richest 1%

know1

I saw another stat that said the lowest 47% of earners in the country will pay NO FEDERAL TAX last year.

musicismylife78

to contrast though, its quite interesting how quite a few of the richest people in the world are all pro taxes, and have spoken about how their wealth is absurd and its wrong. gates, gates father, buffett etc...

aerial

prfctlefts 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. ...


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....

Not digging that CHANGE at all!
Hopefully it will not go thru...My guess they will start at 15 to 20% then lower it down to 10% . Then the idiot's will be saying "well at least it's not 20%" as they fall for the scam, that someone did them a favor by lowering it...

Smellyman

aerial wrote:

prfctlefts 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. ...


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....

Not digging that CHANGE at all!
Hopefully it will not go thru...My guess they will start at 15 to 20% then lower it down to 10% . Then the idiot's will be saying "well at least it's not 20%" as they fall for the scam, that someone did them a favor by lowering it...

Me neither. I just can't "bare" it.

Commy

considering wealth has been consolidating to those richest 1% for the past 40 years, too bad.

mikepegg44

Starfall wrote:

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.

this finding was based on numbers from the IRS. . . I love how somoene talks about bias all the time but then also talks about msnbc. . . do you think that one shoots straight and the other just gives opinion? These are facts. Regardless of how much you think the top should be paying. . . Leave successful people alone. Why punish those who are successful. The people who lie cheat and steal are not the norm.
It is not fair that 1% of the country is paying for the other 95%.
My point was simple...Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to get us anywhere, they are paying their fair share. A flat tax would be fantastic, no loopholes, just pay based on your income. The rates could actually be lower than they are now for the middle class and we would still be just fine. the government does not need any more money.
And to answer a later post of yours, the problem with returning to a pre-reagan era is not just simply the income tax rates are too high, capital gains taxes were also out of control. I just don't understand the idea that we should punish people for being successful or for investing their money back into the system. If tax rates are reasonable for everyone we will all be better off. The more money people have to spend the more spending they do, the more goods there are for the salesmen to sell and so on. I don't understand it. Having high tax rates for everyone simply makes peope keep their money or try and hide it.
Take away the loopholes, simply tax everone the same rate and I think you would see revenues actually rise. But I could be wrong, I just hate that rich people pay for so much out of the idea of fairness...since when is life fair? And no I am not in the top 1%, not even close . . .

Kel Varnsen

musicismylife78 wrote:

to contrast though, its quite interesting how quite a few of the richest people in the world are all pro taxes, and have spoken about how their wealth is absurd and its wrong. gates, gates father, buffett etc...

That's what I was thinking. I mean you see people talk all the time about the super rich being super greedy. But everytime I watch PBS the shows I watch are always funded by super rich dudes like the Alfred P. Sloan foundation or the David H. Koch. When I was in Boston a few years ago it seems every museum I went to every little section or wing was dedicated to some rich person or some rich family that provided is funding. I mean people can talk about how being in the top 1% is somehow by itself a bad thing, but there seems to be a lot of groups, orginizations and causes that depend on those people to fund their work.

Starfall

mikepegg44 wrote:

this finding was based on numbers from the IRS. . . I love how somoene talks about bias all the time but then also talks about msnbc. . . do you think that one shoots straight and the other just gives opinion? These are facts. Regardless of how much you think the top should be paying. . . Leave successful people alone. Why punish those who are successful. The people who lie cheat and steal are not the norm.

It's the not the numbers that are the problem, it's the spin being put on them. Big difference.
Besides, the marginal tax rate was almost 90% under that radical communist Eisenhower, and I don't recall the rich begging for money on the streets. On the contrary, that was a time of unprecedented economic growth. EVERYONE benefited, not just the rich.

It is not fair that 1% of the country is paying for the other 95%.

Care to explain that leap of logic?

My point was simple...Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to get us anywhere, they are paying their fair share. A flat tax would be fantastic, no loopholes, just pay based on your income. The rates could actually be lower than they are now for the middle class and we would still be just fine. the government does not need any more money.

Again, we were doing pretty well when the rich paid more in taxes. And per the link I put up earlier, their effective tax rate went DOWN as their incomes DOUBLED. Meanwhile, the rest of the country was choking badly as the economy sputtered. (And BTW, those numbers came from the IRS too).
A no-loophole flat tax is one the most ridiculous ideas ever conceived of. A person making $10,000 a year is going to lose a bigger percentage of their disposable income as opposed to someone making $100,000/year. That's income that could go to consumer spending, stimulating the market. You're also going to discourage people from buying houses, depressing the housing market.

