olde checking account are as high as possible. The Average Citizen does not have access to these resources.

I am not advocating higher taxes -- though it would employ more accountants and tax lawyers. We need something better that taxes everything with no deductions for anything and a low tax rates.

Or, better yet, tax consumption and not income. Everybody has to buy -- not everyone has to pay taxes.

 

[Patman]

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

Duh! The reason they have all that money is that they pay accountants and tax lawyers to make sure that the taxable income is as low as possible while the cash deposits to ye olde checking account are as high as possible. The Average Citizen does not have access to these resources.

I am not advocating higher taxes -- though it would employ more accountants and tax lawyers. We need something better that taxes everything with no deductions for anything and a low tax rates.

Or, better yet, tax consumption and not income. Everybody has to buy -- not everyone has to pay taxes.

I swear, you guys who are pro-consumption taxes are consummate loons... you not only hurt the non-rich but you fail to understand that they'll make up ways for the rich not to have to pay taxes when they buy stuff that rich people like.

Further, the only thing it will really do (and maybe this is the real plan) is cause businesses to merge so that they don't have to get taxed on every purchase.

"Fair Tax" and consumption taxes hurt lesser paid people... and in general the rich are better able to suck in a tax. I don't agree that rich people should be punitively taxed for existing... but lets get real here.

 

[busterman62]

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

First, I'm not going to play word games about whether someone gets 20% off their taxes...or they get 20% of the income tax free. So don't bother taking that line.

But assuming your serious about the numbers...I've taken a close look. If you're looking for math, they're too messy to explain on a message board as it requires averaging numbers and the like. Yet the WSJ (Marketwatch here) summed it up...

"A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of Americans paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19% in 2007, the last year when data were available. The top 5% of earners paid an average rate of less than 18%. There are ways and means to minimize tax -- like calling your income "capital gains." That's what private equity honchos do, where possible. In many cases, it means people making tens of millions a year are paying lower tax rates than their chauffeurs and receptionists.

So above are the most recent numbers summarized...and unlike less affluent quintiles, we aren't talking about $5,000 here. Again, say what you will...but there is absolutely no question that there are many tax advantages that allow the rich to frequently get out of paying full taxes. How does one get a private jet? You never buy one out of your personal income...start a company and it buys it for you.

The article goes on to expand on income inequity in the US is very wide compared to other countries...the gap is more than that of Russia and as extreme as Zimbabwe. I still am of the opinion that actual tax rates are about where they should be...but as I've said all along, there is still waay too much complaining that the rich are over taxed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-hom...love_money&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=

The 19% income tax rate PAID remains the highest for all groups (CBO Data) and the overall effective tax rate is 31% which is again the highest percentage. That top 1% is currently paying 28% of the fed tax. All the numbers I've posted and now the numbers you've posted show that the rich pay at a greater rate and pay out a greater portion of their income. This pretty much shoots down your theory of

The real situation is that frequently these folks don't pay taxes because they have writeoffs and the best advice that money can buy to avoid paying taxes.

Now....as to the $50K.....to quote Judge Smails "Well, we're waiting!"

 

[Kepler]

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

That top 1% is currently paying 28% of the fed tax.

That in itself could just mean the top 1% has that much higher an income. Of just as, or greater, importance than the diminishing of the progressiveness of the tax structure is the increase in income inequality since the early 1980's.

There are two things going on: lower absolute tax rates on the high brackets, and greater relative concentration of income in those brackets. Either of these alone is not enough to trigger deficits, but the two in combination guarantee them.

 

[LynahFan]

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

That in itself could just mean the top 1% has that much higher an income. Of just as, or greater, importance than the diminishing of the progressiveness of the tax structure is the increase in income inequality since the early 1980's.

There are two things going on: lower absolute tax rates on the highest bracket, and greater relative concentration of income in that bracket. Either of these alone is not enough to trigger deficits, but the two in combination guarantee them.

Nothing "guarantees" deficits, if Congress would set spending levels commensurate with total tax revenues. It's not as if the tax rates are dreamed up in a vacuum. Congress has a darn good idea of how income is distributed and therefore what revenue will result from any tax scheme - progressive, regressive, aggressive, excessive, and any other -essive you care to name.

All they have to do to avoid deficits is spend less than that, but it's more fun for them to pretend that they're Santa Claus, handing out "free" goodies to all the boys and girls whose votes they want to buy.

