Another help for those mortgages underwater.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

As for a VAT, I'm on record as saying that this is a horrible idea.

I agree with you there. It would be a kick in the gut to our economy, and would be like a bad meal that would take years to digest.

But...

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

We cannot offer our citizens that same sort of government services that other Western democracies do with a effective tax burden of 27% of GDP. Other countries effective tax burden is around 35 - 37% of GDP. If we want comparable education systems, comparable infrastructure, comparable social safety nets, etc., we're going to have to pay comparable taxes.

...paying "comparable taxes" means that we'll have to implement a VAT.

There's just no other way to raise the revenue.

Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

No. It's worse than that. Unlike WTF (sorry, dude) I actually have the links at my fingertips.

Cost of Government Day

Emily, with all due respect (and I sincerely mean that, as I have strongly agreed with your other posts in this forum) that's just not an objective site. It's run by an advocacy group. Nothing wrong with that per se, but the "cost of government day" analysis counts total government spending (including all this massive deficit spending) -- not just taxes -- and a calculation of the "regulatory burden", among other things.

We're talking about taxes -- and there's no way an average family pulling down $50K in the U.S. pays $20K/yr. in taxes. My point was that the tax burden on American families of modest means is actually quite light compared with that on their European counterparts, who probably do pay well over 40% in actual taxes. (Also note that the "regulatory burden" is quite high in most European countries as well -- probably higher than here.)

The tax burden on non-affluent Americans is likely to become much heavier, though:

Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

So, big tax increases across the board. VAT, here we come.

Yep.

It's only a matter of time.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

If this isn't a derogatory racial slur, it sure is close.

ANd people out there referred to GWB the same way. May be wrong, but isn't racist.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I can't imagine whay no one can understand WTF you are saying. You won't provide a link?...you will provide a link?...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...TaxRate40.aspx

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.

• Video: Don't worry about an audit

That's not a big range, particularly when you notice that it covers an income rise of 2,500%.
So I have a modest proposal: Ask your senators or representative if they have a clue about this. If they don’t, regardless of party, they shouldn't be in office. Vote accordingly.

Originally Posted by EmilyHemingway

No. It's worse than that. Unlike WTF (sorry, dude) I actually have the links at my fingertips.

.

I had the links...I was just reeling these Tea Party folks in!

Now just where would you start in your spending cuts? It is easy to bitch about, much harder to actually cut.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

But so long as the Republicans refuse to consider tax increases or cuts to the Defense Department or corporate welfare, the Democrats will refuse to consider cuts in entitlement programs, and rightfully so. So unfortunately, things are going to have to get worse before they get better.

.

Exactly....the GOP'ers want to only cut crap they hate. I have never heard one single rightie call for cuts in Defense. Hell the old one do not cry for cuts in Medicare...they want more benifits!

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...TaxRate40.aspx

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%.

I guess it would be too much to expect you to understand the difference between marginal tax rates and average tax rates. This article was about the former -- your statement applied the 40% to the later.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I guess it would be too much to expect you to understand the difference between marginal tax rates and average tax rates. This article was about the former -- your statement applied the 40% to the later.

Ok, I knew that was coming. I read that a couple of years ago and did not reread it before posting. Then you boys (charles, I can say boys , can't I?) made me go post the link!

It still is revelant.

Read this PJ and tell me what it means!
http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Does%...r%209,2006.pdf

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I guess it would be too much to expect you to understand the difference between marginal tax rates and average tax rates. This article was about the former -- your statement applied the 40% to the later.

P.J., you beat me to it! Sort of popped out at you when you read his post, didn't it? (And, yes, I think it would be a bit much to expect WTF to understand the difference.)

Originally Posted by WTF

Poor people or more to the point people making between 30-500k on average pay 40% of their income on taxes.

Uh-oh!

Looks like someone just got a bit of that legendary cluelessness (mentioned earlier) exposed!

Originally Posted by WTF

...I have never heard one single rightie call for cuts in Defense.

You have called me a "rightie" many times. (I am a libertarian.) Yet I have called for across the board spending. Everything on the table. That means everything.

Go back and read what I said in post #91, several pages ago. Please stay up with the debate and pay attention.

And try to actually understand some of the talking points you pull off all those websites. You'll seem better informed.

Just trying to offer a couple of helpful suggestions.

[guest051510-1]

Originally Posted by WTF

... Then you boys (charles, I can say boys , can't I?) ...

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

OK, no politics. And let's stay out of economics. The underwater mortgages quickly went to economic theory that I don't understand and had to drop out of the thread. I do recognize the names of most of the theorists, and generally agree with TTH, but I don't understand the nuances of economic theory, or even the macro aspects of it.
...

Looks like this thread was over charles' head and he dropped out. So "boys" away.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You have called me a "rightie" many times. (I am a libertarian.) Yet I have called for across the board spending. .

Let's see...'' across the board spending '' ????????????? looks like you made a booboo. Oh no...are you now clueless too?


