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.
Anyone earning $50k does not have an effective rate of 14%. Maybe 8%.
Learn the difference. Please.
I didn't say that. A "60 Minutes" reporter said it, and Mitt Romney agreed it was correct. I just posted a source (something republicans should try every once in a while.)
Stop embarassing yourself and learn the difference between effective and marginal tax rates.
Wealth is indeed earned, just like income is.. Do you think wealth comes without work?
Here's Warren Buffet and Bill Gates talking to some college students about taxes. Buffet explains one way the rich avoid paying taxes. You and TrapperJohn might enjoy it.
Here's Warren Buffet and Bill Gates talking to some college students about taxes. Buffet explains one way the rich avoid paying taxes. You and TrapperJohn might enjoy it.
Yeah, they have taxes so low that MSFT shifts profit overseas and BRK engages in tax evasion.
Did that include social security? No? Why not? Is it not federal?
And you do understand that the rich are supposed to pay more? I mean this isnt rocket science. Its often considered immoral to tax the income used to feed, vloth, and house someone. We do it to some small degree, but we do try and avoid that. Turns out the vast majority of the bottom 50% fall into that bracket today.
In fact.....during some of our most prosperous times their effective tax rate was double of today.
I do like how you try and make it about the 10% though, thats kinda cute.
No, I do not understand that the rich are "supposed" to pay more. For someone to came off so condescending to the OP, that's a pretty stupid thing to say. There is no "supposed to" about taxes. It's opinion. Taxes aren't like mathematics. There are no universal rules. Taxes are whatever the current crop of legislators set them to be. The next Congress might set them to be completely different. And understanding that fact, as you say, "isn't rocket science".
Since a ton of people have attacked me for my response I am going to respond to all of them in one post. *warning* incoming wall of text....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
It' immoral to take money from one hard working person and give it to somebody who refuses to work. This isn't rocket science.
Its immoral for us to spend money,and not pay for it with taxes hoping that people in the future will pay for it. The people at the top benefit immensely from what this country provides them, they need to help pay for it.
Its immoral for us to not help our disabled, elderly, and children. The "refuses to work" segment is small, and until we actually have low unemployment they are completely irrelevant. your talking point ignores the reality of who actually receives help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
People who fail ALWAYS want others to pay but, NOT them.
Good news then! I've been successful.....and I am in a tax bracket high enough that I would pay more. But of course that doesnt fit your fictional narrative does it? Lets get real, people who fail cant afford to pay more, we've seen the standard of living drop for the bottom quintile year after year, but thats OK right? They failed! They got MS, or arent intelligent enough from the genetics lottery, so its OK if they go deeper into poverty right? They should have picked different parents, or not gotten MS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
Immoral, huh? So European countries - pretty immoral, right? They do count on regressive taxes, after all, to pay for all of those welfare systems. The US has the most progressive tax code in the world and we have liberals saying it's not progressive enough. At what point is it enough for you and your ilk. I, for one, wouldn't mind a little regressive taxes like the rest of the world does. Maybe then we could have some of those nice systems and bennies they have because you're not going to get it on the backs of the rich alone.
I love this argument as its so unaware of whats going on. Im ALL for a european tax system, while its regressive as you indicate, it is also a MASSIVE transfer of wealth at the low end. you're comparing apples to oranges. Go check out the effective tax rates for the groups, and the effective benefits. In the end its a amazingly progressive number. You cant pick the tax system, while ignoring where the tax money is going.
Tell you what, how about a flat tax, 50% on everyone no exemptions, and then we give everyone a basic income of $1,500 a month ($400 for under 18's). Congradulations a incredibly regressive tax system, thats incredibly progressive in its results. (also thats about accurate for what would be required to do this while also paying for our government and its debts)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
The effective tax rate for the top 10% hasn't changed much in decades. Once again you confuse marginal rates and effective rates.
The effective rate for the lowest quartile, including FICA, is at a record low. These stats are right there on the IRS website.
I always love this argument too. More fail. Notice you dont provide a link....let me provide one which show why you believe this, and then explain why you are wrong. To be honest, I dont blame you for believing this because you see things like this: CBO Report Shows Increasing Redistribution in the Tax Code Despite No Long-term Trend in Income Inequality | Tax Foundation
Looking at that I say, well damn he is right! But then I say....why does all the data start at 1980? Ahhh because the article is cherry picking data, even the sourced cbo data.
In fact if you wander around you will find that the right wing doesn't like talking about the history of tax rates much. Do you honestly believe that when the tax rate was 70% that you still paid very little?
Now im not happy with this site either because (drumroll please) its lying. Its doing what you incorrectly accuse me of, I do know the difference between marginal and effective rates. This is the OTHER side of the debate lying to people. click on the 10 million button, and see how it claims your effective rate would be 90.8% in 1945? Thats a lie. your tax rate would have been that high-and a small % of those millionaires probably DID pay that, but there were loopholes, just like today, the real effective number has been discussed a lot, it was closer to 45%. Now today your rate is what 39%? But data shows that the average .1%er pays around 22%. In the end...its all about the loopholes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
I agree conservatives on,y want to count income taxes which is illogical, but another point that is always missed in these discussions is that we have a progressive income tax
So the whole point is that people who earn more pay more of the income taxes.
Every President and every Congress has kept the progressive income tax.
A progressive income tax is supposed to work in that manner. It's not a sign of a problem, it's the way the income taxes were designed.
For fun I am going to correct someone who agrees with me....and also smack around the people who disagreed with me even more. (Sorry Iamme73 but you're wrong in a way-we dont have the progressive system everyone says we do). Sure while our federal taxes are progressive enough, our state, gasoline, etc taxes help bring that down.
turns out with state, sales taxes, gas taxes, FICA, etc....in the end we do not have a progressive system overall. Its kind of funny, no one wants to talk about total tax burden, they want to focus on federal while ignoring how insanely regressive all the other taxes are. I mean hey, social security is a major tax for me, for the rich? lol. it only taxes your first 112K or so in income.
Here's Warren Buffet and Bill Gates talking to some college students about taxes. Buffet explains one way the rich avoid paying taxes. You and TrapperJohn might enjoy it.
CEO's worth billions usually have very low salaries.
Warren Buffets salary at BRk is $100K a year
Ivana Trump, earned $1 per year etc..
What a lot of people believe is they earned their wealth through salaries but rarely is that true. its often through a growth in value of assets which arent taxed until sold.
And when it is taxed as its sold, its not calculated as "income", so its very dishonest to claim they dont pay taxes when they do..
According to SEC data, the CEO's of the Fortune 500 have earned income (salaries) that average $3.3 million excluding stock options.
According to the SEC filings, Buffet had income of $485k. That's 39% bracket. Buffett is an exception as the second richest guy on the planet.
The IRS stats clearly show that the effective rate has hovered at around 23% since the 30's, even when the top MARGINAL rates were 90%. What you call loopholes were deductions. I guess if you deduct property taxes or mortgage interest you are no better than Buffett using loopholes to lower your taxes. Guys my age remember when credit card interest was deductible. When 100% of business meals, including two martinis, were deductible. We remember when you could deduct everything. The IRS and congress concluded that since the effective rate was not impacted, it made more sense to lower the marginal rates and eliminate the deductions to simplify the tax code. Go look it up.
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.
At what point is it enough for you and your ilk. I, for one, wouldn't mind a little regressive taxes like the rest of the world does. Maybe then we could have some of those nice systems and bennies they have because you're not going to get it on the backs of the rich alone.
