|
On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? that's stupid logic, sorry. You're taking into account how many people belong into one of your groups (top 5, bottom 90 etc.), whereas a fair tax system shouldn't care. Each citizen should pay a certain tax, no matter how many others are in the same tax range. And just because the top 5% people of the US earn more than the remaining 95% shouldn't make you argue that they are paying more than enough. Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue.
In my opinion a tax system should incorporate one fundamental thing: people with a higher income in absolute numbers should be taxed at a higher rate than people with a lower income in absolute numbers.
What these numbers specifically are depends in the country. In Germany we have 5 different tax classes, with the highest capping at 52% iirc.
And in my opinion, I disagree.
|
On August 17 2011 07:32 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:28 andrewlt wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 07:15 Gaga wrote:On August 17 2011 07:01 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:58 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 Megatronn wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 canikizu wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It doesn't matter how much money he gives away, if it's not distributed right (ie via tax to infrastructure, education,v.v..v.), it's a waste of money. Buffet has always been my hero. So we should get rid of wellfare because that's basically giving someone their fish, right? I am gonna get hated so much in this thread ^^. Brb popcorn. You're blatantly trolling, its obnoxious. While taxing the rich more will not immediately solve the debt problem, changing the tax structure can help job creation. Low capital gains taxes just encourage dividend payouts over job creation and investment by executives. Someone gets it. Lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations will decrease the cost of doing business in the US, which will promote job growth. Why do you think China is growing so fast? The cost of doing business over there is less than in the US. i can't believe people really believe that bullshit. wake up man, until you don't want wages and work conditions like in china don't argue like that. This is not bullshit. It takes millions of dollars to develop a new product, scale it up, then market and sell the product. Then you need to worry about the government retroactively regulating your product and driving you out of business. Companies don't pay taxes on their expenses, you know. And there's something perverse about companies accounting for product development costs as assets in their financial accounting to raise their stock but counting it as an expense on their tax accounting to lower their taxes. The point was that regulation hampers product development. And taxes do play a role in expenses. Take SS taxes. Unemployment insurance. These taxes raise the cost of hiring a worker.
And what does those have to do with personal income taxes? SS and unemployment insurances taxes have as much to do with this topic than cigarette and alcohol taxes.
The issue is personal income taxes for individuals. And the richest people are paying a smaller percentage because long term capital gains are taxed at a 15% rate.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 07:26 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:23 zeru wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? If anything that just shows how much money the rich actually have and that it will only help if they pay way more and it wont hurt them a single bit. I dont see that as a good argument at all for the ones who disagree with Buffett. So, your response is that it's never enough ? The rich should just fund the government, no matter how irresponsible the spending becomes ?
Saying the rich should pay more does not mean we also support irresponsible spending, both problems need to be fixed..
|
On August 17 2011 07:38 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:32 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 07:28 andrewlt wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 07:15 Gaga wrote:On August 17 2011 07:01 hacpee wrote:On August 17 2011 06:58 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 17 2011 06:53 Megatronn wrote:On August 17 2011 06:50 canikizu wrote:On August 17 2011 06:41 Megatronn wrote:
If he's so concerned why doesn't he just give his money away to some poor families? o.o Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. It doesn't matter how much money he gives away, if it's not distributed right (ie via tax to infrastructure, education,v.v..v.), it's a waste of money. Buffet has always been my hero. So we should get rid of wellfare because that's basically giving someone their fish, right? I am gonna get hated so much in this thread ^^. Brb popcorn. You're blatantly trolling, its obnoxious. While taxing the rich more will not immediately solve the debt problem, changing the tax structure can help job creation. Low capital gains taxes just encourage dividend payouts over job creation and investment by executives. Someone gets it. Lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations will decrease the cost of doing business in the US, which will promote job growth. Why do you think China is growing so fast? The cost of doing business over there is less than in the US. i can't believe people really believe that bullshit. wake up man, until you don't want wages and work conditions like in china don't argue like that. This is not bullshit. It takes millions of dollars to develop a new product, scale it up, then market and sell the product. Then you need to worry about the government retroactively regulating your product and driving you out of business. Companies don't pay taxes on their expenses, you know. And there's something perverse about companies accounting for product development costs as assets in their financial accounting to raise their stock but counting it as an expense on their tax accounting to lower their taxes. The point was that regulation hampers product development. And taxes do play a role in expenses. Take SS taxes. Unemployment insurance. These taxes raise the cost of hiring a worker. And what does those have to do with personal income taxes? SS and unemployment insurances taxes have as much to do with this topic than cigarette and alcohol taxes. The issue is personal income taxes for individuals. And the richest people are paying a smaller percentage because long term capital gains are taxed at a 15% rate.