Damn Captain...I said I hadn't read the article in a while. Like I told PJ, it is still relevant to the conversation. Especially when you have people crying about not everyone paying taxes and linkinf only FEDERAL taxes. All taxes should be taken into account when talking about taxes. Course that is not a GOP talking point.

[Rudyard K]

I am a bit curious. What does it mean "marginal tax rate"? I don't figure you can ask Scott Burns because he is as dumb as a box of rocks. So, I'll ask you since it is your link, and I feel certain you studied the report before just posting it blindly.

But it does make one wonder...Let's say a guy makes $100.

And let's say he pays the 10% income tax rate. So, he has a $10 FIT bill. Now he has $90. He also paid 7.5% in social security benefits. Now some might not call that a tax, but let's go ahead and call it one. So now he has $82.50 in take home pay. I don't know about elsewhere but in Texas there is no state income tax. So, lets say he spend every dollar of his remaining $82.50 on sales taxable items (which, of course, there are many staples that are not subject to sales tax...but we don't have to use reality here). I think the sales tax in Texas is 8%. So on his purchases he spends $6.60 in sales tax. Now, added to his previous $17.50 that would mean he has no money left, some $75.90 in after tax goods and he paid $24.10 in taxes. So, $24.10 on his original $100 is...24.1 percent total tax rate. How does that get to 40%? His FIT rate would have to increase another 16% (to around 26%) before he got into the 40% total tax rate.

Sometimes WTF the world requires you to do more than parrot somebody else's words.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see...'' across the board spending '' ????????????? looks like you made a booboo. Oh no...are you now clueless too?

Oops! Left out the word "cuts."

Had some fine Cabernet with dinner, though. Maybe a little too much. That's my excuse!

Hell, a little wine and...I'm so clueless that people say "WTF, is that you?"

Originally Posted by WTF

...All taxes should be taken into account when talking about taxes...

All taxes are taken into account when we compare the burden on American middle class taxpayers to that on their European counterparts. You can spin and weave and dodge all you want, but that's the way it is. Their tax systems are far more regressive than ours. (That is, until we enact a VAT.)

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I am a bit curious.

Now now now....I didn't know you was part cat!

Plus the guy was self employeed....his SS tax was 15 bucks not 7 fifty!

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Sometimes WTF the world requires you to do more than parrot somebody else's words.

No it doesn't. I can parrot all I want. This is a internet hooker board!
Here is the report. If you want to know WTF they meant, read the article. I will warn you that it is rather boring but knock yourself out.


http://people.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Does%20It%20Pay%20to%20Work%20 and%20Save,%20December%209,200 6.pdf

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I am a bit curious. What does it mean "marginal tax rate"? I don't figure you can ask Scott Burns because he is as dumb as a box of rocks. So, I'll ask you since it is your link, and I feel certain you studied the report before just posting it blindly.

But it does make one wonder...Let's say a guy makes $100.

And let's say he pays the 10% income tax rate. So, he has a $10 FIT bill. Now he has $90. He also paid 7.5% in social security benefits. Now some might not call that a tax, but let's go ahead and call it one. So now he has $82.50 in take home pay. I don't know about elsewhere but in Texas there is no state income tax. So, lets say he spend every dollar of his remaining $82.50 on sales taxable items (which, of course, there are many staples that are not subject to sales tax...but we don't have to use reality here). I think the sales tax in Texas is 8%. So on his purchases he spends $6.60 in sales tax. Now, added to his previous $17.50 that would mean he has no money left, some $75.90 in after tax goods and he paid $24.10 in taxes. So, $24.10 on his original $100 is...24.1 percent total tax rate. How does that get to 40%? His FIT rate would have to increase another 16% (to around 26%) before he got into the 40% total tax rate.

Sometimes WTF the world requires you to do more than parrot somebody else's words.

I'm not going to try to find a link but this comes up every year...but to get this figure it includes taxes paid by the employer thru the supply chain...totally makes no sense from a comparison standpoint.

On the plus side...as we near 4/15, I wanna give this board a lot of credit (vs. prior years) for the limited chest pumping about just how much money you paid in taxes....:wavetowe l2:Ironically out biggest socialist (TTH) is the notable exception

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

All taxes are taken into account .)

Well they weren't when MA posted this.

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/...ge/us_no_taxes

It is why I have said it is BS to only post this tax and act like poor folks are not paying taxes. They are. Most on here want to demonize poor people as some leaches that stay poor to avoid paying taxes. They pay all they can...mostly in stupid taxes. But that is beside the point.

If we are going to cry about the FEDERAL tax system...then why not tax speeders on a % of their income? You never here a rich cat arguing for that!

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you want to know WTF they meant

In other words, you don't know WTF it means.

Because the report (I've seen it before) is talking about an analysis of marginal tax rates. Which is best explained as the tax on the next additional dollar earned...not the total tax rate. Of course you were using it as the total tax rate.

But we'll forgive you. It had about as much validity as the rest of your musings.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

But we'll forgive you. It had about as much validity as the rest of your musings.

What are you saying? he only "marginally" gets laid? or does he actually get a POA?