"Fair Share"?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

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.

On this we agree. The DOD has been very smart over the decades and spread out their spending by states. Hard to cut anywhere without somone crying

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

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?


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.


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

Your refrence pointed out Federal taxes, not sales tax, a very regressive tax. I should not have called you a liar, though it was a lie. For that I am sorry. There is no record keeping of who pays what in sales tax. It is just not kept by most taxpayers. There is no way they can compute it without those records.You will notice that your article did not point out that huge fact. Here is an interting article of marginial tax rates that is much more important point to discuss. .

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20551

Politicians talk this way because they generally talk about only one tax: the federal income tax, which offers graduated rates from 10% to 35%.

Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn't be a waste of time.

Well, two researchers did it.

In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.

Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.

As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%. There are some exceptions: A 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year, for instance, pays 24.4%, and a 60-year-old couple making $150,000 a year faces a tax rate of 47.7%.

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.

That's not a big range, particularly when you notice that it covers an income rise of 2,500%.

[MrGiz]

Can we (anybody) please cut through all the bullshit here, and try to answer a very simple question?

(please excuse the slight edits)

Is there anyone here who "honestly" believes that their increased tax burden next year will help make any difference in lowering the next fiscal year's budget deficit... or help to cause any lowering of the national debt?

Go ahead.... let the lies begin!!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

Can we (anybody) please cut through all the bullshit here, and try to answer a very simple question?

(please excuse the slight edits)

Is there anyone here who "honestly" believes that their increased tax burden next year will help make any difference in lowering the next fiscal year's budget deficit... or cause any lowering of the national debt?

Go ahead.... let the lies begin!!

Give us your solution....one that will not effect unemployment nor cause a second recession.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

On this we agree. The DOD has been very smart over the decades and spread out their spending by states. Hard to cut anywhere without somone crying

It wasn't the DOD that spread out the spending.

It was the defense contractors who spread themselves out - physically. The plane, ship and weapons makers put offices and factories in as many states as possible so that they would have the support of as many Congressmen as possible.

Now, if you want to cancel a tank or a missile system or a plane, the affected manufacturers can cry poverty to a bunch of Reps and Senators and tell a tale of woe about the jobs in their districts.

So the Pentagon ends up buying weapons it doesn't even want.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

It wasn't the DOD that spread out the spending.

It was the defense contractors who spread themselves out - physically. The plane, ship and weapons makers put offices and factories in as many states as possible so that they would have the support of as many Congressmen as possible.

Now, if you want to cancel a tank or a missile system or a plane, the affected manufacturers can cry poverty to a bunch of Reps and Senators and tell a tale of woe about the jobs in their districts.

So the Pentagon ends up buying weapons it doesn't even want.

I stand corrected, though our point is the same.

[I B Hankering]

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.

You haven't shown where the DOD mandated that all citizens have cell phones, WTF, so you're proffering a "straw-man" argument. ELIMINATE the "non-authorized" -- non-mandated -- spending; THEN you and Doofus can talk about adjusting the "authorized" -- mandated -- spending.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

[SIZE=3]
Don't bother arguing with IB Hankerwrong.

[SIZE=3]He will just post more and more i[SIZE=3]rrelevant BS [SIZE=3]once the argument goes south on him.

[SIZE=3]The Constitution does not mandate spe[SIZE=3]nding anything on defen[SIZE=3]se or any other part of the government.

You still want to be the ignorant fuck, don't you ExNYer?

The Preamble to the Constitution is pretty damn explicit in mandating that the government WILL "in Order to . . . provide for the common defence”, ExNYer.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


. . . and further on it says:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

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.

Well if you are born into a wealthy family, you have a much better chance of getting rich.

How about we talk about wealth vs income and how fair that ship is in regards to 'paying your fair share'. Is a 39% marginial tax rate fair? Should Long Term Cap gain be taxed at 15%, when 20% of the people own 89% of the wealth in this country? Those are some questions you might start asking.


http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Your reference pointed out Federal taxes, not sales tax, a very regressive tax. I should not have called you a liar, though it was a lie. For that I am sorry. There is no record keeping of who pays what in sales tax. It is just not kept by most taxpayers. There is no way they can compute it without those records.You will notice that your article did not point out that huge fact. Here is an interting article of marginial tax rates that is much more important point to discuss. .

