A question about the "rich paying their fair share" charge...

[Craig234]

All income should be taxed the same rate for everyone, regardless of how it is made.

No, it shouldn't. That would be a massive transfer of wealth to the top.

This would solve a huge majority of our problems as tax rates WOULD COME DOWN for the majority, while others would see a tax burden they didn't have before(talking bout teh poor here).

Taxing the poor more is not only harmful to the people who can't afford it, the amount to be raised is trivial.

You are supporting wrongheaded, regressive changes.

 

[Fern]

No, it shouldn't. That would be a massive transfer of wealth to the top.
-snip-

No, it wouldn't.

But it would prevent a massive transfer from the top to the bottom.

Fern

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The bottom 50% of Americans own something like ~1.45 trillion of our nation's wealth. If we taxed them at 50% rates, that's roughly ~700 billion in revenue.

We can get the same revenue by raising the tax rates on the top 2% to the Clinton rates.

You tell me what's fair.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Flat rate across the board (an exception could be made for the high school and college kids making $2k a year or whatever). Then close ALL loopholes. Every single one.

THAT is the definition of "fair share." The rich person that makes 1000x more money than the poor person will be paying 1000x more in taxes. Those who make little, pay little. Those who make a lot, pay a lot.

It doesn't get any simpler than that. We could cut out the zillions of pages of tax code and summarize the whole thing in less than one page.

And again let me remind you that I am not some evil rich person trying to protect my money. I'm far, far from that, in fact I suspect that Craig makes more than I do. Uh oh, Craig, you owe me now

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm against including SS taxes in the issue. Under tax theory I do not believe it an actual 'income tax'. IMO, it's more of a forced contribution to a retirement plan and set of insurance policies (e.g., disability).

I wouldn't include sales tax or r/e tax either, neither are relevant in a discussion of national (income) tax policy since neither are national taxes, and are used for purposes different from (national) income tax. For similar reasons I would exclude state level income tax. States are not bound by the constitutional requirement that taxes be "proportional", thus they have revenue options the federal govt does not and this, to some extent, may unusually influence their income tax policy.

Fern

You forget that the OP's topic is whether the wealthy pay their "fair share." I fail to see the rationale for limiting the metric to the one tax of many that proves the point you and he want to make.

 

[blackangst1]

The bottom 50% of Americans own something like ~1.45 trillion of our nation's wealth. If we taxed them at 50% rates, that's roughly ~700 billion in revenue.

We can get the same revenue by raising the tax rates on the top 2% to the Clinton rates.

You tell me what's fair.

Since when is wealth taxed?

 

[Craig234]

No, it wouldn't.

But it would prevent a massive transfer from the top to the bottom.

Fern

Do you want to look like an idiot? It's a real question.

Yes, it would, but let's get past that. You argued that the status quo causes a "massive transfer from the top to the bottom".

As I have repeated so often here, the status quo has given us a massive transfer of wealth to the top, the last 30 years. The fact is, when all economic growth during this period has gone to the top 20%, and is concentrated strongly at the top of that bracket, and the top 1% have not double their income - but their SHARE of income - you call that a "massive transfer from the top to the bottom".

I'm disgusted with your idiocy. And that's the nice word, assuming you aren't lying.

 

[rchiu]

Do you want to look like an idiot? It's a real question.

Yes, it would, but let's get past that. You argued that the status quo causes a "massive transfer from the top to the bottom".

As I have repeated so often here, the status quo has given us a massive transfer of wealth to the top, the last 30 years. The fact is, when all economic growth during this period has gone to the top 20%, and is concentrated strongly at the top of that bracket, and the top 1% have not double their income - but their SHARE of income - you call that a "massive transfer from the top to the bottom".

I'm disgusted with your idiocy. And that's the nice word, assuming you aren't lying.

Sorry, when the economy and society advances, people with strong work ethic, good education background and the intelligence naturally would get a bigger piece of the pie.

People don't have the relevant skills, education and drive will naturally be left behind. It's not "massive transfer of wealth to the top", it's just how the things work.

 

[alkemyst]

The bottom 50% of Americans own something like ~1.45 trillion of our nation's wealth. If we taxed them at 50% rates, that's roughly ~700 billion in revenue.

We can get the same revenue by raising the tax rates on the top 2% to the Clinton rates.

You tell me what's fair.

Sounds like fair would be the bottom 50% signing their entire paychecks over to cover their tabs.

 

[alkemyst]

Flat rate across the board (an exception could be made for the high school and college kids making $2k a year or whatever). Then close ALL loopholes. Every single one.

THAT is the definition of "fair share." The rich person that makes 1000x more money than the poor person will be paying 1000x more in taxes. Those who make little, pay little. Those who make a lot, pay a lot.

It doesn't get any simpler than that. We could cut out the zillions of pages of tax code and summarize the whole thing in less than one page.

And again let me remind you that I am not some evil rich person trying to protect my money. I'm far, far from that, in fact I suspect that Craig makes more than I do. Uh oh, Craig, you owe me now

A flat rate though is not a 'fair tax' when based only on income.

