The Big Scary Word

meme · October 2008

scb wrote:

Will you please explain this a little further? Are you referring to people who work but don't make enough money to owe taxes? If so, I don't understand the problem.

For instance, I've had a job for most of my life. Income tax has been deducted from every paycheck, no matter how little money I made. Let's say that Uncle Sam deducted $5000 of the money I earned this year for income tax. At the end of the year, I do my taxes and find that I owed $3000 in income tax for the year. Since I paid more than I owed, I get a refund of $2000. (These are just totally random amounts, of course.)

Now, when I made minimum wage, let's say Uncle Sam deducted $3000 of the money I earned that year for income tax. At the end of the year, I did my taxes and found that I didn't make enough money to owe any income tax. Since I paid more than I owed (paid $3000; owed $0), I got a refund of $3000.

Is that $3000 the refund you're talking about that I got even though I didn't pay taxes? If so, that's MY money, so the government is not giving me a handout or redistributing someone else's wealth to me even though I didn't earn it.

But it's entirely possible that this isn't what you're talking about at all. Please explain...

If he explained, how would illiterate people keep believing what they are told, that Obama will send lazy people a check in the mail?

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

Indifference wrote:

here is the source for the top 1% - not sure where you get the 26% from.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

Remember,

It's not gross income but taxable income (income after subtracting your deductions) that determines your income tax. Rich people are more likely to have higher deductions due to their corresponding larger mortgages, state income taxes, and property taxes. These large deductions significantly reduce the amount of federal income tax wealthy people must pay.

Also federal income tax is based on income—not wealth. If you´re worth a million dollars yet have little taxable income, you might not pay federal income tax at all. Take the extreme example (and one I´ve seen first-hand) of a multi-millionaire family where neither parent is employed nor does anything to generate significant income other than interest, high rent on buildings they own and investments (All written off) Combined with an enormous mortgage deduction, they might pay no federal income tax at all.

Once again your source is missing a crucial point. Again I'll use Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Ect..Because their income is made up largely of dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. They end up writing off about 90% of their annual income.

Indifference · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Remember,

It's not gross income but taxable income (income after subtracting your deductions) that determines your income tax. Rich people are more likely to have higher deductions due to their corresponding larger mortgages, state income taxes, and property taxes. These large deductions significantly reduce the amount of federal income tax wealthy people must pay.

Also federal income tax is based on income—not wealth. If you´re worth a million dollars yet have little taxable income, you might not pay federal income tax at all. Take the extreme example (and one I´ve seen first-hand) of a multi-millionaire family where neither parent is employed nor does anything to generate significant income other than interest, high rent on buildings they own and investments (All written off) Combined with an enormous mortgage deduction, they might pay no federal income tax at all.

Once again your source is missing a crucial point. Again I'll use Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Ect..Because their income is made up largely of dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. They end up writing off about 90% of their annual income.

The bottom 50% pay less then 3% of their income on taxes (28675/963134) which is a lot less then 15%.

melodious · October 2008

unsung wrote:

AMEN

And if you sit and collect a welfare check and live Section 8 socialism works for you.

I'm sick of paying for losers.

concur. no worky; no pay....

i am all for wealth...abundance, prosperity in all facets..

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

Indifference wrote:

The bottom 50% pay less then 3% of their income on taxes (28675/963134) which is a lot less then 15%.

Okay so tax everyone 35% of their ACTUAL income????

Warren Buffet earned $65 Million in 2007

Bottom 50%...(Being Generous) what?...$25,000-$35,000??

Tax them all equal 35%

Who is honsestly going to suffer here??

You can't honestly say that this is fair. It's a very naive assumption to proclaim that all of America's income is on the same taxable level.

It's absurd.

The very rich in this country don't count on their salary to get by like the lower 50% of the country. It's an inherintly different reality where the salary for the top 1% is inconsequential in comparrison to the money generated by investments, Property, Rent, Corporate Welfare,hedge funds, Captial Gains, Write offs, Write offs, and Write offs.

For the top 1% of the USA the income which they claim to the IRS is just a written number provided for tax purposes. It does not take into account or represent the actual income.

You can't tell me that Obama's proposed tax hike on the richest 1% of this country on their "Claimed" Income is going to at all effect the "Actual" income of these idividuals. It's a total joke. The rich aren't going to suffer because of this.

It's meant to beef up the income of Middle America. Get them spending again, buying American Cars, Homes, ect ect.

I just think people are being brainwashed here by these cry babies.

This again goes back to the false assumption that the rich will actually buy into American investments with their money...They don't. They're money goes overseas because it's a highly lucritive investment. It doesn't stay in the American Economy and It doesn't trickle down.

Giving Tax cuts to the rich as we've been doing for the last 8 years and beyond is pointless. It doesn't work.

The problem with the economy is that the middle class like the very rich are not buying into America either. They have no money because they are strapped for cash living paycheck to paycheck and paying obscene costs for healthcare.

It's not working and I can't understand for the life of me how anyone in the Middle Class can vote for someone who is hanging onto this ridiculous ideaology that by giving more money to the rich we are somehow going to enhance the qaulity of life for all of America.