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20551

Politicians talk this way because they generally talk about only one tax: the federal income tax, which offers graduated rates from 10% to 35%.

Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn't be a waste of time.

Well, two researchers did it.

In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.

Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.

As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%. There are some exceptions: A 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year, for instance, pays 24.4%, and a 60-year-old couple making $150,000 a year faces a tax rate of 47.7%.

The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.

That's not a big range, particularly when you notice that it covers an income rise of 2,500%.

I have no idea how they calculated the "all-in" marginal rate when they are blending in progressive and regressive taxes. It seems like a bunch of BS.

You have shifted from a discussion of overall tax burden on the top 1% to a discussion of marginal rates. Those are two completely different things and I don't know why you consider the marginal rate important in determining "fair share".

Marginal rate is the rate you pay on the last dollar of income. It is a completely misleading statistic if you are analyzing fairness.

Let's assume the study is accurate about "all-in" marginal rate.

So the 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 paid a marginal rate of 42.5% on the last dollar they made. That does not tell us what their rate was on their first, second, third, etc. dollars. It does NOT tell us what percentage of their income went to taxes. Was it 11%? 13%? 20.3%?

The rate on the last dollar might have been 42.5% because as they reached $20K. the couple started to lose benefits for which they were no longer eligible. So, perhaps around $20K, they lost 22 cents of rent subsidy for each additional dollar of income they received. At the same time, they may have been losing 12 cents of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and they also may have moved into a high enough income range to finally start paying federal and/or state income taxes.

But this is only a temporary situation. Once the benefits/subsidies are phased out, their marginal rate goes back down. That is why the 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year pays a marginal rate of only 24.4%. They had already lost all of those subsidies from when they were making $20K.

And you can't fix that problem. Sooner or later, you have to phase out the subsidy and no matter what income level you do it at, the marginal rate goes way up.

Even rich people have this "problem". When the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) kicks in, people making six figure incomes start to lose the deductions (like home mortgage interest) they would otherwise be eligible for.

Assume someone is making over $175K, his top rate is 33%, and he has $10K in mortgage deductions. Then the AMT kicks in and he starts to lose his earlier deductions. Each additional dollar is taxed at 33% AND he pays back some of the $10K in mortgage deduction until it is all gone. His top marginal rate might by 50% while the AMT is eating away at his mortgage deduction. However, once the deductions are gone, each additional dollar goes back to being taxed at $33% - or 35% if he goes over $379K in income. But it is a misleading statistic, because the rich guy clearly did not pay a 50% federal income tax rate on all or even most of his income.

So, the marginal tax rate stuff tells us nothing about fairness.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You still want to be the ignorant fuck, don't you ExNYer?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

The only ignorant fuck on this board is you. You are absolutely incapable of admitting when you are wrong. I give credit to WTF for admitting he was wrong about the 22% and calling me a liar. Why can't you do what he did? Is that so fucking hard?

First, the Preamble of the Constitution ("We the People...") simply states the purpose for having a Constitution. It is nice language, but it does nothing in terms of delegating power to anybody. So, what makes you think it mandates anything?

Second, the actual, relevant part of the Constitution ("Congress shall have Power to ... provide for the common Defence ) does exactly what I said above. It enumerates a power of the federal government - Congress has the power to provide for the common defense (e.g., raise armies and navies, build ships).

NOTHING says that is MUST do those things. So, it is NOT "mandated" to spend anything. What don't you understand about that simple concept?

Congress could zero out the Defense budget if it wanted to do so. How can that be if DoD spending is mandated?

You clearly don't know the difference between an "enumerated" power of Congress and "mandated" spending - which does NOT exist in the Constitution.

About the only thing the Constitution mandates is the conducting of a census every 10 years. Beyond that, the Constitution essentially enumerates particular powers to Congress or forbids Congress from doing things (Bill of Rights).

So, when you respond to this - not "if", but "when" - with even more stupidity, try to throw in a link to some authority that explains where the Constitution mandatesspending on the DoD.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

You are absolutely incapable of admitting when you are wrong. I give credit to WTF for admitting he was wrong about the 22% and calling me a liar. Why can't you do what he did? Is that so fucking hard?

First, the Preamble of the Constitution ("We the People...") simply states the purpose for having he Constitution. It is nice language, but it does nothing in terms of delegating power to anybody. So what makes you think it mandates anything?

