You do realilze that even adding all those ancillary “taxes” to the equation, you, the high earner, is still paying a far higher effective rate than me, the low earner… How does that make you feel? Irrated? If so, you have a right to do so because someone is calling you a fat cat unfairly only because you work hard and smart to earn more money to take care of your family… By the way, thanks for the wiki link. It’s helpful.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You do realilze that even adding all those > ancillary “taxes” to the equation, you, the high > earner, is still paying a far higher effective > rate than me, the low earner… > > How does that make you feel? > > Irrated? If so, you have a right to do so because > someone is calling you a fat cat unfairly only > because you work hard and smart to earn more money > to take care of your family… > > By the way, thanks for the wiki link. It’s > helpful. i would be irate and overwhelmingly jealous if i were to find out that some single mother who made 30k a year paid a lower effective rate than me, a high flying corporate powerboker bringing home 7 figures. in fact, id quit working in protest. get real.
cookthebooks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > You do realilze that even adding all those > > ancillary “taxes” to the equation, you, the > high > > earner, is still paying a far higher effective > > rate than me, the low earner… > > > > How does that make you feel? > > > > Irrated? If so, you have a right to do so > because > > someone is calling you a fat cat unfairly only > > because you work hard and smart to earn more > money > > to take care of your family… > > > > By the way, thanks for the wiki link. It’s > > helpful. > > > i would be irate and overwhelmingly jealous if i > were to find out that some single mother who made > 30k a year paid a lower effective rate than me, a > high flying corporate powerboker bringing home 7 > figures. in fact, id quit working in protest. > > get real. As long as the single mom making $30k a year and the powerbroker making 7 figures get their income in a legit way, it’s fair game. They chose their own paths in life… I would be very irate at someone cooks the books…
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They chose their own paths in life… No, everyone starts somewhere and where they start is not up to them. Think about it like climbing Everest: some start near the summit while others start at base camp. Both get to choose their path, but for those near the summit that path is much easier to see (from base camp it is difficult to even see the summit) and execute.
Listen Alpha if you find tax policy in this county to be punitive, feel free to leave, or to make less money so you don’t have to pay so much tax. Otherwise, shove it. What I find amusing is your Owellian ability to continue to insist that there’s something unfair about federal income tax policy even when shown repeatedly that the premise for your assumption is false. Also you never responded to my page 1 post about the relative income levels of Americans, where I asked for your suggestions for revisions to the tax policy. I assuming after all this complaining you’ve got some solution? Keep in mind we’re running a trillion dollar deficit so “just cut taxes” is not really a viable solution.
Fair is subjective, but stats taken out of context are ridiculous. If 5% of Americans pay 60% of taxes but make 90% of the income the argument holds little water. Granted I exaggerated the income number, but what would be ‘fair’ taking these numbers in isolation? Have the top 5% pay 5% of the taxes? Gimme a break, I’d love to see that country function…
brain_wash_your_face Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They chose their own paths in life… > > No, everyone starts somewhere and where they start > is not up to them. Think about it like climbing > Everest: some start near the summit while others > start at base camp. Both get to choose their > path, but for those near the summit that path is > much easier to see (from base camp it is difficult > to even see the summit) and execute. In your theory, a black girl born to an unmarried teenage mother working as housemaid, would have less chance to succeed, right? If this girl was then molested by family members and friends when she was only 9 years old and ran away from home when she was 13, her odds of making it would be even slim, right? Further more, if this girl herself became pregnant at the age of 14, she is pretty much done?, possible? Well, she made it big, bigger than anyone’s wildest dream… Everyone has a shot at succeeding… don’t just expect the government to hand it to you.
