Unbelievable. That is some of the scariest stuff I have ever heard from someone who is/could be in an actual position of power.
Our political terminology depends on which way the money moves. If it is moving down toward the lower end of the economy, it is "socialism", "redistribution of wealth" or "share the wealth". If it is moved upward so that the rich get richer, it is "spurring the economy", "rewarding the entrepreneurial spirit" or "helping those who help themselves". Actually, it is all the same in either case. The government's sponsorship of increased wealth for the rich is "socialism" with the top households getting the majority of the benefits. They just don't call it that.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:The government's sponsorship of increased wealth for the rich...
Could you let me know where I could get some of this "sponsorship"? So far I've had to create all my opportunities and successes on my own. Maybe that's what the goober in the question mark jacket is selling on late-night TV...
I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:Our political terminology depends on which way the money moves. If it is moving down toward the lower end of the economy, it is "socialism", "redistribution of wealth" or "share the wealth". If it is moved upward so that the rich get richer, it is "spurring the economy", "rewarding the entrepreneurial spirit" or "helping those who help themselves". Actually, it is all the same in either case. The government's sponsorship of increased wealth for the rich is "socialism" with the top households getting the majority of the benefits. They just don't call it that.
Woof!
STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
As I said earlier, if you are paying 39% Federal income taxes, you are making it all in wages or salary. If you were wealthy enough to be making the majority of your money in capital gains, you would be paying about 15% federal income taxes like the really wealthy do.
Look at the new November issue of National Geographic magazine (I got mine in today's mail) on the "Millionaires' Club". They show how many millionaires are in various parts of the world according to the Merrill, Lynch World wealth report. It shows that the U.S.A. has the largest number at 3,028,000 millionaires (or better) of the 3,300,000 in all of North America. Japan is second with 1,510,000. Apparently the "confiscatory taxation" idea the wealthy are trying to sell to Americans is not having that effect.
The difference between the earnings tax and the capital gains tax is that everyone gets to pay the capital gains tax and only a small % of the nation pays a high ordinary income tax.
Your argument is flawed.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
As I said earlier, if you are paying 39% Federal income taxes, you are making it all in wages or salary. If you were wealthy enough to be making the majority of your money in capital gains, you would be paying about 15% federal income taxes like the really wealthy do.
Look at the new November issue of National Geographic magazine (I got mine in today's mail) on the "Millionaires' Club". They show how many millionaires are in various parts of the world according to the Merrill, Lynch World wealth report. It shows that the U.S.A. has the largest number at 3,028,000 millionaires (or better) of the 3,300,000 in all of North America. Japan is second with 1,510,000. Apparently the "confiscatory taxation" idea the wealthy are trying to sell to Americans is not having that effect.
You read that as "we don't punish our rich people enough"...I read that as we are, by far, the most prosperous country in the history of the world and offer more chances of success than any other country on Earth.
STLouis Blazer Wrote:The difference between the earnings tax and the capital gains tax is that everyone gets to pay the capital gains tax and only a small % of the nation pays a high ordinary income tax.
Your argument is flawed.
I see no "flaw" in saying that the wealthiest Americans receive relatively small "wages or salaries" which are taxed as "ordinary income" while maximizing their income from "capital gains" with their much lower tax rate. A very wealthy media magnate (Rupert Murdoch?) recently related that he was taxed 17% on his total 2007 income while his office staff was taxed at over 30% since theirs was regular wage/salary income.
"Everyone" does not pay capital gains unless they can make large profits by selling appreciated stock (or a house), such as when a CEO "lays off" a few thousand employees so that the company stock goes up. The "ordinary income" taxes apply to everyone who receives at least minimum wages / salaries or Social security or Unemployment payments. The taxes on wages have not been truthfully indexed to real money value since the 1990s.
