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.
Nope. A family earning $24,000 would see their taxes increased by $500. A family earning $1 million will receive a $41,000 cut. It's there in the proposal. Not to mention the increased number of services who will have sales tax applied to them. That doesn't take into account the local property taxes that will likely go up to cover for the lost revenues. Understand what you are talking about before you make false claims.
...
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in taxes?
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in property taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in property taxes?
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in Social Security withholding?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in Social Security withholding?
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in sales taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in sales taxes?
It all reminds me of the recent presidential election where Romney was vilified for only paying $7 million in income taxes, since for those who would steal all wealth, there is never enough seized to assume a wealthy person has paid "their fair share."
It all reminds me of the recent presidential election where Romney was vilified for only paying $7 million in income taxes, since for those who would steal all wealth, there is never enough seized to assume a wealthy person has paid "their fair share."
The issue is what percentage of income people are charge on taxes. The Romney issue was a federal one. He is able to spend a far lower percentage of his income on taxes because he makes most of his money playing the stock market. People who actually work for their living pay a far higher percentage of their incomes on taxes. That is the issue with "fair share."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in taxes?
On the state level, there were 3 tax brackets - 6%, 7%, and 8%. The difference really wasn't that great. Do you really think it is fiscally responsible to take money away from people barely making ends meet while giving a massive tax break to those who have quite a bit? Who will pay for that loss in revenue? Who will pay for the increase in social services needed now that poor people can't make ends meet any longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in property taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in property taxes?
That is immaterial because its only related to income indirectly. But if you want to get in the thickets on this, the family making $24,000 is probably renting and is therefore paying their landlord's property tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in Social Security withholding?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in Social Security withholding?
No one pays more than about $7,000 in SS withholding per year. There's a maximum cap that only applies on $100,000 of income. That's a federal program any way, not really relevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in sales taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in sales taxes?
As a percentage of their income, the family making $24,000 pays quite a bit more in sales tax.
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in taxes?
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in property taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in property taxes?
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in Social Security withholding?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in Social Security withholding?
How much does the family earning $1 million pay in sales taxes?
How much does the family earning $24,000 pay in sales taxes?
It all reminds me of the recent presidential election where Romney was vilified for only paying $7 million in income taxes, since for those who would steal all wealth, there is never enough seized to assume a wealthy person has paid "their fair share."
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
The issue is what percentage of income people are charge on taxes. The Romney issue was a federal one. He is able to spend a far lower percentage of his income on taxes because he makes most of his money playing the stock market. People who actually work for their living pay a far higher percentage of their incomes on taxes. That is the issue with "fair share."
$$$$$$ not %%%%%%!
When I pop down to Food Lion and squeeze the Charmin, I don't pay %4.50 for a 12 pack. I pay $4.50.
Money is $, USD, dollars. % has no value.
The issue is per capita as well. Taxes are paid by people, one by one. How is it "fair" to look at percentages and not consider per capita?
The Romney issue pervades the discussion on all levels. It is an illustration of the repulsive basis of progressive taxation sales pitch to the voter bases across the nation. Vilify the rich, no matter what they pay. Because they can never pay enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
On the state level, there were 3 tax brackets - 6%, 7%, and 8%. The difference really wasn't that great. Do you really think it is fiscally responsible to take money away from people barely making ends meet while giving a massive tax break to those who have quite a bit? Who will pay for that loss in revenue? Who will pay for the increase in social services needed now that poor people can't make ends meet any longer.
The topic is taxation, not revenue and budget. We could raise more money quickly if we just seized retirement accounts. Revenue increases do not justify unfair taxation.
So a guy earning $1,000,000 or more could pay $80,000 in income tax, while another guy could pay $1440 in taxes, and we would vilify the guy who pays $80,000? Sheesh.
I'm not jealous of anyone's income, and don't encourage that we ever know what someone else earns. I consider it none of my business what you, Romney, or the guy next door earns.
Playing the percentage game plays to keep the jealousy tax system in place, when we can say that one who pays many many times more than another has failed to pay a fair share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
That is immaterial because its only related to income indirectly. But if you want to get in the thickets on this, the family making $24,000 is probably renting and is therefore paying their landlord's property tax.
To the point, the millionaire probably is paying property taxes on a more expensive property, or multiple properties, and contributing many, many times more to the tax base than the $24,000 earning renter.
In a property valued at 1 times annual earnings in Raleigh, NC, the $1 million earner pays about $9,166/year.
Commonly, the tenant in a $50,000 Raleigh apartment will support a property tax bill of about $450/year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
No one pays more than about $7,000 in SS withholding per year. There's a maximum cap that only applies on $100,000 of income. That's a federal program any way, not really relevant here.
This is the great disingenuousness of SS withholding.