sundevl21 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair is subjective, but stats taken out of context > are ridiculous. If 5% of Americans pay 60% of > taxes but make 90% of the income the argument > holds little water. Granted I exaggerated the > income number, but what would be ‘fair’ taking > these numbers in isolation? Have the top 5% pay > 5% of the taxes? Gimme a break, I’d love to see > that country function… It doesn’t change the fact that every dollar you earn is taxed at 30% while mine is taxed at zero. Analyze that?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In your theory, a black girl born to an unmarried > teenage mother working as housemaid, would have > less chance to succeed, right? From a probability perspective yes, although each person’s situation is obviously different. Also, less of a chance to succeed compared to whom? > If this girl was then molested by family members > and friends when she was only 9 years old and ran > away from home when she was 13, her odds of making > it would be even slim, right? I have no idea. Maybe her running away was for the best, given the situation. Hypothetical situations are kind of useless, although this story is getting interesting. > Further more, if this girl herself became pregnant > at the age of 14, she is pretty much done?, > possible? It would make it more difficult. On the flip side if a prototypical rich girl was knocked up at 14 her situation would be far less dire. > Well, she made it big, bigger than anyone’s > wildest dream… > > Everyone has a shot at succeeding… don’t just > expect the government to hand it to you. Once again, it is a question of how difficult it is to succeed, not whether or not you “have a shot.” Typically and on average, wealthy families will continue to accumulate wealth while poor families will continue to be poor. The logical endgame is too much income inequality and social unrest.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listen Alpha if you find tax policy in this county > to be punitive, feel free to leave, or to make > less money so you don’t have to pay so much tax. > Otherwise, shove it. > > What I find amusing is your Owellian ability to > continue to insist that there’s something unfair > about federal income tax policy even when shown > repeatedly that the premise for your assumption is > false. > > Also you never responded to my page 1 post about > the relative income levels of Americans, where I > asked for your suggestions for revisions to the > tax policy. I assuming after all this complaining > you’ve got some solution? Keep in mind we’re > running a trillion dollar deficit so “just cut > taxes” is not really a viable solution. Naked, I missed your post on page 1. I thought there are just unfunny stuff from Jon Stewart. I somehow never found him funny. I looked at your numbers. What it didn’t answer is that why someone is still asking the 30% tax payer paying their “fair share”… while there are guys paying 0%… What kind of fair share is he talking about?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cookthebooks Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > AlphaSeeker Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > You do realilze that even adding all those > > > ancillary “taxes” to the equation, you, the > > high > > > earner, is still paying a far higher > effective > > > rate than me, the low earner… > > > > > > How does that make you feel? > > > > > > Irrated? If so, you have a right to do so > > because > > > someone is calling you a fat cat unfairly > only > > > because you work hard and smart to earn more > > money > > > to take care of your family… > > > > > > By the way, thanks for the wiki link. It’s > > > helpful. > > > > > > i would be irate and overwhelmingly jealous if > i > > were to find out that some single mother who > made > > 30k a year paid a lower effective rate than me, > a > > high flying corporate powerboker bringing home > 7 > > figures. in fact, id quit working in protest. > > > > get real. > > As long as the single mom making $30k a year and > the powerbroker making 7 figures get their income > in a legit way, it’s fair game. They chose their > own paths in life… > > I would be very irate at someone cooks the > books… Horse crap and you know it. What’s your angle alpha? why you want the rich to have more money? you Fu#kers have a lot of debt, and it has to get paid for. You want the people with no money to pay it back? they can’t do it, it’s gotta be the rich, but they’re not doing it, instead they’re just perpetually getting richer and hording money, you know that
^ My angle is that it’s unwise to attacking the guys paying 60% of the income tax as fat cats… If someone is paying 60% of my paycheck, I’d be treating him/her in very sincere and respectful way.
rich people, by definition, have much more to lose than poor people. there are also a lot more poor people than rich people. if a group has little to lose and substantially outnumbers me, id treat them in a very sincere and respectful way.
