tax code written for the rich

[Corwyn]

"Democrats have the popular misconception that somehow the Bush tax cut unfairly benefit the rich."
I hear this all the time from the rep talking heads.

Is there ANY evidence for this??? Because everything that I find
tells me exactly the opposite. From all kinds of sources;


http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1776

There are dozen other links, admittedly more bias, bu especially "perfectly legal as been praised reps adn dems alike as a very balanced book.

Yes, the middle class got a few hundred bucks, but according to some estimated as much as 55% of the tax benefits go to the top 1%. The tax code IS written to benefit the rich.

If this trully benfits the whole country - i.e. trickle down economics - why don't the reps have the balls to come out and tell us the truth and make their case???

[Phrost]

While it'd be easy to dismiss the obvious left-leaning agenda of your second source, the first seems to be non-partisan from what I can tell.

It's a shame we never got this implemented:

http://www.ctj.org/html/mcca00pr.htm

[c0rbin]

Should the title of this thread be "Tax Code Written by the Rich"?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Corwyn said:
Yes, the middle class got a few hundred bucks, but according to some estimated as much as 55% of the tax benefits go to the top 1%. The tax code IS written to benefit the rich.
That does sound somewhat excessive. What portion of total income taxes are paid by the top 1%? And are we talking about the top 1% of income earners or the top 1% of income tax payers?

~~ Paul

[Phrost]

And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.

No rewards for stupidity, bad choices, lack of education.

No penalties for intelligence, good choices, talent.

[Tmy]

Flat tax woudl be great if it were the ONLY tax. Instead we have all these hidden/not so hidden taxes.

I probably pay a higher % in taxes out of my disposable income than say Teresa Heinz.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Phrost
And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.

No rewards for stupidity, bad choices, lack of education.

No penalties for intelligence, good choices, talent.

Jusr cause some one doesn't make much money doesnt mean that they dumb or ignorant.

The richest people I know arent the happiest people I know.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Corwyn
"Democrats have the popular misconception that somehow the Bush tax cut unfairly benefit the rich."
I hear this all the time from the rep talking heads.

The key word here is "fair". Republicans have a different concpetion than sane people.


If this trully benfits the whole country - i.e. trickle down economics - why don't the reps have the balls to come out and tell us the truth and make their case???

The initial argument for Bush's first tax was this: "If the gubmit is runnin' a surplus, then it's takin' too much of YOUR money."

PERFECTLY LEGAL is an excellent book. David Cay Johnston's columns are also required reading.

Prhost blathered:
And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.

No rewards for stupidity, bad choices, lack of education.

No penalties for intelligence, good choices, talent.

Be careful with what you wish for.

Tmy: what's so great/fair/wonderful about a flat tax? Besides, as Johnston shows (do a keyword search for these forums to see a previous post of mine on him) we basically already have a flat tax.

[Number Six]

For the sake of discussion, what kind of flat tax? I hear a lot of talk about a flat tax but it seems that exactly how it's implemented is the big thing. I mean, a flat tax of X% beginning at the Y-th earned dollar...but what are X and Y?

I predict that a pure flat tax will never come about. There are a couple things too sacred for the government to get rid of and one of them is the home mortgage deduction. And another of them is 401(k)-type retirement programs.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Cain

Tmy: what's so great/fair/wonderful about a flat tax? Besides, as Johnston shows (do a keyword search for these forums to see a previous post of mine on him) we basically already have a flat tax.

Err, not even close, at least from what I understand the flat tax idea to be. We have a progressive tax, with so many loopholes and incentives and what have you, it is the antithesis of the flat tax idea.

Also, neither source on these seemed to address the relative tax for the rich and the poor. Sure, the rich get more money back from the tax refunds, but they paid more to begin with (at least in theory - with the tax laws, who really knows for sure?)

[Tmy]

Im good with the idea of people payinga certain %. In theory its a good idea. IN THEORY COMMUNISM WORKS!!\\

I dont think a flat tax could work in real world situation.

