|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital
Do you not read the chart?
|
On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true?
|
So Hillary Clinton is running for US presidency in 2016. I'm wondering what are your opinions on this. If I was American, I would vote for Rand Paul.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2015 23:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital Do you not read the chart? the chart is misleading. effective tax rate on reported income for the top 0.1% is around 20-25% by most estimates and this is not taking into account active evasion and avoidance schemes that gets more effective as the source of income is more diverse and international. and let's not get into real estate taxation
if your idea of measuring tax burden is simply looking at the federal top bracket rate for wage income then i wonder if you've ever filed a tax return in your lief
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 20 2015 23:13 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true? the claim was never 'pay more taxes' in absolute amount but in the form of higher rates and also higher burden in terms of impacting life.
just based on reported income alone the top 0.1% pays under 25% effective rate, while a working professional would pay around 40%.
|
On April 20 2015 23:58 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 23:08 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital Do you not read the chart? the chart is misleading. effective tax rate on reported income for the top 0.1% is around 20-25% by most estimates and this is not taking into account active evasion and avoidance schemes that gets more effective as the source of income is more diverse and international. and let's not get into real estate taxation if your idea of measuring tax burden is simply looking at the federal top bracket rate for wage income then i wonder if you've ever filed a tax return in your lief
The chart may be misleading you, because you are reading it incorrectly. It takes % of total revenues paid to the government, and divides it by total % of income earned. America has the highest such ratio of OECD countries which means, that the top % of Americans bears a larger burden of the taxes than in any other country. In other words, if you say "the rich are paying too little" you are just being intellectually dishonest. Really, what you want is more taxes on everyone. That's the only feasible way to generate more tax revenue.
|
Norway28675 Posts
the OECD chart doesn't look at top 0.1%, it looks at top 10%. Like I mentioned earlier I was genuinely surprised to find that top 10% was that high, but the top 10% doesn't relate to the billionaires or the 'obscenely rich', the ones I myself find politically and societally problematic. Even for a pretty far left leaning social democrat like myself, I don't see problems with some degree of economic inequality (like highly motivated, hard working and skilled people earning $80k a year - which puts them in the top 10%). Top 0.1% is $1.5 mill, even then you're still far away from the ones with the wealth that I find unpalatable. (well, that's in the ballpark actually. ;p )
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2015 00:51 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 23:58 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 23:08 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital Do you not read the chart? the chart is misleading. effective tax rate on reported income for the top 0.1% is around 20-25% by most estimates and this is not taking into account active evasion and avoidance schemes that gets more effective as the source of income is more diverse and international. and let's not get into real estate taxation if your idea of measuring tax burden is simply looking at the federal top bracket rate for wage income then i wonder if you've ever filed a tax return in your lief The chart may be misleading you, because you are reading it incorrectly. It takes % of total revenues paid to the government, and divides it by total % of income earned. America has the highest such ratio of OECD countries which means, that the top % of Americans bears a larger burden of the taxes than in any other country. In other words, if you say "the rich are paying too little" you are just being intellectually dishonest. Really, what you want is more taxes on everyone. That's the only feasible way to generate more tax revenue.
notice i connected my definition of 'rich' with substantial wealth ownership. this means looking at the group of people whose income is mainly investment/real estate.
effective tax burden should be examined based on the individual's wealth/income, because the 'fair' amount of tax burden depends on the structure of income/wealth distributino in a particular society. looking merely at revenue sourcing is not very informative.
the rest of your post is insubstantial.
|
On April 21 2015 00:02 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2015 23:13 Aveng3r wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true? the claim was never 'pay more taxes' in absolute amount but in the form of higher rates and also higher burden in terms of impacting life. just based on reported income alone the top 0.1% pays under 25% effective rate, while a working professional would pay around 40%. The top marginal rate is ~40%. How are you getting that a working professional will be paying 40%? Have you ever filed taxes?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2015 01:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 00:02 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 23:13 Aveng3r wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true? the claim was never 'pay more taxes' in absolute amount but in the form of higher rates and also higher burden in terms of impacting life. just based on reported income alone the top 0.1% pays under 25% effective rate, while a working professional would pay around 40%. The top marginal rate is ~40%. How are you getting that a working professional will be paying 40%? Have you ever filed taxes? effective tax rate jonny, including state taxes, payroll and ss.
the largest disparity in effective tax burden basically comes down to the composition of income. those who have fairly high income, top 10% even, but have that income in the form of wages will face high tax rate.
