"Fair Share"?

[CuteOldGuy]

Well, WPF isn't quite a good enough liar to be invited, but he's getting better at it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

you are full of shit on this one IB, i never said there was anything in the Constitution about everyone having a cell phone but under your logic if Defense mandated cell phones for the defense of this country like the interstate highway system you'd think that it was in the Constitution! Oh what twisted logic you have spun! Im off to play me some golf, you boys have this fairness problem fixed when i get back please

You equivocate, WTF. The government expenditures you daily declaim are constitutionally mandated; yet, the government expenditures you seek to perpetuate and expand are not constitutionally mandated. Constitutionally mandated ='s "necessary expense"; not constitutionally mandated ='s "unnecessary expense", just an FYI.

[Texas Contrarian]

Britain's Missing Millionaires

Income tax rates rise but revenues fall.

A funny thing often happens on the way to soaking the rich: They don't stick around for the bath. Take Britain, where Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs service reports that the number of taxpayers declaring £1 million a year in income fell by more than 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the year before.

That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown's government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate. Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010.

The new tax was meant to raise about £2.5 billion more revenue. So much for that. In 2009-2010 British millionaires contributed about £13.4 billion to the public coffers, or just under 9% of the total tax liability of all taxpayers that year. At the 50% rate, the shrunken pool yielded £6.5 billion, or about 4.4%.

The British press is abuzz with the notion that 10,000 millionaires left the country in the interim, and no doubt some did make for their chalets in Gstaad. Others may have brought forward more income in 2009-2010, knowing the higher rate was on its way. No doubt, too, the overall lousy economy took its toll.

Prime Minister David Cameron decided earlier this year to lower the 50% rate to 45%, meaning we may see at least some of the millionaires return to the U.K. But the figures are another reminder that incentives matter.

Politicians would love to lay the whole burden of their policies on a tiny minority of the rich, but you can't finance the welfare state on the shoulders of the 1%. That's something for the U.S. to remember as President Obama pretends he can fill a $1 trillion budget hole with tax hikes on "millionaires and billionaires."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...n_AboveLEFTTop

[Laz]

The rich can live wherever they want. Anyone that thinks there are not other nice places to live in this world is nuts.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That was the year that millionaires became liable for the 50% income-tax rate that Gordon Brown's government introduced in its final days in 2010, up from the previous 40% rate. Lo, the total number of millionaire tax filers plunged to 6,000 in 2010-2011, from 16,000 in 2009-2010.

Didn't realize anyone was proposing a 25% rate increase.

And aren't you on record as saying that taxes need to go up?

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Doove

Didn't realize anyone was proposing a 25% rate increase.

OK then, how about a 24% increase? That's the current proposal. Close enough for you?

The Obama administration wants to return the statutory top-bracket rate to 39.6%, and impose a 3.8% Medicare surcharge on salary income and investment income starting next year. (43.4% is 24% higher than the current 35%.) It's expected that the tax would also affect pass-through entities such as S-Corps and LLCs.

Originally Posted by Doove

And aren't you on record as saying that taxes need to go up?

What I said was that I believe you could probably take the marginal rate to about 40% on ordinary income (but not capital gains and qualified dividends) without producing significant distortions, noting that if you went beyond that you would run into additional problems arising from the fact that most states impose an income tax. For example, pushing the federal rate higher and adding California's new 13.3% rate is a bridge too far, in my opinion.

Although it's clear that taxes must go up, at least in one way or another, I would prefer to raise more revenue from base-broadening and loophole closing than from rate-pushing, since I think the former course would be less distortive and would work better. But that would not seem like quite as much of a political victory, and most of what these guys are doing is far more about politics than economics.

Obviously, policy makers will need to convince the public that they've exhausted all reasonable possibilities of collecting money from the affluent before even thinking about raising taxes on people who are not as well off.

But congress will eventually be forced to raise most of the additional needed resources from the middle class. You just can't maintain spending at anywhere near current levels and hope to avoid doing that.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you know the difference between all tax revenue and all Federal tax revenue? There is a huge difference. That you would still defend your lie after I pointed it out makes me wonder just how much (or little) you actually know about this subject.

If you want to look at the numbers the tax rat at the Federal level has went down in the last thirty years and at the state and local level they have went up. One is progressive, one is regressive. Can you guess which segment has benifited most? Our income disparity has increased, IS THAT FAIR?

''the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household''

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Even so, the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% still added up to 22% of all tax revenue. And the top 40% paid something like 95% of all taxes.

You are a complete asshole.

First, a lie requires actual knowledge that something is false. Otherwise, it is just a mistake, not a lie. You have know idea what I know and I was merely repeating and explaining what was in the article. So you have no basis to call me or anyone else a liar.

Second, it was abundantly clear from the original post and my post that we were discussing federal income taxes, not ALL taxes, when the 22% number was stated. Context means something. If you thought I was wrong, you should have stated that you thought I was wrong and then cited some facts.

Instead, you chose to stake out some moral position that you don't actually have and you called me a liar. Again, you are an asshole.

HOWEVER, it turns out that the 22% DOES refer to ALL taxes, not just federal income taxes. The 22% figure in the article actually includes state taxes, Medicare, and SS.

The Federal tax bite is even worse that I thought. In 2009, the top 1% pay 36.7% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% pay 58.7%. The top 25% paid 87.3%. Here is a link:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0

Scroll down to Table 1.

