jcd11235 0 #26 May 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteSomeone's info is bogus. Looks more like similar numbers are being analyzed in order to obtain different information. Disagree - let's look at the article again: If all that those politicians mean by "rich" is the small portion of the population at the top of the economic heap, then households making over $250,000 is a fair definition: Only about 5% of U.S. households have annual incomes over $200,000. Incorrect. From CBO, 2006 info: Top 1%: Average Pre-tax income: $1,743,700 Top 5%: Average Pre-tax income: $564,200 Top 10% Average Pre-tax income: $366,400 Top Quintile: Average Pre-tax income: $248,400 So, we've got at least 20% that are above the $200k that the article claims as being "working rich", not 5%. No, we don't. You are making assumptions that may or may not be correct, but are not supported by the data. Specifically, you are comparing the mean income of the top 1, 5, 10, and 20% to the median income of the top 10% (i.e. the minimum income of the top 5%). That's not a meaningful comparison. It appears that all of your comparisons of the numbers suffer from this problem.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 May 6, 2009 Quote>Ok really? Ya I know there are taxes and am not against them but I am >against how much I get taxed and how many do NOT get taxed at all! The most equitable way to divide taxes would be to have everyone pay exactly the same amount. That would come to about $42,000 per taxpayer. Would you prefer this "more fair" tax? Are you saying that's the only other option?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #28 May 6, 2009 QuoteIs it a major shock that people will exhaust their financial resources no matter how much they make? Of course the 250k group may not be "rich", but they have more options to sacrifice than households making 40k. Actually, that depends quite a lot on individual circumstances. I'm guessing that very few people making 40k have to pay off a few hundred thousand in school loans, for example.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 May 6, 2009 QuoteYou are making assumptions that may or may not be correct, but are not supported by the data. That's possible - let's see how the IRS data matches up. QuoteOnly about 5% of U.S. households have annual incomes over $200,000. IRS data shows about 3.8% for the 2006 returns - a bit misleading, but close enough, I suppose. So, we'll work with the 5% bracket as our "working rich" the purpose of the article. QuoteIn 2006, the most recent year for which information is available, the average tax rate for the working rich was 22.8% Actually, this tax rate is what the top 1% pay. These 1.4 million people pay 40% of the tax burden. The 6.8 million people in the top 5% have an average tax rate of 20.68% and pay 60% of the tax burden. **In this instance, the article is a bit misleading compared to the IRS data, looking at tax rates for the two brackets.** QuoteThat same year the average tax rate paid by the super-rich - the 400 filers with the highest incomes - was only 17.2%. That's what the graph says, yes. The page below that shows the following info: 58% of the 400 paid 35% tax or greater 35% of the 400 paid either 26% or 28% tax. 7% of the 400 paid less than 26% taxMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #30 May 6, 2009 QuoteThat same year the average tax rate paid by the super-rich - the 400 filers with the highest incomes - was only 17.2%." It depends how you spin the numbers. Although qualified dividends are currently taxed at 15% that's after corporate taxes which are 35% on most healthy C-corps for an actual tax rate of 50% although only 15% is showing up on personal income tax rolls. Although long term capital gains are taxed at 15%, it's on money which the government has devalued to the tune of 2-4% a year. If I bought $100,000 worth of stock in 1998 and sell it for $150,000 in 2008 I pay $7500 in taxes. However since my basis in 2008 dollars is only $131,520 my real gains are $18,480 in current dollars and I've effectively payed a 41% tax rate on that although my return only shows 15%. Short term capital gains are probably being taxed at 36% due to inflation. Wages are being taxed federally at 37.9% due to the medicare surcharge. Social Security is more of a mandatory retirement program with a lousy rate of return where more contributions mean more benefits than a straight tax and isn't as relevant at these income levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 May 6, 2009 QuoteThat's possible - let's see how the IRS data matches up. Would you mind posting a link to the IRS page to which you are referring, please? If the link has already been posted in the thread, could you please give a post number? Thanks.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #32 May 6, 2009 QuoteThe most equitable way to divide taxes would be to have everyone pay exactly the same amount. That would come to about $42,000 per taxpayer. Would you prefer this "more fair" tax? Don't agree - to me, the most equitable way to tax is everyone pays the same percentage - flat tax. That includes a socialist aspect, because everyone pays the same proportion of their income, and it factors in the reality that many people don't even make enough money to pay an equal share. Then, if you want to get even more socialist, there is the Graduated Flat tax, which allows those in the lower brackets more breathing room, but also opens the door to government abuse (since they decide the graduation levels). Of course, on the other side of it, corporations will always be allowed to abuse write-offs, so it's still fairly balanced. Our current system of Progressive tax allows the most cheating on both sides, and really punishes the people that try to be earnest. It also promotes an entire industry devoted to taxes that keep lawyers (and lawmakers) employed. Personally, I would rather pay more in flat taxes than spend weeks trying to figure out what I can and can't write off.