If you read far enough down, my reply was to the comment that changing the tax structure can encourage job growth. I don't think you took the time to however.
|
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right?
|
On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? that's stupid logic, sorry. You're taking into account how many people belong into one of your groups (top 5, bottom 90 etc.), whereas a fair tax system shouldn't care. Each citizen should pay a certain tax, no matter how many others are in the same tax range. And just because the top 5% people of the US earn more than the remaining 95% shouldn't make you argue that they are paying more than enough. Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue. In my opinion a tax system should incorporate one fundamental thing: people with a higher income in absolute numbers should be taxed at a higher rate than people with a lower income in absolute numbers. What these numbers specifically are depends in the country. In Germany we have 5 different tax classes, with the highest capping at 52% iirc.
Ok, what about deductions for such things as charitable contributions, tax-deferred retirement accounts, unreimbursed employee business expenses, such as teachers having to purchase school supplies out of their own pockets. Should these, among other things be subtracted out for purposes of calculating how much income taxes should be paid ? What about providing incentive for home ownership by providing for mortgage interest and real estate taxes being deductible ? How about child care expenses so that families with children have more money to take care of their children, whereas people with the same income, but no kids, don't have such expenses to worry about ?
How would some of these issues fit into your tax system ? I'm just assuming when you say "higher income in absolute numbers" you don't take such things into account.
The thing is, the more of these things that get factored in, you get closer and closer to what we currently have and it results in those with higher incomes getting more benefit from such things, and we're back where we started. Arguing about silly %'s of taxes paid relative to income instead understanding that those with the most, do pay the most.
|
On August 17 2011 07:38 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? stop being dumb. the top 1% have over 95% of the country's wealth, so the fact that they only pay 38% in taxes is astounding.
I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect, I've seen figures for around 40-42%, but 95% is wrong.
|
On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right?
Your argument is flawed your idea of them paying less of a % of the income taxes would mean they would eventually accumulate more money and thus pay more of a % meaning the more someone makes the lower and lower you have to tax them, taken to the extreme the wealth of the top would out weight everything in the bottom leaving the bottom to pay out most of their income to taxes and the wealthly to pay out near nothing.
|
On August 17 2011 07:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? that's stupid logic, sorry. You're taking into account how many people belong into one of your groups (top 5, bottom 90 etc.), whereas a fair tax system shouldn't care. Each citizen should pay a certain tax, no matter how many others are in the same tax range. And just because the top 5% people of the US earn more than the remaining 95% shouldn't make you argue that they are paying more than enough. Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue. In my opinion a tax system should incorporate one fundamental thing: people with a higher income in absolute numbers should be taxed at a higher rate than people with a lower income in absolute numbers. What these numbers specifically are depends in the country. In Germany we have 5 different tax classes, with the highest capping at 52% iirc. Ok, what about deductions for such things as charitable contributions, tax-deferred retirement accounts, unreimbursed employee business expenses, such as teachers having to purchase school supplies out of their own pockets. Should these, among other things be subtracted out for purposes of calculating how much income taxes should be paid ? What about providing incentive for home ownership by providing for mortgage interest and real estate taxes being deductible ? How about child care expenses so that families with children have more money to take care of their children, whereas people with the same income, but no kids, don't have such expenses to worry about ? How would some of these issues fit into your tax system ? I'm just assuming when you say "higher income in absolute numbers" you don't take such things into account. The thing is, the more of these things that get factored in, you get closer and closer to what we currently have and it results in those with higher incomes getting more benefit from such things, and we're back where we started. Arguing about silly %'s of taxes paid relative to income instead understanding that those with the most, do pay the most.
i think your list of tax deductible things is too specific to get into in a more general thread on the issue ; /
the main point seems to be that as you get richer, the cost of keeping yourself alive doesnt go up, so a linear tax increase makes no sense. tax increases should be exponential or something, because it not only becomes difficult to find more expensive food as you get richer, but some costs such as medical bills can go down
|
On August 17 2011 07:38 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? stop being dumb. the top 1% have over 95% of the country's wealth, so the fact that they only pay 38% in taxes is astounding.