 

[Kepler]

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

Nothing "guarantees" deficits, if Congress would set spending levels commensurate with total tax revenues. It's not as if the tax rates are dreamed up in a vacuum. Congress has a darn good idea of how income is distributed and therefore what revenue will result from any tax scheme - progressive, regressive, aggressive, excessive, and any other -essive you care to name.

All they have to do to avoid deficits is spend less than that, but it's more fun for them to pretend that they're Santa Claus, handing out "free" goodies to all the boys and girls whose votes they want to buy.

"Guarantee" in the practical sense. In the sense that if you discover oil under your land and you have a weaker army than your neighbor, it guarantees a "humanitarian intervention on behalf of democracy."

But your second point could as easily be turned the other way:

All they have to do to avoid deficits is collect the revenue to match the spending people want, but it's more fun for them to pretend that they're Santa Claus, handing out "free" tax cuts to all the boys and girls whose campaign contributions keep them in office.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

The 19% income tax rate PAID remains the highest for all groups (CBO Data) and the overall effective tax rate is 31% which is again the highest percentage. That top 1% is currently paying 28% of the fed tax. All the numbers I've posted and now the numbers you've posted show that the rich pay at a greater rate and pay out a greater portion of their income. This pretty much shoots down your theory of

Now....as to the $50K.....to quote Judge Smails "Well, we're waiting!"

You accused me of 'being wrong' on...

The real situation is that frequently these folks don't pay taxes because they have writeoffs and the best advice that money can buy to avoid paying taxes.

...which you've failed to prove, again and again. So now your changing the subject to something else?

Income of the top 5%... $611k. The difference of the original bracket tax of 31% minus the effective tax of 18% equals taxes of $80k in income with no tax. Is this the point where you say you don't understand...or where you change the subject?

...and regarding the data, I take Wall Street Journals interpretation over yours...sorry.

"A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of Americans paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19% in 2007, the last year when data were available. The top 5% of earners paid an average rate of less than 18%."

- WSJ

 

[unofan]

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

Duh! The reason they have all that money is that they pay accountants and tax lawyers to make sure that the taxable income is as low as possible while the cash deposits to ye olde checking account are as high as possible. The Average Citizen does not have access to these resources.

I am not advocating higher taxes -- though it would employ more accountants and tax lawyers. We need something better that taxes everything with no deductions for anything and a low tax rates.

Or, better yet, tax consumption and not income. Everybody has to buy -- not everyone has to pay taxes.

Consumption taxes hurt poor people more than rich people for a variety of reasons. When the luxury tax was around, the rich simply stopped buying yachts. Guess who that hurt most? Not the rich, but the ironworkers making the yachts, who suddenly found themselves laid off.

 

[unofan]

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

Income of the top 5%... $611k. The difference of the original bracket tax of 31% minus the effective tax of 18% equals taxes of $80k in income with no tax. Is this the point where you say you don't understand...or where you change the subject?

Once again, you're doing it wrong.

For one, marginal tax rates means no one will ever pay the full 39%, simply because regardless of your final tax bracket, you still only pay 10% on your first $8,000(or so) of income, and 15% of the next however many thousand, and so on.

I could make 10 bajillion dollars, with no writeoffs, loopholes, or corporate schemes, and still not pay the full sticker price thanks to the graduated system along with the standard deduction.

Now if you're saying the rich get off easier because they use capital gains rates instead of personal income rates, then that's a wholly separate discussion. I'll note however that they still pay taxes on all capital gains (and thus are not getting $50k tax free), they just do so at a lesser rate. Presumably that money should have been taxed already at the corporate level as well, thereby making things essentially a wash, though I know in reality loopholes prevent full collection at both points.

 

[MinnFan]

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

Consumption taxes hurt poor people more than rich people for a variety of reasons. When the luxury tax was around, the rich simply stopped buying yachts. Guess who that hurt most? Not the rich, but the ironworkers making the yachts, who suddenly found themselves laid off.

This is a tax on everything so you can't pick and choose what you are taxed on. The luxury tax was only on a few specific items from one state. People either bought something else or went elsewhere to buy it. Money is only worth something if it is spent. Eventually the rich will be using it to purchase items. Until then, it will be invested and work to grow the economy.

Personally I don't care if we switch to a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax, but we need to make the change away from the income and corporate tax because it doesn't work and its leaving the country at a competitive disadvantage.

 

[unofan]

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

This is a tax on everything so you can't pick and choose what you are taxed on.