[Cain]

Originally posted by DaveW
Err, not even close, at least from what I understand the flat tax idea to be. We have a progressive tax, with so many loopholes and incentives and what have you, it is the antithesis of the flat tax idea.

Also, neither source on these seemed to address the relative tax for the rich and the poor. Sure, the rich get more money back from the tax refunds, but they paid more to begin with (at least in theory - with the tax laws, who really knows for sure?)

No, we have a mildly progressive federal income tax. If you account for all taxes -- payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc. -- the top and bottom and quintiles pay a very similar percentage. Johnston says taxes are effectively flat.

[TragicMonkey]

I know I'm not very civilized, but I think the rich should get over it and get used to paying more taxes. They can consider it a fee for not being slaughtered in a communist uprising to redistribute the wealth. Money well spent, when you think about it.

Of course, my opinion will definitely change once I reach a certain income bracket myself:

"Oh my God, I'm rich! I suddenly have an opinion about the capital gains tax!" --Leela, Futurama

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Cain
No, we have a mildly progressive federal income tax. If you account for all taxes -- payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc. -- the top and bottom and quintiles pay a very similar percentage. Johnston says taxes are effectively flat.

Maybe... I'll take your word for it for now. But that is still decidedly not the idea of a flat tax. Yes, the similar rate is, but the other big part is transparency and ease of use. As a personal experience, though, I certainly pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes now than I did in my old, lower-paying job.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Cain
No, we have a mildly progressive federal income tax. If you account for all taxes -- payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc. -- the top and bottom and quintiles pay a very similar percentage. Johnston says taxes are effectively flat.

Yeah. When I put 20 gallons of gas in my Jeep and the rich guy in the Porshe puts 20 gallons in his car, we pay the same amount in taxes.

Alot of these Bush tax break guys like to think that Fed income tax is the only tax out there. How convienent when talking "fairness".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I propose that the word fair be left out of all discussions about taxes. It implies that there is only one dimension to tax fairness, which is obviously absurd.

How about we start by splitting the income tax into two taxes:

A flat service fee per individual. This is for all the services the government provides, whcih are of equal value to all citizens.
A graduated income redistribution tax, for purposes of reimbursing the service fee for those who need it, and for subsidizing government projects that cannot be considered a service.


~~ Paul

[Cain]

I commonly see two arguments against a progressive income tax. One is that the rich end up paying a greater share of the taxes. But the same would be true under a flat tax.

A conservative once posted these figures to make some misguided point:

Lowest: -2.3%
2nd: 0.3%
3rd: 5.2%
4th: 14.3%
Highest: 82.5%

For comparison, this is what it was before Reagan:

Share of income taxes paid by income quintile (1979):

Lowest: 0.0%
2nd: 4.1%
3rd: 10.7%
4th: 20.2%
Highest: 64.9%

Despite the fact that marginal tax rates were compressed, the richest 20% ended up paying a greater portion of the total taxes. What these figures do not show is that over the same period the incomes for most people stagnated while high income "earners" became even more insanely wealthy (the Forbes 400, for example, tripled its net wealth between 1983 and 1989; it tripled again under Clinton's term).

The next argument is that as a matter of fairness and morality everyone should pay the same percentage (plus, as Dave says, it's easier). But even under most flat tax plans this isn't true because a certain portion of one's income is exempted. Under the Forbes plan I think the first 32,000 dollars was off-limits. But any sort of exemption renders the tax progressive. Assume a 20% "flat" tax:

Income: 32,000
Tax Burden: 0

Income: 64,000
Tax Burden: 6,400
Tax burden as a percentage of income: 10%

Income: 128,000
Tax Burden: 19,200
Tax burden as a percentage of income: 15%

Omi-God, socialism.

Of course one can always argue that a person making less than 10,000 dollars a year ought to pay 20% of her income to Uncle Sam. But even Republicans aren't that cruel.

A modest proposal.

