JNowe: I'd say the tax system favors those who don't pay anything at all.

Corporations?

palladiate: Taxing the poorer the most will also create a greater economic incentive to get rich.

Wow, quite possibly the stupidest statement I've ever read on Fark. And I've been here for more than a decade.

/because poor people are poor because they don't have INCENTIVE to get rich. LOL

I really dont get this biatching about poor people paying no federal income tax. What do you expect to get from taxing somebody that makes less than 20 grand a year? Its not as if the 50% of the country who pay taxes are raking in millions of dollars. They live below the poverty line, struggling just buy the basic things needed to get by in life.

I dont think the rich should be paying more than 35% in taxes, but if your taking in over a million dollars a year from capitol gains and putting in your bank account to live off of, you do need to be paying more than 15%.

Why is it that people look at our farked up progressive tax system, determine it is not working and think the solution is more of the same?

There are plenty of really rich guys on record saying they would pay more. But they don't want their money flushed away. They want more of a reason to pay more than "we need it". Imagine that.

Smoky Dragon Dish: What happens when 51% of the population pays no taxes?

What happens when this little factoid is completely and totally incorrect?

This country needs to switch from an income tax to an asset tax. It is the only "fair" way to tax. Details in profile.

Just did my taxes last night. Our income went up about $10K last year, but my taxable income actually went down, so I got a big refund. Thanks to the new baby and mortgage interest deductions! And I am not wealthy at all. But I do agree, the tax code sucks and is unfair to regular folks.

qorkfiend: Wangiss: qorkfiend: Alright, this thread shows promise.

The problem is not with absolute amounts, nor is it with percentages. The problem is the ratio of income to tax burden.

Average American Joe, by definition, makes 1x the national average in income and pays 1x the national average in taxes. His ratio is 1:1.
Mitt Romney (the only 1%er whose figures I know off the top of my head) makes 420x the national average in income, but only pays about 330x the national average in taxes, a ratio of about 3:4. This is the imbalance that needs to be corrected.

So, if your philosophy is right, your philosophy is right! The logic is perfect!

It's been 15 minutes; surely you've come up with a better response by now.

You want me to do the work of substantiating your argument? Sorry, I have other horses to beat.

/beating horses as we speak.

crab66: enforcerpsu: I really have no problem with the current system where as the top 10% pay about 70% of the total tax burden. How can you sit here and say its not fair when they really do foot most of the bill?

Paying 60% of the taxes when you have 90% of the wealth is haaardddd.

So? It's their money. I really don't care. My paycheck is my money regardless of how I earned it.

This idea if fairness...is what is driving this whole thing. I don't agree with it because how can we define what is fair.

I'm just a middle class schmuck too.

palladiate: Petit_Merdeux: palladiate: Think of it as an excise tax on being lazy and poor.

If we could harness the power of completely idiotic economic policies, then your post could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

How is this idiotic? It's underpinned by principles agreed to by both liberal and conservative economists.

Economic incentivization works.Many liberal policies rely on this fact. Raising taxes on alcohol and tobacco has cut consumption of alcohol and tobacco. It only stands to reason that raising the taxes on poverty and government reliance will do the same.

This policy will force better employment, education, and consumption choices among the bottom 50%, creating a period of growth seen in places like India and China, where we aren't spending our GDP on luxuries like higher education and smartphones. in the last 8 years, smartphones have a 50% market penetration. Is this good consumption, or would this free capital be better spent on restarting the housing market?

Sidenote: I think you need to abandon the idea that smartphones are a luxury. Nielsen estimates that 70% of US phones will be smartphones by 2013.

As of December, even 53% of Africans have a regular mobile phone.

DozeNutz: Of course they do, because they think that the percentage is unfair, not the amount...

So lets also point out that people on the dole, and people who pay no taxes at all, get a benefit from the wealthy paying taxes. Then they turn around and say they aren't paying their 'fair share', when they are the ones benefiting form it. So can we say that these a-holes getting handouts/benefits (in one form or another) are just begging for more money? See how you get a continuously growing voting block? (mainly democratic base)

/I am for low taxes for all, and based on consumption, not income

Taxing kids is a great way to increase revenue! You may have just solved the deficit problem! Wow! Have you told this to Newt Ginginch? Because if you take his plan to send the kids back to work and your plan to tax all those "a-hole" kids, then, well, wow. Gingrinch 2012, am I right?!

ManRay: Why is it that people look at our farked up progressive tax system, determine it is not working and think the solution is more of the same?

