richest 1%

OutOfBreath

The IRS will never be out of work, because some will always try to cheat or find loopholes. If noone is "policing", well...

And even if you started from scratch, how long do you think it would take before all kinds of amendments, special conditions etc start to pile up? My guess is about 5 minutes. The simple always sound simple until one think of the details, where as is said, the devil resides...

Peace
Dan

FiveB247x

There is no perfect way to set things up, but I believe a flat tax is the closest to fair way possible. It's unfair to over tax the rich or punish people for being successful (even if some question their methods of getting their).

Flagg wrote:

The only problem with a flat tax is that for someone that makes $20,000 a year, the 5% or whatever flat tax would take food or clothing or rent or something away. That same flat tax on someone who makes $400,000 per year takes away yacht money or vacation home money or play the stock market money.

Flat taxes aren't fair either. 5% percent of my income is worth a hell of a lot more to me than 5% if I made $100,000,000 a year.

Is there a fair tax?

I suppose if they did a national sales tax the super rich would just import everything.

Starfall

First of all, taxfoundation.org is to finance what FOX is to journalism. Its history of bias goes back quite a bit.

Secondly, what they forget to tell you is that while on paper these people pay a lot of taxes, once you factor in the tax breaks and the loopholes, the richest people actually paid way less in percentage of their taxes than you and me, AND their incomes DOUBLED. It's the effective tax rate that counts, not the marginal tax rate.
Warren Buffet famously pointed out, for instance, that he pays a much lower tax rate than his $33K/yr secretary.

Starfall

FiveB247x wrote:

There is no perfect way to set things up, but I believe a flat tax is the closest to fair way possible. It's unfair to over tax the rich or punish people for being successful (even if some question their methods of getting their).

Flagg wrote:

The only problem with a flat tax is that for someone that makes $20,000 a year, the 5% or whatever flat tax would take food or clothing or rent or something away. That same flat tax on someone who makes $400,000 per year takes away yacht money or vacation home money or play the stock market money.

Flat taxes aren't fair either. 5% percent of my income is worth a hell of a lot more to me than 5% if I made $100,000,000 a year.

Is there a fair tax?

I suppose if they did a national sales tax the super rich would just import everything.

What's wrong with returning us to the pre-Reagan tax rates? We were doing pretty well for a country that had a top marginal tax rate of 70%.
Or heck, under that notorious socialist Dwight Eisenhower, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. I seem to remember that as a period of unprecedented economic growth too.

Smellyman

Why do neocons and baggers care so much of the top1%? they could give two shits about you and second, most of them don't mind paying more.

Its Evolution Baby

The flat tax may seem the most fair but its almost inhumane to the poorest Americans. Someone stuck making 20K a year could work just as hard as someone making 200K a year but when you tax each 30%, you leave one person with roughly 14 K let to spend on rent food clothes etc and the other person has 140K left to spend. If you make under 50K a year in this country you should be taking home the majority of your check so you can spend it stimulating the economy.

I don't have all the figures in front of me but I don't see why this wouldn't be fair:
15% tax if you make less than 25K
20% less than 50K
25% less than 100K
30% less than 150K
35% less than 250K
40% all others

Jack Nicholson can afford to give 40% back of his 20 million per film deal. Joe the Plumber can't afford to give 30% of his 40K. Joe the Plumber works harder day in and day out than Jack Nicholson. Success is not an indicator of hard work. Rasheed Wallace came into Celtics camp 25 pounds overweight and is paid 10 mill or so a year so he's obviously not working hard.

Reasons like that is why I'm against a flat tax.

Cosmo

Yeah... those poor, poor AIG execs... why can't those damn Liberals leave them alone? They are entitled to their 'Hard Earned' bonuses... right?

KDH12

mikepegg44 wrote:

Flagg wrote:

How much money do you have to earn to be in the top 1%?

roughly $400,000 as far as I could tell

I don't know the number but yours seems a bit low

The minimum pay in MLB is something like $550K a year so that means a rookie that just made the team and owns nothing would be in the top 1%? Don't think so.....

wealth takes into account more then just income....it counts houses, business assets etc.

Ted Turner is a good example of the top 1% considering her owns half the state of Montana

KDH12

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Seems as though the richest 1% in this country are paying quite a bit of the income taxes collected. Do we really think it is fair to continue to raise taxes on them?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

to be honest, I'm not too worried about the top 1%...I think they will be ok...

agreed I could care less how much the top 1% is paying in taxes their families are set for life for generations to come... they will be okay

Obama proposes rolling back bush tax cuts for those making over 250K a year, they are as far from the top 1% as I am from China but with those roll backs they will still be okay

Indifference

Starfall wrote:

First of all, taxfoundation.org is to finance what FOX is to journalism. Its history of bias goes back quite a bit.
the richest people actually paid way less[/url] in percentage of their taxes than you and me,

What a crock. 47% of households pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX so I wonder how you pay less then none?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

Starfall

Indifference wrote:

Starfall wrote:

First of all, taxfoundation.org is to finance what FOX is to journalism. Its history of bias goes back quite a bit.
the richest people actually paid way less[/url] in percentage of their taxes than you and me,

What a crock. 47% of households pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX so I wonder how you pay less then none?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

And that refutes my argument.... how? According to the USA today piece you cited:
About 47% will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

First of all, you're comparing this year's income tax returns to a projected pattern over the last 8 years. Apples and oranges.

Second of all, the article fails to mention something very special:
Earlier this year, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. TPC estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of tax units will owe no income tax in 2009.

