Who REALLY pays income taxes?

[JuanCarlos]

Unfortunately both Hillary and Obama have plans to change that........upward.

Any evidence as to exactly how far upward? Preferably with some kind of quotes to lend support, rather than "olol Marxists."

Plus there's the fact that the President doesn't set the tax rates anyway.

Regardless, my bet? 38%.

 

[grymster2007]

But fortunately this isn't 1963 and the top tax bracket is 35%.

Other than the fact it’s not more, I fail to feel fortunate to give 35% of every dollar over X$ to the government who then turns around and uses it to supplement for those who don’t pay their share.

Again; someone explain how a flat dollar amount is not fair? That has not been answered here, because all attempts are futile.

BTW: I think the Feds took in ~$1.2T in personal income taxes last year. Divide that by the country’s 300M people and you get ~$4K per head. What the hell is so unfair about paying that? And that would go down pretty quick when the lazy and the stupid figured out they couldn’t vote other peoples dollars into their pockets.

 

[kennybs plbg]

Here's a starting point I'm not looking forward too.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Ref:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Boy I'm glad they're going to save us from the big business Bush people again.


kenny b

 

[mesabi]

I don't think Cheney would miss it. If the social security tax did not have a cap, his last yearly income at halliburton would would put enough money into S.S. to pay over 1,000 S.S. recipients for at least a year. Always remember, America is still the lowest taxed country in the world.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Again; someone explain how a flat dollar amount is not fair? That has not been answered here, because all attempts are futile.

It is and it isn't. Obviously, on a simplistic level, it's absolutely fair.

On the other hand, the last dollar a retail clerk has a much higher marginal value to them that the last dollar an oil tycoon makes. Take that dollar from the clerk, and he's actually forced to eat less. Take enough, he may not be eating at all. Take the same amount from the tycoon, and he may not even notice, and it may merely affect the amount he leaves to his heirs. Once you wrap your mind around the fact that a dollar can have very different values to two different people based on how many of them they have (and that, to some extent, this can be measured objectively by a neutral third party), taxing at a flat dollar amount can also be argue to be quite unfair.

That's the easier of the two arguments.

The other, which has been touched on, is that the wealthier you are the more you have benefited from living in this country, and from the services the government provides. It's hard to establish a successful retail empire, for instance, without roads to move your products and a military to keep foreign armies out of your parking lots (to simplify horribly). The poor benefit from these things as well, obviously, but the question is who benefits more. There's generally a reason you don't see thriving middle and upper classes (or much class mobility) in third-world hellholes, and that the upper classes that do exist may have to spend a lot more of their own money on their own personal security than ours do.

Now, keep in mind that in this case I'm only suggesting these as arguments for keeping a proportional tax, not a progressive tax. Generally the same arguments are used for the latter, it's just a matter of degree.

So yeah, a flat (dollar) tax is quite fair. And quite unfair. That's deep, man.


I think, however, this largely has been futile. Not because I'm wrong, but rather because your personal bias is simply too much to overcome. You seem to be coming from the "I'm sick of the 'stupid and lazy' people takin' mah monies!" school of thought, and I don't think you're particularly open to any argument on the subject. But I would enjoy hearing your well-reasoned rebuttal, in particular, to the idea that a poor person's dollar has a higher marginal value than a wealthy person's. Something beyond "nuh-uh," "so what," or "but it's my money," (which is what most rebuttals I've seen boil down to) would be super.

 

[zukiphile]

A set flat fee for the service of government rather than some percentage of property and or income isn't done becuase it is unenforcable, and government is not something one has any consent in purchasing. If I don't like the price of a pair of Allen Edmunds, I can choose not to buy them. Not so with government.

On the other hand, the last dollar a retail clerk has a much higher marginal value to them that the last dollar an oil tycoon makes. Take that dollar from the clerk, and he's actually forced to eat less. Take enough, he may not be eating at all. Take the same amount from the tycoon, and he may not even notice, and it may merely affect the amount he leaves to his heirs. Once you wrap your mind around the fact that a dollar can have very different values to two different people based on how many of them they have (and that, to some extent, this can be measured objectively by a neutral third party), taxing at a flat dollar amount can also be argue to be quite unfair.

What makes purporting to measure a floating subjective value (measuring the subjective is oxymoronic) of income problemmatic is that it reflects a value judgment about what people need and what they don't. Once the government has the authority to tell you which of your property you don't need and therefore can't keep, you don't own anything in the conventional sense.

 

[JuanCarlos]

What makes purporting to measure a floating subjective value (measuring the subjective is oxymoronic) of income problemmatic is that it reflects a value judgment about what people need and what they don't. Once the government has the authority to tell you which of your property you don't need and therefore can't keep, you don't own anything in the conventional sense.

I'm putting forward that what people need isn't nearly as subjective as you're making it sound. It becomes more subjective pretty quickly (once you move past X calories and nutritional content per day, shelter from the elements, etc.) but at the very bottom at least I'd say it's not particularly subjective at all. I'd bet there is a definitely standard of living below which the life expectancy (particularly among children) starts to drop rather quickly. It's not a stretch to call these things "needs" more or less objectively.

