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.
So according to your chart the top 1% pay only 18% of total federal revenue. Yet they make 22% of all REPORTED income, seems these guys are just a bunch of slackers.
So according to your chart the top 1% pay only 18% of total federal revenue. Yet they make 22% of all REPORTED income, seems these guys are just a bunch of slackers.
M friend look at the tax burden link the top 1% pay 30% of the federal tax burden.
Let me help you out here. There is no limit on what you can donate to charity.
I'm one of the last people you should be worried about helping, and there is no limit on what you can pay to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
There is a limit on what is tax deductible you are correct it is 50% of AIG...
Lest the wrong impression be left, it is not always 50%. If you donate untaxed capital gains, or to veterans or fraternal organizations, a 30% limit may apply. Obtain and read the relevant IRS publications, or consult a qualified tax advisor if you feel the need to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Plus the more you make the less your deductions, surely you know that.
If you are talking about the itemized deductions recapture, it is trivial and there isn't an equivalent of it in the AMT calculations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
You are under some impression that you are the only one who is wealthy...
Not at all. In 2006 in fact, there were 1.36 million returns that fell into the top 1%. Mine would have been just one of them, and it is all but a certainty that many others from people who post somewhere on CD were mixed in there as well. I am only under the impression that, perhaps particularly since Bush decided to throw bushel baskets full of other people's money at them, the rich would be EASILY able to afford even quite significant increases in their taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
I on the other hand I do not wish to pay more taxes, I am not sure why you feel you must force your views (via the tax code on others).
That would be because of the freeloader effect. Most public goods and services are not divisible, meaning that there is no discrete point-of-sale at which payment for them could be demanded. Defense or diplomatic representation would be common examples. As the result, there is an incentive toward evasion of payment, knowing that such as defense and representation will go on in any case, whether one pays his fair share for them or not. Whether or not you wish to pay your fair share in taxes is no more relevant than whether you wish to pay the tab for dinner once the waiter drops off the check. You ate. You drank. You pay.
Currently, of course, we have a major failure of the free-market system to deal with. We also have a pressing need to make already long-overdue investments in health care, energy, and public infrastructure. These will cost money in the short run and save money in the long run. Particularly as that first problem is brought under control, tax increases will be necessary. They need not be destructive, just as those under Reagan and Clinton were not destructive. Merely returning to the situation as it (quite successfully) existed prior to the ill-advised tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 would go a long way toward making a big difference, but whatever system of cost-sharing is ultimately adopted, you will be expected to pay what you owe. Your right to whine over it will not be compromised, but don't expect to get a lot of shoulders to cry on out of the rest of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
Increases in taxes would have very little effect on you however the affluent making $250K living in NYC would be dramatically affected.
$250K does not put one in the top 1%. $437K would just have in 2006. It would put one in the top 5%, but as noted earlier, many in that bracket are not rich yet, perhaps particularly among those who live in some of the highest cost-of-living areas in the country. There are always proposals floating around to make the tax tables COL-dependent in one way or another, but given the strong bias toward small states and low COL areas that exists in the Senate, I wouldn't be looking for any of those to be appearing on the legislative calendar any time soon. Obama has meanwhile said that these tax increases (once the right time for them finally comes) will exclude those at $250K and below. Your example man doesn't look to be in anybody's crosshairs no matter where he lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
By the way with the education canard. Families who children leave the school system of high tax towns frequently leave those towns because they no longer derive a benefit from the property taxes. There is no alternative with federal taxes.
Even if it were true...so what? The point is that the EITC and refundable child care tax credits are mandated government services, the bulk of them targeted toward children, that happen to be delivered through IRS because significant savings on administrative costs are achieved that way. You subtract those payments from income taxes otherwise owed in order to claim that these people pay no taxes, which you use to open the door to disparaging them as people, and you do indeed then walk right through that door.
Public education is a mandated government service, the bulk of it targeted toward children, that happens to be funded primarliy through local property taxes. But even though it is much larger, you DO NOT subtract the value of the education provided to families with children from property taxes otherwise owed by them in order to claim that these people pay no taxes and should therefore be disparaged. Given your stance above...WHY NOT???
I'm one of the last people you should be worried about helping, and there is no limit on what you can pay to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge either.
Lest the wrong impression be left, it is not always 50%. If you donate untaxed capital gains, or to veterans or fraternal organizations, a 30% limit may apply. Obtain and read the relevant IRS publications, or consult a qualified tax advisor if you feel the need to.
If you are talking about the itemized deductions recapture, it is trivial and there isn't an equivalent of it in the AMT calculations.