I "read" that as we only "punish" our poor and middle income workers substantially. We only hear about the "trials of the wealthy" because they control most of the mass media and thereby get their complaints out more effectively. "Poor, poor, poor put upon little rich guy" is a common message on such as the FOX Channel over and over again. That has not altered the increasing wealth rising to the top 1/5 (20%) of households who now receive OVER 50% of ALL income in America every current year.
blazr Wrote:BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
As I said earlier, if you are paying 39% Federal income taxes, you are making it all in wages or salary. If you were wealthy enough to be making the majority of your money in capital gains, you would be paying about 15% federal income taxes like the really wealthy do.
Look at the new November issue of National Geographic magazine (I got mine in today's mail) on the "Millionaires' Club". They show how many millionaires are in various parts of the world according to the Merrill, Lynch World wealth report. It shows that the U.S.A. has the largest number at 3,028,000 millionaires (or better) of the 3,300,000 in all of North America. Japan is second with 1,510,000. Apparently the "confiscatory taxation" idea the wealthy are trying to sell to Americans is not having that effect.
You read that as "we don't punish our rich people enough"...I read that as we are, by far, the most prosperous country in the history of the world and offer more chances of success than any other country on Earth.
Agreed.
Here is another one for BamaBlazer and all the liberals that talk about tax loopholes for the rich. I used to do tax work for a retired wealthy doctor that could have lived off of his capital gains as you are talking about. Instead he actually didn't pay hardly any taxes because his "business" ate up all of his income. His business was really an expensive hobby, a farm, but he paid about $100,000 in payroll per year (to people in the 15% tax bracket by the way), along with buying lots of farm equipment and you know, doing the things that make the economy run. Most tax "loopholes" that Barney Frank, Obama and Biden want to close are legitimate businesses that pay people's salaries or generate tax revenues themselves. Would you rather have the government redistributing the wealth by closing loopholes and raising taxes or let people have businesses and trusts that actually invest in the market or local community?
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
As I said earlier, if you are paying 39% Federal income taxes, you are making it all in wages or salary. If you were wealthy enough to be making the majority of your money in capital gains, you would be paying about 15% federal income taxes like the really wealthy do.
Look at the new November issue of National Geographic magazine (I got mine in today's mail) on the "Millionaires' Club". They show how many millionaires are in various parts of the world according to the Merrill, Lynch World wealth report. It shows that the U.S.A. has the largest number at 3,028,000 millionaires (or better) of the 3,300,000 in all of North America. Japan is second with 1,510,000. Apparently the "confiscatory taxation" idea the wealthy are trying to sell to Americans is not having that effect.
As usual, your arguments are confusing and incoherent. I'll distill the issue for you:
FACT: The wealthiest Americans,
by far, pay the most in total, and as a percentage of their income, in taxes to support this country.
You already have your redistribution of wealth, right there, until we get a flat tax!
It is impossible to believe in Lockean priciples with respect to property rights and at the same time justify in any way a redistribution of money from one person to another without compensation.
Philosophers like Robert Nozick have done the math for you, but if you feel like breaking down the state and personal property rights back to anarchy and then trying to rebuild your way back to some Utopia, feel free. You must have a lot of time on your hands.
Taking something from me which is mine and giving it to someone else is called robbery.
Those who commit "robbery" are called thieves.
Thou hast coveted thy neighbor's *** for too long! Get your own!
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:The difference between the earnings tax and the capital gains tax is that everyone gets to pay the capital gains tax and only a small % of the nation pays a high ordinary income tax.
Your argument is flawed.
I see no "flaw" in saying that the wealthiest Americans receive relatively small "wages or salaries" which are taxed as "ordinary income" while maximizing their income from "capital gains" with their much lower tax rate. A very wealthy media magnate (Rupert Murdoch?) recently related that he was taxed 17% on his total 2007 income while his office staff was taxed at over 30% since theirs was regular wage/salary income.
"Everyone" does not pay capital gains unless they can make large profits by selling appreciated stock (or a house), such as when a CEO "lays off" a few thousand employees so that the company stock goes up. The "ordinary income" taxes apply to everyone who receives at least minimum wages / salaries or Social security or Unemployment payments. The taxes on wages have not been truthfully indexed to real money value since the 1990s.
