Who REALLY pays income taxes?

There is no situation that allows FFL holders to circumvent the law, including gun shows.
Click to expand...

Well, then you should focus on the former portion of my statement rather than the latter, don't you think?

I would call it tax law compliance.
Click to expand...

Sure is unwieldy.

I'm glad that nearly everyone besides you understands that exploiting tax loopholes are legal, inherent in the system, and have no connotation of dishonestly.
 
That is one type of waste I am sure there are many more.
Click to expand...

Well, the GOA says that the DoD's books are unable to be audited, they are so convoluted. God forbid I imply that there is any waste there, though (even though it is a large portion of our tax burden)

Between email retention, correct accounting (and accountability), I'd like to see the government step into the 21st century and use technology to all of our advantage, lowering costs and being more effective.
 
I'm glad that nearly everyone besides you understands that exploiting tax loopholes are legal, inherent in the system, and have no connotation of dishonestly.
Click to expand...

I know they are legal. I think the term does have a negative connotation though. Why do you think the antis use the term?
But I guess its just a pet peeve of mine... and you seem very touchy about it, so I'll drop it...its jus semantics.
 
legal loopholes

actually in a very early SCOTUS decision it was pointed out that a taxpayer has the responsibility to pay his due and not a penny more. I don't remember the case any longer. But back in my first tax courses I had to know the case by being able to cite it in test.

My instructor always emphasised the right of a taxpayer to use any provision (loophole) of the tax code when preparing tax returns for corporations, partnerships and individuals.
 
Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, back in 1920, figured out that if the top income brackets are taxed much higher than an overall 25% rate, they'll simply dump their money into tax-free instruments like municipal bonds and what have you, and Podunkville, Missouri will have plenty of money from the bond sale for their new bridge, but Federal tax revenue will drop, and capital investment in new or expanding business will grind to crawl, further reducing revenue.

It's been proven over and over again, by Mellon, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush, that tax revenue will increase when tax rates are cut, but still the political left thinks that raising taxes on the top earners is the answer to all the nation's woes. You'd almost think they care more about the number before the percentage symbol than the number after the dollar sign.
 
While they are certainly legal the point remains that such methods are used to drastically reduce the tax payments for many of the wealthy and thus dispelling the idea that they're being overtaxed.
 
want to bet they would not like a flat tax
Click to expand...

I suggest a flat 10%!
Click to expand...

Except 10% is FAR too low. Remember that Social Security and Medicare are roughly 15% of your pay. I think that 30% would be much closer to the real number.
Click to expand...

So how would a flat tax rate based on income percentage be fair? I thought as citizens, we were all equal. Why not have a flat dollar amount tax? Each American citizen pays exactly the same? How could there be a system more fair than that?
 
So how would a flat tax rate based on income percentage be fair? I thought as citizens, we were all equal. Why not have a flat dollar amount tax? Each American citizen pays exactly the same? How could there be a system more fair than that?
Click to expand...
Because requiring someone that makes twenty grand a year pay the same as someone who makes two hundred is...insane?


There are many arguments against a progressive taxation but a regressive one is absolutely ludicrous.
 
That does not equate to treating everyone the same. :confused:

And if you want to talk about treating everyone the same there are a LOT of issues that should be dealt with in that regard long before we start talking about money.
 
Well if the person earning 20K gets the same retirement check it would be fine...
Seriously percentage is equal... to not do it by percentage is akin to communism/socialism type affair.... Only in reverse.... wanna see starvation? Try it that way!
Brent
 
Can you please confirm this statement as the rest of your argument stems from it. AGI is what you get AFTER deductions and exemptions, you don't take deductuctions from AGI.
Click to expand...

Sure...

AGI is "the line"

There are above the line deductions, tuition and fees, retirement contributions, etc. and below the line deductions, itemized deductions, exemptions based on sigle, married filing seperately, jointly, numbers of dependents (kids, grandparents, etc)

When you take all your income, subtract the deductions allowed you get your TAXABLE INCOME, this is what the amount of tax your income generates is based on. Then, based on credits, amounts paid in, foreign tax credits, energy credits and a variety of other things, you then calculate your tax owed as of when you are filing.
 
While they are certainly legal the point remains that such methods are used to drastically reduce the tax payments for many of the wealthy and thus dispelling the idea that they're being overtaxed.
Click to expand...

Not true in the least. They are still being overtaxes, the difference between using these 'loopholes' and not can be to the tune of 100s of thousands of dollars in tax, but they still owe more than 100's of thousands in tax after those 'loopholes'
 
the difference between using these 'loopholes' and not can be to the tune of 100s of thousands of dollars in tax, but they still owe more than 100's of thousands in tax after those 'loopholes'
Click to expand...

You just don't seem to understand. Those people are rich, and should be highly taxed.......the higher the better for the good of the country. Not to mention for the good of those who pay no taxes......
 
Well if the person earning 20K gets the same retirement check it would be fine...
Click to expand...

If all citizens were treated the same, not only would we all pay the same dollar amount in taxes, but the government would stop ripping us off with forced retirement and medical care systems. We would all then have retirement checks that were also fair. Not the same, but fair.
 
I am retired now and pay about $13,000 in tax on my retirement income. I have payed over $1,000,000 in income taxes over my working career.

I have no problem helping those who can't help themselves. But, anybody who thinks all of the underclass whining about this or that has put the effort and dedication in to work that I did is simply an idiot.
 
Well then we have different definitions on what it means to be overtaxed.

First of all, not everyone who uses said "loopholes" is doing so to the tune of hundreds of thousands nor is there anything to suggest that those who do are still owing hundreds of thousands. For all we know many of them could be reducing their tax responsibility to a mere single digit percentage.

And then there's still the argument that those with more assets have far more to lose and thus should be paying more for the protections and services offered by the government. In many cases the wealth is not from hard work but from luck and investments meaning that their wealth is reliant on a stable, secure society and thus should be responsible for a greater share of making sure the government is around to protect that.
 
You just don't seem to understand. Those people are rich, and should be highly taxed.......the higher the better for the good of the country. Not to mention for the good of those who pay no taxes......
Click to expand...
You wanna start using reasoned arguments or would you rather just sit there and pretend that spouting off platitudes about socialism somehow provides something useful?
 
On the subject of the original post:

Of course the rich pay a larger dollar amount than the poor. This would be the case even if you guys had a flat tax rate of 10%; 10% of $100,000 is $10,000 whilst 10% of $20,000 is only $2,000 and the wealth of the rich is considerable enough to outweigh the greater number of poorer people. However, the US doesn't have a flat tax system. Like most civilised, developed nations it has a progressive taxation system in which the more you earn the greater the proportion of you income you pay in tax. The real question here is how we justify that.

How to justify progressive income tax

The justification of progressive income tax is derived from the principle of decreasing marginal utility of income. Basically, if we start at $0 and start counting up every additional $ of income is of significant utility up to a certain point. Once we're able to clothe, house, transport and feed ourselves each additional $ is of less and less utility. A person earning $20,000 a year arguably needs every cent to survive whereas someone on $80,000 or $100,000 a year can probably spare a little. This is decreasing marginal utility. If this is the case, then it stands to reason that it's fair for some transfer of income to take place. If the rich don't 'need' it then shouldn't they not gladly do their bit to help the rest of society by paying their taxes?
 
it stands to reason that it's fair for some transfer of income to take place. If the rich don't 'need' it then shouldn't they not gladly do their bit to help the rest of society by paying their taxes?
Click to expand...

Hopefully, this transfer of income never becomes acceptable in the United States. NEVER!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top