If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(My Fox DC)   Study: The rich cheat on their taxes more often. Also, ground is moist where it rains   (myfoxdc.com) divider line 175
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2677 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Oct 2008 at 11:03 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-10-23 03:35:37 PM
what_now: tedbundee: McCain's website We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business.

Oh noes!

Here's the stupid thing about that: where the hell else are the companies going to go? Is Joe the Plumber going to move to Iceland? Is Sally the Accountant going to emmigrate to Slovakia?

It's a really, really stupid argument.


Not really. Have you called "Tech Support" lately?
 
2008-10-23 03:42:45 PM
The more wealth you have, the easier it is for you to find someone to hide the wealth for you.

A little ironic.
 
2008-10-23 03:47:20 PM
oldass31: Sabalo: kabloink: That looks lopsided unless you mention that the top 10% earn about 80% of the money. Then it makes sense that that pay 70% of all taxes.

Really? So you think that success should have negative consequences? The "rich" not only pay more into the system, they pay a much higher percentage of their total income. If we're talking "fair", then:

a) everyone should pay a flat percentage (somewhat fair)
b) everyone should pay a flat amount (perfectly fair)

Wrong. The rich benefit the most from the taxes being paid. The rich benefit from an extensive and maintained highway system. The airport system that keeps shipments on time. The coast guard that deters piracy and smuggling of brand-name knock-offs. The strong and orderly legal system that enforces their contracts. (see RIAA) The lucrative government contracts to build the roads, the freeways, the trucks, the schools, the airports, the planes, and the fleet. The rich rely on a large percentage of the national infrastructure every single day in order to keep things running smoothly. The poor guy living in the ghetto doesn't give a shiat if the roads are too damaged for trucks to transport sensitive equipment. Or that the supply-chain is interrupted due to an ill equipped airport. These things are what businesses rely on in order to prosper. And they all need money.


That's kind of hard to quantify--the things you mention are often referred to as public goods. I don't know of too many folks who, if you press them on it, are not in favor of having public goods funded.

For example, I'd think a cab driver or trucker benefits from the roads more than a hedge fund manager on Wall Street. But then again, I've read that most cities have a three day supply of food, so maybe that hedge fund manager benefits more. Hard to tell.
 
2008-10-23 03:53:30 PM
pedrop357: Maybe the "wealthy" are tired of paying for bridges to nowhere, farmers to grow nothing, and the innumerable government schemes that cost ten times what they should.

Maybe they're tired of paying 10 times as much for the same government services...

If you think about it, income and sale price shouldn't be the basis for taxes. If we're all equal, everyone should pay property tax based on the square footage of their house, the weight of their car, and a head tax per person for their household.

Heavier cars do more damage to the infrastructure then light cars. Why does they guy with the 2200lb Lotus pay 5-15 times more in registration taxes then the person with the 8000lb van?

It would seem logical to assume that larger houses command a larger amount of city resources-mainly fire, but also possibly police, etc. Why should a person with a 2300 sq ft house pay less then someone with a 1000 sq ft condo?

There are few to no services where one person pays ten times more for something then the person before them based solely on their income. Imagine if you went anywhere and the prices for the items were all fractions of your income-milk? .002%, movie tickets? .004%, etc.

Why does it cost a "wealthy" person more for government services than it does a non-"wealthy" person? They're both supposed to receive the same services, after all.


There is a school of economics called "Georgism" (after Henry George) that goes along with some of that.
 
2008-10-23 04:00:01 PM
dragonchild: Zafler: Hell that's a weeks worth of groceries.

You can't cook if you live in your car. Though yeah, you can stretch it more than 6 meals if you only eat donuts.


One thing I've noticed that if you're cooking for a large group, you can achieve an economy of scale of under $2.50 per person meal (sometimes outfit camping trips). Of course we're not having steak and lobster, but balanced meals.

/*sob* Mmmmmm....this is so good, I wish Pinchy were here to enjoy it.
 
2008-10-23 04:04:54 PM
libbynomore2: I never said they don't pay " any taxes " I merely pointed out that they pay NO Federal income taxes, which makes up the largest tax burden in the country. As for FICA, workers only pay 1/2 of that while the employer is forced to pay the rest.

It's effectively part of your salary, it's just disguised and taxed at 100%. I'm sure your employer budgets it that way. So really, the poor are paying an even greater percentage of their income than we generally cite.
 
2008-10-23 04:09:03 PM
That's not rain...

...but something is definitely trickling down on us.
 