@Alpha, if you make $40k a year and own a home; you will end up paying more as a percentage of income than a wealthy person who makes $4M a year? Why you ask? Because you are not considering social security, medicaid, medicare, local and state taxes, property taxes, fees, and sales tax? Property Taxes on a $100k house can be in the neighborhood of $1000. That alone would be 2.5% of 40k; now let’s add sales tax at 5 or 10% depending on where you live and you start to get the picture. Also, you need to take into account SS wage caps, etc. This link was pasted earlier by another poster: http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_do.html
@Alpha, also you address your question of why people with more income pay a higher marginal tax rate. This is the recognition that nominal values at equal percentages translate to a higher tax burden on those who are “poor”. For example, let’s assume everyone paid what the “wealthy” paid, 25%*; A family with $4 Million in taxable income a year and ends up paying $1 Million in income taxes* A family with $40k in taxable income a year ends up paying 10k in income taxes Now if you compare the two scenarios; it is abundantly clear that someone who is “poor” shares a greater “burden” in the effect of decreasing one’s standard of living through taxation if equal rates are applied; i.e., equal is not equal. Therefore, the gradation in marginal tax rates reflects the economic understanding that larger income earners are less effected in relation to the their change in standard of living due to taxation. *effective tax rate for highest earners is about 25%; http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/how-much-americans-actually-pay-in-taxes/
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Alpha, if you make $40k a year and own a home; > you will end up paying more as a percentage of > income than a wealthy person who makes $4M a year? > Why you ask? Because you are not considering > social security, medicaid, medicare, local and > state taxes, property taxes, fees, and sales tax? > > Property Taxes on a $100k house can be in the > neighborhood of $1000. That alone would be 2.5% of > 40k; now let’s add sales tax at 5 or 10% depending > on where you live and you start to get the > picture. Also, you need to take into account SS > wage caps, etc. > > > This link was pasted earlier by another poster: > > http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_t > he_rich_do.html @Zesty, wouldn’t all those taxes, fees apply to the high earner too? A guy making $40k can live in a $100k house, The gal making $4M may very well live in a $10M house, hence the same % of property tax expenditure. Her spending of the $4M will be subject to 5-10% sales tax too. right? Net net, the $4M gal paid a hefty income tax before spending everything else already…
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @Alpha, also you address your question of why > people with more income pay a higher marginal tax > rate. This is the recognition that nominal values > at equal percentages translate to a higher tax > burden on those who are “poor”. For example, let’s > assume everyone paid what the “wealthy” paid, > 25%*; > > > A family with $4 Million in taxable income a year > and ends up paying $1 Million in income taxes* > > A family with $40k in taxable income a year ends > up paying 10k in income taxes > > > Now if you compare the two scenarios; it is > abundantly clear that someone who is “poor” shares > a greater “burden” in the effect of decreasing > one’s standard of living through taxation if equal > rates are applied; i.e., equal is not equal. @Zesty, I disagree here. It’s perfectly equal here… both persons income is taxed at an equal rate, noboby is cheating and nobody is subsidizing nobody. > Therefore, the gradation in marginal tax rates > reflects the economic understanding that larger > income earners are less effected in relation to > the their change in standard of living due to > taxation. @Zesty, what you said here makes sense from the ability to pay standpoint. I got it. If that’s the case, B.O. should stoping calling people fat cats and demanding a fair share… Because these “cats” are already paying a disporportionally higher taxes… I just learned that B.O. stands for something smell bad too. How funny!!
@Alpha, until someone comes out with a definitive tax study regarding what total effective tax rates (including all federal, state, local, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.) are for the “wealthy” versus the “middle class” and “poor”; we’re just going to be arguing in circles trying to convince each other; but here are the facts (per CBO analysis): These effective federal tax rates should be the foundation for argument not marginal tax rates: Average effective Federal tax rate across income quintiles: Lowest Quintile - 4.3% Second Quintile - 10.2% Middle Quintile - 14.2% Fourth Quintile - 17.6% Highest Quintile - 25.8% effective tax rate Average effective federal tax rate across all income levels is 20.7% Per CBO; http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10068/effective_tax_rates_2006.pdf
@Alpha, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up Obama; he’s not on this forum. Maybe you should write him a letter regarding your grievances. In terms of taxation and the deficit; we either need to roll back the Bush tax cuts for everybody or seriously cut non-defense budget spending. We can’t have it both ways. And if you seriously cut spending you need a credible plan; working with the private sector to ensure that overall domestic employment is maintained. Regardless of what we do we need to cut Defense Spending and Reform spending on SS, Medicaid, & Medicare
"Because these “cats” are already paying a disporportionally higher taxes… " Not high enough. While taxes, or govt. intervention of any kind are economic inefficiencies, sure; so are subsidization of public goods like the police force, armed forces, firefighters, etc. So let’s be honest and give you that: yes, sure economic inefficiencies exist. But one of the perks about living in a western, democratic, modern state, is the harmony between an individual’s social and financial liberty, and their responsibility to the social contract. Furthermore it is the duty of the legal and political system (a section of which deals with taxes) to uphold this social contract. And while this might not amount to an “equal share”, it certainly amounts to a fair share when calculating overall tax burden. Personally, I’d rather the govt. create some sort of an incentive based program for an investment vehicle which would be used to directly fund certain public goods (hopefully soon to be universal healthcare)… but if taxation happens to generate just as much revenue, then I’m indifferent.