This is why a consumption tax is much more fair. You pay taxes on your consumption of items...give a standard level of what's expected, breaks on required medical items/treatments, and very little else.

One of the issues with income taxes are the amounts of people especially at the bottom able to hide any income. There are many welfare earners that are secretly working.

 

[novasatori]

our base of consumers already don't have the income or wealth to drive growth in our economy, so clearly flat taxing the consumer base is the solution

 

[fisheerman]

deductions and tax breaks are wrong, they shouldn't exist. they create inequality.

same should be said for tax credits as well

 

[fisheerman]

If it's used for personal use, then yes.

The company car should only be used for "real" business use only. The fuel purchased for a personal car should not be charged to the company. There's all kinds of perks, charging a suit for a wedding and then wearing it to work once, so you can write it off, etc.

So where does this stop. If I am a plumber and end up using my "business" tools to fix my own personal stuff or a friends stuff should I be charged for that as a personal income?

What $ level of "perk" are we going to enforce?

 

[Craig234]

Sorry, when the economy and society advances, people with strong work ethic, good education background and the intelligence naturally would get a bigger piece of the pie.

People don't have the relevant skills, education and drive will naturally be left behind. It's not "massive transfer of wealth to the top", it's just how the things work.

Except you're delusional. That's not what the issue is. THAT which you describe is just fine - it's good for society, with appropriate amounts.

The extreme concentration of wealth at issue here PREVENTS what you describe - it denies opportunity to people who 'deserve' rewards to reward people who 'have money' instead. That great guy you talk about CAN'T get the reward he deserves, because he's limited in his reward because the big rewards are locked up by the few who have money. You falsely equate having money with the things you list.

Extreme concentration of wealth does nothing but create a corrupt society in which a few people have far more than they 'deserve' and cripples opportunity - and growth - for the rest of society, everyone has to serve those few. It's a plutocracy. You are too ignorant to know why that's a bad thing, it's clear.

You are also clueless about things like good public policy in which TAXES are used to help the public have access to education and such. You don't just leave people as wage slaves without education and say 'that's how we're going to leave it', you invest to have more educated people which is win-win - in part simply because it's good for the people the government serves. That's not how it works in plutocracy, in which you want to keep people weak and serving.

Massive concentration of wealth is finally incompatible with democracy. The interests of the people and the very rich conflict - and the very rich win.

You can't be more un-American than to want to take the power away from the people and to give it to a few people who are absurdly wealthy and powerful.

You are just clueless about the harm of the crap you spew. I said it's a waste of time with you and it continues to be.

And yes, it is a "massive transfer of wealth to the top."

Since you missed the pictures to give you an idea of the distribution already in place, I'll put the link again:

http://www.lcurve.org/LCurveVideo.htm

 

[Craig234]

So where does this stop. If I am a plumber and end up using my "business" tools to fix my own personal stuff or a friends stuff should I be charged for that as a personal income?

What $ level of "perk" are we going to enforce?

The basic rule is that you deduct the business part of the expense. So if you use the tools for personal use 1% of the time, deduct 99% of their cost.

Of course, there's a lot of tax cheating by small businesses on these things that's unenforcable and overlooked by the IRS.

 

[Paul98]

A flat rate though is not a 'fair tax' when based only on income.

This is why a consumption tax is much more fair. You pay taxes on your consumption of items...give a standard level of what's expected, breaks on required medical items/treatments, and very little else.

One of the issues with income taxes are the amounts of people especially at the bottom able to hide any income. There are many welfare earners that are secretly working.

Yeah those poor people got a lot of money, we got to take some of what they make. It is something that will help solve the problem.

 

[spidey07]

Yeah those poor people got a lot of money, we got to take some of what they make. It is something that will help solve the problem.

The 50% of people that pay no income taxes need to pay their fair share. They must have some skin in the game.

 

[Craig234]

our base of consumers already don't have the income or wealth to drive growth in our economy, so clearly flat taxing the consumer base is the solution

Here are the basic facts of the move to a 'sales tax'.

If sales continued at the same level, we'd need to have a 30% sales tax. Advocates of the sales tax usually misrepresent this by saying it's 23%, by changing the definition of how they state the rate. For example if you buy a $1.00 item, a 30% tax makes the price $1.30. What they do is to take that final price - $1.30 - and say 'the 30 cent tax is only 23% of the final price, so it's a 23% tax'.

But of course, sales wouldn't continue the same when people are paying a 30% tax. People would buy less because of it. This would hurt the economy.

The result would be that we simply couldn't raise much money with it, and the amount we did would shift taxes off the rich onto everyone else.

So, the result for the rich would be a huge decline in their taxes; and a gutting of the revenue for the government to spend on the people.

This is exactly what the advocates for the rich want, to attack democracy and to increase their wealth even more with the tax shift.

The rich are in conflict with democracy, but how do they get the people to give up their power over government, which has power over the rich theoretically?

This is how you can do it. When the government can't raise much money, that's more wealth for the rich to take for themselves, and they can laugh at democracy.

All they need is a propaganda campaign that's well funded to get people to turn their hate of taxes into supporting this scheme.