Second, the actual relevant part of the Constitution ("[/SIZE]Congress shall have Power to ... provide for the common Defence ) does exactly what I said above. It enumerates a power of the federal goverment - Congress has the power to provide for the common defense (e.g., raise armies and navies, build ships).

NOTHING says that is MUST do those things. So, it is NOT "mandated" to spend anything. What don't you understand about that simple concept?

Congress could zero out the Defense budget if it wanted to do so. How can that be if spending is mandated?

You clearly don't know the difference between an "enumerated" power of Congress and a "mandated" spendingpower - which does NOT exist in the Constitution.

About the only thing the Constitution mandaes is the conducting of a census every 10 years. Beyond that, the Constitution essentially enumerates particular powers to Congress or forbids Congress from doing things (Bill of Rights).

You proffer a "straw man" argument, ExNYer. The Preamble explicitly states the Constitution was established to "provide for the common defence" of the people. Not "providing for the common defence" of the people is not an option, ExNYer.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You haven't shown where the DOD mandated that all citizens have cell phones, WTF, so you're proffering a "straw-man" argument. ELIMINATE the "non-authorized" -- non-mandated -- spending; THEN you and Doofus can talk about adjusting the "authorized" -- mandated -- spending.



;"

Well the President is CiC. Maybe he thinks it is for the Defense of this country that we all have cell phones. After all that is where you been crying for the buck to stop!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You proffer a "straw man" argument, ExNYer. The Preamble explicitly states the Constitution was established to "provide for the common defence" of the people. Not "providing for the common defence" of the people is not an option, ExNYer.

Even if that contortion is correct, then the argument is....just what is ''common defence'' and who gets to decide? Is one plane enough, one tank or a million? If we the people decide thur congress that we need none, then none it is. Is that correct? Is that what you are trying not to say?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, the marginal tax rate stuff tells us nothing about fairness.

Maybe this will....

Originally Posted by WTF

Well if you are born into a wealthy family, you have a much better chance of getting rich.

How about we talk about wealth vs income and how fair that ship is in regards to 'paying your fair share'. Is a 39% marginial tax rate fair? Should Long Term Cap gain be taxed at 15%, when 20% of the people own 89% of the wealth in this country? Those are some questions you might start asking.


http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well if you are born into a wealthy family, you have a much better chance of getting rich.

That's a straw man. If you are stupid or make bad decisions, you won't get wealthy on your own, although you can inherit it. Just like you can marry it if you are poor, but look like Elle McPherson.

The solution to the "problem" of inheritance is the estate tax, not the income tax.

I work hard for my income. Why should I pay an even higher top bracket rate because progressives want to stick it to Paris Hilton?

Originally Posted by WTF

How about we talk about wealth vs income and how fair that ship is in regards to 'paying your fair share'. Is a 39% marginial tax rate fair? Should Long Term Cap gain be taxed at 15%, when 20% of the people own 89% of the wealth in this country? Those are some questions you might start asking.

Were you not paying attention to this ENTIRE thread - other than your own posts?

Because that is what the whole thread is about. Captain Midight and I went 15 rounds (and then some) with Doove over just those questions. And while I was willing to state that the top marginal rate should be no more than 45% and I gave reasons why, neither Doove nor any other progressive was willing to put down a number. Doove stated his reasons why above. Read them.

How about you? Care to give a percent?

Originally Posted by WTF

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details, drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2012).

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

And what is your solution to the wealth disparity?

Most of that wealth is paper wealth and I don't mean cash. Bill Gates does not have $50 billion in the bank or in his mattress. He owns stock in Microsoft, that is estimated to be worth, say, $50B IF HE SOLD IT,. But he can't pay taxes on it unless he sells it and converts it to cash or the equivalent - at which point he realizes a capital gain and pays the capital gain tax.

But that wealth goes up and down with market fluctuations, which is why you don't pay tax on it until you actually sell it and know what the actual price per share is.

Mark Zuckerberg got fabulously wealthy the day Facebook went public. About a month later, he was worth half what he was worth the day of the IPO.

The guys who owned Groupon were supposed to be the next billionaires. Now they may be the next hundreds of thousandaires instead.

So, what do you propose to do about wealth disparity?