But how much did Murdoch pay in the years that he was making the money that he then invested? Capital Gains rates are available to everyone, in fact they are only 10% if you are in the lower tax brackets. The flaw in your thinking is that just because Murdoch is only paying 17%, but his employees are paying more, does not mean that is unfair. If Murdoch was paying higher taxes, more than likely his employees would be making less money and still getting taxed at a high rate! Why should Murdoch or anyone else, be punished with higher taxes simply because they were successful and invested their money wisely?
But how much did Murdoch pay in the years that he was making the money that he then invested? Capital Gains rates are available to everyone, in fact they are only 10% if you are in the lower tax brackets. The flaw in your thinking is that just because Murdoch is only paying 17%, but his employees are paying more, does not mean that is unfair. If Murdoch was paying higher taxes, more than likely his employees would be making less money and still getting taxed at a high rate! Why should Murdoch or anyone else, be punished with higher taxes simply because they were successful and invested their money wisely?
[/quote]
You make a very good Alabama Republican when you argue "Why should taxes be fair?" In this state "fairness" is a foreign "outside agitator" stance.
BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:But how much did Murdoch pay in the years that he was making the money that he then invested? Capital Gains rates are available to everyone, in fact they are only 10% if you are in the lower tax brackets. The flaw in your thinking is that just because Murdoch is only paying 17%, but his employees are paying more, does not mean that is unfair. If Murdoch was paying higher taxes, more than likely his employees would be making less money and still getting taxed at a high rate! Why should Murdoch or anyone else, be punished with higher taxes simply because they were successful and invested their money wisely?
You make a very good Alabama Republican when you argue "Why should taxes be fair?" In this state "fairness" is a foreign "outside agitator" stance.
[/quote]
Why should anyone have to pay a higher percentage of their income simply because they make more? If we had a level tax rate, the wealthier would still be paying more than those who make more money.
I also find it amusing that the people who pay more in taxes use less government services than those who actually pay no taxes at all.
Interesting quote, and most appropriate for our era.
Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world�s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage
At what stage have we arrived [in the U.S]?
When Reagan took office the national debt was about one trillion dollars. As GWB leaves office the debt is about ten trillion. Clinton was the only Democratic president during this stretch, and while the deficit grew under him as well, by the time he left office the government was showing a surplus.
Tell me again about Republican fiscal conservatism and tax and spend Democrats.
I submit that this too comprises redistribution of wealth, and that the majority of the booty went to those at the high end of the income bracket.
oldblazer79 Wrote:Interesting quote, and most appropriate for our era.
Alexander Fraser Tyler, Cycle Of Democracy (1770)
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world�s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage
At what stage have we arrived [in the U.S]?
That is almost precisely why we are not a democracy (there are other, mostly social factors). We are a Republic. Those advocating doing away with the Electoral College should heed well that quote, though. Good post.
UAB Band Dad Wrote:When Reagan took office the national debt was about one trillion dollars. As GWB leaves office the debt is about ten trillion. Clinton was the only Democratic president during this stretch, and while the deficit grew under him as well, by the time he left office the government was showing a surplus.
Tell me again about Republican fiscal conservatism and tax and spend Democrats.
I submit that this too comprises redistribution of wealth, and that the majority of the booty went to those at the high end of the income bracket.
Anyone who has studied higher level economics will tell you that large national debt is not, by itself, a bad thing. Offering that as an indicator of bad or good fiscal policy is a strawman. National debt is not in any way similar to personal debt. Most people have a very hard time making the distinction (not saying that includes you, BD, just saying it's a very complicated economic issue that's not a straightforward as "large debt = bad").
STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
Considering that the highest income tax rate is 35% (which is only on each dollar of income in excess of $357,700 in 2008), I find it hard to believe that you are paying 39%. Now, assuming you are a wage earner, you can also add in the 7.65% that is withheld from your wages for SS, Medicare and Federal Unemployment. However, even that amount is limited, with 6.2% of that only being payable on the first $102,000 of your wages.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that your marginal tax rate gets anywhere near 39%, even when including SS, Medicare, etc.