Again, arguing strictly for proportional (and not progressive) taxation, what about the other side of the coin? I'll set aside the whole "have benefited more from the government" aspect, since it's a lot more involved of a conversation than I'm looking to get into at the moment. But how about we simply go with "have more to lose?" Those with more assets or more income quite simply have more to lose from a foreign invasion (defense budget) or a societal collapse (which eliminating all non-defense spending would probably bring about). So is it not fair to argue that, at least for a large portion of the federal budget, having people pay in proportion to their assets or income (we'll stipulate a flat percentage rate for this argument) actually is having them pay their "fair share" as well?

 

[toybox99615]

lets get the correct information posted.

Here is the disclaimer on the bogus information posted. It is from http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html "Recently an incorrect comparison of income taxes under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been making the rounds of the Internet, showing up in forwarded e-mails and on numerous blogs and message boards. (See examples here, here, here, and here.)

This message shows that income taxes under George Bush are lower than income taxes under Bill Clinton, and it relies on Tax Foundation data to make this comparison. The author used a Tax Foundation chart showing the federal individual income tax rates and brackets from 1913 to the present to calculate the income taxes paid by hypothetical married and single taxpayers at various income levels under 1999 tax law and 2008 tax law.

While the basic message of the comparison is correct (federal income taxes have indeed fallen under George Bush for groups at all points on the income spectrum), the chart created by the author of this comparison contains some mathematical errors. Furthermore, the comparisons are exaggerated by the fact that annual inflation adjustments in the tax code would have lowered tax bills in 2008 relative to 1999 under a constant nominal income amount.

The table below presents the correct amount of tax paid by each of the hypothetical taxpayers in the comparison. Note that this comparison does not take into account the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the taxpayers in these examples take the standard deduction and do not have children"
Individual Income Taxes Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, 1999 Law and 2008 Law
For taxpayers who take the standard deduction and have no children
Taxpayer Tax under Clinton, 1999 tax law Tax under Bush, 2008 tax law
Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25
Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25
Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50
Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25
Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50
Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25
Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50



And while there is a lower amount under Bush the Clinton rates are not what was previously posted. As an example the previous data claimed the tax on a single income of $ 30,000 under Clinton was $ 8,400 when in fact it was $ 3,157. The result was an error of claiming the difference between the Clinton and Bush taxes was $ 3,900 while the actual difference is only $ 401. The previous data was in error by $ 5,243.

I not defending Clinton or Bush. I simply want the information being posted to be the correct information and not bogus BS that distorts the facts. When a source is cited it should be accurate as to the contents of the information.

 

[hogdogs]

Pardon the redneck... what is a pair of allen edmunds....
Brent

 

[grymster2007]

On the other hand, the last dollar a retail clerk has a much higher marginal value to them that the last dollar an oil tycoon makes.

Marginal smarginal. If the retail clerk is providing a necessary level of value to society, he’ll make enough money to pay his taxes. If not, his services won't be required and he'll be free to find more lucrative employment.

The other, which has been touched on, is that the wealthier you are the more you have benefited from living in this country, and from the services the government provides…

All have the same opportunity to benefit from living in this country and all the arguments to the contrary are easily defeated. The successful retail empire benefits no more from the transportation infrastructure than your poor retail clerk. He needs the same infrastructure to have the goods delivered to the store and to get to the store to buy the goods. The retailer may make more dollars, but the clerk may starve if he cannot access the retailer’s goods. Seems to me that avoiding starvation is a benefit at least tantamount to making a buck. Even looks like your clerk comes out on top here!

Not because I'm wrong, but rather because your personal bias is simply too much to overcome.

My personal bias is based on fairness. How ‘bout yours? Maybe some other standard?

Something beyond "nuh-uh," "so what," or "but it's my money,"

Funny how you found it necessary to write those and not me.

 

[JuanCarlos]

My personal bias is based on fairness. How ‘bout yours? Maybe some other standard?

I'd argue that your personal bias is based on an overly narrow and simplistic view of "fairness."

The successful retail empire benefits no more from the transportation infrastructure than your poor retail clerk. The retailer may make more dollars, but the clerk may starve if he cannot access the retailer’s goods. Seems to me that avoiding starvation is a benefit at least tantamount to making a buck. Even looks like your clerk comes out on top here!

Except that absent that transportation infrastructure the retailer would not have made his dollars and, now being in the same boat as the clerk, may also starve. Clerk avoids starvation, retailer avoids starvation and makes millions. Hence, retailer benefits more.

 

[Tabsr]

New Rules

Remember, just because you work and paid, IT is not YOUR money. It is the Peoples money and you get TO KEEP what the government decides.

 

[kennybs plbg]

toybox99615, thankyou for pointing that out.