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #33 May 6, 2009 a flat rate inheritance tax is the fairest tax.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jman 0 #34 May 6, 2009 Post: Is it a major shock that people will exhaust their financial resources no matter how much they make? Of course the 250k group may not be "rich", but they have more options to sacrifice than households making 40k. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree... 40k didn't get you far in 1990 & even less so nowadays. Housing, food, transportation, insurance, utilities, & other basics have risen dramatically, while salaries have remained stagnant. The mindset of some people that I know who make anywhere from 200k to tens of millions of dollars per year is that "everyone lives like they do". I don't know how or why they can think this way, but they do. This is also a group that considers & treats "inconveniences" as emergencies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #35 May 6, 2009 QuoteThe most equitable way to divide taxes would be to have everyone pay exactly the same amount. That would come to about $42,000 per taxpayer. Would you prefer this "more fair" tax? Percentage is better. Make very little, pay very little; make a lot, pay a lot. Very fair, and those that pay very little still get the benefit of all the amenities paid for by taxes." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #36 May 6, 2009 The one I like is basically the one proposed by Jerry Brown (Governor Moonbeam) back in the 90's. Create an income "floor" below which you pay no income tax at all--something like 25k or 30k dollars per year. Then tax all income above that floor at a flat rate. Create a national VAT (sales tax) at a very similar rate (I think Brown wanted something like 13% rates on each tax, but I can't recall his details). This sort of tax system encourages saving over consumption, eliminates loopholes and leaves the poor (and even the not-so-poor) with either zero or near-zero income tax burden.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #37 May 6, 2009 QuoteYou gave the government the right - by voting, didn't you? Who should pay for the running of the country, it's wars, it's research, it's shared amenities .... etc.... ? My biggest gripe is what falls into that catch-all running-of-the-country category. Defense, shared amenities like fire & police, public primary and secondary education - all good and well. I don't think our welfare system falls into these categories; but my guess is that it's proponents see it as running the country." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 May 6, 2009 Quote40k didn't get you far in 1990 & even less so nowadays. Housing, food, transportation, insurance, utilities, & other basics have risen dramatically, while salaries have remained stagnant. The mindset of some people that I know who make anywhere from 200k to tens of millions of dollars per year is that "everyone lives like they do". I don't know how or why they can think this way, but they do. This is also a group that considers & treats "inconveniences" as emergencies. In the 90's, I was a single guy making in the range of 40-50k. Now, I've got a higher income and a family, as well as a bunch more educational debt to pay off. I felt a lot "richer" in terms of the luxuries I could afford and the things I could do, then, than I do now. That's because I had a lot more discretionary income then--I got to play with virtually all of my money. That's simply not the case now. Why should I be paying more taxes now, again? Because I'm "rich"?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #39 May 6, 2009 Quote>I didn't say they would take themselves elsewhere I said they would take >their money and jobs elsewhere! Fair enough! So I guess it's safe to say that they are fine with their _own_ taxes, then - and we should be reducing taxes on the jobs (i.e. the lower level employees) instead. Bill..... I do love your responses..... no that is not what I am saying at all. They are not "happy" with their taxes and will be flat "pissed off" with them higher. That was good though.Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #40 May 6, 2009 QuotePost: Is it a major shock that people will exhaust their financial resources no matter how much they make? Of course the 250k group may not be "rich", but they have more options to sacrifice than households making 40k. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree... 40k didn't get you far in 1990 & even less so nowadays. Housing, food, transportation, insurance, utilities, & other basics have risen dramatically, while salaries have remained stagnant. The mindset of some people that I know who make anywhere from 200k to tens of millions of dollars per year is that "everyone lives like they do". I don't know how or why they can think this way, but they do. This is also a group that considers & treats "inconveniences" as emergencies. Thank you for that Jman.... I appreciate the broad stroke..... read above.... I am in that group and your comments do not apply to me!Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #41 May 6, 2009 QuoteThey are not "happy" with their taxes and will be flat "pissed off" with them higher. [Obama Mind Trick]They are "happy" paying higher taxes because they are rich.