I don't mean to pick on you SLB, but as an attorney/cpa I get tired of seeing so much mis-information about tax rates, brackets, etc. You can argue that you already pay too much in taxes without resorting to misleading numbers.
wpblazer Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
Considering that the highest income tax rate is 35% (which is only on each dollar of income in excess of $357,700 in 2008), I find it hard to believe that you are paying 39%. Now, assuming you are a wage earner, you can also add in the 7.65% that is withheld from your wages for SS, Medicare and Federal Unemployment. However, even that amount is limited, with 6.2% of that only being payable on the first $102,000 of your wages.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that your marginal tax rate gets anywhere near 39%, even when including SS, Medicare, etc.
I don't mean to pick on you SLB, but as an attorney/cpa I get tired of seeing so much mis-information about tax rates, brackets, etc. You can argue that you already pay too much in taxes without resorting to misleading numbers.
Look, facts have NO place in a political discussion on an internet message board.
wpblazer Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
Considering that the highest income tax rate is 35% (which is only on each dollar of income in excess of $357,700 in 2008), I find it hard to believe that you are paying 39%. Now, assuming you are a wage earner, you can also add in the 7.65% that is withheld from your wages for SS, Medicare and Federal Unemployment. However, even that amount is limited, with 6.2% of that only being payable on the first $102,000 of your wages.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that your marginal tax rate gets anywhere near 39%, even when including SS, Medicare, etc.
I don't mean to pick on you SLB, but as an attorney/cpa I get tired of seeing so much mis-information about tax rates, brackets, etc. You can argue that you already pay too much in taxes without resorting to misleading numbers.
I took it as federal 35% and state 4%, not mis-information. I don't pay anywhere near that rate, but I think the structure is inherently flawed. I ask again, why should someone have to pay a larger percentage of their income in to the gov, simply because they make more? If everyone was paying 15%, the people making more would still be paying the most.
I do agree with Band Dad that the Republicans have gotten out of control with spending. But Blazr is correct that national debt is a misleading term to most people. Due to the way that governmental accounting works, a deficit simple means that the government was in the red for the year from an operational standpoint, not necessarily that they actually owe any leinholder money. Most often, the government owes themselves the money, which is the problem with Social Security, too much of the Social Security money has been used for other purposes over the years.
BlazerCPA1 Wrote:wpblazer Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
Considering that the highest income tax rate is 35% (which is only on each dollar of income in excess of $357,700 in 2008), I find it hard to believe that you are paying 39%. Now, assuming you are a wage earner, you can also add in the 7.65% that is withheld from your wages for SS, Medicare and Federal Unemployment. However, even that amount is limited, with 6.2% of that only being payable on the first $102,000 of your wages.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that your marginal tax rate gets anywhere near 39%, even when including SS, Medicare, etc.
I don't mean to pick on you SLB, but as an attorney/cpa I get tired of seeing so much mis-information about tax rates, brackets, etc. You can argue that you already pay too much in taxes without resorting to misleading numbers.
I took it as federal 35% and state 4%, not mis-information. I don't pay anywhere near that rate, but I think the structure is inherently flawed. I ask again, why should someone have to pay a larger percentage of their income in to the gov, simply because they make more? If everyone was paying 15%, the people making more would still be paying the most.
I do agree with Band Dad that the Republicans have gotten out of control with spending. But Blazr is correct that national debt is a misleading term to most people. Due to the way that governmental accounting works, a deficit simple means that the government was in the red for the year from an operational standpoint, not necessarily that they actually owe any leinholder money. Most often, the government owes themselves the money, which is the problem with Social Security, too much of the Social Security money has been used for other purposes over the years.
Yeah, but that money has to be paid eventually. The national debt isn't just a tabulation of deficits, it's outstanding obligations owed to someone..even if it's to something like the Social Security Trust Fund. You make it sound like it's some accounting rule that just moves numbers around on paper. It's real money we owe to real people at some point.
