Author Topic: The Tax Cut (Read 2313 times)

DakotaElkSlayer · « **Reply #30 on:** February 14, 2006, 11:04:16 AM »

Hey, how about this one?

The least wealthy 60 percent of Americans have less than 5 percent of the wealth in the U.S. but pay more than 14 percent of federal taxes.

What about this one?

The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent have over 38 percent of the wealth and pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes. These households have an average wealth of $10.2 million and pay only 3.5 percent of their wealth in taxes. By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes.

If all taxpayers paid the same 10.5 percent of their wealth in taxes as median income families pay, the taxes of the lowest 40 percent would be cut by 94 percent while the taxes of the wealthiest would triple.

Source: Congressional Budget Office and United for a Fair Economy

http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm

Jim

dukkillr · « **Reply #31 on:** February 14, 2006, 11:19:10 AM »

don't confuse wealth with income... we have very limited "wealth" taxes... most taxes are based on income... those stats are misleading because people will confuse the two

dukkillr · « **Reply #32 on:** February 14, 2006, 02:30:51 PM »

oh sure... but it is a myth that the rich can hide all their income... can they expense, for instance, a vehicle as a farm expense? sure... do they still pay a great deal of taxes in the end? absolutely.

The reason I objected to those stats on wealth/income is because they are intentionally misleading... Low income/no income people almost always pay no taxes, and here in KS they can actually MAKE money. That's right... if you make 0 dollars a year you can still get a REFUND. A REFUND of money you didn't PAY!

I guess it's a matter of opinion... some won't be happy until the rich pay 80% of their income... others believe everyone should pay the same percent... others believe everyone should pay the same amount...

You are entitled to your opinion...

Ocsamschainsaw · « **Reply #33 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:33:51 PM »

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please!
We all know how we can solve this.
If we all invest our money in pre-86 machineguns...
It will all somehow work out fine. Taxes, Schmaxes, all we need to pay is the 200 sollar transfer tax
That's what I keep telling myself. Somehow I don't think my future wife would ever buy it.

nomosendero · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:34:30 PM »

Intrepid Wizard
Your welcome, Sir. Concerning The Fair Tax Book, I have not read it but
I know what you are refering to, I just don't think enough Americans can
mentally grasp that now, sad to say.

TM7, you sure are facinated with those who make over 3 million per year.
Well, with the top 1% paying over ONE THIRD of the income taxes & that bracket starting at $295,495 , there is a good deal of that 1% that is under
that 3 million or for that matter 1.5 million. So it is a piece of the 1%, &
even then with these people building up their incomes, some will be in this bracket for a year or 2, some for 5-10 years & a few for longer, so now the numbers are really dropping for those who are there for a long time.
Which means many were in that lower part (all except those who inherited
it) & by the numbers they paid taxes big time on the way even by your own admission, so it is not logical for me at least to dwell on. Even those
in that majic zone pay huge sales taxes & property taxes & put alot of
money back into the system.
The numbers don't lie & tell the tale, that's just the way it is.

Taxing based on wealth as was mentioned before would be a huge mistake for the simple reason that one with a given income will build
great wealth & another with the same cash flow will not. A penalty for a
good manager, no way that should happen. Looking at who has retained
wealth & who hasn't tell us who can keep some & who can p&**) it away,
please don't punish the wise.
But the huge numbers of people that I see are in that 50%, even when you subtract those who are unable to work & the elderly, they number in
the tens of millions. The counties that surround the one I live in have
probably 40% or more who draw Gov. checks, many who can drag a Deer a half mile to the truck like I can, but they can do so every day of the season because they don't have to work. They number in the millions & they live in every corner of the Nation.

Dukkillr
I am glad you reminded me about those who get refunds in some cases &
did not pay any taxes. To me, this is the same as stealing as you cannot
(except with the Gov.) get a refund when you did not pay.
The Left Wing of the Dems. wanted to set this up at the Fed level & give
refunds to those who haven't paid in and at the same time label people
who are making just decent pay as the "rich". Ah, Income Redistribution.

jimster
You are right about our forefathers, they would drag the goons that we have in Gov. now out by the hair of their heads when they have hair, that is.

Yes, I would love to see a use tax, & the more you buy (as you are able)
the more taxes you pay, as I mentioned before if they did not start adding more taxes.

The original post does compare with the #'s & gentlemen, that is why I
entered it .
Have a nice evening

nomosendero · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2006, 05:47:40 PM »

Sorry guys, if I enter a long post, my computer does not show it was answered until I submit again & then I have two posts. I apologize, I
guess if I paid less taxes, I could by another computer, can't be the operator.

Big Hext Finnigan · « **Reply #36 on:** February 14, 2006, 07:47:16 PM »

Quote from: DakotaElkSlayer

How is the estate tax not fair? My dead great aunt dies and leaves me $3,000,000 and lets say you work 60 hrs. a week to make $50,000 in a year. In this case, should I really pay less income tax than you? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't whine if the government wanted to tax me on BIG BUCKS I received for doing nothing. :grin:

Jim

So based on this logic, forcing you and your family to move to Mexico, where you would work 80 hours a week and make $5,000.00 per year would be OK, right? After all, the only reason that you got the job you did is that you were lucky enough to be born or move to this country. You had nothing to do with that.