You shouldn't accuse someone of being dumb, then attribute wealth to a % of income taxes in two consecutive sentences. I could have $10 billion in wealth, have no income for a particular year, and pay 0 income taxes and no change in income tax rates would change that. Wealth is not income.
|
On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right?
Nobody with a brain thinks we can tax are way out of it..... but taxes in combination with spending cuts and cutting waste is the way out of it. without all of those things it will NEVER get fixed. 2 out of 3 is never going to cut it.
This thread is just about 1 part of the 3 of those things, but dont be confused that people here think its ALL we need to do. It is just what this thread is. We can have another thread if you like on what we can cut. and another thread on where we can stop waste. Also another thread on the combo of all 3, this thread however is about taxs rates
Ps. i know a lot of people do cutting spending and cutting waste as the same thing. I feel you can put them in different boats as things we can cut completely and things we can just reform
|
On August 17 2011 07:40 rambomcfantastic wrote:
The wealthiest 1% (the "super rich") pay approx 37% of all taxes. Before you make haste to response "well that's a percentage of the total tax burden and not of their individual wealth" just pause a second, and think about those numbers. Top 1% pays ~35-40% of the ENTIRE tax burden. The top 10% pay ~68% of the entire tax burden. So, regardless of what the individual tax rates are, I think that 10% paying ~70% of the total bill is pretty reasonable. This whole "the rich need to pay their fair share!" argument is a huge distraction from the real financial issues which our nation faces: exponentially increasing government spending. The blame for that doesn't belong on Democrats or republicans, it's on the whole system. When GWB took office the federal budget was around $2T, by the time he left in '08, it was up 50% to $3.1T. Obama took that trend and ran with it, accelerating the pace of growth so that in 3 short years the budget is now up to the mind-blowingly incomprehensible amount of $3.7T. That's a stack of newly minted and pressed $1 bills 251,104 miles high. Enough to wrap the world 10 times. Enough to go to the moon and then wrap that. And we're borrowing most of it.
Here's the important part of all that: even if you raised the tax rate for the top 1% (those earning $380,000 or more - from mostly small business owners on the lower end to those we tend to think of as extravagantly wealthy) to 100%, we'd raise about $1T. Our current deficit is $1.6T. Basically, we can't tax our way out of this hole. We have to stop digging. Right? I mean, right?
So your argument is that we shouldn't take issue with the fact that the super rich pay less taxes as a percentage of their earning is "well look at how much they pay, it's a big number!". That is a very weak argument. Everyone should pay their fair share as a percentage of how much they earn, the American public agrees with that (look at the polling) and so do many of the super rich themselves, Buffet included. Just saying "well it's already a big number! that's good enough!" is a nonsensical argument. You're going to have to do better than that.
Likewise, I find it insulting that you think people are not capable of tackling multiple issues at once. Saying that by focusing on the tax issue, we're being distracted from the deficit issue is disingenuous at best.
|
I see three flaws to this argument: 1. The assumption that the government will do better with more money or needs more money, rather than BETTER management and better ways of spending of money; 2. The government is already spending more money than it ever has, and as this spending has increased, the efficiency of the spending has decreased; 3. Define rich. People with over $1 billion, $1 million, $100k? Currently the government defines "rich" around $200k, which I think hardly qualifies.
|
On August 17 2011 07:33 Larker wrote:
I really don't understand your point of view. "The government only serves the wealthiest of Americans while the bottom 90% is swindled, therefore, the solution should be to raise tax rates to give the government more power." You realize you're contradicting yourself right?
All forms of government are evil and corrupt to some degree. The conservative viewpoint is lower taxes and smaller government so they have less power in our day to day lives so their corruption is pretty much irrelevant. Yet, you are anti-conservative.