And to answer a later post of yours, the problem with returning to a pre-reagan era is not just simply the income tax rates are too high, capital gains taxes were also out of control. I just don't understand the idea that we should punish people for being successful or for investing their money back into the system. If tax rates are reasonable for everyone we will all be better off. The more money people have to spend the more spending they do, the more goods there are for the salesmen to sell and so on. I don't understand it.

See Eisenhower example above. Again, I don't see the rich starving pre-Reagan.
What having a high marginal tax rate also did was that it prevented the excessive CEO salaries that we see happening now. Companies were more likely to funnel the profits back into the company in the form of research and development, infrastructure, and yes, even higher wages for their employees. The way the system is now, a CEO can run a company into the ground and still walk away with a golden parachute (see Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns.... etc).

Having high tax rates for everyone simply makes peope keep their money or try and hide it.

As opposed to now, where we have the rich having low tax rates and keeping their money and trying to hide it too? The problem with your idea is that you assume, like any supply sider, that the rich will get generous with their money once they get all these tax breaks and incentives. Trickle down economics doesn't work. As amply proven by thousands of years of history, the rich as a group NEVER give back to their societies unless they are forced to, and in fact continue to hoard money and resources as much as they can get away with.

Take away the loopholes, simply tax everone the same rate and I think you would see revenues actually rise. But I could be wrong, I just hate that rich people pay for so much out of the idea of fairness...since when is life fair? And no I am not in the top 1%, not even close . . .

So nobody gets to deduct their IRA's, their 401(k)s, their houses, their kids, their medical bills? Are you aware of what kind of damage that will do to the economy? Plus the hideous moral dilemma of forcing people to not have kids because they simply can't afford the economic hit they will cause?
Taxing the rich to a more reasonable level by itself is not going to get anything done. Reversing the flow of wealth from the middle class to the rich is another thing that needs to be done. So is reining in the massive corporations - they also need to have their tax burden restored to normal. When Exxon Mobil, which made $40 billion in profits in one year alone (an all time record), is able to pay not ONE CENT of income tax, that's an atrocious situation.

haffajappa

when you think about the distribution of weatlh on this continent AND in the world...

i couldn't give a damn how much the wealthy get taxed.

JOEJOEJOE

As we speak, I am doing the tax return of someone who made $16,000,000 in 2009. Their Federal tax is $4,900,000...that comes out to 31% of their gross income to Uncle Sam.....seems like they are paying their fair share.

_

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

As we speak, I am doing the tax return of someone who made $16,000,000 in 2009. Their Federal tax is $4,900,000...that comes out to 31% of their gross income to Uncle Sam.....seems like they are paying their fair share.

Do you mean that's what they actually ended up paying?

mikepegg44

Starfall wrote:

It's the not the numbers that are the problem, it's the spin being put on them. Big difference.
Besides, the marginal tax rate was almost 90% under that radical communist Eisenhower, and I don't recall the rich begging for money on the streets. On the contrary, that was a time of unprecedented economic growth. EVERYONE benefited, not just the rich.

why not tax everyone 100% and just give them everything that the government thinks they need. Take it all...in fact you should probably pay more in taxes this year, because so many people need it.

It's the not the numbers that are the problem, it's the spin being put on them. Big difference.

what spin are you referring too? the numbers are the numbers...Is it spin if you disagree and great news reporting if you do agree?

Care to explain that leap of logic?

Not a leap of logic, they pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%.

I guess you can call me a supply sider, but I am not talking about an economic philosophy, I am talking about people keeping what they earn. If you think rich people don't spend money you are nuts.

As opposed to now, where we have the rich having low tax rates and keeping their money and trying to hide it too? The problem with your idea is that you assume, like any supply sider, that the rich will get generous with their money once they get all these tax breaks and incentives. Trickle down economics doesn't work. As amply proven by thousands of years of history, the rich as a group NEVER give back to their societies unless they are forced to, and in fact continue to hoard money and resources as much as they can get away with.

that is simply untrue. No one forces charties to get money... no one. Rich people aren't evil. Lots of good ones out there.

As opposed to now, where we have the rich having low tax rates and keeping their money and trying to hide it too? The problem with your idea is that you assume, like any supply sider, that the rich will get generous with their money once they get all these tax breaks and incentives. Trickle down economics doesn't work. As amply proven by thousands of years of history, the rich as a group NEVER give back to their societies unless they are forced to, and in fact continue to hoard money and resources as much as they can get away with.

right, couldn't agree more, take away the loopholes. What is wrong with saving money? The rich are no different than anyone else. They should save money. You have a very jaded opinion of rich people. According to you they are all greedy little pigs who never help anyone.