There are plenty of really rich guys on record saying they would pay more. But they don't want their money flushed away. They want more of a reason to pay more than "we need it". Imagine that.

Skyrocketing debt and increasing deficits aren't enough of a reason? Good to know that they put country somewhere after themselves in their priority list.

The tax system favors capital gains income over income from labor. If you have money, the money you make by moving money around is taxed at a lower rate than if you make money by trading your labor for it.

Almost always, the "soak the rich" proposals plan to raise rates on ordinary income not capital gains income. That just punishes doctors, engineers and other highly productive people without touching the folks who actually are in that top tier.

In a static system, lowering the capital gains rate encourages people to sell assets more often because the tax cost is lower. So whenever capital gains rates are lowered, there is a huge influx in revenue because people take advantage of that lower rate. When capital gains rates go up revenue drops for the same reason. Over a period of decades it averages out though.

Make me Solon and I would tax capital gains (after adjusting the basis cost based on inflation) as ordinary income.

Obama made more than Biden in 2011 but paid a lower federal income tax rate. Is that fair?

Also, if we get a "fair" tax rate on the wealthy, can we now increase taxes across the board and try to get the deficit under control?

Debeo Summa Credo: Completely incorrect and pointless comic strip. Why do you guys keep posting this even though it does nothing to support your incorrect notion that an investor getting taxed on getting money out of his business (even though the earnings of that business were already taxed once) isn't a second level of tax?

Did the record store owner pay income tax on his profit from the sale of CDs, then pay another tax when he took the profit out of the register at the end of the day to go buy himself groceries or make other personal expenditures? No, of course not. But that is exactly what happens when dividends are taxed.


Answer my question. What corporation is actually paying 35% in income taxes in the USA?

quoinguy: Let's try something new and have a civilized discussion.


Why is it unacceptable to work both sides of the equation? Given the fact that if the "Buffet Rule", if fully implemented, would be tantamount to bailing out a lake with a cup, why don't we honestly discuss SLIGHTLY increasing taxes on the wealthy AND dramatically scaling back deficit spending?


Our idiots in Congress don't want to discuss the problems without resorting to flinging poo at the other side, which is the problem.

The first thing we should do:

1) Have Grover Norquist taken out into the streets and set on fire. (If you don't know who he is, hit Wikipedia. How this idiot has such a commanding hold over the GOP is beyond my comprehension.)

Next:

2) Repeal the Bush tax cuts.
3) Get out of Afghanistan.
4) Implement the Buffett Rule.
5) Cut spending, especially in the military by removing programs the military has said they don't need or want. Additionally, find redundant government programs and agencies and start chopping.
6) Remove incentives for corporations to employ people in India and China.
7) Get rid of the corporate welfare for Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Corn.
8) Close all tax loopholes.

Will this solve ALL of the problems at once? No. But it will get us started in the right direction.

I love the argument against the Buffett Rule. "But it's only a small solution to the big problem."

Remember: we should do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING until we discover one solution that fixes everything all at once and then do only that one thing. It's worked out so well for our energy policy.

Wangiss: qorkfiend: Wangiss: qorkfiend: Alright, this thread shows promise.

The problem is not with absolute amounts, nor is it with percentages. The problem is the ratio of income to tax burden.

Average American Joe, by definition, makes 1x the national average in income and pays 1x the national average in taxes. His ratio is 1:1.
Mitt Romney (the only 1%er whose figures I know off the top of my head) makes 420x the national average in income, but only pays about 330x the national average in taxes, a ratio of about 3:4. This is the imbalance that needs to be corrected.

So, if your philosophy is right, your philosophy is right! The logic is perfect!

It's been 15 minutes; surely you've come up with a better response by now.

You want me to do the work of substantiating your argument? Sorry, I have other horses to beat.

/beating horses as we speak.

Is there something you didn't understand?

enforcerpsu: I don't agree with it because how can we define what is fair.

tax all income the same regardless of source would be a nice start.

HAMMERTOE: The greedy, who love to shout "Class Warfare!," never seem to remember that they are the ones who invented it, and continuously engage in it, using their cleverly-drawn passive-aggressive rules of engagement. Only when it the banding together of the lower castes is imminent do they grant concessions, and usually those are small, meaningless, and engineered to maximize their advantage at some later date. For example, the average family didn't require two wages to get by nicely until women entered the workforce in large number. Doctors bills didn't skyrocket until pricks in suits discovered there was money to be made as middle-men. American schoolchildren didn't start underachieving until governmental bureaucrats got involved in education, requiring large amounts of money to grease their own wheels.