+ Show Spoiler + http://www.economics-finance.org/jefe/econ/Allenpaper2.pdftrash journal i know but the calculations are fairly simple. most state taxes such as property/excise are regressive, and payroll+fica are largely employee burdens. this chart is about 'marginal rate' which means, among other things, counting the loss of transfers in the lower ranges. so no poor people are not taxed at 40% they just face steep marginal effective tax given transfers. these rates should not be very different for present day given the presence of the AMT. but i was talking about working professionals earning 100k-200k in a major city. the amount of tax you get hit with at this range is pretty brutal.
|
Also, lest we forget the relative % of "disposable income" that taxes make up for each group
|
On April 21 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 00:51 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 23:58 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 23:08 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital Do you not read the chart? the chart is misleading. effective tax rate on reported income for the top 0.1% is around 20-25% by most estimates and this is not taking into account active evasion and avoidance schemes that gets more effective as the source of income is more diverse and international. and let's not get into real estate taxation if your idea of measuring tax burden is simply looking at the federal top bracket rate for wage income then i wonder if you've ever filed a tax return in your lief The chart may be misleading you, because you are reading it incorrectly. It takes % of total revenues paid to the government, and divides it by total % of income earned. America has the highest such ratio of OECD countries which means, that the top % of Americans bears a larger burden of the taxes than in any other country. In other words, if you say "the rich are paying too little" you are just being intellectually dishonest. Really, what you want is more taxes on everyone. That's the only feasible way to generate more tax revenue. notice i connected my definition of 'rich' with substantial wealth ownership. this means looking at the group of people whose income is mainly investment/real estate. effective tax burden should be examined based on the individual's wealth/income, because the 'fair' amount of tax burden depends on the structure of income/wealth distributino in a particular society. looking merely at revenue sourcing is not very informative. the rest of your post is insubstantial.
Then freaking bring your own chart. You don't just get to say "well, I don't like your evidence, I have my own perceptions of the world".
On April 21 2015 01:47 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 01:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2015 00:02 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 23:13 Aveng3r wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true? the claim was never 'pay more taxes' in absolute amount but in the form of higher rates and also higher burden in terms of impacting life. just based on reported income alone the top 0.1% pays under 25% effective rate, while a working professional would pay around 40%. The top marginal rate is ~40%. How are you getting that a working professional will be paying 40%? Have you ever filed taxes? effective tax rate jonny, including state taxes, payroll and ss. the largest disparity in effective tax burden basically comes down to the composition of income. those who have fairly high income, top 10% even, but have that income in the form of wages will face high tax rate. + Show Spoiler + http://www.economics-finance.org/jefe/econ/Allenpaper2.pdftrash journal i know but the calculations are fairly simple. most state taxes such as property/excise are regressive, and payroll+fica are largely employee burdens. this chart is about 'marginal rate' which means, among other things, counting the loss of transfers in the lower ranges. so no poor people are not taxed at 40% they just face steep marginal effective tax given transfers. these rates should not be very different for present day given the presence of the AMT. but i was talking about working professionals earning 100k-200k in a major city. the amount of tax you get hit with at this range is pretty brutal.
Basically, your argument is that the Payroll tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare, is a bad thing. I don't disagree that those are bad programs that are funded strangely. The reason they are is because they are crafted to be politically untouchable expansions of the Federal government. If there was no "set aside" there would be no "entitlements" and they would have been repealed years ago. Milton Friedman has a rant about Social Security which basically states that Social Security is two parts that are indefensible on their own: 1. A wage tax plus + 2. A subsidy that increases based on your previous income.
I don't know what to say, you are essentially attacking the modern welfare state, I'm not going to disagree with that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
citations about effective 0.1% tax rate.
Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent, which includes taxpayers with incomes over $2.2 million, actually paid a slightly lower income tax rate than the top 1 percent (21.7 percent versus 22.8 percent). This is due to the fact that very high income taxpayers are more likely to report a greater share of their income as taxable capital gains income. This leads to a slightly lower effective tax rate because capital gains and dividends income faces a lower top income tax rate http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-0
also stuff buffett and geithner said.