Not at all. In 2006 in fact, there were 1.36 million returns that fell into the top 1%. Mine would have been just one of them, and it is all but a certainty that many others from people who post somewhere on CD were mixed in there as well. I am only under the impression that, perhaps particularly since Bush decided to throw bushel baskets full of other people's money at them, the rich would be EASILY able to afford even quite significant increases in their taxes.
That would be because of the freeloader effect. Most public goods and services are not divisible, meaning that there is no discrete point-of-sale at which payment for them could be demanded. Defense or diplomatic representation would be common examples. As the result, there is an incentive toward evasion of payment, knowing that such as defense and representation will go on in any case, whether one pays his fair share for them or not. Whether or not you wish to pay your fair share in taxes is no more relevant than whether you wish to pay the tab for dinner once the waiter drops off the check. You ate. You drank. You pay.
Currently, of course, we have a major failure of the free-market system to deal with. We also have a pressing need to make already long-overdue investments in health care, energy, and public infrastructure. These will cost money in the short run and save money in the long run. Particularly as that first problem is brought under control, tax increases will be necessary. They need not be destructive, just as those under Reagan and Clinton were not destructive. Merely returning to the situation as it (quite successfully) existed prior to the ill-advised tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 would go a long way toward making a big difference, but whatever system of cost-sharing is ultimately adopted, you will be expected to pay what you owe. Your right to whine over it will not be compromised, but don't expect to get a lot of shoulders to cry on out of the rest of us.
$250K does not put one in the top 1%. $437K would just have in 2006. It would put one in the top 5%, but as noted earlier, many in that bracket are not rich yet, perhaps particularly among those who live in some of the highest cost-of-living areas in the country. There are always proposals floating around to make the tax tables COL-dependent in one way or another, but given the strong bias toward small states and low COL areas that exists in the Senate, I wouldn't be looking for any of those to be appearing on the legislative calendar any time soon. Obama has meanwhile said that these tax increases (once the right time for them finally comes) will exclude those at $250K and below. Your example man doesn't look to be in anybody's crosshairs no matter where he lives.
Even if it were true...so what? The point is that the EITC and refundable child care tax credits are mandated government services, the bulk of them targeted toward children, that happen to be delivered through IRS because significant savings on administrative costs are achieved that way. You subtract those payments from income taxes otherwise owed in order to claim that these people pay no taxes, which you use to open the door to disparaging them as people, and you do indeed then walk right through that door.
Public education is a mandated government service, the bulk of it targeted toward children, that happens to be funded primarliy through local property taxes. But even though it is much larger, you DO NOT subtract the value of the education provided to families with children from property taxes otherwise owed by them in order to claim that these people pay no taxes and should therefore be disparaged. Given your stance above...WHY NOT???
Thanks, but I believe I linked the relevent IRS document for you in one of my previous posts.
You still can donate more than 50% of AIG just not get a tax deduction for it, of course it is reasonable not to. However it cetainly isn't akin to paying anything for the Brooklyn Bridge, you simply wouldn't get a tax deduction for it. But again the tax code clearly affects how people spend their money.
Don't forget it was you who noted that there is a limit of 50% donation to charity, clearly not the case. You could donate 100% but only receive a deduction for 50%. But I am not sure why this would be an issue for you given that you think you don't pay enough in taxes. You could kill 2 birds with one stone.
Just because people can afford an increase in their taxes doesn't make it right. Each according to his abilites each according to his needs had been tried and failed.
As for you analogy when I go to dinner I pay the tab for what I consume not some arbitrary "fair share". I do not consume more defense or diplomatic services so why should I pay more than the guy next door. I think most citizens agree that some form of progressivity is warranted because there are those who simply can't afford to contribute. So as a society we agree to pick up thier tab. They are not paying their "fair share" for whatever reason and in some instances are subsidized by the rest of society.
The only whining I hear is from those who stomp their feet and say the rich don't pay enough.
You are correct about $250K not being in the top 1% but it is affected by the NY "millionaires tax". But that is a topic for another thread.
Tell you what lets not call it an estate tax, lets call it a stupid tax. The truth is only people to stupid to do estate planing pay it.
I have a generation-skipping trust set up - it's about 3-4 inches thick and cost a bundle. Full employment act for lawyers, CPAs, bankers and trustees.
The point is you should not have to jump through so many hoops just to keep the government out of your pocket on money you have already paid taxes on.
I'm sure some of you would rather that everyone spend their money now in anticipation of the government taking 55% anyway - problem is you do not know when you will die..a lot of people would end up broke and dependent on the government to take care of them.
But then, that's what you want, right?
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.