I've asked it in the past: Why should conservatives push for a consumption tax or a flat (percentage) tax? When they say flat tax they should mean a flat tax. What they should mean is a flat fee. For example, a person making 10 million dollars a year gets taxed 50 grand. A person making 25,000 dollars a year gets taxed 50 grand (or whatever fee is agreed upon by our economically diverse, democratically elected legislators). Those who can't pay 50,000 dollars can sell themselves to the rich as serfs or something. I dunno, let the market decide.

Even under a flat tax, the rich, CEOs especially, are basically slaves to the poor. How is that you ask? Because without a flat fee you have the wealthy subsidizing those who refuse to pay their fair share. National defense doesn't come cheap. This is redistributionism, forced labor, slavery.*

My flat fee is fair.

*I will note that some soft-headed crypto leftist Republicans argue that the wealthy should pay more for national defense since more of their property is protected. Yeah, that's it, punish the rich for being rich.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

A flat service fee per individual. This is for all the services the government provides, whcih are of equal value to all citizens.
[/list]

~~ Paul

How many govt services are EQUAL to ALL people???

Lets take the FAA. I fly a couple of times a year vs. a business man who flies 50x vs. and old lady who never flies. You can argue how we all benefit from the safe air travel system.

How would your service fee system work??

[daenku32]

I certainly think that tax codes should be revisited every time there is a significant change in cost-of-living and the distribution of wealth.

Some areas could get tax breaks while others tax increases.

[Michael Redman]

We should just turn over tax collection to the Mafia. Tell them how much we want, and let them go get it. How? You don't want to know.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tmy
How many govt services are EQUAL to ALL people???

Lets take the FAA. I fly a couple of times a year vs. a business man who flies 50x vs. and old lady who never flies. You can argue how we all benefit from the safe air travel system.

How would your service fee system work??

(emphasis mine)

police (and law enforcement in general)
fire brigade
ambulance
armed forces
sanitation
roads (at least within towns)

...to name just a few...

[Tmy]

I always thought it was strange that the highest braket is 35% for people making over $320K. While $320 is a good amount its totally different than the guy making $3 million or $30 million. Yet they are all lumped as the same.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Chaos
(emphasis mine)

police (and law enforcement in general)
fire brigade
ambulance
armed forces
sanitation
roads (at least within towns)

...to name just a few...


Practically speaking, how do you charge for these fees??

Put toll roads all around?? Pay every time the fire dept comes by. (isnt that unsafe to discourage calling the FD???)

We dont all use these services equally. I havent called the police in years. THe mall down the road calls them all the time to pick up shoplifters ect...

[corplinx]

It depends on how you judge fairness. People like Cain judge tax fairness in the total dollars you receive from the cut.

For instance,

Person A makes 100 dollars a day. His tax rate is 50 percent. He pays 50 dollars in taxes on a given day.

Person B makes 80 dollars a day. His tax rate is 25 percent. He pays 20 dollars in taxes on a given day.

Now, if you do an across the board 25 percent tax reduction. Person A now has a 25 percent tax rate and pays 25 dollars a day in taxes. He pays 25 dollars less than he used to.

Person B has a zero tax rate and pays 20 dollars less than he used to.

Now, someone like Cain who is leftist at heart will put on his blinders and say "person B got less of a tax break because he got less dollars" since that fits their outlook and agenda to do so. To do this you must ignore:
person B now pays zero federal taxes
person B had a lower rate to begin with
person B gets back the same percentage of their money back

When you up the scale of this example to someone who makes a millions a year and someone who makes 50,000, the numbers have a deluding personal effect on people who view them. That is why I prefer to work with 100/80 since it takes the preconceived notions of rich/poor out of it.

Now, what people like to do is appeal to your natural envy of people with more resources than yourself. If someone who disagreed with the taxcut said "the rich got a break from 35 to 32 percent on their taxes while people making up to 50k a year have an effective rate of zero" it wouldn't have much effect.

However, if you say "a bazillionair got millions back while Joe Sixpack got 1000 dollars" it sounds much worse. They key here to disinforming is to make sure people don't think critically about the data (and hope they dont understand basic math or are willing to ignore facts because you target a group they envy and despise).

