Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-13-2013, 08:34 AM
 
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,075,936 times
Reputation: 8527

Advertisements

I feel sorry for the rich in this country, having to live paycheck to paycheck and all.

...oh wait...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2013, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,424,602 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
A VAT or only retail?

So then, if a consumption tax is paid only at the retail level (as is currently the case in US states) a corporation or anyone who could buy retail (or overseas) would never pay any tax. It would also have to be exceedingly high, and would be exceedingly regressive. The less you earned, the higher the proportion of tax you'd pay for essentials.

If the US instituted a VAT, the tax would be hidden--and could be much higher than most people realize, as well as uncontrollable.
no not a VAT

a replacement of the current...at the end user level....ie retail

www.fair-tax.org
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 08:55 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,799,023 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It wasn't a modification. He merely added a descriptor. Nowhere did he recant his assertion that they're paying a 30+% effective rate, an assertion I and others have already shown is impossible given actual IRS tax data and the income level and the marginal tax rates.
You might not read it as a modification (because that doesn't fit your argument), but I do (because it does fit my argument). And nonetheless, you go well beyond simply arguing that they don't pay a 30+% effective rate. You assert that they pay a much lower rate. Your assertion is based on NO direct information, NO facts. It's an unfounded extrapolation. Which is what I pointed out.

I don't know how large the checks these people pay.

But as I've stated on this thread, the thread entitled "The Rich Do Not Pay The Most Taxes, They Pay "ALL" The Taxes", that I'm not rich, but I certainly pay federal income taxes. So the thread title is false. Moreover, the philosophy behind it, that we overburden the rich with taxes is equally false. The rich were taxed at higher rates in the good old 50's (a golden age according to most conservatives), their tax burden has been lessened considerably over the intervening decades.

And contrary to the conservative meme, it is not the rich that create jobs. It's the middle class. Small business owners to this day offer the bulk of jobs in this country. And the OP's article, defining who is rich, is erroneous to begin with.

The conservative logic that operates in regards to the tax burden for the rich simply doesn't make sense. If it's the federal debt that needs to be reduced, then attacking that debt from both ends, increasing income (taxes) and decreasing spending, is the logical approach. Since increasing taxes on the middle-class, where the burden is the greatest already, where job creation really happens, is counter-productive, then increasing taxes on the rich is the only reasonable strategy. Then we run into the problem of determining who is rich. The Obama administration has not argued in any venue that $50,000 or below is rich. The $200,000 individual, $250,000 couple standard has been utilized in some cases, but even that isn't a hard and fast definition. It is conservative spin that $50,000 is such a standard, and that spin is meant to create fear and outrage, emotional reactions. I don't believe that fear is a good place to start formulating political policy. And I won't do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,410 posts, read 7,041,562 times
Reputation: 11658
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
So your argument is that income that you do nothing for should be tax free, while income that you actually work should be taxed.

Tons of family-owned businesses hire their children. That money is technically staying in the family. Explain why that income should be taxed, but income gotten from doing nothing shouldn't be.
kidkaos explained it better than I could, but the sentimate is the same.
And the concept does not change whether it's $5000, $50,000 or 5 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
In order for someone to will money to another person, they first have to earn that money. When the money was earned, it was taxed. So your characterization of inheritances as free income is disingenuous.

It's pretty simple. If a mother gives $100 to her daughter, that $100 was already taxed when she originally earned it. If you then tax the gift, you are double taxing the same money. If a mother employs her daughter and pays her $100, then that money is income, not a gift. In that situation the family arrangement is irrelevant and the $100 is payment made from an employer to an employee.
Thruth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:12 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,743 posts, read 44,561,469 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
A VAT or only retail?

So then, if a consumption tax is paid only at the retail level (as is currently the case in US states) a corporation or anyone who could buy retail (or overseas) would never pay any tax. It would also have to be exceedingly high, and would be exceedingly regressive.
Like European countries...



Other countries don’t have a "47%" - Washington Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:17 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,799,023 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300 View Post
kidkaos explained it better than I could, but the sentimate is the same.
And the concept does not change whether it's $5000, $50,000 or 5 million.



Thruth.
Thruth?

If a company pays its employees, the pay is taxed. But the money didn't come from the magic tree behind the business. The money is circulated through the economy, and taxed at almost every transaction. The idea that money should only be taxed once is nonsense. It's not the money being taxed. It's the transaction. And the concept certainly does change, depending on the amount. A transaction of a $100 gift, is simply a gift. A transaction of a $150,000 house is not just a gift. Large transfers have larger impacts, not just on the persons giving and receiving. And our tax laws reflect that reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:24 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,743 posts, read 44,561,469 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
I think each parent can give $14K. Any payments for their education would be tax deductible for the parents.
$40,000 exceeds the $28K (2 parents) gift limit. And $40,000 per year per college student tax deductions aren't allowed.

Quote:
Limits and Income Ranges for the Tuition and Fees Deduction


The maximum amount of the tuition and fees deduction you can claim is $4,000 per year per student. The deduction is further limited by the following income ranges:
  • $4,000 max per student for income up to $65,000 ($130,000 for joint filers);
  • $2,000 max per student for income over $65,000 and up to $80,000 ($160,000 for joint filers);
  • no deduction for income over $80,000 ($160,000 for joint filers).
Tuition and Fees Tax Deduction

There are different programs and rules now, but NONE of them allow anyone to deduct anywhere near tens of thousands of dollars per student per year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:28 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,743 posts, read 44,561,469 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
You might not read it as a modification (because that doesn't fit your argument), but I do (because it does fit my argument). And nonetheless, you go well beyond simply arguing that they don't pay a 30+% effective rate. You assert that they pay a much lower rate. Your assertion is based on NO direct information, NO facts.
On the contrary, it's based on the TOTALITY of the IRS's analysis of ALL of the U.S. federal income tax returns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:52 AM
 
18,792 posts, read 8,414,191 times
Reputation: 4125
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
$40,000 exceeds the $28K (2 parents) gift limit. And $40,000 per year per college student tax deductions aren't allowed.

Tuition and Fees Tax Deduction

There are different programs and rules now, but NONE of them allow anyone to deduct anywhere near tens of thousands of dollars per student per year.
Then what I would do is make it a loan, with terms so that future gifting can essentially pay off the debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2013, 09:54 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,799,023 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
On the contrary, it's based on the TOTALITY of the IRS's analysis of ALL of the U.S. federal income tax returns.
YOU DON'T KNOW THE SITUATIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT POSTER WAS TALKING ABOUT. SO ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THEIR TAX SITUATION IS NOT BASED ON ANY FACTS ABOUT THEM.
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:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top