Indifference · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Okay so tax everyone 35% of their ACTUAL income????

Warren Buffet earned $65 Million in 2007

Bottom 50%...(Being Generous) what?...$25,000-$35,000??

Tax them all equal 35%

Who is honsestly going to suffer here??

You can't honestly say that this is fair. It's a very naive assumption to proclaim that all of America's income is on the same taxable level.

It's absurd.

The very rich in this country don't count on their salary to get by like the lower 50% of the country. It's an inherintly different reality where the salary for the top 1% is inconsequential in comparrison to the money generated by investments, Property, Rent, Corporate Welfare,hedge funds, Captial Gains, Write offs, Write offs, and Write offs.

It's also under a false assumption that the rich will actually buy into American investments with their money...They don't. They're money goes overseas because it's a highly lucritive investment. It doesn't stay in the American Economy and It doesn't trickle down.

Giving Tax cuts to the rich as we've been doing for the last 8 years and beyond is pointless. It doesn't work.

The problem with the economy is that the middle class isn't buy into America either. They have no money because they are strapped for cash living paycheck to paycheck and paying obscene costs for healthcare.

It's not working and I can't understand for the life of me how anyone in the Middle Class can vote for someone who is hanging onto this ridiculous ideaology that by giving more money to the rich we are somehow going to enhance the qaulity of life for all of America.

A flat tax isn't fair?????????? Why the hell not. Tax everything the same for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

Indifference wrote:

A flat tax isn't fair?????????? Why the hell not. Tax everything the same for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again.

Think of what you are proposing.

35% to someone who makes $500,000 a year is a hell of lot different to someone making $50,000 dollars a year.

It may work if the money, and assets of the bottom 50% were on the same level of that of the upper 1% of the country. But the truth is...It's not.

You need a tax system that ensures that everyone is paying their fair share and not hiding behind these loopholes that grossly distort what people are actually earning and paying into the countries tax system.

The rich have far more avenues and loopholes to throw their money than many of us in this country.

It's not punishing the rich and rewarding the poor. It has nothing to do with hard work and nothing to do with lazyness.

It's about making the tax system fair so that everyone benifits.

Right now only a very few are benifiting from this tax system.

Indifference · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Once again.

Think of what you are proposing.

35% to someone who makes $500,000 a year is a hell of lot different to someone making $50,000 dollars a year.

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Why not - the person who makes 500K pays 10 times as much in taxes as the person who makes 50K. Makes 10 times as much - pays 10 times as much in taxes.

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

Indifference wrote:

Why not - the person who makes 500K pays 10 times as much in taxes as the person who makes 50K. Makes 10 times as much - pays 10 times as much in taxes.

Yes but they also earn 500-1000 dollars more income than the bottom 50%.

The person claiming $50,000 income is not writing off anywhere near as much of their actual income as the person earning $500,000 - $500,000,000 and they don't qualifiy for the same tax breaks that the top 1% qualifiy for as well.

Besides how can you tax the Bottom 50% more taxes and expect them to invest in this country.

You'll choke the middle class as they have substantially more to lose.

Indifference · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Yes but they also earn 500-1000 dollars more income than the bottom 50%.

The person claiming $50,000 income is not writing off anywhere near as much of their actual income as the person earning $500,000 - $500,000,000 and they don't qualifiy for the same tax breaks that the top 1% qualifiy for as well.

Besides how can you tax the Bottom 50% more taxes and expect them to invest in this country.

You'll choke the middle class as they have substantially more to lose.

Agree to disagree - I want a fair/flat tax and you want everyone to make 50K-75K - no more and no less - or something close to that. You make 200K - well we are going to tax you at 75% because you can live on 50K.

Vince · October 2008

pjalive21 wrote:

i work for major league baseball, they make a crap ton of money and i get some of it with a paycheck, get paid descent for what i do..dont know what to tell you

Trickle down economics never trickles down. It's more or less a scheme by the Republicans and corporate America to keep the middle class and poor in their place. It can be looked at as a pyramid scheme with very few making it to the top of the pyramid.

The wage disparity among CEOs and the lower levels is astronomical. Why should CEOs make absorbent amounts of money along with bonuses? I understand that they should be paid a good amount for running a company but at some point enough is enough. Spread the wealth on down. There is no reason why the wealth should be concentrated at the top.

Republicans always tout the message of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps but if people cannot afford the the boots or the straps what are they going to pull themselves up by? A progressive tax system is the best way to give people a fighting chance. It's not welfare or socialism but an opportunity to keep a little bit of what they make in their pocket.

A gallon of milk and gas money cost a lot more for someone who makes $40-50 grand per year vs someone who makes 100,000+ a year, especially when you throw kids into the mix.

_ · October 2008

Indifference wrote:

Using your example above the fact that you paid (after refund) no federal taxes for the year means everything the govt provides is a handout for you and someone else is paying for it.

This doesn't address my question at all. I am asking whether that $3000 refund is the check pjalive21 is suggesting I would get from the government that I didn't earn. No one has answered this question.

Regarding your comment above, if you want to talk about whether extremely poor people should have to pay income tax, that's a different subject.

But exactly what handouts are you saying I got from the government?