So is reining in the massive corporations - they also need to have their tax burden restored to normal. When Exxon Mobil, which made $40 billion in profits in one year alone (an all time record), is able to pay not ONE CENT of income tax, that's an atrocious situation.

the exxon mobile story everyone keeps pointing to is not really accurate.

http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/201004060001
they pay taxes. Just google it, they paid a record of around $30 billion in 2007. So you are saying that in 2 tax years, they just found out how to not pay taxes???? you have got to be kidding me. They don't even have to have filed for 2009 yet. They also overpaid in 2008. But don't talk about that, just talk about a story that isn't really true.

But I think this just proves that you and I will never see eye to eye on this point. Record profits this and record profits that, they also paid record taxes.

Star, I think you and I probably need to just agree to disagree on this. I just don't believe in a forced redistribution of wealth. the government has done nothing to prove it can spend money wisely, so why on earth do you want to give them more of someone else's money

Starfall

mikepegg44 wrote:

why not tax everyone 100% and just give them everything that the government thinks they need. Take it all...in fact you should probably pay more in taxes this year, because so many people need it.

Why don't you try defending your argument instead of assuming something I never said?

what spin are you referring too? the numbers are the numbers...Is it spin if you disagree and great news reporting if you do agree?
Not a leap of logic, they pay more in taxes than the bottom 95%.

Because they're making the false equivalency of the rich somehow being unfairly taxed, when as pointed out in the graph in my link, the share of wealth by the bottom 95% has been going down and down over the last 30 years. So of course the rich are going to seem to pay more than the bottom - their effective tax rates have been going down AND their incomes have gone up.

I guess you can call me a supply sider, but I am not talking about an economic philosophy, I am talking about people keeping what they earn. If you think rich people don't spend money you are nuts.

I never said the rich didn't spend money, did I? Nor did I say the rich have to pay out ALL their income in taxes, did I?

that is simply untrue. No one forces charties to get money... no one. Rich people aren't evil. Lots of good ones out there.

And yet we saw it in the Industrial revolution, the robber baron era, the Roaring 20's, the Reagan revolution. Massive transfers of wealth from the lower classes to a privileged few.

right, couldn't agree more, take away the loopholes. What is wrong with saving money? The rich are no different than anyone else. They should save money. You have a very jaded opinion of rich people. According to you they are all greedy little pigs who never help anyone.

When they as a group stop trying to destroy our democracy and our economy, then I'll believe you. But we keep seeing it time and time again.

the exxon mobile story everyone keeps pointing to is not really accurate.

http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/201004060001
they pay taxes. Just google it, they paid a record of around $30 billion in 2007. So you are saying that in 2 tax years, they just found out how to not pay taxes???? you have got to be kidding me. They don't even have to have filed for 2009 yet. They also overpaid in 2008. But don't talk about that, just talk about a story that isn't really true.

But I think this just proves that you and I will never see eye to eye on this point. Record profits this and record profits that, they also paid record taxes.

They forgot to mention that after all the tax credits and the overseas tax shelters in the Cayman islands and other places, Exxon Mobil was able to avoid paying a single cent of income tax. Remember, it's not the marginal tax rate, it's the effective tax rate that count. s

Star, I think you and I probably need to just agree to disagree on this. I just don't believe in a forced redistribution of wealth. the government has done nothing to prove it can spend money wisely, so why on earth do you want to give them more of someone else's money

We've already seen a forced redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years, from the middle and lower classes to the rich. As Warren Buffet also said, we've had class warfare, and his class won.

What's wrong with reversing that trend and restoring sound economic policy?

mikepegg44

to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make the middle class wealthier again, there is nothing wrong with wanting the poor to be less so, but there is something wrong with doing it on the backs of people who have been successful. It is a disagreement in philosophy man, you aren't going to convince me that someone shouldn't reap the benefits of working hard. My point with the 95% thing was to show you that the rich are paying their fair share...they are paying a shitload of money into the government every year. I just think you need to stop and look at who the "rich" actually are. Bill gates is one of them, Warren himself is one of them, they do a ton of good with their money...UNFORCED. No one said Bill you need to set up schools and immunization programs in Africa...if the government had taken more of his money, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Personally I would like everyone to be taxed less, but if I say that again you might have a heart attack and hunt me down...

