Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @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/effectiv > e_tax_rates_2006.pdf this is helpful. it does show that the high earners have a higher effective tax rate. who was stating that the “poor” has paying a higher effective tax rate that the rich earlier? That’s incorrect, as expected then.
Zesty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @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. Oh, I am sure why I keep bringing up B.O. He is the one who keeps using the world fat cats to describe the biggest check writters to government, and also accusing them not paying their fair share… His class warfare rhetoric is polarizing the country. creating so much growth concerns and economic uncertainties for investors like you and me.
@Alpha; “…who was stating that the “poor” has paying a higher effective tax rate that the rich earlier? That’s incorrect, as expected then.” This is not correct because these numbers do not take into account state and local taxes/fees into account nor does it take into account sales tax, etc… I hope this distinction between state, local, and federal taxes is clear (I’m not sure if you’re Canadian) @Alpha, I definitely agree with you that class warfare is not helpful!
@Zesty, yeah, what I am saying is the even if you throw in state, payroll and sales tax into the calculation, the high earners are still paying a higher effective rate… Just pause here and imagine every year your household writes a $150-$200k personal check to IRS and someone still calls you and your loved one fat cats who are not paying their fair share… You didn’t steal or cheat to make money, you take risks sometimes losses… Shouldn’t every dollar you make be respected the same way a dollar everybody else makes?
@Alpha, do you have a CBO or related study to back up your statement, “what I am saying is the even if you throw in state, payroll and sales tax into the calculation, the high earners are still paying a higher effective rate”? If no, then we’re just arguing in circles. Again I AGREE THAT CLASS WARFARE is bad and that calling people fat cats is not helpful! You should really be addressing the class warfare comments to Obama (because I agree that class warfare is bad).
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just pause here and imagine every year your > household writes a $150-$200k personal check to > IRS and someone still calls you and your loved one > fat cats who are not paying their fair share… > > You didn’t steal or cheat to make money, you take > risks sometimes losses… Shouldn’t every dollar > you make be respected the same way a dollar > everybody else makes? A single tear…
I don’t have study to back up my statement… I am not sure there are studies in this regard unless you can find one. But my logic here is that We know the high earners pay higher federal tax % already We also know that they will pay higher or equal % of state tax, and payroll tax. The big items left are sales tax and property tax. Since we don’t know the spending pattern and house size of the rich and poor, the safest assumption is that they spend the same % of the income and their house is the same X of ther income. That leaves them pay the same % of property tax and sales tax. Adding them together, I can’t come to the conclusion that poor are paying a higher effective tax rate…
@Alpha, again without facts; it’s your logic vs mine; again we’re arguing in circles here.
Okay, zesty. Call it a day. Miller time now… Cheers to you and others that I debated with… It’s all good.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don’t have study to back up my statement… I am > not sure there are studies in this regard unless > you can find one. But my logic here is that > > We know the high earners pay higher federal tax % > already True > We also know that they will pay higher or equal % > of state tax, and payroll tax. False. Payroll taxes are capped at $106,000. Rich pay a lower % of payroll taxes. > The big items left are sales tax and property tax. > Since we don’t know the spending pattern and house > size of the rich and poor, the safest assumption > is that they spend the same % of the income and > their house is the same X of ther income. False. We know a TON about the spending patterns of people. Lower income people consume (spend) a higher % of their income than higher income people. The rich can save, the poor can’t. > That leaves them pay the same % of property tax > and sales tax. We already know you’re wrong about sales taxes. Property taxes are a sticky wicket. It’s tough to generalize about rates and amounts paid, but what we do know is that poor people are generally unable to take advantage of the mortgage interest tax deduction, either because they don’t own a home or don’t make enough to itemize deductions. They’re going to end up paying more for housing. > Adding them together, I can’t come to the > conclusion that poor are paying a higher effective > tax rate… The gaping hole in this argument is capital gains taxes. Now, lower income people don’t pay a ton of capital gains taxes, but the rich do, and when they do it’s at a 15% rate - The same rate we tax incomes of $8,500 to $34,500. As this will often make up a huge % of their income, their tax rates are going to pulled toward 15%. Are you this willfully ignorant of the facts when doing investment analysis?