Indifference · October 2008

scb wrote:

This doesn't address my question at all. I am asking whether that $3000 refund is the check pjalive21 is suggesting I would get from the government that I didn't earn. No one has answered this question.

Regarding your comment above, if you want to talk about whether extremely poor people should have to pay income tax, that's a different subject.

But exactly what handouts are you saying I got from the government?

If you paid no federal taxes (paid $3000 during year - filed taxes and with deductions and credits got it all back) then every service the federal govt provides: defense, infrastructure, mail, court system, national parks, FBI, CIA, NASA, Homeland Security, etc, etc you got for free.

mammasan · October 2008

Indifference wrote:

If you paid no federal taxes (paid $3000 during year - filed taxes and with deductions and credits got it all back) then every service the federal govt provides: defense, infrastructure, mail, court system, national parks, FBI, CIA, NASA, Homeland Security, etc, etc you got for free.

Well mail you pay for with postage. Infrastructure (depending on the various types) you pay for through state taxes, fairs and tolls. Court system also collects court fees when and if you have to go to court. Social Security and Medicare you pay into yourself, long term disability the same. Many of our localized municiple services are paid for through property taxes and local/state sales taxes. So with the exception of say nation security, national parks and NASA people who pay no federal taxes still pay into many of the government services provided.

Indifference · October 2008

mammasan wrote:

Well mail you pay for with postage. Infrastructure (depending on the various types) you pay for through state taxes, fairs and tolls. Court system also collects court fees when and if you have to go to court. Social Security and Medicare you pay into yourself, long term disability the same. Many of our localized municiple services are paid for through property taxes and local/state sales taxes. So with the exception of say nation security, national parks and NASA people who pay no federal taxes still pay into many of the government services provided.

All I'm saying is ALL federal services you receice for FREE. If it is something via the state/muni/county well how much did you pay in taxes towards them?

The source of revenue of the USA Govt is:
80% - Individual and payroll taxes
13% - Corporate Taxes
7% - excise, estate and gift taxes, custom duties and misc.

know1 · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

The very rich in this country do not pay taxes on 90% of their income. The rich don't need the paycheck, and so can elect to defer income until a better deal comes along, or take it in a preferential way--capital gains for example.

OK - let's assume that what you're saying here is true (and I don't think it's anything other than something that occurs a very small amount of the time) - this is exactly why a consumption or sales tax would tax them more. Maybe they can defer some income, but they definitely consume and buy things.

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

Indifference wrote:

Agree to disagree - I want a fair/flat tax and you want everyone to make 50K-75K - no more and no less - or something close to that. You make 200K - well we are going to tax you at 75% because you can live on 50K.

Look we obviously both seek a fair tax system.

I did not say that everyone should make no more than 50-75K.

What I'm saying is that in order to tax everyone on a fair level you must first be willing to cut most of the tax breaks,loopholes, and incentives that are in place that enable to richest 1% of this country to not pay taxes on a very large sum (90%) of their actual assets, investments and actual income.

You can not tax everyone an equal percentage when a portion of your taxed population is subject to massive tax breaks, capital gains, benefits, and incentives when another portion of your taxed population is not.

know1 · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Look we obviously both seek a fair tax system.

I did not say that everyone should make no more than 50-75K.

What I'm saying is that in order to tax everyone on a fair level you must first be willing to cut most of the tax breaks,loopholes, and incentives that are in place that enable to richest 1% of this country to not pay taxes on a very large sum (90%) of their actual assets, investments and actual income.

You can not tax everyone an equal percentage when a portion of your taxed population is subject to massive tax breaks, capital gains, benefits, and incentives when another portion of your taxed population is not.

What loopholes do the rich have that the poor do not?

_ · October 2008

mammasan wrote:

Well mail you pay for with postage. Infrastructure (depending on the various types) you pay for through state taxes, fairs and tolls. Court system also collects court fees when and if you have to go to court. Social Security and Medicare you pay into yourself, long term disability the same. Many of our localized municiple services are paid for through property taxes and local/state sales taxes. So with the exception of say nation security, national parks and NASA people who pay no federal taxes still pay into many of the government services provided.

Exactly. And I can't remember the last time I went to a national park, I don't care whether or not we go to the moon, and I certainly never asked the federal government to bomb Iraqi children in my name.

And still, no one has answered my original question.

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

know1 wrote:

OK - let's assume that what you're saying here is true (and I don't think it's anything other than something that occurs a very small amount of the time) - this is exactly why a consumption or sales tax would tax them more. Maybe they can defer some income, but they definitely consume and buy things.

No doubt they buy things.
Problem is they do not invest their money in America. The largest portion of their money goes to foriegn investments. No fault of their own due to the incentives of doing such.

What we've forgoten and it's been proven over and over again...Henry Ford as a perfect example...That the middle class is what drives this economy.

It's absurd to think that 1% or 5% of this population can stimulate growth by the sheer notion of their personal wealth.

Give the Middle Class some spending money and it will pay off big time. They'll even make the 1% even richer because production and consumption of their products will spike due to a surge in Middle Class purchases of these "American products"

The Big Scary Word

Comments

Categories