Now answer one of mine,

how on earth do you still believe that Exxon Mobile didn't pay any taxes when I showed you an answer from Exxon Mobile about the amount of taxes they paid? I realize I didn't show you the receipt but come one man, Exxon replied to the tax statement more than one time, if you don't want to take my link for example than google one of your own. Again, do you think this business just learned how to not pay taxes in one year? no, the story was a gross overstatement of what actually happened and Exxon Mobile answered it. Either way, they made a lot of money and then paid a lot of money, seems fair to me.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

Now answer one of mine,

how on earth do you still believe that Exxon Mobile didn't pay any taxes when I showed you an answer from Exxon Mobile about the amount of taxes they paid? I realize I didn't show you the receipt but come one man, Exxon replied to the tax statement more than one time, if you don't want to take my link for example than google one of your own. Again, do you think this business just learned how to not pay taxes in one year? no, the story was a gross overstatement of what actually happened and Exxon Mobile answered it. Either way, they made a lot of money and then paid a lot of money, seems fair to me.

not to speak for the guy ... but i think he is saying you have to look at the effective tax rate ... yes, exxon-mobil might pay taxes however, they will get a substantial amount of it back in tax credits and such ...

mikepegg44

Starfall,

Because they're making the false equivalency of the rich somehow being unfairly taxed, when as pointed out in the graph in my link, the share of wealth by the bottom 95% has been going down and down over the last 30 years. So of course the rich are going to seem to pay more than the bottom - their effective tax rates have been going down AND their incomes have gone up.

They don't seem to pay more, they literally pay more, a million is more than a thousand...I realize that a $1000 in reality is different to a lot of people, but why must someone be considered evil for having a lot of money? A 1,000 is a shit load to me, but my neighbor could wipe is ass with it ten times over, that doesn't mean that I have a right to his money. he should pay the same amount percentage wise as everyone else. if my tax liability is 5000, and his is 25000, we both should pay that amount, I am not advocating bringing his liability down to 5,000.

This is where we disagree the most. I don't look at the wealth of the Nation as one big pot that everyone has a right to. It seems as though you do. Am I wrong?

you say things like

When they as a group stop trying to destroy our democracy and our economy, then I'll believe you. But we keep seeing it time and time again.

Yikes, When the rich as a group stop trying to destroy democracy? come on man, I think you took that a little too far, they are people most of which are pretty proud americans. . . for what that is worth.
Jesus christ, that would be like me saying that poor people need to fucking get their shit together and stop trying to destroy democracy by voting for people who perpetuate the welfare state. I don't think they are deliberately trying to destroy democracy . . . that is crazy.

markin ball

In 2007 the top 1% in the U.S. had 34.6% of the total private wealth. The top 20% had 85.1% of the total private wealth. They are taxed more because that's where all the money is! They probably want it that way, too. Can you imagine if that family of four making $50,000 was taxed at the same rate? They wouldn't have any money to buy the products the 1% sells.

CJMST3K

I just don't see why we can't have a tax only when you buy something. The only reason people are relatively passive about taxes is because it's taken away in multiple places. If people see it taken away from them in one huge hit, they'll realize what's actually going to uncle sam.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

you aren't going to convince me that someone shouldn't reap the benefits of working hard.

I think everyone here agrees that people should reap the fruits of their labor. But some of us just believe the rich are getting richer off the backs of the poor, not the other way around.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make the middle class wealthier again, there is nothing wrong with wanting the poor to be less so, but there is something wrong with doing it on the backs of people who have been successful. It is a disagreement in philosophy man, you aren't going to convince me that someone shouldn't reap the benefits of working hard. My point with the 95% thing was to show you that the rich are paying their fair share...they are paying a shitload of money into the government every year. I just think you need to stop and look at who the "rich" actually are. Bill gates is one of them, Warren himself is one of them, they do a ton of good with their money...UNFORCED. No one said Bill you need to set up schools and immunization programs in Africa...if the government had taken more of his money, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Personally I would like everyone to be taxed less, but if I say that again you might have a heart attack and hunt me down...

It's funny you should mention Warren Buffett, because he believes he doesn't pay enough in taxes and says rich people pay more than poorer people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s

He also said in his annual letter to shareholders that rich people reap more benefits than their hard work has earned: "At 86 and 79, Charlie and I remain lucky beyond our dreams. We were born in America; had terrific parents who saw that we got good educations; have enjoyed wonderful families and great health; and came equipped with a “business” gene that allows us to prosper in a manner hugely disproportionate to that experienced by many people who contribute as much or more to our society’s well-being."