(double taxation through corporate tax does add substantially to this but problem is, effective corporate tax rate is not 35% and this is priced into the stock price)
point with payroll and local level taxation is that only focusing on the federal income tax would misrepresent the actual tax burden. not taking into account the very substantial loopholes and tax avoidance/evasion/deferments at the higher levels of sophistication also would distort one's perception of 'fair' tax burden.
the size of the u.s. welfare state is not that large especially considering the non-redistributive nature of much of local and state level system. (e.g. a school district funded by local property tax reinforces rather than breaks existing class differences) the federal level transfers are pretty insubstantial and can be counterproductive.
|
On April 21 2015 01:47 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 01:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2015 00:02 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 23:13 Aveng3r wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true? the claim was never 'pay more taxes' in absolute amount but in the form of higher rates and also higher burden in terms of impacting life. just based on reported income alone the top 0.1% pays under 25% effective rate, while a working professional would pay around 40%. The top marginal rate is ~40%. How are you getting that a working professional will be paying 40%? Have you ever filed taxes? effective tax rate jonny, including state taxes, payroll and ss. the largest disparity in effective tax burden basically comes down to the composition of income. those who have fairly high income, top 10% even, but have that income in the form of wages will face high tax rate. + Show Spoiler + http://www.economics-finance.org/jefe/econ/Allenpaper2.pdftrash journal i know but the calculations are fairly simple. most state taxes such as property/excise are regressive, and payroll+fica are largely employee burdens. this chart is about 'marginal rate' which means, among other things, counting the loss of transfers in the lower ranges. so no poor people are not taxed at 40% they just face steep marginal effective tax given transfers. these rates should not be very different for present day given the presence of the AMT. but i was talking about working professionals earning 100k-200k in a major city. the amount of tax you get hit with at this range is pretty brutal. Marginal tax rates aren't your effective tax rates though, that's your effective rate on the next dollar you earn. Actual effective tax rates are much lower.
To address your other post, effective tax rates as described by the IRS are going to be different from the CBO because of definitional differences. The CBO tries to get closer to reality, while the IRS goes strictly by tax law. This is important when you get into the top 0.1% and higher, since income will be split between multiple IRS taxpayers (C-corp and individual).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2015 03:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2015 01:47 oneofthem wrote:On April 21 2015 01:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 21 2015 00:02 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2015 23:13 Aveng3r wrote:On April 20 2015 22:58 oneofthem wrote: progressivity without distributive motive is just a formula for burden sharing. right now we are not even at that. amount of tax avoidance and evasive action is high enough to place tax burden on the most stressed rather than on those with major wealth.
redistributive tax rates havent been seen for half a century and wont evr work given globalization of capital I don't get why so many posts in this thread contend that "the most financially stressed taxpayers pay more in taxes than the rich". on what grounds is this true? the claim was never 'pay more taxes' in absolute amount but in the form of higher rates and also higher burden in terms of impacting life. just based on reported income alone the top 0.1% pays under 25% effective rate, while a working professional would pay around 40%. The top marginal rate is ~40%. How are you getting that a working professional will be paying 40%? Have you ever filed taxes? effective tax rate jonny, including state taxes, payroll and ss. the largest disparity in effective tax burden basically comes down to the composition of income. those who have fairly high income, top 10% even, but have that income in the form of wages will face high tax rate. + Show Spoiler + http://www.economics-finance.org/jefe/econ/Allenpaper2.pdftrash journal i know but the calculations are fairly simple. most state taxes such as property/excise are regressive, and payroll+fica are largely employee burdens. this chart is about 'marginal rate' which means, among other things, counting the loss of transfers in the lower ranges. so no poor people are not taxed at 40% they just face steep marginal effective tax given transfers. these rates should not be very different for present day given the presence of the AMT. but i was talking about working professionals earning 100k-200k in a major city. the amount oou get hit with at this range is pretty brutal. Marginal tax rates aren't your effective tax rates though, that's your effective rate on the next dollar you earn. Actual effective tax rates are much lower. To address your other post, effective tax rates as described by the IRS are going to be different from the CBO because of definitional differences. The CBO tries to get closer to reality, while the IRS goes strictly by tax law. This is important when you get into the top 0.1% and higher, since income will be split between multiple IRS taxpayers (C-corp and individual).
the federal effective tax rate on upper middle class professionals is already 25-30%(http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42043.pdf), adding the state stuff and 40% is a fair estimate. the reason why some CBO estimate for effective tax rate is low is due to the counting rule of various deductibles, many of which are targeted at families.
|
WASHINGTON -- Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) on Monday extended a short-term needle exchange program in order to respond to an exploding HIV crisis in southeastern Indiana.
