Flat Taxes and Fair Taxes and Income Taxes, oh my!

[JuanCarlos]

Continued from the this thread...please catch up before participating.

I am assuming he doesn't mean work more hours, work towards a better job as in get some more schooling. For example a position as a Radiologcaltechnician pays about $45,000 a year and takes anywhere from 2-4 years at a technical school and night classes cover all aspects needed to get the certificate.

I know. And that's what I meant, too. So the question remains, do you think Bill Gates has worked millions of times harder than I have?

Hint: I'm not working fries at Burger King complaining about rich people while doing nothing to improve myself. I'm studying engineering, and paying for it by fighting in the occasional war. I still don't think many of the fabulously wealthy people in this country worked anywhere from thousands to millions of times harder than me to get where they are...there's also generally some element of (for lack of a better term) "luck."

 

[Abstract]

Hint: The simplemindness of your post reveals the major difference between you and Gates and other entrpreneurs.

 

[SecDef]

Hint: The simplemindness of your post reveals the major difference between you and Gates and other entrpreneurs.

And lottery wins are due to skill...

 

[OBIWAN]

First....I firmly believe that if you took all the money in the world and divided it up evenly.....within a few years the duistribution would be "back to normal"

Plenty of people "get lucky" but when the dust settles you still have to be able to manage that business/money

Witness all the celebrities and lottery winners that end up bankrupt

 

[JuanCarlos]

Hint: The simplemindness of your post reveals the major difference between you and Gates and other entrpreneurs.

So compared to the 20 or so richest people in the country the rest of us are all...incredibly lazy?

You're lazier than Paris Hilton?

I'm not the one claiming some sort of direct and proportional correlation between hard work and monetary gain here. But it's a correlation that's ridiculously easy to disprove: see SecDef's post regarding the lottery, for starters.

 

[sasquatch]

see SecDef's post regarding the lottery, for starters.

Equating the accomplishments of Bill Gates or Paul Allen or anyone as successful as they are to the lottery is simple-mindedness at its worst.

 

[Scott Conklin]

Yes, Bill Gates has worked millions of times harder and more effectively than you. The evidence is not in the fact he made the money, but that he has kept it and grown it.

It's his, just as mine is mine. It's not the government's right to tax it for any concept of "redistribution" or silly claims of "fairness", only to pay the (minimal, constitutionally authorized) bills.

 

[SecDef]

First....I firmly believe that if you took all the money in the world and divided it up evenly.....within a few years the duistribution would be "back to normal"

Plenty of people "get lucky" but when the dust settles you still have to be able to manage that business/money

Witness all the celebrities and lottery winners that end up bankrupt

No doubt there are people that are better at generating wealth. In some cases, that ability is correlated to work. Not so much in others.

The .com boom showed that an arbitrary decision of companies to work for could result in an individual becoming a millionaire in three years, just by virtue of being aligned with that company. Yes, even the secretaries. Did they "earn" that money more than a doctor that dedicated 10 years to higher level education and 36 hour shifts?

Plenty of people "get lucky" but when the dust settles you still have to be able to manage that business/money

Not all dollars are equal. Not everyone can be the head of a software company or manage a billion dollar hedge fund. It just isn't logistically possible. There has to be a place for janitors and teachers, too.

 

[sasquatch]

The .com boom showed that an arbitrary decision of companies to work for could result in an individual becoming a millionaire in three years, just by virtue of being aligned with that company. Yes, even the secretaries. Did they "earn" that money more than a doctor that dedicated 10 years to higher level education and 36 hour shifts?

Maybe not, but the fact remains that it is their money, not yours or mine or Juan's.

Not all dollars are equal. Not everyone can be the head of a software company or manage a billion dollar hedge fund. It just isn't logistically possible. There has to be a place for janitors and teachers, too.

That's true. But when the janitors and teachers decide that Bill Gate's money deeds to be re-distributed to make things fair, then there is a problem.

 

[SecDef]

Luck does play a part in a lot of cases.

Lucky to be born north of the border.

Lucky that you inherited an estate.

Lucky that your home is the next location of a mini-mall and its value shoots up by a factor of 3.

Lucky that you picked up the paper that day and saw the job position opening up.

I am not trying to say that rich people don't work hard. Nor am I saying that the govt should be taking it at a whim. I am trying to make clear that wealth and hard work are not necessarily causal.

You want to know why I feel the need to make this point? Because of the implication that poor people don't work hard. There are lazy people all across the wealth spectrum. There are people that work hard all across the spectrum.

Do you tell the person that lost his family home to property taxes that he wasn't working hard enough? He knows the tax laws, how could be not be prepared!? Lazy!

 

[SecDef]

That's true. But when the janitors and teachers decide that Bill Gate's money deeds to be re-distributed to make things fair, then there is a problem.

yep, I agree. But before you complain, do you know how much Bill Gates pays per year in taxes on his income?

A flat tax or NST would close up the loopholes that rich people use. Wouldn't it be a pity if everyone paid their fair share?