Disinformation 101, Cain style.

[Cain]

Disinformation indeed. Corplinx, please tell me where, either in this thread or in the past, I expressed the view* you are attributing to me.

When Republicans talk about cutting taxes it's almost always the income tax. The problem is that something like three-fourths of Americans pay more in payroll taxes. When we talk about Reagan's term and taxes, for an added example, it's almost always how he (with the consent of Democrats) brought down the highest marginal tax rates. But nobody mentions the really big tax hike on Americans for social security.

*"People like Cain judge tax fairness in the total dollars you receive from the cut."

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain
Disinformation indeed. Corplinx, please tell me where, either in this thread or in the past, I expressed the view* you are attributing to me.

*"People like Cain judge tax fairness in the total dollars you receive from the cut."

I was just taking the opportunity to paint you as a commie :)

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Cain
When Republicans talk about cutting taxes it's almost always the income tax. The problem is that something like three-fourths of Americans pay more in payroll taxes.

Pardon my ignorance (or maybe it's the after-lunch "food coma" setting in), but what are you calling "payroll taxes?" Income tax, Social Security, and Medicare are the 3 (federal) withholdings I see on my pay stub. And Income Tax is the highest of the three (though maybe that is just the tier I fall into, although it is by a sizable margin).

[Cain]

"I was just taking the opportunity to paint you as a commie :)"

I wonder if I'm now obligated to go the route (pioneered by JJ) of starting a new thread to publicly and unmistakbly express the most santimonous outrage while acting like the world's whiniest little bitch. But I don't want to do that.

Instead I, Cain, challenge you, Corplinx, to a throwdown (http://www.bullshido.com/). Guffman's bluff after sixth period. If you're not there I'm gonna tell everybody in woodshop (and Daisy Davis) that you're a raging pussyboy.

No doubt this fanciful and much-circulated analogy has been copy/pasted here earlier. It could've saved you the trouble:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/foundationmessage11-02.html

Dave: See: http://www.everything2.com/?node=payroll%20taxes (this link is four years old but the information generally looks correct. The cap has since been raised to around $85,000)

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Cain

Dave: See: http://www.everything2.com/?node=payroll%20taxes (this link is four years old but the information generally looks correct. The cap has since been raised to around $85,000)

That link is blocked by the corporate intranet :( Unless you want to give me a synopsis, I won't have a chance to read it until tonight.

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

The rich, for obvious reasons, pay the most taxes both absolutely (i.e., dollar amount) and (usually) relatively (percentage of their income), as well. This naturally means that tax cuts are going to effect them more: when a relatively small group pays (say) 50% of all income tax, cutting income tax means that 50% of the cuts, more or less, will go to that relatively small group, too.

This way, those who want to cut taxes even more can keep ranting, "A tiny group of rich guys pay most of the taxes! That's unfair! Let's cut them!", while those who want to keep taxes as they are rant, "A tiny group of rich guys gets most of the tax cuts! That's unfair! Let's tax them!". But in reality it seems to me that these are really two sides of the same coin.

[Whoracle]

We should just turn over tax collection to the Mafia. Tell them how much we want, and let them go get it. How? You don't want to know.


We already have a mafia like system in place for collecting taxes. You pay the government a percentage of your income for protection. The protection of course is to protect you from the government/mafia itself.


There is no such thing as a fair tax.

[Corwyn]

Millions of families expecting tax cuts are losing some or all of them to a stealth tax that was originally enacted only to apply to the tax-avoiding rich, but that now stings single mothers making as little as $28,000. But the cumulative results are remarkable: the 400 richest Americans pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than someone making $100,000. The 400 richest pay less and less of their income in taxes while the middle class pays more and more. And while the incomes of the very rich skyrocketed over three decades, the average income for the bottom 90 percent fell.
__________________________________________________ __

Now I haven't read the book yet, but it seems to directly dispute
the notion that Corplinx, Skeptic and Rush limbough et al put forth.