2008-10-23 04:09:51 PM
libbynomore2My point is that while I recognize that some people are in trouble by no fault of their own, most are in trouble because they refuse to live within their means and make bad choices. There seems to be a huge disconnect among these people on what a person wants, and what a person needs. The wealthy on the other hand know the difference and lived accordingly while building their wealth.

That would explain how those g.damn poor people caused this subprime fiasco, by forcing these rich people to give them money.

/ yeah, right.
// not saying that some people who bought aren't to blame, but for real blame i look more to the educated, greedy types who created these exotic securities, those who graded them AAA, and those who were supposed to have oversight.... and all those people are wealthy, and then got the govt ( meaning you and I American taxpayer person) to pay for their excesses when they failed.
/// as for you personally, it sounds like you have lived a noble life and have paid as you have done, made sacrifices and delayed gratification. Kudos ! Now, if only the majority of American, libs or conservatives, could have done the same.
 
2008-10-23 04:09:55 PM
xebeche_tzu: That's not rain...

...but something is definitely trickling down on us.


Chocolate rain?
 
2008-10-23 04:12:57 PM
mad_prophet_tx: For example, I'd think a cab driver or trucker benefits from the roads more than a hedge fund manager on Wall Street.

That infrastructure in general is allowing the hedge fund manager to make mega-millions, the trucker tens of thousands. So overall the HFM is getting more out of it. And for incomes beyond a certain amount (~$357,000), tax rates are essentially flat. Most flat taxes have a deductible; having a deductible and a graduated rate up to $357K is just a slightly more complex deductible.

Having varying rates at lower amounts of income doesn't really up the complexity much. The complexity is in the deductions. And please, don't propose a scheme where married couples that earn similar amounts are worse off than if they were single!
 
2008-10-23 04:36:42 PM
No shiat. The poor have all of their taxes reimbursed to them through refunds, child-care credits, etc. The richest 5% of Americans pay 90% of all taxes while the poor utilize the most services (most use of police, fire, ambulance crews, uninsured hospital stays, welfare income, you get the idea.).
Why are people trying to screw the workiers in this country? Who does more for this country: Bill Gates (who has put thousands of people on various payrolls) or the local welfare queen (who has also put thousands of people to work. She just doesn't pay them herself).

I personally believe we should have a flat tax set about 15%. Why should the wealthy pay more taxes than the poor? They use far less in social services. They do more good for the local and national economy. Do anyone think there is a reason so many wealthy Brit celebrities have citizenship here? Couldit be the obscenely high taxes there?
 
2008-10-23 04:47:29 PM
www.fairtax.org
 
2008-10-23 04:53:35 PM
xCh: The only surprise on this report is the fact that Fox news is reporting this. But I don't understand how this isn't "class warfare" (which is what Fox calls it when anyone else mentions these kinds of facts).

It's not "Fox News Channel". It's "Fox, Channel 5 News", which is not the same thing at all. This is just a local Fox channel's news. FNC is orders of magnitude larger and more vile than any local channel's news organization.
/TMYN
 
2008-10-23 04:55:48 PM
kabloink: pxsteel: Despite all the cheating and ominous tax code, the:

top 10% pay 70% of all taxes

That looks lopsided unless you mention that the top 10% earn about 80% of the money. Then it makes sense that that pay 70% of all taxes.


shhh.. don't confuse them with reality..
don't mention that 70% of 'all taxes' is pretty much less than the top 10% spends on booze, botox & boob jobs.
 
2008-10-23 05:16:46 PM
Russia has Steve Forbes' tax plan, and 'we' (the U.S.) have Karl Marx's
 
2008-10-23 05:37:06 PM
Man Going His Own Way: Russia has Steve Forbes' tax plan, and 'we' (the U.S.) have Karl Marx's

I would have said we have Groucho Marx's.

/or perhaps Harpo's
 
2008-10-23 07:40:49 PM
Belltower: mad_prophet_tx: For example, I'd think a cab driver or trucker benefits from the roads more than a hedge fund manager on Wall Street.

That infrastructure in general is allowing the hedge fund manager to make mega-millions, the trucker tens of thousands. So overall the HFM is getting more out of it. And for incomes beyond a certain amount (~$357,000), tax rates are essentially flat. Most flat taxes have a deductible; having a deductible and a graduated rate up to $357K is just a slightly more complex deductible.

Having varying rates at lower amounts of income doesn't really up the complexity much. The complexity is in the deductions. And please, don't propose a scheme where married couples that earn similar amounts are worse off than if they were single!



