U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 11-07-2011, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Home of the Braves
699 posts, read 334,604 times
Reputation: 534

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigers84 View Post
IRS data (for 2008)
- Top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the USG (federal only).
- Top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%.
- Top 0.1%, with incomes of $2 million or more, pay a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because more incomecomes from investments
- Median-income household ($35,000) pays 4% of its income in federal income tax.
Yeah, given that this is for federal taxes, it would seem to match up pretty well with my pretty chart. I'm glad our sources agree. Of course, our tax system isn't limited to federal taxes, and it's the state and local taxes that are most regressive. That's precisely why I quarelled with your assertion that our tax system is highly progressive.

Quote:
So your real beef is that the the next 4 percentile pays SLIGHTLY less than the top 1%..Ok...
I don't have a "beef." My claim is that the regressivity at the upper end of the income scale is a rather obvious counterpoint to your claim that our tax system is "highly progressive." That will still be my claim no matter how many times you try to change it into something else you'd rather argue against.

I've said before and I'll say it again: I'd like taxes to be as low as possible while still providing our government the revenue it needs to provide the public goods and services we want. That revenue was sufficient by the late 1990s. Then we passed a temporary tax cut that blew a hole in our balance sheet, so now we should let that temporary tax cut expire.

Of course, you're certainly free to try to convince the majority of Americans that they should desire far fewer public goods and services than they currently do in order to sustain historically low tax rates on corporations and billionaires. You have a lot of work to do, and I wish you ill luck and every misfortune.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2011, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,825 posts, read 2,405,655 times
Reputation: 1498
This is your arguement? My gosh...

Are you really a libertarian? Or do you just rehash talking points fed to you by certain media outlets?

Quote:
Originally Posted by muxBuppie View Post
conservative = neocon. But I am sure you will pretend you did not know this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 06:29 AM
 
906 posts, read 745,413 times
Reputation: 1889
When Occupy Wall Street formed, I was excited. I think it was a good outlet for people, especially young people, to protest the greed and corruption of the financial industry, which sent this country into a tailspin. Gradually, though, it morphed into protesting a little bit of everything, which I think diluted the cause. I'm for gay and animal rights, but don't see what these two things have to do with the original movement.

But now they have completely lost me.

Occupy Atlanta comes to Snellville to stop foreclosure *| ajc.com

An organizer said:

"This family is the perfect example of the fraud going on in the mortgage and banking industries," said Latron Price, one of Occupy Atlanta's organizers. "We plan to shed light on the foreclosure issue and we look to make a stand here."

But the Gwinnett paper shed more light on this:

Gwinnett | Occupy Atlanta protestors set up shop in foreclosed Snellville home

So this is a perfect example of fraud in the mortgage and banking industries? The family deliberately stopped paying their mortgage because a con artist convinced them to do so to get a loan restructure. They haven't paid for a year! They had the money to keep paying, but stopped. I don't understand if the con artist worked for a legitimate mortgage company or bank---if s/he did, then of course that IS fraud. But if it was some random person working on their own, I don't see how that is the fault of the mortgage and banking industry.

And don't even get me started on how scary it is that a police officer could fall for a con artist.....

Wouldn't it have been better for OccupyAtlanta to showcase a family who couldn't pay because of job loss and health care bills? Or better yet, a truly fraudulent case where the mortgage holder did something unethical? Does OccupyAtlanta really think that no one should be foreclosed on when they stop paying their mortgage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,825 posts, read 2,405,655 times
Reputation: 1498
After reading your incredibly informative communique with another poster, it's starting to become more clear why there are not too many progressives blogging on the internet. The reality is a lot of us don't need to be convinced and reconvinced why our views make sense...we have a whole human history of regressive totalitarian rule & the unfortunate suffering imposed upon innocents that proves why the only course for humanity is forwards, not backwards.

But then...you have an interesting segment of the human population who aren't really so much about the idea of having less-government...as they are about stopping change when it takes power and influence from themselves and empowers others up to the same level. I get the feeling that these certain groups of people almost insistently need a Goebbels-like format to constantly convince themselves that this regressive mindset is somehow moral and correct.