Double your number by including the other half that an employee must earn for the employer to pay it. Having the employer submit half of it does not free the employee from earning it. If W2 employees recognize that they MUST earn the whole amount, plus a profit margin unless working for a non-profit employer, the lie of an employer paid portion of SS tax will evaporate.
And, that doesn't even include the self-employed, who certainly pay their SS tax directly, without an employer "share" masking half their contribution.
It is very relevant here. These are funds that could be used in the local capital economy. And, more to the point, the corrupt nature and lack of transparency of the tax system is revealed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coped
As a percentage of their income, the family making $24,000 pays quite a bit more in sales tax.
How much does a family making $24,000 pay in sales tax?
It is a dollar figure, not a percentage. Per capita, not politically philosophically.
If the entire $24,000 income is subject to sales tax, at 8%, we are talking about $1920/year.
If the millionaire spends 25% of his income in taxable purchases, we are talking about $20,000/year.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 07-04-2013 at 03:11 PM..
Noblesse oblige has its place, for sure. Of course, noblesse oblige is not commonly defined as using the force of gubmint for seizing the wealth of others.
$$$$$$ not %%%%%%!
When I pop down to Food Lion and squeeze the Charmin, I don't pay %4.50 for a 12 pack. I pay $4.50.
Money is $, USD, dollars. % has no value.
The issue is per capita as well. Taxes are paid by people, one by one. How is it "fair" to look at percentages and not consider per capita?
The Romney issue pervades the discussion on all levels. It is an illustration of the repulsive basis of progressive taxation sales pitch to the voter bases across the nation. Vilify the rich, no matter what they pay. Because they can never pay enough.
You can't seriously be comparing the complexity of managing a government to buying toilet paper! Percentages and progressive taxation are the only fair way to look at things. Percentages take into account ability to pay. Otherwise you're just talking about buying government. It's a ridiculous statement considering the history of countries with regressive taxation. You're also using "per capita" incorrectly here - that's an average of per-person tax burden.
The rich are paying much less than they historically have. The highest tax bracket during our best economic times in the 1950s and 1960s approached 91%. When millionaires are paying only 13 and 14% of their incomes in taxes while teachers pay 25% and 30%, this is not a sustainable or fair system.
The fact is that infrastructure and social programs make it possible for people to make money. Thus, those who benefit the most, who are the most fortunate, should certainly pay more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
The topic is taxation, not revenue and budget. We could raise more money quickly if we just seized retirement accounts. Revenue increases do not justify unfair taxation.
So a guy earning $1,000,000 or more could pay $80,000 in income tax, while another guy could pay $1440 in taxes, and we would vilify the guy who pays $80,000? Sheesh.
The purpose of taxation is revenue to pay for services. So, they are intimately entwined. You can't seriously talk about taxation without discussing budget and revenue. Don't make ridiculous statements. No one is vilifying anyone here. The simple fact is
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
I'm not jealous of anyone's income, and don't encourage that we ever know what someone else earns. I consider it none of my business what you, Romney, or the guy next door earns.
Playing the percentage game plays to keep the jealousy tax system in place, when we can say that one who pays many many times more than another has failed to pay a fair share.
Not knowing what other people make is a great way to get screwed in the marketplace. If you're not researching what your coworkers are making, you're probably making quite a bit less. Romney makes his money off publicly traded companies, so his compensation is public. This is as it should be. It keeps
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
To the point, the millionaire probably is paying property taxes on a more expensive property, or multiple properties, and contributing many, many times more to the tax base than the $24,000 earning renter.
In a property valued at 1 times annual earnings in Raleigh, NC, the $1 million earner pays about $9,166/year.
Commonly, the tenant in a $50,000 Raleigh apartment will support a property tax bill of about $450/year.
And thus that renter (assuming he makes $24,000) pays 1.8% of his income on property taxes and the millionaire pays .9% of his income in property taxes. One an ability to pay basis, the poorer person is paying a greater share of his income on property taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
This is the great disingenuousness of SS withholding.
Double your number by including the other half that an employee must earn for the employer to pay it. Having the employer submit half of it does not free the employee from earning it. If W2 employees recognize that they MUST earn the whole amount, plus a profit margin unless working for a non-profit employer, the lie of an employer paid portion of SS tax will evaporate.
And, that doesn't even include the self-employed, who certainly pay their SS tax directly, without an employer "share" masking half their contribution.
It is very relevant here. These are funds that could be used in the local capital economy. And, more to the point, the corrupt nature and lack of transparency of the tax system is revealed.
You are correct that the employer contribution.But you're being a bit too simplistic to think that there is a 100% correlation to an income effect simply because the employer pays that 6.2% on the payroll tax. The millionaire still pays not a dime of this over $100,000 income. So the millionaire pays a much smaller percentage of his/her income on social security than does the poorer person or the person making $100,000.