So there you have it. Rather than more tax breaks for the wealthy, we're looking at a stimulus package designed to help low and middle income taxpayers. Heaven forbid the President actually keep a promise he made during the campaign. :roll:

What a crock.

Smellyman

Meanwhile.....

GE, Exxon Paid No U.S. Income Taxes in '09
GE Capital Lost Money, Exxon's Tax Dollars Went Overseas

24 comments By Christopher Helman, Forbes.com
April 6, 2010

As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all.

A view of the Exxon Mobil refinery in Baytown, Texas September 15, 2008. None of ExxonMobil's income taxes were paid to the U.S. last year.
(Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)The most egregious example is General Electric. Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Tax/ge-exxon-paid-us-income-taxes-09/story?id=10300167

TriumphantAngel

aerial wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

aerial wrote:

How do you guys feel about a National Sales tax....this is from Obamas adviser Paul Volcker. Between 15% to 20% tax added to your purchase.......
This is additional to income tax. ...
then any insurance cost covered by your employer , will be considered income, another tax........
Americans standard of living will defiantly be going down if all this goes thru....

that seems awfully high, I have seen numbers around 2 - 5 % that make sense, as long as it replaced high income taxes and wasn't in addition too.

addition to sales tax and income tax
what is being discussed now is this tax will not replace anything it is just another tax .....
to use your words ...to feed our greedy government

to feed our greedy government and to help fund two wars and a brutal, illegal occupation. why don't you ever complain about that aerial?

does that bother you?

Indifference

Starfall wrote:

Indifference wrote:

Starfall wrote:

First of all, taxfoundation.org is to finance what FOX is to journalism. Its history of bias goes back quite a bit.
the richest people actually paid way less[/url] in percentage of their taxes than you and me,

What a crock. 47% of households pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX so I wonder how you pay less then none?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

And that refutes my argument.... how? According to the USA today piece you cited:
About 47% will pay no federal income taxes for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

First of all, you're comparing this year's income tax returns to a projected pattern over the last 8 years. Apples and oranges.

Second of all, the article fails to mention something very special:
Earlier this year, Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), which, among other things, temporarily put into place some of the refundable credits proposed during the campaign. TPC estimates that under the new law, 47 percent of tax units will owe no income tax in 2009.

So there you have it. Rather than more tax breaks for the wealthy, we're looking at a stimulus package designed to help low and middle income taxpayers. Heaven forbid the President actually keep a promise he made during the campaign. :roll:

What a crock.

It refutes simply by the fact that you say the "rich" pay less of a % then an average person. This is simply not true when on average (nearly 1/2) of households don't pay any federal taxes as at all.

_

Indifference wrote:

It refutes simply by the fact that you say the "rich" pay less of a % then an average person. This is simply not true when on average (nearly 1/2) of households don't pay any federal taxes as at all.

Uh... I'm no math major or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's not how averages work.

WaveCameCrashin

aerial wrote:

How do you guys feel about a National Sales tax....this is from Obamas adviser Paul Volcker. Between 15% to 20% tax added to your purchase.......
This is additional to income tax. ...


I think you are refering to what is called the vat tax. Value Added Tax. It could be any where from 0-25% tax on goods. I do believe we will see this You can thank Washington for it becuase our debt is unsustainable. And isn't it funny how the healthcare bill is suppose to decrease the deficit but now they are talking about the vat tax
then any insurance cost covered by your employer , will be considered income, another tax........
Americans standard of living will defiantly be going down if all this goes thru....

Starfall

Indifference wrote:

It refutes simply by the fact that you say the "rich" pay less of a % then an average person. This is simply not true when on average (nearly 1/2) of households don't pay any federal taxes as at all.

*sigh*
You're playing games with me. Just because half of households don't pay any income tax this year, doesn't mean that their effective tax rate is necessarily ALWAYS zero.

What you're citing is estimated taxes on THIS year only, made possible by the one time stimulus. What I was citing was taxes over the PREVIOUS years.

You're making it sound like the 47% was a constant, when in fact it's this year only.

Did you ever READ what I had written, much less the link I had provided?

Indifference

Starfall wrote:

Indifference wrote:

It refutes simply by the fact that you say the "rich" pay less of a % then an average person. This is simply not true when on average (nearly 1/2) of households don't pay any federal taxes as at all.

I guess you didn't read what I wrote. What you're citing is estimated taxes on THIS year only, made possible by the one time stimulus. What I was citing was taxes over the PREVIOUS years.
You're making it sound like the 47% was a constant, when in fact it's this year only.

Actually the 47% estimate for 09 is DOWN from the 49% in 2008. The number of people paying no federal taxes has been consistenly above 40% the past 5 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns ... _finance//

Wobbie

Money = power....the rich people will always have the power (through lobbyists, campaign contributions, etc.)...the rich set policy as much, if not more, than the politicians....hell, if I was rich, I'd probably be doing the same thing. End result....the rich are always going to fight as hard as possible to keep everything they make....and in most cases, they will do everything they can to make more and more and more....even if that means sending all their manufacturing jobs out of the country. Thre's no way to "fix" greed.

Starfall

Indifference wrote:

Actually the 47% estimate for 09 is DOWN from the 49% in 2008. The number of people paying no federal taxes has been consistenly above 40% the past 5 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns ... _finance//

First of all, the article you posted is the exact same one you posted earlier.
Second of all, according to your source:
In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.

So there you have it - you forgot to account for the Bush tax rebates.
Plus it's not like these families are making copious amounts of money:

The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

I'm really not sure where you're getting at. Are you equating people who don't make enough money to actually be assessed income tax to those who are making obscene amounts of money and yet pay no income tax?