 

[JuanCarlos]

That's true. But when the janitors and teachers decide that Bill Gate's money deeds to be re-distributed to make things fair, then there is a problem.

Are we talking about the more "traditional" definition of wealth redistribution (welfare programs and such) or are we still just talking about the very idea of exempting X dollars of each person's income from taxation.

Because the former I can get behind complaining about. The latter...well, it just takes into account that the average teacher or janitor is spending a much larger portion of their money on food than the average millionaire.

It isn't about what the rich can afford, but what the poor cannot.

Also, it's about the relative benefits that the wealthy gain from living here compared to the poor; again, from the other thread, an interesting webpage.

Equating the accomplishments of Bill Gates or Paul Allen or anyone as successful as they are to the lottery is simple-mindedness at its worst.

Yes, and the whole "if you want to be rich you just need to work harder" is all about the nuance.

 

[sasquatch]

But before you complain, do you know how much Bill Gates pays per year in taxes on his income?

I don't, and I'm fairly certain you don't either. That information should probably be known only by him, his accountant, and the IRS.

Why do you care ?

 

[SecDef]

I don't, and I'm fairly certain you don't either. That information should probably be known only by him, his accountant, and the IRS.

Why do you care ?

I care because your argument is that the super rich are paying an inordinately high percentage of the tax burden, but that is not supported.

My response is that if they MAKE that much, then paying that much is entirely appropriate (i.e. some % of their income)

However, the simple fact is that the rich are better equipped to be able to take advantage of IRS loopholes.

From personal experience and in recent conversations with millionaires that I've talked about this to recently (it's tax season and it is a hot topic), it seems to me that the rich pay a lower percentage of taxes than the average joe if only because they can afford to pay for accountants and money managers.

Can you at least point me to ANYONE that pays an inordinate amount of taxes as a percentage of their income? Like you, I am all for people paying their fair share of taxes.

 

[sasquatch]

I care because your argument is that the super rich are paying an inordinately high percentage of the tax burden, but that is not supported.

Can you at least point me to ANYONE that pays an inordinate amount of taxes as a percentage of their income? Like you, I am all for people paying their fair share of taxes.

I already showed you that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. You can bob and weave and parse that any way you like.

The top Top 1% of income taxpayers have an average tax rate of 23.49%.

The bottom 50% of income taxpayers have an average tax rate of 2.97%.

To your way of thinking that is probably "fair".

 

[JuanCarlos]

I already showed you that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. You can bob and weave and parse that any way you like.

And he already told you why that number doesn't say jack squat.

The top Top 1% of income taxpayers have an average tax rate of 23.49%.

The bottom 50% of income taxpayers have an average tax rate of 2.97%.

To your way of thinking that is probably "fair".

Now you're cooking with Crisco!

Of course I still think that's fair, considering the utility of each dollar for somebody in the bottom quartile compared to the top quartile...but I'll let SecDef answer for himself.

 

[SecDef]

I already showed you that the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. You can bob and weave and parse that any way you like.

bob and weave? no, just saying this number is completely irrelevant out of context, as my example showed in the last thread.

The top Top 1% of income taxpayers have an average tax rate of 23.49%.

The bottom 50% of income taxpayers have an average tax rate of 2.97%.

To your way of thinking that is probably "fair".

Yes. Yes it is. 23.49% is absolutely reasonable.* And for the bottom 50%, that includes just about every high school and college student in the country, every single mother working her ass off trying to pay for food, shelter and day care.

Are there going to be people that abuse the system? Yes. Which is why I am for tax reform. I feel that abuse comes from BOTH ends.

* top 1% are those that make over $300,000 per year, BTW. And from this chart of 2006 tax brackets, shows that they ARE NOT PAYING THEIR current share (at $300,000/year they should pay 28.5%, $500,000/year should pay about 30% in taxes, and the higher you go, the closer it should approach 35%) The fact that they only pay on average 23.49% supports my point about tax laws and loopholes.

 

[targetshootr]

You only have to keep one eye on the news to know that the very rich have been doing better than everyone else due in part to hefty tax cuts. But if you extrapolate their good fortune over so many years, at some point they'll enjoy those tax breaks while services dry up and the country spirals downward, like a gun crank with a credit card. (Or so I've heard. )A lot of the wealthy recognize it and see the stupidity.

 

[sasquatch]

And for the bottom 50%, that includes just about every high school and college student in the country, every single mother working her ass off trying to pay for food, shelter and day care.

A good many of whom pay zero taxes........none, nada, nil.

at $300,000/year they should pay 28.5%, $500,000/year should pay about 30% in taxes, and the higher you go, the closer it should approach 35%

It appears that re-distribution of wealth is what you consider "fair". I don't.

 

[wingman]

we are fast becoming a nation of rich and poor not a good platform for freedom. The why it is happening would cover a much larger issue, but greed at the top is a large part. Rich bashing, no way, the idea of being rich is great however profit and riches at any cost to the public and country will end bad.