Wow. This.

palladiate: Debeo Summa Credo: Completely incorrect and pointless comic strip. Why do you guys keep posting this even though it does nothing to support your incorrect notion that an investor getting taxed on getting money out of his business (even though the earnings of that business were already taxed once) isn't a second level of tax?

Did the record store owner pay income tax on his profit from the sale of CDs, then pay another tax when he took the profit out of the register at the end of the day to go buy himself groceries or make other personal expenditures? No, of course not. But that is exactly what happens when dividends are taxed.

This is because a corporation is an entity, just like the owner. The corporation pays the shareholders. The shareholders aren't owners in a proprietary sense. This is like a sole proprietor paying a bond holder. The income from the bond is taxed.

I suspect you know this, though, and probably even support stronger corporate personhood. But let's just carve them an even bigger exception. Hell, let's give them the ability to raise armies and taxes.

Exactly. I can't wait for the day when 100% of my income comes from dividends so my tax rate is only 15%. Then I can start whining about how I'm being double taxed and try to get my tax rate to 0

Petit_Merdeux: I'm wondering why someone who seems to have a non-complex tax situation is paying someone to do her taxes.

Are you working pro-bono?

No, I work for a CPA. I prepare taxes for a living.

DozeNutz: Aarontology: DozeNutz: yeah dude, vets pay taxes too. so suck my balls. Nice try to demagogue the issue when you have ZERO rebuttal. You will wake up one day, hopefully before its too late.

Soldiers get tax relief when they are in combat zones, and when they get back they have socialized medicine through the VA and other benefits like the GI Bill, hiring preferences, preference in small business loans, ertc to take advantage of.

Or as you described them "Assholes getting handouts"

Ok, let me clarify my point. People that pay 0 taxes want the rich to pay more. They pay nothing, the rich pay the lions share of taxes. So therefore they should have ZERO input into the discussion. You do realize that ~50% pay no income tax, and they are the ones biatching about taxes being unfair? gimme a break. Also, when the rich (who own the majority of businesses) get taxed more, they pass the cost on to the consumer. So its really a cost passed on, to others. So you are just screwing yourself. Let me know when that sinks in.

They don't pay income tax because they don't make a living wage.

Galloping Galoshes: Avoiding facts and ridiculing an argument when you've got nothing. Nothing else sounds like that either.

The lower 50% of wage-earners pay no net income tax at all. So, how does THAT favor the wealthy?

They have enough money to buy the goods that the wealthy are producing.

llevrok: 49 percent of those earning income do not pay ANY income taxes. To paraphrase Obama's words - we need to ask ALL to pay their fair share. (Not just an elite few in the middle and top.)

Think about that for a minute.

Those within a certain level of poverty do not earn enough taxable income. Your solution is to force them to choose between feeding their family and taxes.

No one is demanding that the wealthiest of society should be taxed at such a rate that they have trouble providing for their families. Yet, you're arguing that exact thing for the poorest of society.

Nightsweat: Mitt Romney doesn't pay any income tax.

I thought he actually had about $300k in actual income from public speaking fees for whatever year he released records about.

I actually want to see what his taxes looked like in the years when he was earn all his assets.

Wangiss: yves0010: Mangoose: yves0010: Cost of doing business. When you own a company with your personal money on the line. You take a hit, you need to make it back. Raising prices is the first way of doing that.

Depends. Do you own a business? Do you ever simply raise prices without any consideration? There's a lot of consideration to give beyond "I want to make what I made before this gosh darn tax increase took my hard earned money to give to junkie whores." before raising or lowering prices. In the end it all boils down to can the business sustain it.

The best thing you can do as a business owner if you need to raise the level of money you are making is to make more money. Find ways to increase your sales/customers or expand the business. Things like that. Unless you own a commodity like oil, at which point fark it. Just raise the prices.

True, But even when taxes are on the rise. Wouldn't other things start to rise, causing a chain reaction that will cause prices to rise.

I am curious about how business works. I studied it a little in school. So I have an outside looking in. I did work for a small business that had some ideas of how to be successful. But never owned on myself. Just relying on knowledge gained from classes and watching.

I'm for simplifying business. Starting a business has become an unapproachable goal for most Americans. in 1900, over 95% of citizens were self-employed. I'm not saying we should go back to that, because I love working at a desk, but the (hopefully) unintentional consequence of that has been over-reliance on our employers and government for things we should be able to do ourselves. And then you get spin-off horrors when the two combine, like employer-based health insurance, which forces people to stay in their seats whatever master says.