But I noticed if you run "your numbers" into percentages with the exception of the single male they are very close to being the same:


Single, income of 30,000 $3,157.50 $2,756.25 ----- 13%
Single, income of 50,000 $7,262.50 $6,606.25 ----- 10%
Married, income of $50,000 $5,085.00 $4,012.50---- 21%
Single, income of $75,000 $14,262.50 $12,856.25 --- 10%
Married, income of $75,000 $9,426.50 $7,762.50 ---- 18%
Single, income of $125,000* $29,378.50 $26,472.25 ---- 10%
Married, income of $125,000* $23,426.50 $19,462.50 ---- 17%

Maybe a mistake, but far from bogus!

kenny b

 

[toybox99615]

allen edmunds

very nice and fairly expensive shoes at $ 280 a pair. Some times a euphemism for insinuating the rich guys.


Kenny B while the error might not have been intentional on your part the source of the correct information says the original information is wrong; as in bogus (not genuine.) As I said my post was to insure the correct information was used in this thread. Otherwise in a few more posting the data would start getting tosed about as gospel examples of how great the difference between the two tax rates were.

 

[kennybs plbg]

Understood thankyou, just pointing out with a few exceptions the numbers do match yours.

kenny b

 

[grymster2007]

I'd argue that your personal bias is based on an overly narrow and simplistic view of "fairness."

Aaaahhhh yes; imply that your antagonist is a simple-minded idiot whenever you happen to be wrong. Not a bad tactic…. as long as your antagonist is indeed a simple-minded idiot. If not it merely serves to demonstrate your own shortcomings.

Except that absent that transportation infrastructure the retailer would not have made his dollars and, now being in the same boat as the clerk, may also starve. Clerk avoids starvation, retailer avoids starvation and makes millions. Hence, retailer benefits more.

How do you figure the transportation infrastructure absent?

 

[Redworm]

Unfortunately both Hillary and Obama have plans to change that........upward.

Really? How much?

 

[JuanCarlos]

How do you figure the transportation infrastructure absent?

The successful retail empire benefits no more from the transportation infrastructure than your poor retail clerk. He needs the same infrastructure to have the goods delivered to the store and to get to the store to buy the goods. The retailer may make more dollars, but the clerk may starve if he cannot access the retailer’s goods. Seems to me that avoiding starvation is a benefit at least tantamount to making a buck. Even looks like your clerk comes out on top here!

I figured when you mention the idea that the clerk would starve without the retailer's goods, you were suggesting this is what would happen if the needed infrastructure to deliver those goods (and get to the store to buy them) was absent. Thus suggesting that they benefit equally from that infrastructure and thus (as is implied) would suffer equally from its absence [EDIT: actually, you suggest that the clerk would suffer more, which I refute]. Was this an unreasonable interpretation of those two successive sentences?

Care to reply to the rest now?

 

[Redworm]

Other than the fact it’s not more, I fail to feel fortunate to give 35% of every dollar over X$ to the government who then turns around and uses it to supplement for those who don’t pay their share.

You're not supposed to feel fortunate. Now assuming you make 350 grand or more a year the simple fact is that the majority of that 35% you pay is not going to supplement those who don't pay their share. The majority is actually going to pay for the military that protects your assets and your ability to make that much money in addition to keeping in place the government - and thus, the civilization - that gives you the opportunity to make that much money in the first place. Very little of your money is going to pay for anyone else.

That being said, some people "don't pay their fair share" and make more than you. That "fair share" is what's up for debate.

Again; someone explain how a flat dollar amount is not fair? That has not been answered here, because all attempts are futile.

First off it's not fair for the same reason that a progressive tax charges those who make more because they get more benefit from the government's existence. The second is that a regressive tax is wholly unfair to the people at the bottom.

To have a federal budget a mere third of what it is today would require each of the 200,000 working adults to pay five million dollars a year in taxes.

If our government's budget was a mere tenth of what it is today it would still require each working adult to pay 1.5 million. That wouldn't even cover the Department of Defense's budget for a single year.

A flat dollar amount is not only not fair, it's absolutely impossible.

BTW: I think the Feds took in ~$1.2T in personal income taxes last year. Divide that by the country’s 300M people and you get ~$4K per head. What the hell is so unfair about paying that? And that would go down pretty quick when the lazy and the stupid figured out they couldn’t vote other peoples dollars into their pockets.

Well frak me, I completely ignored all the other sources of revenue.

However you missed two things. First of all, only 200 thousand of those are people of working age. There are roughly 100k children and retired folk. The second is that even if you did charge all 300,000 four grand a pop you'd end up with 1.2 billion. Not trillion.

Now even if we only needed 1.2 billion, how on earth is it fair for a guy that brings home 20 grand a year to pay four grand in taxes while someone that brings homes ten times his income pays the same? The guy at the bottom needs that four grand to live.

 

[grymster2007]

Redworm,

Might I suggest an arithmetic lesson?

Actually, your arithmetic looks OK, but the numbers you're using are way off.

I didn't miss anything. I understand and can defend all I stated.