Save234

 

[Paul98]

The 50% of people that pay no income taxes need to pay their fair share. They must have some skin in the game.

They have "skin in the game" they just don't pay federal income tax. On top of that making them pay federal income tax takes money away from those who spend nearly all there money. So demand for basic products and services will go down. While not doing much in the way of giving the government much more money.

 

[quest55720]

They have "skin in the game" they just don't pay federal income tax. On top of that making them pay federal income tax takes money away from those who spend nearly all there money. So demand for basic products and services will go down. While not doing much in the way of giving the government much more money.

I think the problem is not that most of them don't pay federal income tax. It is a lot of them get a big hand out come tax time. Take a way that big hand out for many of them and that would work for me.

Also time to change the whole tax system. Lower all rates and get rid of every single deduction even the Mortgage interest deduction. I do have a Mortgage. Get rid of all the corperate welfare and hand outs. Then it is time for a balanced budget amendment to get the spending side under control.

 

[Craig234]

The 50% of people that pay no income taxes need to pay their fair share. They must have some skin in the game.

They've got a hell of a lot more skin in the game than you do. But let's test that theory. You trade places, and get their '0% tax rate'. You want that?

People with more money are the ones who are not at the risk people with less are - who have the luxury even to afford to move out of the country if they choose.

Many of whom can easily make their money from international investments, aligned with multi-national corporations profiting by screwing American workers.

There's the 'American workers are the American people and we want them to have more' American agenda, and the 'American workers are an expense reducing my income and the less they make, the more I make so we need to reduce their income and wealth as much as possible' short-sighted 'owner's agenda'. In direct conflict with the 'American' view. You don't get it, though. You sound sociopathic.

Funny thing is, in the long term, a stronger middle class is more productive and creates more wealth and the rich are better off also.

But many wealthy people are happy to 'kill the goose that laid the golden egg' by killing the middle class, grabbing their wealth and moving to plutocracy.

Basically, it's taking the great successes of the US economy, saying 'isn't it great how well the nation does, while so many nations have far less with their plutocracies', and then saying 'hey, let's make the US like those countries, and have the rich take the wealth from the middle class'.

 

[Craig234]

I think the problem is not that most of them don't pay federal income tax. It is a lot of them get a big hand out come tax time. Take a way that big hand out for many of them and that would work for me.

Your use of the word "big" is funny it's so delusional. Watch the video I linked above and then tell me the word "big" again.

What your post really says is that you are ignorant about the distribution of income and the benefits of such a program that even radical righties Reagan and Friedman supported because they're good for the economy. Though I'd happily trade them for 'real' reforms starting with a return to tax rates supporting less concentration of wealth.

 

[quest55720]

Your use of the word "big" is funny it's so delusional. Watch the video I linked above and then tell me the word "big" again.

What your post really says is that you are ignorant about the distribution of income and the benefits of such a program that even radical righties Reagan and Friedman supported because they're good for the economy. Though I'd happily trade them for 'real' reforms starting with a return to tax rates supporting less concentration of wealth.

I would say getting over 5000 dollar hands out would qualify for big in my world.

 

[bfdd]

No, it shouldn't. That would be a massive transfer of wealth to the top.



Taxing the poor more is not only harmful to the people who can't afford it, the amount to be raised is trivial.

You are supporting wrongheaded, regressive changes.

Craig, you seriously are so fucking closed minded and view the picture so narrowly. We are a free society which strives for equality. Only idiots believe everyone is truly equal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all be equal under law and in the view of the government. This would require all of us to pay the SAME TAX RATE. Yes I realize this HURTS THE POOR MORE. People who aren't currently paying taxes will probably see 22-25% of their income disappear. THIS IS OK! Why is this OK you ask? Well because now that we have everyone paying EQUAL RATES and EVERYONE is contributing someway to society, then there should be no issue helping those who need it. Why? Because they already contribute SOMETHING to society. They are HELPING all of us out, instead of leeching. You make this CRUCIAL change to our system and watch the empathy flow from those who are more fortunate.

No one likes being treated unfairly Craig and if your only solution to fixing the problem of treating certain people unfairly is to treat others unfairly, then it's a terrible solution and shouldn't even be considered. That's what a progressive tax system is. It is unfair and it is unequal. PS I'm not some millionaire making a ton of money, I don't even want to be. I don't defend those people, I'm just trying to come to more stable ground for us all to stand on so we can truly attack social welfare issues without so much divide.

Also, I like the idea of a consumption tax. I just see way to many issues with it. For instance, the government will find ways to make certain things fall in the "consumption tax". There'd be different rates depending on consumption or income level, it's meh. Flat tax, small easy tax code, everyone pays.

 

[novasatori]

The 50% of people that pay no income taxes need to pay their fair share. They must have some skin in the game.

36% of federal revenue is payroll taxes, which are primarily paid by ____ ?

I think this whole topic is fucking useless without including payroll taxes. The payroll funds are raided for general use anyways, so why are we not including it? Because it makes it look like ~50% of people pay no income tax, when in reality it's like ~<18%?