Sure they can. You can choose not to buy things ("The only winning move is not to play"). Rich people don't need to spend as much of their income as poor and middle class people. Instead of money, time will become the ultimate luxury good. (which isn't necessarily a horrible thing in the grand scheme of things, since this country's work-life balance is way out of whack).

There's a distinct incentive for them not to continue spending, too. They stop spending, the economy goes into the toilet, people blame the consumption tax, and in a few years it's repealed and the income tax is reinstituted. They suddenly have tons of money that they first earned, and can now spend, tax free.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Income of the top 5%... $611k. The difference of the original bracket tax of 31% minus the effective tax of 18% equals taxes of $80k in income with no tax. Is this the point where you say you don't understand...or where you change the subject?

Wow - I guess it is comedy gold FTW. When the top tax rate is 31%, NOBODY EXPECTS ANY INDIVIDUAL TO PAY 31% OF THEIR TOTAL INCOME IN TAXES. How are you not getting that? You're comparing taxes on "the rich" to a benchmark that doesn't exist.

...and regarding the data, I take Wall Street Journals interpretation over yours...sorry.

"A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of Americans paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19% in 2007, the last year when data were available. The top 5% of earners paid an average rate of less than 18%."

- WSJ

Right, and the next 4% of earners paid around 17%, the next ten percent paid only around 16% and so on. Every single group of people paid a higher percentage of their income than people who made less than they did. Period.

If you want to argue that the top earners should pay an even higher percentage than they are - fine. But you're implying that they're somehow cheating the system, when, in fact, they're simply playing by "the system" as created by Congress? If you don't like the system, rant against Congress, not the people who are playing honestly within their rules.

 

[Patman]

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

This is a tax on everything so you can't pick and choose what you are taxed on.

If a company is purchased for 4.2 billion dollars will the purchaser be taxed? If you buy a stock for $112/share will it be taxed?

There are no miracles here... things do things.

edit: the irony here is that you're essentially stuck to arguing for a VAT.

 

[LynahFan]

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

But your second point could as easily be turned the other way:

All they have to do to avoid deficits is collect the revenue to match the spending people want, but it's more fun for them to pretend that they're Santa Claus, handing out "free" tax cuts to all the boys and girls whose campaign contributions keep them in office.

Absolutely. I have no issue with looking at the coin from this side, either.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Once again, you're doing it wrong.

For one, marginal tax rates means no one will ever pay the full 39%, simply because regardless of your final tax bracket, you still only pay 10% on your first $8,000(or so) of income, and 15% of the next however many thousand, and so on.

I could make 10 bajillion dollars, with no writeoffs, loopholes, or corporate schemes, and still not pay the full sticker price thanks to the graduated system along with the standard deduction.

Valid...but it doesn't change the point. For the top 5% and an income of $611k, fully 72% of income is at a 33% or 35% bracket. That will put the real 18% tax paid a far cry from the tax that was origiinally levied whether its 34% or 30%....the rich are still saving tons off their taxes.

 

[busterman62]

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

You accused me of 'being wrong' on...

The real situation is that frequently these folks don't pay taxes because they have writeoffs and the best advice that money can buy to avoid paying taxes.

...which you've failed to prove, again and again. So now your changing the subject to something else?

Income of the top 5%... $611k. The difference of the original bracket tax of 31% minus the effective tax of 18% equals taxes of $80k in income with no tax. Is this the point where you say you don't understand...or where you change the subject?

...and regarding the data, I take Wall Street Journals interpretation over yours...sorry.

"A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the top 1% of Americans paid an average federal income tax rate of just 19% in 2007, the last year when data were available. The top 5% of earners paid an average rate of less than 18%."

- WSJ

I had a really snarky reply all typed out but I just can't bring myself to post it. After re-reading all your posts concerning this, I've come to the conclusion that you're not trying to be obstinate, you just simply don't understand this stuff. I'm sorry.

 

[MinnFan]

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

If a company is purchased for 4.2 billion dollars will the purchaser be taxed? If you buy a stock for $112/share will it be taxed?

There are no miracles here... things do things.

edit: the irony here is that you're essentially stuck to arguing for a VAT.

Only items bought at the retail level are taxed. Check out the Fair Tax Book for a good explaination.

A VAT is a different animal. It taxes at each level of production. It also doesn't repeal the income tax or have a prebate for the taxes required up to the poverty level.