Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I think the part that's missing here is what happened to the income of the bottom half in dollars in real terms over the period. I am certain that it has actually increased. This is the great conflict around the idea of what is "fair" in terms of income distribution. Is it more fair to have a rising income, but a smaller share of the total, or is it more fair to have a large percentage of the total, but a stable or declining income? I think most people would say they would rather have more money, regardless of the portion of the total it represents. Would you not agree?
Glen, in REAL terms, the income of the poorest people has declined. The Federal "poverty" level has not changed in over 30 years. In terms of inflated income--income that is adjusted for inflation, the poorest have suffered most of all. Higher income individuals are making more, and the decreasing middle class is making just slightly more than they did 30 years ago.
Never made a million. Did over a third though 20 years ago.
Never complained about the taxes. Doubt that has changed.
Soaking the rich is easy...they are proud of it.
So then it's not really about economics, but about revenge on a group who has accumulated more material goods than you.
See guys, everybody is rich to somebody else. There are plenty of people who are more than willing to make those who make $50-100k a year pay more. I don't know why you're so unwilling to sip from the same cup you offer. It would seem more fair to me if everybody paid more. Shared sacrifice.
So then it's not really about economics, but about revenge on a group who has accumulated more material goods than you.
See guys, everybody is rich to somebody else. There are plenty of people who are more than willing to make those who make $50-100k a year pay more. I don't know why you're so unwilling to sip from the same cup you offer. It would seem more fair to me if everybody paid more. Shared sacrifice.
Nonsense. I was in the top 2% if not the top 1% and was paying those taxes without a beef.
It is a matter of socio-economics. You go where the money is and where the political price is lowest. It also taxes monies less likely to be spent. I would also tax capital gains as income. Same rational.
If that is not enough you go after the top 20%. Again the money is there and you get it with lower political pain.
I would also cap deductions and extend the payroll taxes to all income.
The cutting has to be on a long term basis. Half as much GDP to the defense dept in 20 years. Up the age requirement for SS and medicare.
Nonsense. I was in the top 2% if not the top 1% and was paying those taxes without a beef.
It is a matter of socio-economics. You go where the money is and where the political price is lowest. It also taxes monies less likely to be spent. I would also tax capital gains as income. Same rational.
If that is not enough you go after the top 20%. Again the money is there and you get it with lower political pain.
I would also cap deductions and extend the payroll taxes to all income.
The cutting has to be on a long term basis. Half as much GDP to the defense dept in 20 years. Up the age requirement for SS and medicare.
Ivoc, I see some of your ideas, but I'd rather see a solution that improves lot of the underclass, not one that makes the rich poorer just because it's politically expedient.
If we're going to raise taxes, let's raise them. Sure the true poor deserve a break, but the wealthy and the middle class need to both be included. That not only promotes a fairer solution , but if you look at the income tables I linked to a ways back, the middle class is where the income is, not the top 1%. Screw the politically expedient solution talk. That's what got us where we are.
Slash government spending, and simplify the tax system. We should eliminate the social security and Medicare "payroll" taxes, enter your enter your income on line 1, subtract an amount that would allow the poorest to be exempt, and multiply the result by x%. Everybody pays. No deductions. No loopholes. No targeting one group or another. One burden shared by one people.
There does not appear to be anything inconsistent between the two sources. You just need to read the fine print. They might conflict..but not with the data presented.
Want to share that fine print with me? I'm a little slow picking up your drift...keep in mind that American Pie or whomever (actually a lobbying group whose Oregon website was linked) telescopes fifty years of rates onto their graph, and the Tax Institute deals with current rates by way of clarifying the actual taxes paid...
Quote:
As a practical matter the overall tax load on all has gone down substantially over the last 30 years with the rich making out most and the low income making out least.
As a practical matter, low income people pay little or no taxes. That hasn't changed -- and it's as it should be. Are you arguing that we need to raise the tax rate on people who earn most and simply transfer the income to those who earn least? (I'm not trying to start a quarrel -- I just want to know where you stand...)
That's not true...they only buy super expensive cars...not minivans en-mass! The rich buy expensive items, which are NOT mass produced by American hands = job creation, and not sold bulk either, and nobody died from not having a 50 million dollar yacht! let's be serious here.
They don't buy anything that makes the economy run!
Paint is cheap...watch some HGTV, you'll redecorate for very cheap very quickly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2
The one big thing about increasing the tax on the rich, is that it means that they just cut down on buying stuff. That "stuff" is what makes jobs for a lot of people. Cars, furniture, houses, swimming pools, clothes, etc. Its the kind of things that people like me make last and last because we can't afford to buy more. They even do things like redecorating and new paint on the walls. It's been 20 years since we bought paint. What would happen to all the painters if everyone did as we do?
