EPTI've been searching for a blog someone made about their dad only making about $100k a year and then bitching about how Obama's proposed tax rate for the upper class meant his family was going to make a lot less. Can't find it thou, but that truly made me laugh.
1/3 of Filers Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2007 - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BuGzlToOnl
United States5918 Posts
I've been searching for a blog someone made about their dad only making about $100k a year and then bitching about how Obama's proposed tax rate for the upper class meant his family was going to make a lot less. Can't find it thou, but that truly made me laugh. | ||
|
zeppelin
United States565 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
Instead of worrying about what is actually done with taxes paid, people argue that they shouldn't have to pay taxes in the first place (or that the taxes should be lower). Of course, there won't ever be a time where you legally won't have to pay taxes, but here we go, arguing over it anyway. But maybe instead, just once, we could recognize the real issues we have in the US. What would we accomplish if our tax money was used for reasonable goals, rather than insane ones like our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what we should be upset over: the misuse of taxes, not the fact they're being taken in the first place. It's the same thing as when we discuss health care and note that we spend more money per capita than any country, yet lag far, far behind in results. The system is broken, and you're not helping anyone by arguing that it shouldn't exist in the first place. Instead of actually making it work, we just end up making it more convoluted, keeping the failed entities (insurance companies, presidents, etc) in place. Yes, I know there's an underlying agenda here - a libertarian 'privatize everything' ideology. But a rational, thoughtful society has no reason to even consider ideas like those, especially not in this era of human history. This is just another instance where the rest of the industrialized world gets to both laugh and cry over our ridiculous behavior. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
Right now, the marginal tax rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%. If lawmakers do nothing, the tax rates would revert to their earlier levels of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6% The Bush legislation also brought a 15% tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. And the rate drops to 0% for filers in the lowest two tax brackets. Those rates are set to expire at the end of 2010. Under current law, capital gains rates would go back to 20% (10% for some lower-income filers) and qualified dividends would be taxed as ordinary income up to the top rate of 39.6%. | ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
| ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote: Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote: Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On December 18 2009 01:43 Undisputed- wrote: The highest earners pay in taxes close to 50% of their income depending on the state (New York sucks) how much more do you really want them to pay lol. Seems silly to penalize success imo. That's ludicrous. If I was making $10million per year for playing games with paper at an investment bank but only took home $5million, I would certainly not complain. Of course it's more like 43% and only applies to their earned income above $250k, but that's just a technicality right? You're also assuming that people with the "highest income" are the "highest earners". Most people who make over $250k per year do not do so by actively earning a wage, they do so from passive income through investments. This is money they don't work for. And they actually pay less tax on THAT income than they do on the money they have to (arguably) work for. I'm certainly not against income from investments, but I am against people characterizing those with the most income from said investments as the "most productive" and the "highest earners", because they're simply not. The highest "earners" are people like investment bankers who make $10mil per year. Doctors and lawyers generally come in around the $300k mark... pitiful by comparison. And then of course teachers make like $35k... what a great system we have. Isn't raw unadulterated capitalism amazing?  | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote: No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. | ||
|
agorist
United States115 Posts
On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote: Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On December 17 2009 05:55 IceCube wrote: Come to Croatia, here you HAVE to pay taxes or else they just take it from you...one way or another you'll pay. Come to Sweden, here you can fuck around with taxes until you get caught. Then you can move to another country An additional idea is to keep savings accounts in tax paradise places like Cayman islands or wherever | ||
|
Foucault
Sweden2826 Posts
On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote: Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? Yeah it sounds fine and dandy if you're not the one with high income. Say you work your ass off each and every day, have an 8 year university education and managed to get a good job. Should you pay relatively more tax than someone else who didn't bother go down the road of ambitions and instead works at wal-mart? I think not. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On December 17 2009 06:08 bburn wrote: I believe payroll tax is what is paid by the employer based on its payroll. Then income tax is what the employee pays (although this is withold from your paycheck by the company). Doesn't matter if they can pay it or not, gov takes what they can from what you have. Doesn't have to be a lot just something. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
Undisputed-
United States379 Posts
On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote: So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? This | ||
|
yhnmk
Canada630 Posts
| ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On December 17 2009 05:53 motbob wrote: payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government ![[image loading]](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif) Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
| ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 18 2009 15:41 gchan wrote: Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%. Huh? I thought companies were forced to withhold the tax money from the employee's paycheck. | ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
On December 17 2009 10:09 KwarK wrote: Although there was a legal defence, if you were asked to contribute by buying a ship and you felt there was someone richer than you who hadn't been asked you could take him to court and if you proved he was richer then it became his tax burden and not yours. You could never really prove that the other guy was richer than you. An antidosis was a really messy situation (and no record exists of one being performed) so the citizen being challenged would just accept the responsibility of the liturgy. It was more or less just a tool to be used in court, much like a proclesis of basanos (see Demosthenes 21 for a good example). | ||
| ||