Unfortunately, these folks practically need the internet to expose their hatred for change that they otherwise would not reveal in polite company. True progressives have no need for the corporate media to bring voice to their values. There is also no need on our part to argue with regressive-minded people who refuse to even debate the pros & cons of policy point-by-point.

Thanks Cameron H.

You've done more than your fair share to show on the city-data Atlanta forum why the only way is forward. Take ten and have a beer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H View Post
Yeah, given that this is for federal taxes, it would seem to match up pretty well with my pretty chart. I'm glad our sources agree. Of course, our tax system isn't limited to federal taxes, and it's the state and local taxes that are most regressive. That's precisely why I quarelled with your assertion that our tax system is highly progressive.



I don't have a "beef." My claim is that the regressivity at the upper end of the income scale is a rather obvious counterpoint to your claim that our tax system is "highly progressive." That will still be my claim no matter how many times you try to change it into something else you'd rather argue against.

I've said before and I'll say it again: I'd like taxes to be as low as possible while still providing our government the revenue it needs to provide the public goods and services we want. That revenue was sufficient by the late 1990s. Then we passed a temporary tax cut that blew a hole in our balance sheet, so now we should let that temporary tax cut expire.

Of course, you're certainly free to try to convince the majority of Americans that they should desire far fewer public goods and services than they currently do in order to sustain historically low tax rates on corporations and billionaires. You have a lot of work to do, and I wish you ill luck and every misfortune.

Last edited by AcidSnake; 11-08-2011 at 06:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,762 posts, read 10,063,228 times
Reputation: 3286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H View Post
Well, first, let's pretend "they" are not making it up. Explain to me how someone is paying 50% in income taxes.
Oh...it is a VERY real possibility, especially for someone who is single with no children. I am the sole income in my household (2 adults and 3 children) and when you consider payroll taxes, federal income taxes, state income taxes, and easily quantified taxes such as county and state property taxes, my total tax burden (not even counting sales taxes paid) is about 35 to 40% (higher some years). Again...that's with all kinds of charitable and other deductions and 4 dependents besides me.

My federal income tax burden alone, with AMT, is more somewhere between 25 and 30%....NET of all deductions and exemptions. Add about 5.5% for Georgia on top of that and my income tax paid is around 30 to 35% of my gross. Add SS and Medicare on top of that for the max amount for those...around $7K per year.

I have single colleagues at work who I'm sure easily reach 50% or higher for tax burden.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
714 posts, read 366,917 times
Reputation: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H View Post
Yeah, given that this is for federal taxes, it would seem to match up pretty well with my pretty chart. I'm glad our sources agree. Of course, our tax system isn't limited to federal taxes, and it's the state and local taxes that are most regressive. That's precisely why I quarelled with your assertion that our tax system is highly progressive.
You ignored my data from the CBO. As Dana Carvey might say, how conveniennttttt....LOL

Our sources do agree that the system is highly progressive up until the upper income levels. Then it becomes very mildly regressive based on lower rates for dividends and capital gains. Again, the lower tax rates on these encourage capital investment and creation -- good things! They also assist retirees, of less (and more) economic means, with their retirement living needs. How terrible

Look, you want to make the tax system less complex, remove all the complicated loopholes and offsets, be my guest. Most conservatives are very much for that, as evidenced by Cain's popularity vis a vis 999.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H View Post
I don't have a "beef." My claim is that the regressivity at the upper end of the income scale is a rather obvious counterpoint to your claim that our tax system is "highly progressive." That will still be my claim no matter how many times you try to change it into something else you'd rather argue against.
Totally false. Even your (questionnable) data supports that the system is highly progressive up until the very highest incomes, and then its not, just barely, only because of lower rates on investment-based income. Again, you want to simplify the system, all conservatives support that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron H View Post
I've said before and I'll say it again: I'd like taxes to be as low as possible while still providing our government the revenue it needs to provide the public goods and services we want. That revenue was sufficient by the late 1990s. Then we passed a temporary tax cut that blew a hole in our balance sheet, so now we should let that temporary tax cut expire.