Let's not; IF they'll be more jobless then it is crystal clear that they practice extortion on mass! Once you become successful in business it doesn't mean that now it is time to kick those who worked for you, and made you rich to the curb! On the contrary this is when you increase their salaries as a THANK YOU for making me & my company so successful! This is why I said many times that all these high employers need to be regulated by the Gov and not allowed to get away with that kind of crap. Or give themselves bonuses and those who actually DO the work the boot! Its about commons sense. Too bad so many have been vaccinated against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2
Let's give a cheer for the Rich! They make it possible for the rest of us to earn a salary. If they have to pay more taxes, There will be more without jobs... more people be eligible for government handouts. As long as the Rich have money, they will spend it.
Their focus is misplaced, the only reason we have rich ppl and middle and poor classes is because some of PERSONALITY traits! Some can lead, and some cannot, but that does not give them the right to extort those who cannot lead. They should not be allowed to move money away. Plus its not just the taxes, it is the tax exemptions like they make a larger donation, and they get exempt from paying! That too needs to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padgett2
However, there are too many dodges for the rich. Off shore accounts, certain tax exemptions, things like that. Tax should be fair. It shouldn't favor the Rich.
Want to share that fine print with me? I'm a little slow picking up your drift...keep in mind that American Pie or whomever (actually a lobbying group whose Oregon website was linked) telescopes fifty years of rates onto their graph, and the Tax Institute deals with current rates by way of clarifying the actual taxes paid...
As a practical matter, low income people pay little or no taxes. That hasn't changed -- and it's as it should be. Are you arguing that we need to raise the tax rate on people who earn most and simply transfer the income to those who earn least? (I'm not trying to start a quarrel -- I just want to know where you stand...)
They are measuring different things. Federal Taxes versus income taxes...and in different years.
The NY Times has a reasonable site to deals with it...
The low income tax burden is around 20% of income. Again see the NY Times site. Note they are the only ones who have not made gains over the last 30 years.
No I am not arguing for redistribution though some of that occurs. I am arguing for going where the money is and the pain is lowest.
A couple points to respond to different things being discussed here.
First, I don't think taxing 1% was (and is) anything but a political move to back up the liberal's efforts (and effective efforts at that) of creating not just class warfare, but class jealousy. It is now evil to be successful, regardless of how that success was achieved. As already proven here, that tax increase for the 1% won't even close 1/2 of the gap the liberal (and conservative) government spends in deficit every year. All it does is make those who bought into class warfare happy that someone besides them is miserable. Misery loves company - so, instead of fixing the real issue which is spending more than we're taking in in taxes, we'll **** people off... make them jealous... demonize someone else... then go after the demon. I am just saddened that there are people so ignorant as to buy into that philosophy.
Secondly, instead of taxing 1%, why not tax 100%? If people want to scream "fair" then be fair. If everyone paid $1, that's $311(+) million a year. Simple math could set levels based on income and determine a pre-shelter amount based on which economic group an individual fits into. Thus, people that are living solely on government money don't get to double-dip come April 15th - first by getting free money (which is actually earned money... just earned by someone else), secondly by getting all that money back after April 15th. Everyone pays taxes... and it's pre-shelter determined, we working on closing loopholes for the wealthy, and we work on spending not more than we bring in, and we'll be better off for it.
Third... why did we start taxation? I may be wrong about this (admittedly), but it was to pay those that administer to the purpose behind the creation of our government. As far as I can tell, that is to protect the rights of the individual and to protect the sovereignty of our nation (militarily). So, we should be only taxing what is needed to achieve those purposes and to compensate those in government who adminster what is needed to ensure those (SCOTUS, POTUS, Congress, military). When did it become the responsibility of the government to make sure people have rent, food, etc.? Why is it still that way? Too big to fail?
Taxation has evolved strongly over time to a behavior modification program. Because most people respond to incentives and disincentives, taxation is used to get us to do something - or reward us for doing things the government deems good. It of course is used for business also.
A radically simplified tax system focused on revenue instead of changing behavior would stop the distortion of economics. The government has decided that having children deserves a reward. Same with buying a house. Drilling for oil. Giving to charity.
And how much of our time is wasted responding to these incentives and disincentives? How much of government is tied to managing this mess?
Tax everyone's income above the bottom 20%. I'm OK with a small progression of tax rates. No deductions. Stop trying to equalize the cost of living between California and Arkansas. No deductions for state taxes. How much of California's tax policy relies on the fact that California income taxes can be deducted from the federal returns?
Phase this all in over ten years so those addicted to deductions has some chance to adjust.
Oh - and the federal government should start with a 10% across the board spending cut - every department. No one gets to argue "my funds are more important than yours." And no senator or congressman gets to plead his case.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