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."- Thomas Jefferson.
I'm not for "lower taxes", I'm for appropriate taxes. If simple math dictates that I need to be taxed more to pay my fair share so that our country doesn't implode, I feel it is my duty to do so. Yes, I'm raging about an unfixable problem. Short of scrapping our entire system of government, there will always be people in Washington beholden to lobbyists, and consequently, beholden to the people with the biggest pocketbooks.
Your argument is somewhat circular though. If I got my way and taxes paid by the wealthy increased, the government would be breaking the cycle of coddling. Perhaps I am being naive to think that this could ever happen. This is drifting perilously close to an abstract philosophy discussion though (which I have no use for). If we're not careful, Xarthaz will be in here pasting pages of text from Mises.
|
On August 17 2011 07:38 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:14 zeru wrote:
The income tax for rich people is no doubt a massive joke in the US. If i remember correctly the "rich" in sweden pay 60% income tax. I think even that is too little. I'm a student. I pay 60% and manage to save up what equals @ 100 USD a month after all expenses are paid. I think that is too much and I think it is retarded that there isn't just a flat percentage on ALL income (except inheritance - the tax has already been paid once, taxing the money twice seems excessive at best, or put more directly, like stealing) which is the same for everyone - THAT is the only thing that is fair.
60% income tax, are you a rich student with expensive lifestyle, or you also include healthcare costs, social security/pension insurance and similar ? Because according to wiki income tax in Denmark is 42%-63%, so with your 100$ leftover I would guess that you are on the bottom of that scale ?
|
On August 17 2011 07:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? that's stupid logic, sorry. You're taking into account how many people belong into one of your groups (top 5, bottom 90 etc.), whereas a fair tax system shouldn't care. Each citizen should pay a certain tax, no matter how many others are in the same tax range. And just because the top 5% people of the US earn more than the remaining 95% shouldn't make you argue that they are paying more than enough. Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue. In my opinion a tax system should incorporate one fundamental thing: people with a higher income in absolute numbers should be taxed at a higher rate than people with a lower income in absolute numbers. What these numbers specifically are depends in the country. In Germany we have 5 different tax classes, with the highest capping at 52% iirc. Ok, what about deductions for such things as charitable contributions, tax-deferred retirement accounts, unreimbursed employee business expenses, such as teachers having to purchase school supplies out of their own pockets. Should these, among other things be subtracted out for purposes of calculating how much income taxes should be paid ? What about providing incentive for home ownership by providing for mortgage interest and real estate taxes being deductible ? How about child care expenses so that families with children have more money to take care of their children, whereas people with the same income, but no kids, don't have such expenses to worry about ? How would some of these issues fit into your tax system ? I'm just assuming when you say "higher income in absolute numbers" you don't take such things into account. The thing is, the more of these things that get factored in, you get closer and closer to what we currently have and it results in those with higher incomes getting more benefit from such things, and we're back where we started. Arguing about silly %'s of taxes paid relative to income instead understanding that those with the most, do pay the most.
well, if I was able to come up with a functioing tax system for the US from scratch all on my own, I would be doing something else than reading TL. The German tax system certainly has it's own flaws, namely that people with a lot of money invest this money to further their wealth, while at the same time being able to list these investements as extra debts, which in turn cut down their tax expenses.
The German tax system is terribly complicated. Whenever a new hole in the law is discovered, there's a new legislation passed that opens up 5 new holes. I just think a tax system should be kept simple from an abstract point of view, even though I have no idea how that can be achieved.
|
On August 17 2011 07:48 AcuWill wrote:
I see three flaws to this argument: 1. The assumption that the government will do better with more money or needs more money, rather than BETTER management and better ways of spending of money; 2. The government is already spending more money than it ever has, and as this spending has increased, the efficiency of the spending has decreased; 3. Define rich. People with over $1 billion, $1 million, $100k? Currently the government defines "rich" around $200k, which I think hardly qualifies.
