Author Topic: USATODAY headline: Tax rates on track to soar as proposals form (Read 1838 times)

Questor · « **on:** July 17, 2009, 01:41:58 AM »

At least somebody is writing bluntly about the crackpots in Washington.

If you've never lived in the 1990s - 2000s California economy, your big chance has just arrived, no matter where you live in the US.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2009, 01:57:44 AM »

Well doesn't everyone know they are only going to tax the "evil" rich people. This won't trickle down in higher cost of services and less jobs.

As I've said before these programs will look good for a little while but the polish will soon wear off this turd. The rich, who are the ones who create jobs and pass the wealth on, will stop investing there capitol in risky job producing buisiness ventures. They will invest in securities and fixed interest and live off of the interest.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2009, 02:08:46 AM »

If the tax code did not punish people for being sucessful, there would be no incentive to send money to offshore sources. I find it funny how some people are jealous of others sucess.

Brett · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2009, 11:18:55 AM »

TM7,

The wealthy pay a disproportionately larger percentage of taxes than middle or low income earners already. It's right there in the Federal tax tables if you don't believe me.

Who pays more in luxury taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc., the poor and middle class or the wealthy.

If that's not a non-incentive to succeed I don't know what is.

Who employs the majority of the poor and middle class?

Who donates more to charitable organizations?

Who invests in capital improvements and new business starts?

Taxing the snot out of the wealthy to stimulate the economy makes about as much sence as slitting the throats of the cows to increase dairy production.

ms · « **Reply #4 on:** July 17, 2009, 12:19:39 PM »

Brett tell Timothy Geithner that you must be kidding.

Casull · « **Reply #5 on:** July 17, 2009, 02:37:56 PM »

Quote

But seriously, I never thought the current tax codes as non-incentive, in fact quite the opposite.

I've got to call you on this one. Seriously, what planet are you from? Exactly what do you find in the tax codes to be an incentive to producing more income? Is it the progressive tax rates? The phasing out of tax credits? Maybe it's the minimum alternative tax? Come on now, don't keep us in suspense. What it is it?

nomosendero · « **Reply #6 on:** July 17, 2009, 03:33:08 PM »

Men, you are wasting your time, as you would be with Hillary or BHO.

nomosendero · « **Reply #7 on:** July 18, 2009, 01:47:14 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on July 18, 2009, 11:00:15 AM

Quote from: Brett on July 17, 2009, 11:18:55 AM
TM7,

The wealthy pay a disproportionately larger percentage of taxes than middle or low income earners already. It's right there in the Federal tax tables if you don't believe me.
I happen to believe in progressive taxes so it doesn't bother me. personally, I happen to know people of means are able to reduce their 'net effective tax rate' to about what yours might be....or less actually. Surprised you don't know this.

Who pays more in luxury taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc., the poor and middle class or the wealthy
People of means pay the same luxury and sales taxes, etc. as you do. These are essentially flat taxes; so what is your complaint?.

If that's not a non-incentive to succeed I don't know what is.
The incentive to exceed should not be a give away. The will and drive to exceed has its own incentives as well as reward above taxes already in place and always has and does not need further subsidies from working families. It is just that simple and all the whining about how bad the wealthy have it doesn't mean sheit to a tree. By your assumption/arguement there would be no wealthy folks at all, no folks that have exceeded or anything happening anywhere....your arguement is a dead end. Because nothing could be farther from the truth as proven by the consolidation of wealth in the high end over the last 40 years resulting in a contradictory stratification of American culture...simply an incredble consolidation of wealth and influence which must have the Founders turning over in their graves.

Who employs the majority of the poor and middle class?
Government does...including the military. Business is in partnership with government. Do you know what that is called? Do you know what capitalistic communism is?

Who donates more to charitable organizations?
Actually people of rather meager income. Wealthy are notoriously stingy.

Who invests in capital improvements and new business starts?
Here the wealthy have the means, connections, and influence to dable in this area....largest partner of new start business' is government.