I would like to see people selling things they make without fear of police intervention. I would like people to be able to grow food and sell it to their neighbors, make furniture from recycle ...

Doesn't help that we became a sue happy society as well. Even if you look at someone wrong, you can be sued for some kind of emotional distress.

Was working at my 1st job and watched an old lady do something stupid and got hurt.. and she sued and won. Her fault and she won...

enforcerpsu: I think a lot of middle class farkers like myself are in for a rude awakening when the Bush tax cuts expire and everyone is paying more in taxes.

I will happily pay the extra $1000 (or so) if it means the ultra-compensated chip in as required by the higher brackets they actually qualify for.

Does anyone even care that we had about a $1,200 billion annual deficit for 2011 and we are talking about a Buffet rule that would increase income around $6 billion (or .5%). I saw someone else throw out a $60 billion number, which is getting closer but still only 5%. We need to let all Bush tax cuts go bye bye. End the "wars". Cut all other federal spending 10% (SS & MC too) and hope we find some sustainable level of government/growth after the initial economic recession that will follow.

Smoky Dragon Dish: What happens when 51% of the population pays no taxes? Do we ask them to pay more taxes? Should people in poverty pay more taxes, if they're paying nothing?

Hey, let's take a break from this and enter REALITY for a second.

How the hell do you propose to increase taxation on someone making 15,000 dollars a year, so that it doesn't impact their health and their family's health? Do you figure you can squeeze out an extra 100$ a month from them? Let them see what they can do with 13,800 a year?

Actual human beings have this little thing called compassion for those not as well off as them. Actual human beings see a family living in poverty and they want to do what they can (however smalll) to help.

Maybe you need more actual human beings devising the tax strategy.

qorkfiend

Smoky Dragon Dish: What happens when 51% of the population pays no taxes?

What happens when this little factoid is completely and totally incorrect?

I think hes trying to say that in a democracy if 51% of the population pays no taxes, they will continually vote for more social benefits that the other 49% of the population has to pay for. You know, rule by the masses.

/or some other social theory

TheIndependent: (SS & MC too)

Great idea, screw the needy!

Sidenote: I think you need to abandon the idea that smartphones are a luxury. Nielsen estimates that 70% of US phones will be smartphones by 2013.

Sooo, trickle down economics works?

BTW if the right side of this chart matched the left side, the whole 50% not paying income taxes argument wouldn't even exist. You want more people paying taxes? Make things like the left side of the chart, which comes down to going after the private sector.

imontheinternet: Debeo Summa Credo: firefly212: If they charged the same tax rate on my work that they charge on investment dividends, I wouldn't have had to choose between buying food and paying taxes for the last few weeks.

But if your income was taxed twice, like dividends are (35% off the top at the corporate level, then 15% of whatevers dividended at the investor level), you wouldn't have been able to eat or pay taxes!

That theory only works if you buy the fiction that a corporation and its shareholders are the same exact entity. They aren't.

If you use corporate profits to hire new employees, you can't claim double taxation when their wages are taxed.

If a corporation (or any business) hires an employee, the employee is taxed on the wages and the corporation gets a deduction for the expense. That's why it isn't double taxation.

Likewise, if you use those profits to pay off investors, thereby encouraging new investment, you can't call that double taxation. In both cases, a private entity received a portion of the income of the corporation for their own personal gain.

In this case, the company doesn't get a deduction for dividends. If a corp has revenue of $200 and expenses (wages, raw materials, etc.) of $150, its pretax profit is $50 and it pays taxes on that. If the corp decides to pay a dividend of $20, it doesn't reduce that taxable income. Corp still has to pay taxes on the full $50, and the investor pays another tax on the $20. See the difference?

BillCo: Yeah, the top 10% of wage earners are only paying 70% of all taxes. Let's tax them some more!. Seems fair.

I think your confusing income with wealth.

I think a big part of the problem is that the middle class is *completely screwed* from both sides. The bottom half pays nothing, the top half pays a disproportionately small amount compared to earnings. We in the middle are left cringing but paying up.

We made a bit over $100k last year. Paid $11k in taxes. Just a bit under 11%. I think that's perfectly fair and really doesn't seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, though *really painful* when you think about the fact we were paying 100% of living expenses for ourselves, our child, and two (very ill) adults. So, that's what we're paying after all of those exemptions. I'm rather worried about next year's taxes, since one of our dependents died this past year (though we're still paying for things he incurred, such as medical bills and funeral costs). I shudder to think what people who *don't* have people to claim pay... and I almost feel like we'd do better if I were to stop working. Doing the math, without dependents I'd almost be working *just* to pay our taxes, factoring in travel expenses, child care, etc... which is absolutely nuts.

