This is from today’s WSJ. What do you guys think?
This incomplete and disingenuous BS. Income taxes are not the whole picture; that 95% of Americans pay sales taxes, property taxes, fees and other forms of regressive taxation. Without including this; you’re engineering statistics.
Also, this article draws the wrong conclusion. The conclusion drawn here is that the rich are carrying the poor in typical Ayn Rand style! The more accurate conclusion to draw is that the poor are getting poorer. I.e., there are more and more people making so little in terms of wages (which I think is around 25k for two people) that they are not required to pay income taxes. The conclusion should be that there is an increasing wage inequality that really needs to be addressed. But instead of tackling to core issue, the WSJ issues there engineered stats to make a political point! i.e. rich peoples taxes need to be lower! If you were to add sales taxes, fees, property taxes, fines, and other forms of regressive taxation that packaged in various ways; you would find that as a percentage of income. The poor actually pay just as much or if not more, percentage wise, in total taxes to income!
Alpha why do you persist in this class warfare? You make this same, false post about once per month. All you need to know: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---warren-buffett-vs--wealthy-conservatives?xrs=share_copy The bottom 50% of Americans control 2.5% of the wealth in this county. How much tax, exactly, would you LIKE them to pay? Also from your article “the poorest 20% of American households, those earning less than $16,812 a year” - Recall that is a household number, and the average household has 2.74 people. How much extra should they chip in? Remember they’re still paying medicare, medicaid, social security, property and sales taxes.
@ALPHA, FYI income taxes consist of 44% of federal government revenues while 37% comes from social security, medicare, etc. which the 95% of Americans pay. (You can look at this info yourself on the GPO website). This is horrible reporting on stats and is a case of where people pick and choose which stats to present to make a certain point. As opposed to completing true analysis where you look at all related information/stats.
^ It’s an insult to say me posting tax related items once a month. At most, it’s once every 2 month… But that’s a bad joke. Please explain to me that, we are all equal citizens enjoying equal rights and responsiblities in the US, why every dollar of your income is taxed at 30% while mine is taxed at ZERO? How fair is that to you?
@Alpha, dude it’s simple. Because your analysis is f*cking incorrect. As a percentage of income, a poor person (let’s say making $30k with one child) will pay more in taxes than a millionaire. Why because you’re not taking into account total taxes, social security, meidcaid, medicare, sales taxes, property taxes, and fees!
Okay, I can’t say factually that it’s more because I do not have stats to back this up. But I would wager to guess that it is.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Okay, I can’t say factually that it’s more because > I do not have stats to back this up. But I would > wager to guess that it is. Zesty, quote of the day to you: “your analysis is f*cking incorrect” Please take it in a light-hearted way.
@Alpha, I got a little carried away; all in good fun, lol
Its Friday - time for you two to grab some beers and make up
Please don’t post tax articles that ever have numbers in the headlines. They are always sensationalist bullshit and really poor reporting.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Alpha, dude it’s simple. Because your analysis is > f*cking incorrect. > > As a percentage of income, a poor person (let’s > say making $30k with one child) will pay more in > taxes than a millionaire. Why because you’re not > taking into account total taxes, social security, > meidcaid, medicare, sales taxes, property taxes, > and fees! from a quick google session: these figures seem to exclude state and local, so they’re hardly the final answer on total tax burden… From http://www.cnsnews.com/node/68094 : “The average overall federal tax rate (including income, Social Security, Medicare, excise and other taxes) for all American households was 20.4 percent in 2007. But the average rate rose dramatically as household income rose. Households earning less than $34,300 paid an average overall federal tax rate of 10.6 percent, while households earning more than $74,700 paid an average overall federal tax rate of almost two and half times that much–25.1 percent.” Then again, there’s wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_do.html : “. In fact, the wealthy are paying less taxes. The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007. Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number. Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.”
Alpha, ^I guess I do have stats to back up what I said earlier! As I said, WSJ did a BS reporting job here! I think the only objective financial news reporting team left is Bloomberg!
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alpha, ^I guess I do have stats to back up what I > said earlier! As I said, WSJ did a BS reporting > job here That article really is drivel.
i found somethingg interesting the other day…the concept of male wedding rings is entirely a new concept since the 1920s …im prob late on this but it blew my mind…it came about by a marketing scheme by jewelry companies to increase revenues…pure genius but illustrates how powerful and easily manipulated the masses can be by information… The double-ring ceremony, or use of wedding rings for both partners, is a relatively recent innovation. The American jewelery industry started a marketing campaign aimed at encouraging this practice in the late 19th century.[1] In the 1920s, ad campaigns tried introducing a male engagement ring, but it failed because because it had to be a secret appeal for women to buy them for their men. [5] Learning from marketing lessons of the 1920s, changing economic times, and the impact of World War II, led to a more successful marketing campaign, and by the late 1940s, double-ring ceremonies made up for 80% of all weddings, as opposed to 15% before the Great Depression.[1] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_ring my point is the WSJ has a clear conservative almost libertarian philosophy that borders on brainwashing …imagine if wsj and fox is your only source of news
Personally I don’t mind paying federal or state income taxes, one thing that bothering me is to pay the Social Security tax for the next 40+ years, and the govt keep raising the retirement age that I might not even live that long to enjoy the benefit.
man, talk about a smack down. good to see there’s some educated people on this board.
This whole thread is drivel. I doubt any of us could produce some reliable statistics here. Second as I pointed out in another thread, the top earners could be getting their income from investment, which is typically taxed twice. So using their individual rate is probably not going to tell you the whole story.
Income tax makes up roughly 1/3rd of federal revenues. It is the single biggest component. The truth is, I’m not smart enough to know what the right percent to cap out on these guys is. What do people on both sides think? I’m a fiscal conservative / social moderate - I’d say mid-30’s maybe on income tax - maybe low 40s? There has to be a point of diminishing overall income tax receipts. I don’t think historical receipts can be regressed with certainty because there are so many variables outside of marginal income tax rates which impact these. I also don’t think you could drop taxes to zero or jump them to 90% and have things change for the better. I’m not asking philosophically what’s right, I’m asking economically what maximizes npv of tax receipts (and I know there isn’t a definitive answer driven by data that will be irrefutable, just looking for people’s thought processes).