The allegorical story that started this thread was designed to highlight that the current tax system penalizes financial success and rewards failure and lack of results.. now who wants to really play on that team?

Adios,

nomosendero · « **Reply #37 on:** February 15, 2006, 01:34:35 AM »

The numbers are what they are, dance the little dance, I don't need to
"understand" a little piece of the 1% picture any better, no more than I
need to study class envy or the desire of so many for income redistribution, I get it.

Yes, the next administration will be working it off, that's for sure & it won't be done by spending less, it will be done by hitting us harder who are paying the taxes, we all know that!

dukkillr · « **Reply #38 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:09:53 AM »

You're as bad as the hacks in charge of the Democratic party, and I suspect you're smart enough to know you keep spilling misleading statements.

Quote

The present administration has run up record national debt and relaxed taxation on wealthier foks.

Right, now adjust for inflation (2005 dollars) and give it to us as a percent of GDP (to reflect that an economy of scale). Now do we still have "record national debt" or are you forced to admit that was a partisan attack and you just couldn't help yourself?

For those who don't know what I'm getting at try this: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Please treat us fairly in this discussion, it only makes you look bad to stay things that aren't actually true.

Leverdude · « **Reply #39 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:34:18 AM »

National debt is a whole different subject ain it?
That graph & article you posted were real informative & easily understood, thanks :grin:
National debt gets my goat too just as what I percieve are high taxes.
We shouldn't have a national debt period IMHO. Greatest country in the world cant ballance a checkbook. Our country is run it seems just like alot of households in that they spend what they just dont have. Big difference is when a persons credit goes out the window theyre broke, the Gov't has the luxury or just upping the rates or stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Theres real big changes need to happen before we get tax relief or a ballanced budget but that leads to subjects even further off topic, like where we pi$% this money away & why. We have the ability to debt free in a year probably if we'd just cut non essential spending. Use the tax money to run the country, not the world. :wink:
Your graph seems to bear that out too. Long as the GNP is greater than the deficit by a functional ammount we'd be good to go. To my simplistic way of thinking anyway. :grin:

dukkillr · « **Reply #40 on:** February 15, 2006, 06:43:43 AM »

oh by no means was I encouraging a huge national debt... I was only pointing out partisan spin in a place I don't think it belongs... you're right, debt is a whole new topic, though tangentially related...

I'd personally prefer less spending to more taxing... TM7 simply disagrees...

DakotaElkSlayer · « **Reply #41 on:** February 15, 2006, 10:57:14 AM »

As for the comments on income redistribution....

May I use a NeoCon talking point? :-D

The United States was founded on Christian ideals. We all know that charity towards the poor is one of those ideals(see New Testament). Therefore, shouldn't the Feds be giving money to the poor?

Jim

jimster · « **Reply #42 on:** February 15, 2006, 11:11:29 AM »

Well maybe there is something we could all agree on...

The only way to have debt, is to spend more than you have. Period.
End of story. All of us should agree on that.

Some on here has brought up an interseting point, that would be, we don't write checks out if we don't have the money.
End of story again.

And one final point....or comment, that Nomosendero has made...

"our forefathers, they would drag the goons that we have in Gov. now out by the hair of their heads when they have hair, that is. " Well said!

We all know what the root of the problem is.
It aint the rich, it aint the poor, and it aint the middle class.....
It's an out of control government that has always spent what it didn't have, because it knows billions of our hard earned dollars are pouring in.

Oh how I would like to cut the money off all at once and watch the government go to it's knees....and start all over again.
Then WE would decide what would be spent, each penny...just like a houshold.

We'd probably find out after we got on track with proper spending, we all pay way too much in taxes and we'd all wonder where the extra billions are coming from after dragging the goons out by their hair.

I was always taught to get at the root of a problem, not a quick fix.

dukkillr · « **Reply #43 on:** February 15, 2006, 11:39:54 AM »

Quote

Counselor,,,,are you saying that my statement about the largest national debt is incorrect?

No, I said, "I suspect you're smart enough to know you keep spilling MISLEADING STATEMENTS".

If you think saying things like that help any debate you're wrong, at least among people smart enough to know better. I'm also confident you know why I picked that statement and called it misleading. If you don't understand then I've given you too much credit.

I compared you to the Democratic leadership because you resulted to misleading quotes as an attack. It seems to me that you're smart enough to prove your point without needing subterfuge.

I suppose you're right that I assumed too much about your tax policy. I based it on the string of opinions you've given and what general tax theory that matches closest with. It's possible that was wrong. It's more likely that it was right, but uninformed.

I don't want this to become personal, and I suspect it's my fault it became that way. My point was to call out (again) a misleading statement.