"While we’ve made progress in identifying and treating those affected by this heartbreaking epidemic, the public health emergency continues and so must our efforts to fight it," Pence said in a statement.
As of April 17, the Indiana State Department of Health had confirmed 128 cases and at least six preliminary cases of HIV in Scott County, the governor's office reported. The week before, the county was looking at 106 cases. Typically, Scott County would see fewer than five new HIV cases a year.
Indiana's HIV crisis is linked to intravenous drug use of a prescription painkiller called Opana. Like many other conservatives, Pence opposes needle exchange programs as part of drug control efforts. The exchanges allow drug users to obtain sterile needles and have been shown to reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV, but critics say the programs facilitate drug abuse. Research has refuted that claim.
The exchanges are technically illegal in Indiana. But last month, Pence made an exception and signed an executive order authorizing a temporary needle exchange program that was set to expire this week. Pence has now extended that order for another 30 days. According to The New York Times, since the temporary exchange was approved, 5,322 clean syringes have been distributed to 86 people.
"The goal of that program is a clean needle for each person for each injection," Amber Kent, a spokeswoman for Indiana's Joint Information Center, told The Huffington Post. The center is working on behalf of the state's Department of Health.
Source
|
this is cheerful The FBI has admitted "errors" in evidence provided by its forensics laboratory to US courts to help secure convictions, including in death penalty cases, over more than 20 years.
A report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) noted "irregularities" in the hair analysis unit.
More detail on the cases affected is expected later from campaign groups. Flawed forensics were used in at least 60 capital punishment cases, the OIG report found.
Fourteen defendants were either executed or died in prison, says the Washington Post, which first reported the story at the weekend.
The review of cases was prompted by the Post's 2012 story that three men were wrongly placed at the scene of violent crimes by the unit's hair analysts, raising the possibility of hundreds of unsafe convictions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32380051
|
As the first black female mayor of Parma, Mo., took office last week, five of the town's six police officers resigned, Missouri television station KFVS reported.
The new mayor, Tyrus Byrd (pictured above on the right), was sworn in on Tuesday evening. Former Mayor Randall Ramsey told KFVS that in addition to the five police officers, the city's attorney, clerk and water treatment plant supervisor resigned due to "safety concerns."
Byrd was not aware why the five police officers resigned, according to KFVS. When she took office, Byrd said she could not find the resignation letters and that the city computers had been cleared. She told KFVS that she needs more information before addressing the resignations publicly.
Byrd was born and raised in Parma, and formerly served as the city clerk. Ramsey lost the mayoral election to Byrd by 37 votes after serving as the mayor for 37 years, according to KFVS.
Source
|
On April 21 2015 03:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) on Monday extended a short-term needle exchange program in order to respond to an exploding HIV crisis in southeastern Indiana.
"While we’ve made progress in identifying and treating those affected by this heartbreaking epidemic, the public health emergency continues and so must our efforts to fight it," Pence said in a statement.
As of April 17, the Indiana State Department of Health had confirmed 128 cases and at least six preliminary cases of HIV in Scott County, the governor's office reported. The week before, the county was looking at 106 cases. Typically, Scott County would see fewer than five new HIV cases a year.
Indiana's HIV crisis is linked to intravenous drug use of a prescription painkiller called Opana. Like many other conservatives, Pence opposes needle exchange programs as part of drug control efforts. The exchanges allow drug users to obtain sterile needles and have been shown to reduce the transmission of diseases like HIV, but critics say the programs facilitate drug abuse. Research has refuted that claim.
The exchanges are technically illegal in Indiana. But last month, Pence made an exception and signed an executive order authorizing a temporary needle exchange program that was set to expire this week. Pence has now extended that order for another 30 days. According to The New York Times, since the temporary exchange was approved, 5,322 clean syringes have been distributed to 86 people.
"The goal of that program is a clean needle for each person for each injection," Amber Kent, a spokeswoman for Indiana's Joint Information Center, told The Huffington Post. The center is working on behalf of the state's Department of Health. Source Can someone tell me how handing out clean needles is not facilitating drug use? Sure seems like it does to me. Maybe instead of handing out needles, they should offer free rehab. Offer real help instead of just stringing people along.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
addicts would not refrain from using for lack of clean needles, so assuming addiction already exists this doesn't change matters much except prevent hiv spread.
|
|
|
|