... I'm not quite sure where I was going with this. Just feeling kinda 'meh' about this whole tax thing, and then hearing my boss complain that he paid $15k in taxes when I *know* he makes over $500k and has no dependents nor the expenses disproportionate to exemptions which go with them. Something just doesn't seem right there. /sigh.

DozeNutz:
Ok, let me clarify my point. People that pay 0 taxes want the rich to pay more. They pay nothing, the rich pay the lions share of taxes. So therefore they should have ZERO input into the discussion. You do realize that ~50% pay no income tax, and they are the ones biatching about taxes being unfair? gimme a break. Also, when the rich (who own the majority of businesses) get taxed more, they pass the cost on to the consumer. So its really a cost passed on, to others. So you are just screwing yourself. Let me know when that sinks in.

Probably because they get the most out of the system. I wonder how well they would do with out the following...

No trade agreements and controls over how currency works and is transferred.
No infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, and heating
The fully educated, fit workers that come with the country that do the vast majority of the work for them.
Law enforcement and military to prevent a million people clubbing you to death for your stuff or are you going to buy a private army

Then there are the other few thousand benefits that taxation works towards. The fact is you can not have a civilised society without taxation to pay for services that keep others up so they can directly benefit you and provide services themselves. You end up with your brain bashed in by Grob otherwise so he can have your cave. Cracking down on services is the best way to cause social unrest as people who live harder lives take matters into their own hands.

Debeo Summa Credo: See the difference?

You have two entities, the corporation and the individual, each is being taxed only once, the corporation on it's income, the individual for the dividend income.

jakomo002: How the hell do you propose to increase taxation on someone making 15,000 dollars a year, so that it doesn't impact their health and their family's health?

Obviously they will be incentive to get a better job! I mean, jobs paying $50k+ a year are all over the place for people with just a HS diploma (or less)!

And once you stop taxing the job creators, they will raise the wages of their workers, because that's how this Utopian society works!

Same poll shows most Americans define "wealthy" as "anyone who has a good bit more money than me".

quoinguy: Let's try something new and have a civilized discussion.


Why is it unacceptable to work both sides of the equation? Given the fact that if the "Buffet Rule", if fully implemented, would be tantamount to bailing out a lake with a cup, why don't we honestly discuss SLIGHTLY increasing taxes on the wealthy AND dramatically scaling back deficit spending?

Yes, I know the Weeners is "B-b-b-Bush spent money on the war". That's true and the scale of the war ramped up to be larger than was wise. We can agree on that.

But is it wise to have the massive deficit-spending we have right now? The national debt is ridculously scary and should be addressed post-haste.

I'll agree to the charts floating around that show advances in wealth went to the very rich disproportionately the last few years. I'll agree the tax cuts went deeper than was wise. Can the other side PLEASE agree to cut spending so we can get our financial house in order?

So let's see, the agreement here is to increase the taxes on the rich, and as "the other side" I agree to cut spending on military by 25%... That's cool?

DozeNutz: Of course they do, because they think that the percentage is unfair, not the amount...

So lets also point out that people on the dole, and people who pay no taxes at all, get a benefit from the wealthy paying taxes. Then they turn around and say they aren't paying their 'fair share', when they are the ones benefiting form it. So can we say that these a-holes getting handouts/benefits (in one form or another) are just begging for more money? See how you get a continuously growing voting block? (mainly democratic base)

/I am for low taxes for all, and based on consumption, not income

This

I got laid off at the end of 2009 paid over $5000 in taxes got around $700 back and am on the low end of wage earners $40,000 to $45,000 a year don't own a home, have 1 child etc.

In 2010 I was part on unemployment part income from a small business I started and had no taxes taken out the whole year. I did my taxes and the crazy computer said I was to get $2700.00 back!!!!!

I thought wow I did something way wrong as I paid nothing in so how can I get money back? Decided to go to H&R Block where they charged me $455.00 to do my small business taxes and tell me I would get a $2700.00 refund.

//What is this craziness they call taxes??

But if US corporations aren't people as the left screams, then why should they pay any tax. At the moment they pay the highest tax rate on the planet.

We should totally tax the poor, once they can't afford food then they will start working, right?