Of course, you're certainly free to try to convince the majority of Americans that they should desire far fewer public goods and services than they currently do in order to sustain historically low tax rates on corporations and billionaires. You have a lot of work to do, and I wish you ill luck and every misfortune.
I have absolutely no way of convincing the majority of americans of anything. I am not running for office!

The system of issuing debt on behalf of unsustainable social programs, wealth redistribution/"enhancement" policies and fulfilling otherwise impossible to deliver on Govt "promises" was always a canard and a disaster just waiting for a iceberg. We got that iceberg with the housing burst. Now, americans will have to accept less public goods and services, just like Europe. My salesmanship is irrelevant. Reality is a Bi***.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidSnake View Post
...we have a whole human history of regressive totalitarian rule & the unfortunate suffering imposed upon innocents that proves...
Im not sure what this is. A wholesale castigation and indictment of western civilization? Sure...Without it no doubt we would have EVERYTHING we have today, with regards expanded life expectancies, ease of lifestyles, obesity rather than malnutrition blah blah blah. If only we can rid the world of the white man's culture all will be well, eh Snakey-poo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidSnake View Post
...
But then...you have an interesting segment of the human population who ...are about stopping change when it takes power and influence from themselves and empowers others up to the same level. I get the feeling that these certain groups of people almost insistently need a Goebbels-like format to constantly convince themselves that this regressive mindset is somehow moral and correct.
Fantastic -- Snakey-poo works in a nazi analogy! That is some great outside the box thinking!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidSnake View Post
...

Unfortunately, these folks practically need the internet to expose their hatred for change that they otherwise would not reveal in polite company. True progressives have no need for the corporate media to bring voice to their values. There is also no need on our part to argue with regressive-minded people who refuse to even debate the pros & cons of policy point-by-point.
Personally, I express my views in polite company all the time, and am greeted with back slaps, kudos and hallelulahs!

Quote:
Originally Posted by neil0311 View Post
Oh...it is a VERY real possibility, especially for someone who is single with no children.
I have single colleagues at work who I'm sure easily reach 50% or higher for tax burden.
Absolutely correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muxBuppie View Post
I'm big enough to admit this was a good post.
Thanks for the kudo! We may not agree on everything, but we do have some common ground, for sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcsteiner View Post
Wow... So you want to encourage companies to monopolize a market and push everyone else down the tubes like Standard Oil, Ma Bell, IBM in the 70's, Microsoft in the 90's and today, etc.?

Modern day robber barons working outside existing law are okay with you?
IBM and Microsoft pushed everyone down the tubes? I could have sworn they created enormous wealth, jobs and prosperity for millions...LOL

In a word, YES! IBM and Microsoft are great examples of companies that had what seemed an insurmountable market advantage. Then they got soft and lazy and the FREE MARKET knocked them off their high horse. They are still around, but do not dominate or dictate in the marketplace. Because of competition! Apple and HP and Dell did more for the average consumer than the govt could have ever.

Robber Barons is a narrative construct used by the left to villify success. Success is good! Those that truly are bad people eventually get their due. Karma is a more powerful force than any man-made created govt regulatory structure.

Of course true wrong doers / law breakers should be punished. But wild success come by honestly should not!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 10:39 AM
 
864 posts, read 405,016 times
Reputation: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidSnake View Post
After reading your incredibly informative communique with another poster, it's starting to become more clear why there are not too many progressives blogging on the internet. The reality is a lot of us don't need to be convinced and reconvinced why our views make sense...we have a whole human history of regressive totalitarian rule & the unfortunate suffering imposed upon innocents that proves why the only course for humanity is forwards, not backwards.

But then...you have an interesting segment of the human population who aren't really so much about the idea of having less-government...as they are about stopping change when it takes power and influence from themselves and empowers others up to the same level. I get the feeling that these certain groups of people almost insistently need a Goebbels-like format to constantly convince themselves that this regressive mindset is somehow moral and correct.