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Zesty Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > @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. > > Oh, I am sure why I keep bringing up B.O. > > He is the one who keeps using the world fat cats > to describe the biggest check writters to > government, and also accusing them not paying > their fair share… > > His class warfare rhetoric is polarizing the > country. creating so much growth concerns and > economic uncertainties for investors like you and > me. This is utter bunk. FDR railed on WS fatcats and was considered a traitor to his “class”, in a time when top marginal AND effective tax rates were higher. Polarization in this case is nothing more than a convenient tool for polarized people to accuse others of polarization. The “check writers” are also the ones who benefit the most from this society. It’s logically and inevitably in their best interests to perpetuate their wealth by placating the lower classes. However, through their own self-destructive measures, they are only leading us to a plutocracy that will cause more problems. As Buffett said, there IS a class war going on and it is his class that is winning.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > False. Payroll taxes are capped at $106,000. > Rich pay a lower % of payroll taxes. > > > > False. We know a TON about the spending patterns > of people. Lower income people consume (spend) a > higher % of their income than higher income > people. The rich can save, the poor can’t. > > > We already know you’re wrong about sales taxes. > Property taxes are a sticky wicket. It’s tough to > generalize about rates and amounts paid, but what > we do know is that poor people are generally > unable to take advantage of the mortgage interest > tax deduction, either because they don’t own a > home or don’t make enough to itemize deductions. > They’re going to end up paying more for housing. > > > The gaping hole in this argument is capital gains > taxes. Now, lower income people don’t pay a ton > of capital gains taxes, but the rich do, and when > they do it’s at a 15% rate - The same rate we tax > incomes of $8,500 to $34,500. As this will often > make up a huge % of their income, their tax rates > are going to pulled toward 15%. > > Are you this willfully ignorant of the facts when > doing investment analysis? The above is correct - The basic fact is that the *WEALTH* disparity in this country is skyrocketing due to a low taxation policy on capital investment - more specifically, trading of capital rather than investing of capital. There is clearly a separation in marginal income brackets when looking at the ability to accumulate wealth, especially in an environment where basic essentials have increased in price while basic capital investments for lower classes, such as houses, have declined in price. The wealthy are very insulated from this situation. Think about it, does an increase in gas, like we’ve seen in the last decade, hurt somebody making 40k more than somebody making $400k? The same applies to an increase in taxes. The game is utterly rigged in the favor of the investing class. That people are willfully ignorant, or at least intellectually bankrupt to the fact that the 15% cap gains tax has massively skewed incomes, borders on the criminal.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The gaping hole in this argument is capital gains > taxes. Now, lower income people don’t pay a ton > of capital gains taxes, but the rich do, and when > they do it’s at a 15% rate - The same rate we tax > incomes of $8,500 to $34,500. As this will often > make up a huge % of their income, their tax rates > are going to pulled toward 15%. > > Are you this willfully ignorant of the facts when > doing investment analysis? But you forget many of those gains were already taxed once.
CFABLACKBELT Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > NakedPuts Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The gaping hole in this argument is capital > gains > > taxes. Now, lower income people don’t pay a > ton > > of capital gains taxes, but the rich do, and > when > > they do it’s at a 15% rate - The same rate we > tax > > incomes of $8,500 to $34,500. As this will > often > > make up a huge % of their income, their tax > rates > > are going to pulled toward 15%. > > > > Are you this willfully ignorant of the facts > when > > doing investment analysis? > > But you forget many of those gains were already > taxed once. How were they taxed once? You mean at the corporate level? Income is income, gains through appreciation by a corporation through retained, or through new valuation, are still income. What about GE? Didn’t pay any taxes. Or how about the remaining corporations who have been taxed at lower and lower effective tax rates, all the while the gap gains tax has been reduced?
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > CFABLACKBELT Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > NakedPuts Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The gaping hole in this argument is capital > > gains > > > taxes. Now, lower income people don’t pay a > > ton > > > of capital gains taxes, but the rich do, and > > when > > > they do it’s at a 15% rate - The same rate we > > tax > > > incomes of $8,500 to $34,500. As this will > > often > > > make up a huge % of their income, their tax > > rates > > > are going to pulled toward 15%. > > > > > > Are you this willfully ignorant of the facts > > when > > > doing investment analysis? > > > > But you forget many of those gains were already > > taxed once. > > How were they taxed once? You mean at the > corporate level? > > Income is income, gains through appreciation by a > corporation through retained, or through new > valuation, are still income. > > What about GE? Didn’t pay any taxes. Or how > about the remaining corporations who have been > taxed at lower and lower effective tax rates, all > the while the gap gains tax has been reduced? Yes I’m referring to the corporate level. Why did this thing about GE not paying taxes get so crazy? GE didn’t pay taxes in one quarter… you make it sound as if they have never paid taxes and are just sticking it to the poor little guy on the street. It was due to a myriad of reasons as I understand it and being on this board, a corporation not paying taxes in one quarter or really high taxes in the next shouldn’t be a surprise to you. Its investment income and there is a huge reason why we have it taxed at 15% because we want people to invest! Again not against taxing the rich more if it makes sense. But this class warfare/“pay fair share” crap has so got to go.
class warfare talk will probably dissipate pretty quickly once the middle class starts seeing earnings growth and the top 1% stops doubling it wealth at rest of the populations expense.