Furthermore, most of the very wealthy make money off of investments, which are not subject to payroll taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
How much does a family making $24,000 pay in sales tax?
It is a dollar figure, not a percentage. Per capita, not politically philosophically.
If the entire $24,000 income is subject to sales tax, at 8%, we are talking about $1920/year.
If the millionaire spends 25% of his income in taxable purchases, we are talking about $20,000/year.
You're injecting the political philosophy here, buddy, not me. The poor person is still contributing a greater share of his or her income than the wealthy person. That is an issue.
If you want government to be bought by the wealthy on a dollar figure basis, just come out and say it. Otherwise, progressive taxation is the only system that works fairly.
Noblesse oblige has its place, for sure. Of course, noblesse oblige is not commonly defined as using the force of gubmint for seizing the wealth of others.
True, true. But, you know folks are greedy.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
You can't seriously be comparing the complexity of managing a government to buying toilet paper! Percentages and progressive taxation are the only fair way to look at things. Percentages take into account ability to pay. Otherwise you're just talking about buying government. It's a ridiculous statement considering the history of countries with regressive taxation. You're also using "per capita" incorrectly here - that's an average of per-person tax burden.
The rich are paying much less than they historically have. The highest tax bracket during our best economic times in the 1950s and 1960s approached 91%. When millionaires are paying only 13 and 14% of their incomes in taxes while teachers pay 25% and 30%, this is not a sustainable or fair system.
The fact is that infrastructure and social programs make it possible for people to make money. Thus, those who benefit the most, who are the most fortunate, should certainly pay more.
The purpose of taxation is revenue to pay for services. So, they are intimately entwined. You can't seriously talk about taxation without discussing budget and revenue. Don't make ridiculous statements. No one is vilifying anyone here. The simple fact is
Not knowing what other people make is a great way to get screwed in the marketplace. If you're not researching what your coworkers are making, you're probably making quite a bit less. Romney makes his money off publicly traded companies, so his compensation is public. This is as it should be. It keeps
And thus that renter (assuming he makes $24,000) pays 1.8% of his income on property taxes and the millionaire pays .9% of his income in property taxes. One an ability to pay basis, the poorer person is paying a greater share of his income on property taxes.
You are correct that the employer contribution.But you're being a bit too simplistic to think that there is a 100% correlation to an income effect simply because the employer pays that 6.2% on the payroll tax. The millionaire still pays not a dime of this over $100,000 income. So the millionaire pays a much smaller percentage of his/her income on social security than does the poorer person or the person making $100,000.
Furthermore, most of the very wealthy make money off of investments, which are not subject to payroll taxes.
You're injecting the political philosophy here, buddy, not me. The poor person is still contributing a greater share of his or her income than the wealthy person. That is an issue.
If you want government to be bought by the wealthy on a dollar figure basis, just come out and say it. Otherwise, progressive taxation is the only system that works fairly.
Of course, we can talk about taxation schemes on an academic basis, without talking about revenue or government programs. It isn't hard at all, and can help reduce, or expose, the political attitudes.
Per capita may have been used better, agreed. I was thinking of the old "head taxes" in PA. Paid if I had a head. But, per capita, it is quite fair to say that the wealthy pay more in taxes, by far, than the poor, including capital gains on investments.
Romney was clearly vilified politically for only paying $7 million in income taxes.
Perhaps a standard of honesty is in order. Every time a politician or political tool whines about "fair share," they should have to disclaim that the wealthy clearly pay more in taxes, per capita, than do the poor or middle class.
"Fair share" and "fairness" are subjective and are unequivocally used as vote-buying political buzzwords.
I'm not jealous of the wealthy, or anyone who earns more than I do. It is absolutely none of my business what anyone earns, with few exceptions. We should pay teachers more, obviously. That public payroll IS my business, and I am dismayed at teacher salaries.
I certainly do not need to know anyone else's income so I might snivel to an employer for a better deal. If the employer is honoring my employment agreement and paying me as we agreed, I am not being screwed. Jealousy is ugly, despite any political or social rationalization.
I don't think we can, or necessarily should, do away with some form of progressive taxation. I do think that fanning greed and jealousy as political tools is despicable.
I do not prefer that "Government be bought by the wealthy on a dollar figure basis..." We have been there, and it was nasty.
A clear misconception:
My name is quite obviously "Mike," not "buddy." It is on every single post I have made on CD.
I overheard one of my neighbors talking about driving to Raleigh to attend the protests. She kept going on about how one of her local friends was being interviewed as an example of someone who "makes a lot of money who took time to come" but she's not employed. My neighbor said she left the thing early because she wasn't driving 9 hours to get arrested and stuck in Raleigh since she DID have a job to return to.
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.