Unfortunately, these folks practically need the internet to expose their hatred for change that they otherwise would not reveal in polite company. True progressives have no need for the corporate media to bring voice to their values. There is also no need on our part to argue with regressive-minded people who refuse to even debate the pros & cons of policy point-by-point.

Thanks Cameron H.

You've done more than your fair share to show on the city-data Atlanta forum why the only way is forward. Take ten and have a beer.
Trust I express my hate for socialist change any resonable chance I get in real life. Everyone isnt looking for the U.S. to be North Korea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Home of the Braves
699 posts, read 334,604 times
Reputation: 534
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigers84 View Post
You ignored my data from the CBO. As Dana Carvey might say, how conveniennttttt....LOL
That's because you posted data for different years using a different set of income groups. The 2007 data from the CBO doesn't contradict anything I posted, but the use of different income groups from your IRS data and the data I posted makes the comparison more difficult.

Quote:
Our sources do agree that the system is highly progressive up until the upper income levels.
No. First, your data doesn't include local and state taxes, which are the most regressive parts of our tax system. You can't convenieeeeennntly leave out the regressive components and then dub the system "highly progressive." I mean, you can, but everyone here knows what bull***** smells like.

Second, we can all discuss what counts as "highly progressive," but surely we can agree that a system that is REGRESSIVE at one end of the income spectrum isn't "highly progressive"? It might be "overall somewhat progressive" or "modestly progressive for most taxpayers," but "highly progressive" is flatly contradictory.

Quote:
Then it becomes very mildly regressive based on lower rates for dividends and capital gains. Again, the lower tax rates on these encourage capital investment and creation -- good things! They also assist retirees, of less (and more) economic means, with their retirement living needs. How terrible
Yes, because historically the capital gains tax rate has had such a profound effect on investment decisions. Here's another pretty chart for you:



All things being equal, I'd prefer to tax other things than work and investment, but I'm not going to pretend that (even if it weren't a political fantasy) it would have any profound effect on investment and productivity. The kinds of tax rates that are "in play" in this country just don't vary enough to make a noticeable difference.

Quote:
Totally false. Even your (questionnable) data supports that the system is highly progressive up until the very highest incomes, and then its not, just barely, only because of lower rates on investment-based income. Again, you want to simplify the system, all conservatives support that.
LOL. You still haven't explained why my data is "questionnable" (sic). In any case, it does not show that our tax system is "highly progressive;" it shows that it's modestly progressive except for those parts of the income spectrum where it is actually REGRESSIVE. Good grief.

Quote:
Now, americans will have to accept less public goods and services, just like Europe. My salesmanship is irrelevant. Reality is a Bi***.
Actually, the reality is that entitlement spending will NOT be cut and taxes WILL increase to the tune of about $3.6 trillion over 10 years unless Congress and the President come to an agreement prior to the end of 2012. Do you think that's going to happen? That's the reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
9,913 posts, read 14,695,520 times
Reputation: 2748
Quote:
Originally Posted by muxBuppie View Post
Bell was a government supported monopoly. Those other companies are giants in their industry but weren't 100% of the market.
You seem to have totally missed the point. All of the companies I mentioned were destroying their competition at will because of their strong positions, and were stopped from completely claiming the market by the feds, either through anti-trust prosecution or (in the case of IBM) the threat of such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2011, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
9,913 posts, read 14,695,520 times
Reputation: 2748
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigers84 View Post
IBM and Microsoft pushed everyone down the tubes? I could have sworn they created enormous wealth, jobs and prosperity for millions...LOL
Wow. Dude, you obviously don't follow the tech industry. I live in it.

IBM destroyed the BUNCH (Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, CDC, and Honeywell) in the mainframe days through illegal bundling of software and services with their hardware, Microsoft's feats of manipulation and law-skirting are legion, etc.

"Free market knocked them off their high horse" my ass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top