The contention is as stated above that once you cross the $100K mark the acutal dollars you pay in taxes remains the same.

So if I make a $100K and pay 10K in taxes while a guy who makes $1Mill pay s the SAME $10K HIS taxes are 10 times less than mine as a percentage of income! And for the Corporate theives this percentage is already at about the same level as those who make $30K or less. I mean if you make $300mill and you pay $10 in taxes you are MOST certainly paying less taxes are you not? Couple this with the fact that while the fortune 400 have quadrupled their income and people who make less than $50K have affectively taken a pay cut - the average raise is about 1.5% per year while inflation and the cost of living are in the 4+% per year the same money is not only taxed the same rate, but buys LESS!

OR am I missing the whole point!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Phrost
It's a shame we never got this implemented:

http://www.ctj.org/html/mcca00pr.htm

I personally think that this (http://www.libertyamendment.org/) would be much better...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Phrost
And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.

As long as the flat rate is 0%. There is NO SUCH THING as a fair tax.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by shanek
As long as the flat rate is 0%. There is NO SUCH THING as a fair tax.

Knowing you, you've got a well-reasoned argument behind that statement.

I guess I'm a really crappy Libertarian; I believe in some taxation, and support the invasion of Iraq.

Anyway, I try to balance my idealism with realism. If we radically altered our tax structure, the government would collapse. Hell, they can't even properly operate a text paging/SMS terror service.

And Cain/"Flaming Anarchy", come on now. You've already been invited to THE Throwdown in Vegas, same weekend as TAM. You're all invited, with a ticket stub/pass/what-have-you from that event to come watch at the very least. Although I wouldn't advise participation unless you've got some formal martial arts or combat sports (wrestling, boxing, etc) training.

Here are a few links to videos of what we do at Throwdowns (discuss, exchange, and test the practicality of techniques on each other, among other things):

http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?s=&name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=31

http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php?s=&name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=88

And the obligatory, obnoxious, animated gif:

http://img59.exs.cx/img59/7304/tnkvsws.gif

As I said, we'll have a nominal fee for entry which will be waived if you have a pass for TAM.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Phrost
And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.



Hope you make a whole lot of money then Phrost.

I've looked at the proposals for a flat tax, most of them have a tax in the neighborhood of 20%, with few, if ANY, deductions.

Last year I paid less than 15% and I make a decent middle class income.

But put in a flat tax and my taxes and the taxes on the middle class go up!

Yeah, I can imagine some fat cat like Steve Forbes, who has never seen a days work in his life would love to cut his taxes from 35% down to 20%. Granted he and most of the people in his bracket are not really paying that, but I'm sure avoiding taxes through high dollar CPA's does take a toll on daddy's millions!

Of course then the government will be taking in less money, since they cut 10% on the super wealthy and only hit the middle class for 5%. And I imagine its possible that service demand could remain the same, but will probably grow. I wonder who they will raise the rate on?

Forget flat tax, forget national sales tax. It ain't gonna happen. People are not that stupid.

Our tax code is complicated because deductions serve a purpose (IIRCC, most of the code is about deductions) and because everytime you put in a new deduction, some smart CPA figures out a way to manipulate it in ways that were unintended.

[Phrost]

Originally posted by mjv
Hope you make a whole lot of money then Phrost.

I've looked at the proposals for a flat tax, most of them have a tax in the neighborhood of 20%, with few, if ANY, deductions.

Last year I paid less than 15% and I make a decent middle class income.

But put in a flat tax and my taxes and the taxes on the middle class go up!

Yeah, I can imagine some fat cat like Steve Forbes, who has never seen a days work in his life would love to cut his taxes from 35% down to 20%. Granted he and most of the people in his bracket are not really paying that, but I'm sure avoiding taxes through high dollar CPA's does take a toll on daddy's millions!

Of course then the government will be taking in less money, since they cut 10% on the super wealthy and only hit the middle class for 5%. And I imagine its possible that service demand could remain the same, but will probably grow. I wonder who they will raise the rate on?