[/Obama Mind Trick]"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #42 May 6, 2009 QuoteThat's the point though..... why do I have to? What gives anyone the right to take away from my family or future family especially when I am not living the high life by any means. I really do not get how that makes sense to anybody. why should you lifestyle choice have ANY bearing on it one way or the other? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 May 6, 2009 QuoteThe one I like is basically the one proposed by Jerry Brown (Governor Moonbeam) back in the 90's. Create an income "floor" below which you pay no income tax at all--something like 25k or 30k dollars per year. Then tax all income above that floor at a flat rate. Create a national VAT (sales tax) at a very similar rate (I think Brown wanted something like 13% rates on each tax, but I can't recall his details). This sort of tax system encourages saving over consumption, eliminates loopholes and leaves the poor (and even the not-so-poor) with either zero or near-zero income tax burden. everybody should directly pay SOMETHING, even if it's a token gesture (outside the sales tax which is indirect) - direct ownership of the government is necessary for all citizens so I'd like that plan if we allocated a minimum tax amount on all citizens, then the exemption amount, then the flat rate IMO - it's not 'fair', I'd say the flat fee, or the flat rate is more 'fair'. This is still a progressive rate structure, but it's doable, and can be applied to everyone without bias However, at our current political climate, you see the "floor" move to 40K/family, and then the rate above that go to 110% I'm not cynical, you are. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #44 May 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteThat's the point though..... why do I have to? What gives anyone the right to take away from my family or future family especially when I am not living the high life by any means. I really do not get how that makes sense to anybody. why should you lifestyle choice have ANY bearing on it one way or the other? It doesn't it but it seems to be the reason given for why people in the tax brackets below me pay so much less or nothing at all. That is what I hear everytime from people who support the tax hikes or current structure. I am a fan of a flat tax however it could be worked. I really believe the private sector manages gifts and gives more than the government ever has to the less fortunate so why not empower that more?Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #45 May 6, 2009 Quote I am a fan of a flat tax flat tax rate or flat tax amount (Billvon's strawhorse) ? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #46 May 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteThat's the point though..... why do I have to? What gives anyone the right to take away from my family or future family especially when I am not living the high life by any means. I really do not get how that makes sense to anybody. why should you lifestyle choice have ANY bearing on it one way or the other? I actually agree with you (I assume) that it should not, but you could easily make the argument that some lifestyle choices are better for society as a whole (in fact, this argument drives a great deal of government policy, especially tax policy). For example, if you thought that home ownership was "good" you could deduct mortgage interest paid from taxable income. Or if you wanted people to buy American cars, you could offer tax deductions for the interest paid on car loans. For more far-fetched examples, if you wanted people to save, you could offer a tax deduction equal to the amount saved. You could also recognize that some people have put themselves hugely into debt in order to provide services that society values (doctors are a prime example of this at the present moment), and realize that if you tax the heck out of them while they are still trying to pay off their educational loans, you're likely to discourage others from entering into those sorts of professions.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #47 May 6, 2009 QuoteQuote I am a fan of a flat tax flat tax rate or flat tax amount (Billvon's strawhorse) ? flat tax rateLife is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #48 May 6, 2009 QuoteI don't think our welfare system falls into these categories; but my guess is that it's proponents see it as running the country. It does in our country (and many others) and works pretty well for us, on the whole. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 May 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteThat's possible - let's see how the IRS data matches up. Would you mind posting a link to the IRS page to which you are referring, please? If the link has already been posted in the thread, could you please give a post number? Thanks. Top 400 info Top 1% 5% 10% info Number of returns by tax rateMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #50 May 7, 2009 Just going to paly devil's advocate: This plan could still be perceived as unfair by some. For example, a person living in Detroit is going to have a much different base cost of living than a person living in, say San Francisco. A tax system such as you have described would put significantly more burden on someone in San Francisco making 100K per year, both in the income tax and VAT tax, than it would on the person in Detroit with the same income. It is virtually impossible to create a tax system that seems fair to all involved. That is one of the reason that government spending (which is the real cause of taxation) needs to be curbed. If we could curb the spending, it would be easier to come up with a tax system that was more palatable. Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