You forget (or ignore) that the top 1% also pay property taxes, sales taxes and Medicare and SS taxes. And since their incomes are higher, they pay more in Medicare and SS taxes than low income persons. They also pay a LOT more in sales taxes since they buy a LOT more taxable stuff and they pay a LOT more in property taxes since their homes cost more.

In sum, the top 1% share of ALL taxes (including stage, Medicare and SS) appears to be 22%. That is watered down from 38.7% of all Federal taxes.

JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE SAID.

If you would like to defend your stupidity - note I did NOT say "your lie" - please post a link to something. I don't trust your "knowledge".

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you know the difference between all tax revenue and all Federal tax revenue? There is a huge difference. That you would still defend your lie after I pointed it out makes me wonder just how much (or little) you actually know about this subject.

Apparently, I know a LOT MORE that you do. But then, so do most people.

Originally Posted by WTF

If you want to look at the numbers the tax rat at the Federal level has went down in the last thirty years and at the state and local level they have went up. One is progressive, one is regressive.

SOME state and local taxes are regressive, not all. Some states have progressive state income taxes, not just the federal government. So the top 1% get hit harder there, too.

Originally Posted by WTF

If you want to look at the numbers the tax rat at the Federal level has went down in the last thirty years and at the state and local level they have went up. One is progressive, one is regressive. Can you guess which segment has benifited most? Our income disparity has increased, IS THAT FAIR?

Income disparity may or may not be fair, but that has nothing to do with the federal and/or state tax rates. The disparity comes mostly from the loss of our manufacturing base and the disparity in education levels in this country. If you drop out of high school, you're fucked. The IRS can't fix that.

The top 1% benefitted from their life circumstances and from making better decisions in their life, not from progressive and/or regressive tax policies. You have to get rich FIRST, and tax rates don't make you rich.

[WTF]

You need to reread your own chart. It confirms wtf I said, not what you said.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You equivocate, WTF. The government expenditures you daily declaim are constitutionally mandated; yet, the government expenditures you seek to perpetuate and expand are not constitutionally mandated. Constitutionally mandated ='s "necessary expense"; not constitutionally mandated ='s "unnecessary expense", just an FYI.

And you need to pay attention to exactly wtf I said.

You seem to think that if the Department of Defense mandated that all citizens have cell phones then it would be Constitutional protected. You put no checks nor balances on military spending. That is idiotic. With that logic, one could argue that the Commander in Chief, the President , can spend whatever he likes under the guise of Defense.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

You need to reread your own chart. It confirms wtf I said, not what you said.

No, it does not. Please explain how.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

And you need to pay attention to exactly wtf I said.

You seem to think that if the Department of Defense mandated that all citizens have cell phones then it would be Constitutional protected. You put no checks nor balances on military spending. That is idiotic. With that logic, one could argue that the Commander in Chief, the President , can spend whatever he likes under the guise of Defense.

Don't bother arguing with IB Hankerwrong.

He will just post more and more irrelevant BS once the argument goes south on him.

The Constitution does not mandate spending anything on defense or any other part of the government.

The purpose of the Constitution is to divide up power and to put limits on what the government can do. The Constitution divides up power between the state governments and the federal government and has a Bill of Rights to further limit the powers of both state and federal goverments.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the POWER to raise and maintain an army. It does not have the OBLIGATION to do so.

The Congress also has the exclusive power to grant patents. The states cannot. However, the Congress does not have to grant patents. The Congress could shut down the patent office if it wishes to do so.

So, no, there is no "mandated" defense spending. It is all discretionary.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, it does not. Please explain how.

Scroll down to Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009

Originally Posted by ExNYer

:

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0

Scroll down to Table 1.

. And since their incomes are higher, they pay more in Medicare and SS taxes than low income persons.

.

They of course pay more but not as a % of their income. SS and Medicare are capped. So if you make a Million bucks you pay a smaller % of your income towards that tax than a poor person.

We were talking about %'s, right?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, no, there is no "mandated" defense spending. It is all discretionary.

I know that, it is our right leaning friends that on one hand call for smaller government then bring up the Constitution when you try and cut their beloved Defense Spending.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Table 1
Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009

I know its Federal. That's why I posted it. What is your point?

Table 1 shows that the top 1% paid 36.7% of all federal income taxes.

The article stated - and I repeated - that the top 1% paid 22% of ALL taxes once you account for state, local, SS and Medicare.

So, do you have ANY source that you can point to that indicates the the rich are NOT paying 22% of all taxes?

Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Or are you just spewing out a smoke screen to hide that fact that you were wrong in your original post in which you called me a liar?

Originally Posted by WTF

They of course pay more but not as a % of their income. SS and Medicare are capped. So if you make a Million bucks you pay a smaller % of your income towards that tax than a poor person.

As your income gets higher in the top bracket, the percentage represented by Medicare and SS get smaller but never goes all the way to zero. So it adds on to the 35% for the top federal income tax rate.

Originally Posted by WTF

We were talking about %'s, right?

Yes, we are. 22%, in fact. Can you refute it?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

I know that, it is our right leaning friends that on one hand call for smaller government then bring up the Constitution when you try and cut their beloved Defense Spending.

No. That game is played by both sides of the aisle.

I'm right leaning and I'm in favor of cutting defense.

On the other side of the aisle, Nancy Pelosi has very selectively protected defense spending on projects that are handled by contractors in and around her district.

You see, Nancy thinks the "good" and "smart" defense spending on the "right" projects occurs in and around the SF Bay area, whereas all of the bad and wasteful projects are in Texas and other red states.