Forget flat tax, forget national sales tax. It ain't gonna happen. People are not that stupid.

Our tax code is complicated because deductions serve a purpose (IIRCC, most of the code is about deductions) and because everytime you put in a new deduction, some smart CPA figures out a way to manipulate it in ways that were unintended.

Good points.

Heh, of course, I'm in the 28% bracket so I would benefit from such a flat tax.

Have to rethink my position on it a bit, but it's still ridiculous that those who use government services the most (the underprivilaged) pay nothing in return while the burden is on those who use at least the social services, the least.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain

Instead I, Cain, challenge you, Corplinx, to a throwdown (http://www.bullshido.com/). Guffman's bluff after sixth period. If you're not there I'm gonna tell everybody in woodshop (and Daisy Davis) that you're a raging pussyboy.


Sure thing junebug, bring your buddies from band class to drag you to the school nurse. There's a reason they call me Corpse. Its because i have the alias Corplinx, and corpse is one syllable and sounds cool.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Tmy said:
How many govt services are EQUAL to ALL people???
Lots of them are fairly equal: defense, highway system, IRS, imigration, national parks, etc.

Lets take the FAA. I fly a couple of times a year vs. a business man who flies 50x vs. and old lady who never flies. You can argue how we all benefit from the safe air travel system.
But I think the old lady would rather that a plane not crash into her house.

I agree that if we bicker over exactly how much of each service we get, the idea falls apart. But right now we can't bicker at all, so how is my idea worse is that regard? At least it makes clear the split between services and income redistribution.

~~ Paul

[WildCat]

Originally posted by mjv
Hope you make a whole lot of money then Phrost.

I've looked at the proposals for a flat tax, most of them have a tax in the neighborhood of 20%, with few, if ANY, deductions.

Last year I paid less than 15% and I make a decent middle class income.

But put in a flat tax and my taxes and the taxes on the middle class go up!

Yeah, I can imagine some fat cat like Steve Forbes, who has never seen a days work in his life would love to cut his taxes from 35% down to 20%. Granted he and most of the people in his bracket are not really paying that, but I'm sure avoiding taxes through high dollar CPA's does take a toll on daddy's millions!

Of course then the government will be taking in less money, since they cut 10% on the super wealthy and only hit the middle class for 5%. And I imagine its possible that service demand could remain the same, but will probably grow. I wonder who they will raise the rate on?

Forget flat tax, forget national sales tax. It ain't gonna happen. People are not that stupid.

Our tax code is complicated because deductions serve a purpose (IIRCC, most of the code is about deductions) and because everytime you put in a new deduction, some smart CPA figures out a way to manipulate it in ways that were unintended.
Pssst, you've taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. You would almost undoubtedly pay less in a flat tax, because the first, say, $20,000 would be exempted. This would mean a huge difference for you, but wouldn't amount to jack squat to someone making $500,000. Especially since all those loopholes could be eliminated, the rich would pay far more. Why do you think Mrs. Kerry won't release her tax statements? It's because she pays pitifully little for all the wealth she has and doesn't want to embarass her hubby. CPA's use the lopopholes for exactly the reason they were intended. Loopholes have to be purposely put in the tax code, that's why it's 50,000+ pages long and you need to hire professionals to figure it out.

Don't be a sucker mjv! Politicians lie, and their rich donors buy those $1000/plate dinners to keep those loopholes in there. Bet you haven't been to any of those dinners! Way back when, the top tax rate was 95%. Of course, no one actually paid that much because there were loopholes put in there you could drive a train through. Sideways. But the pols could tell the "little people" how they're soaking those nasty rich folks, wink wink, nod nod. And far too many people fall for the BS.

All that said, I'm closing on a house next month and will definitely take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So who is paying the income tax?

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=412&month=19&title=the+rich+getting+soaked&id=19

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

mjv said:
Yeah, I can imagine some fat cat like Steve Forbes, who has never seen a days work in his life would love to cut his taxes from 35% down to 20%.
Doesn't he run Forbes, Inc.? Does he do that without working? I wonder if his employees appreciate how little work he does?