Then there's the guy who's a manager at the horizontal contstruction company that builds and repairs bridges on state contracts. Then there's Roger the Shrubber, while under considerable economic stress in this period of history, arranges, designs, and sells shrubberies that wind up in medians and roadsides.

I'm not one of the flat tax dudes, national sales tax crowd, or the soak the rich people, or the "poor don't pay taxes" contingent. My position is that if your going to bother to have a government and levy taxes, those levies should be used for the "public goods" I mentioned earlier, especially those that have a large potential for free riders (i.e. defense/police protection). The things that can be funded in a fee or tax attached to their use should be funded in that way; roads being a good example as fuel excises are used for road and bridge construction and maintenance.
 
2008-10-23 07:50:17 PM
The rich receive more services for their tax dollar. Ask United Fruit how.
 
2008-10-23 08:29:41 PM
Tweeker: The rich receive more services for their tax dollar. Ask United Fruit how.

I think I have a pretty good idea (new window).
 
2008-10-23 10:47:39 PM
libbynomore2: scalpod [TotalFark] Quote 2008-10-23 02:40:07 PM
dragonchild: libbynomore2: My point is that while I recognize that some people are in trouble by no fault of their own, most are in trouble because they refuse to live within their means and make bad choices.

Oh, for cryin' out. . . Stop doing that whole "some aren't at fault but most blah blah blah" bullshiat before I flood the thread with so many stories of "welfare queens" getting screwed over a dozen different ways that tonesskin shoves his socks down his throat out of exasperation. You're talking out of your ass.

Cut him some slack. As an asshole, he's only got the one orifice...


The only asshole is someone like you who feels free to live way beyond their means and then demand that *I* bail your stupid ass out.

if you spend money on things that you want but don't need ( like computers and internet access ) then screw you! YOU deal with it yourself.... Not my problem.


I don't have one of these loans and I'm not the one we're bailing out. Never loan money to rich white assholes, they almost never pay it back.

Let it be a lesson to you.
 
2008-10-24 04:21:51 AM
Zed-ex: I never got why there was never a standard tax rate.
like 10% or something.

you made 10$ we will take 1$
you made 10,000,000 we will take 1,000,000
really a family making 20,000 a year would lose 38$ on a weekly paycheck. Thats not bad at all and the government would see a huge serge of cash flow from larger cash earners who can pay people to get them through the tax loops


If you are part of that family (I assume of four) making only $20,000 a year, $38.00 a week could be the difference between eating this week or not eating this week. Or maybe paying the heating bill or freezing. Or a new pair of shoes or winter coat for one of the kids.

I guarantee the family pulling in $10,000,000 a year will not miss the $19,230.77 they will pay per week in taxes. The $173,076.92 they get to keep will tide them over just fine.
 
2008-10-24 04:29:18 AM
pxsteel: Despite all the cheating and ominous tax code, the:

top 10% pay 70% of all taxes


Top 10% also have 80% of the wealth Link

bottom 50% pay 3% of all taxes

Bottom 80% also only have 9% of the wealth same page

Already looks pretty lopsided to me!! just saying

Yeah... the rich should cough up more.
 
2008-10-24 05:05:16 AM
B-B-B-but...trickle down...?

/AAARRRRRGGGGGGGG
 
2008-10-24 07:34:11 AM
rodeofrog: filth: unless you're making a hell of a lot of money and have no mortgage or kids, tax fraud has a shiatty risk/reward ratio.

The part of the risk/reward equation that you're not seeing is that hardly anybody ever gets caught. I mean, no one would risk a huge penalty for $500 - unless you mention that their chances of getting caught are less than .05%

/not actually suggesting that anyone cheat. It's morally wrong. We're in this together. We all have to pay for the new park and whatnot.


People get caught all the time. And for really dumb stuff. And with the improving data analysis they run on returns, it's only going to get more likely that you get caught.
 
2008-10-24 10:20:44 PM
rewind2846: If you are part of that family (I assume of four) making only $20,000 a year, $38.00 a week could be the difference between eating this week or not eating this week. Or maybe paying the heating bill or freezing. Or a new pair of shoes or winter coat for one of the kids.

My thoughts on this were always, if you make less than $x, you pay no taxes (and get some benefits such as welfare and wic).

Make more than $x, but less than $y and you get taxed at a flat rate. But get tax deductions.

Make more than $y, and no tax deductions.
 
Displayed 25 of 175 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report