BlazerCPA1 Wrote:wpblazer Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
Considering that the highest income tax rate is 35% (which is only on each dollar of income in excess of $357,700 in 2008), I find it hard to believe that you are paying 39%. Now, assuming you are a wage earner, you can also add in the 7.65% that is withheld from your wages for SS, Medicare and Federal Unemployment. However, even that amount is limited, with 6.2% of that only being payable on the first $102,000 of your wages.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that your marginal tax rate gets anywhere near 39%, even when including SS, Medicare, etc.
I don't mean to pick on you SLB, but as an attorney/cpa I get tired of seeing so much mis-information about tax rates, brackets, etc. You can argue that you already pay too much in taxes without resorting to misleading numbers.
I took it as federal 35% and state 4%, not mis-information. I don't pay anywhere near that rate, but I think the structure is inherently flawed. I ask again, why should someone have to pay a larger percentage of their income in to the gov, simply because they make more? If everyone was paying 15%, the people making more would still be paying the most.
I do agree with Band Dad that the Republicans have gotten out of control with spending. But Blazr is correct that national debt is a misleading term to most people. Due to the way that governmental accounting works, a deficit simple means that the government was in the red for the year from an operational standpoint, not necessarily that they actually owe any leinholder money. Most often, the government owes themselves the money, which is the problem with Social Security, too much of the Social Security money has been used for other purposes over the years.
While it may have been 35% and 4%, it is still misleading, but may not be "mis-information". Frankly, I don't live in Alabama anymore, so I have no idea what the state tax rate is. I am not sure SLB lives in Alabama either. However, in my opinion, a discussion of combined federal and state income taxes is not really relevant to the topic at hand.
I am not making an argument for or against the current tax structure. I just want the discussion to be factual.
mixduptransistor Wrote:BlazerCPA1 Wrote:wpblazer Wrote:STLouis Blazer Wrote:I pay 39% in taxes now in this scary economy and dread having to pay more than that so someone who refuses to go out and make their own success can feel like the world is fair.
Considering that the highest income tax rate is 35% (which is only on each dollar of income in excess of $357,700 in 2008), I find it hard to believe that you are paying 39%. Now, assuming you are a wage earner, you can also add in the 7.65% that is withheld from your wages for SS, Medicare and Federal Unemployment. However, even that amount is limited, with 6.2% of that only being payable on the first $102,000 of your wages.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that your marginal tax rate gets anywhere near 39%, even when including SS, Medicare, etc.
I don't mean to pick on you SLB, but as an attorney/cpa I get tired of seeing so much mis-information about tax rates, brackets, etc. You can argue that you already pay too much in taxes without resorting to misleading numbers.
I took it as federal 35% and state 4%, not mis-information. I don't pay anywhere near that rate, but I think the structure is inherently flawed. I ask again, why should someone have to pay a larger percentage of their income in to the gov, simply because they make more? If everyone was paying 15%, the people making more would still be paying the most.
I do agree with Band Dad that the Republicans have gotten out of control with spending. But Blazr is correct that national debt is a misleading term to most people. Due to the way that governmental accounting works, a deficit simple means that the government was in the red for the year from an operational standpoint, not necessarily that they actually owe any leinholder money. Most often, the government owes themselves the money, which is the problem with Social Security, too much of the Social Security money has been used for other purposes over the years.
Yeah, but that money has to be paid eventually. The national debt isn't just a tabulation of deficits, it's outstanding obligations owed to someone..even if it's to something like the Social Security Trust Fund. You make it sound like it's some accounting rule that just moves numbers around on paper. It's real money we owe to real people at some point.
It is money owed to people, but a lot of it is money moving on paper. We maybe losing interest on the money that should be invested (though not much these days!), but we are not incurring interest like a normal person would. The money is owed, but not until the future and all of that is speculative and estimates. There is a real concern that the money won't be there to pay Social Security in the future, and hopefully the deficit will turn to surpluses that can help that in the future. Growing Debt and deficits aren't good, by any means, but the terms are misleading to most people.
Let me see, I take my net pay and divide it by my gross. That leaves me with about 61%, which includes all taxes (and pretax benefits but those dollar amounts don't move the needle). So yes, I am paying roughly 39% in taxes right now and it doesn't matter if that's broken up into sections because at the end of the day its all going to go up under Obama's plans.