Did you even read the article? Your question about defining the super rich are addressed in the article.
|
On August 17 2011 07:44 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:40 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? that's stupid logic, sorry. You're taking into account how many people belong into one of your groups (top 5, bottom 90 etc.), whereas a fair tax system shouldn't care. Each citizen should pay a certain tax, no matter how many others are in the same tax range. And just because the top 5% people of the US earn more than the remaining 95% shouldn't make you argue that they are paying more than enough. Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue. In my opinion a tax system should incorporate one fundamental thing: people with a higher income in absolute numbers should be taxed at a higher rate than people with a lower income in absolute numbers. What these numbers specifically are depends in the country. In Germany we have 5 different tax classes, with the highest capping at 52% iirc. Ok, what about deductions for such things as charitable contributions, tax-deferred retirement accounts, unreimbursed employee business expenses, such as teachers having to purchase school supplies out of their own pockets. Should these, among other things be subtracted out for purposes of calculating how much income taxes should be paid ? What about providing incentive for home ownership by providing for mortgage interest and real estate taxes being deductible ? How about child care expenses so that families with children have more money to take care of their children, whereas people with the same income, but no kids, don't have such expenses to worry about ? How would some of these issues fit into your tax system ? I'm just assuming when you say "higher income in absolute numbers" you don't take such things into account. The thing is, the more of these things that get factored in, you get closer and closer to what we currently have and it results in those with higher incomes getting more benefit from such things, and we're back where we started. Arguing about silly %'s of taxes paid relative to income instead understanding that those with the most, do pay the most. i think your list of tax deductible things is too specific to get into in a more general thread on the issue ; / the main point seems to be that as you get richer, the cost of keeping yourself alive doesnt go up, so a linear tax increase makes no sense. tax increases should be exponential or something, because it not only becomes difficult to find more expensive food as you get richer, but some costs such as medical bills can go down
But the point is, tax deductions, tax exempt income, etc. are the very things that rich people direct their money towards to reduce their tax burden as much as possible. This is exactly what creates this illusory lower % of income being paid by Buffett this his secretary. The fact is, comparing bottom line income taxes paid relative to "taxable income", I'd nearly guarantee Buffett's rate is higher than his secretary.
|
On August 17 2011 07:38 hacpee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 07:34 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:30 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:25 mathemagician1986 wrote:On August 17 2011 07:19 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 07:07 RJGooner wrote:On August 17 2011 07:05 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 06:46 FoeHamr wrote:
don't richest people in this country pay the most taxes already? No, not at all, at least not relative to the total amount of money they earn. They pay the least in taxes. The top 1% pay around 38% of the taxes and the top 10% pay around 70%. This is hardly the least. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.htmlAnother way to look at it is, in 2008, the top 1% paid 38.02% of all federal income taxes, the top 5% paid 58.72% of all federal income taxes, and the bottom 50% paid 2.7% of all federal income taxes. Extrapolate a couple numbers, and you find the bottom 95% paid 41.28%, which is only slightly more than the contribution made by the top 1% (38.02%). So, for the "tax the rich" crowd, how much is enough ? that's stupid logic, sorry. You're taking into account how many people belong into one of your groups (top 5, bottom 90 etc.), whereas a fair tax system shouldn't care. Each citizen should pay a certain tax, no matter how many others are in the same tax range. And just because the top 5% people of the US earn more than the remaining 95% shouldn't make you argue that they are paying more than enough. Could you give an example of what you mean by a 'fair tax system' wherein everyone 'should pay a certain tax'. I don't know what that means. I'll disregard the usage of the word citizen as I don't even want to touch that issue.
In my opinion a tax system should incorporate one fundamental thing: people with a higher income in absolute numbers should be taxed at a higher rate than people with a lower income in absolute numbers.
What these numbers specifically are depends in the country. In Germany we have 5 different tax classes, with the highest capping at 52% iirc. And in my opinion, I disagree.
you just keep responing in one liners. care to elaborate?
|
I wonder how Many people in the us make over 50 million per year. I feel like there's a huge difference between wealthy people 380k per year and super wealthy 5million a year and then the super super rich 50 million plus per year. Taxing 20% on those that make 380k is a lot compared to a person that brings 50 million per year.
Those that make 50 million will continue to grow exponentially compared to those at 380k
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