I see people using the word fair in here. You're not obeying my decree.

~~ Paul

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Cain
Dave: See: http://www.everything2.com/?node=payroll%20taxes (this link is four years old but the information generally looks correct. The cap has since been raised to around $85,000)

OK, got a chance to look at it. All i can get out of it is that it is Medicare and Soc Sec. No numbers there to go off of, and my personal experience goes against your assertion that more is paid in payroll taxes than income tax. Any documentaion for that?

[corplinx]

Yeah, I can imagine some fat cat like Steve Forbes, who has never seen a days work in his life would love to cut his taxes from 35% down to 20%.

This is what I was talking about, envy and the resulting resentment clouding people's critical thinking skills. Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Phrost
Knowing you, you've got a well-reasoned argument behind that statement.

I do. Taxation is force, and force is never fair. And people are always going to assert that the force exerted on others is more justified than the force exerted on them.

Anyway, I try to balance my idealism with realism. If we radically altered our tax structure, the government would collapse.

We could repeal the entire Income Tax system, replace it with nothing, and pay for the government budget passed in 1984. That's adjusting for inflation, and not counting all the money we'd save not having an IRS, and the economic boom that would certainly result in increased revenues.

Hell, they can't even properly operate a text paging/SMS terror service.

Exactly. So the less we give them to do, the better.

[Phrost]

See, you came through for me.

Knew I could count on you to reaffirm why I'm changing some info on my voter registration card.

[Cain]

Originally posted by DaveW
OK, got a chance to look at it. All i can get out of it is that it is Medicare and Soc Sec. No numbers there to go off of, and my personal experience goes against your assertion that more is paid in payroll taxes than income tax. Any documentaion for that?

I have my notes for the Johnston book right here. As I scribbled it:

P.119 - 3/4 households pay more in soc. sec. tax than income tax. Reagan facing budget shortfalls increased excise taxes but it wasn't called a tax increase -- rather, "revenue enhancements." Also increased gas tax a nickel.

You can check that against the book itself. Maybe Amazon's inside the book feature will allow you to browse the relevant pages.

[Corwyn]

MJV Says

Yeah, I can imagine some fat cat like Steve Forbes, who has never seen a days work in his life would love to cut his taxes from 35% down to 20%. Granted he and most of the people in his bracket are not really paying that, but I'm sure avoiding taxes through high dollar CPA's does take a toll on daddy's millions!

Of course then the government will be taking in less money, since they cut 10% on the super wealthy and only hit the middle class for 5%. And I imagine its possible that service demand could remain the same, but will probably grow. I wonder who they will raise the rate on?

and then corplinx add OH it's envy yadi yadi ya-------------

NO it's not envy! IT'S A LIE and MJV proves it in his OWN statements. In one breath he hays oh the rich would love the tax cut to 20%, and then uses the typical LIE of the reps scare tactic that this will raise the taxes on the poor/middle class 'cause the govt will have less money.

BUT in the VERY next sentence he ADMITS that the Forbes and the supper rich ARLREADY PAY less than 20% because of all the loop holes their accountants find for them which the average middle class person making sub 90K does not quilify for or can afford to set up. And yes, the rich spend a lot of money for accountants to do this, BUT guess what! That too is deductable on next years taxes!.

Again the LIE and the problem is that while the raw tax rate for the super rich IS 35% what they ACTUALLY pay is more like 10% or less! As someone else already metioned prior to Reagan the highest tax rate was around 80% ( i forgot the exact) Do you ACTUALLY believe that Forbes and Trump and these guys actually paid 80% in taxes. Granted the very poor do not pay any taxes ( and I am not sure that I agree with that completely) but the only people who actually pay their "true" rate based on their income is the middle class, because we can only take so many deductions that max out. This is why the middle calss is being squeezed and I believe that if it continues it will mean the end of this country as we know it.