Taxing the snot out of the wealthy to stimulate the economy makes about as much sence as slitting the throats of the cows to increase dairy production.
Apparently you practice the correct genuflect to your leige. The USA has always had progressive taxation as other nations. Wages were never considered incomes...just profits were. Yet we managed to be prosperous and inovative more than now, and equitable distribution of wealth made for a much much better society. You are likely an individual who waxes romatically for the old days, yet it seems you supported the demis of the good ole days. Give it up. And many many more individuals were involved with business and commerce. Your vision is a vision and support of wage slavery by a master class...LOL. There is more than enough freedom to go around if allowed...how about letting a few more folks have a little freedom so we can progress again and get off this dead end course of feudalism. EXTREME CONSoliDATION OF WEALTH (WHICH EQUALS INFLUENCE and FACISM) WAS AMPLY WARNED ABOUT BY THE FOUNDERS.

...TM&

"Who donates more to charatible organizations" I agree with you on that one and only on this one!!!!

It has been proven that a huge block that gives a higher percentage of their income than any other group is Southern Christian folk, hardly the wealthiest group.

Cement Man · « **Reply #8 on:** July 18, 2009, 02:52:38 PM »

Based on a book I read called "Who really cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks, religious conservatives trump all other categories in giving of their time, talents, and treasure - no matter if they are poor or rich.
Liberals and seculars of any stripe, as a group are lowest. I believe the book was written in 2006 so the stats are relatively current and it appears to be well researched. Anyway - it states that the top 10 percent of households in income are resposnsible for at least a quarter of all money contributed to charity, including a fifth of the money contributed to religious organizations. Households with total wealth exceeding $1 million (about 7% of the population)give about half of all charitable donations.
Rich people who favor forced income redistribution give less frequently than poor people who do not favor income leveling.

Those are just some snippets from the book. It is an interesting read, and pretty revealing. Conservatives are apparently far more generous and compassionate than liberals.

nomosendero · « **Reply #9 on:** July 18, 2009, 02:59:25 PM »

Quote from: Cement Man on July 18, 2009, 02:52:38 PM

Based on a book I read called "Who really cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks, religious conservatives trump all other categories in giving of their time, talents, and treasure - no matter if they are poor or rich.
Liberals and seculars of any stripe, as a group are lowest. I believe the book was written in 2006 so the stats are relatively current and it appears to be well researched. Anyway - it states that the top 10 percent of households in income are resposnsible for at least a quarter of all money contributed to charity, including a fifth of the money contributed to religious organizations. Households with total wealth exceeding $1 million (about 7% of the population)give about half of all charitable donations.
Rich people who favor forced income redistribution give less frequently than poor people who do not favor income leveling.

Those are just some snippets from the book. It is an interesting read, and pretty revealing. Conservatives are apparently far more generous and compassionate than liberals.

I could not think of the name of that book, but good info.

Brett · « **Reply #10 on:** July 18, 2009, 03:16:05 PM »

Thanks for the info Cement man. Seems it confirms what I said, the wealthy contribute more to charitable causes. "It states that the top 10 percent of households in income are resposnsible for at least a quarter of all money contributed to charity, including a fifth of the money contributed to religious organizations. Households with total wealth exceeding $1 million (about 7% of the population)give about half of all charitable donations." I guarantee that Bill Gates gives away more money in a day than most of us earn in a lifetime.

Yes luxury and sales taxes are flat taxes , however that does not change the fact that the guy buying a half million dollar yacht is paying a lot more taxes than the guy buying a $500 john boat? So back to the original question... who pays more in taxes?

I have no problem with people who earn their money whether it be threw hard labor or intellect and smart investing. I do have a problem with people who think that the world owes them something for nothing.

You know what they call a creature that lives off another without mutual benefit? A parasite.

nomosendero · « **Reply #11 on:** July 18, 2009, 03:20:45 PM »

Quote from: TM7 on July 18, 2009, 03:15:09 PM

nomoS....so you agree with that little point; but refute history and facts....? Wha'sup with dat?

..TM7

Like you said, we have discussed it before, just stick with Hillary & BHO, they agree with you 100%.

45-70.gov · « **Reply #12 on:** July 18, 2009, 03:57:38 PM »

Quote from: Brett on July 17, 2009, 11:18:55 AM

TM7,

The wealthy pay a disproportionately larger percentage of taxes than middle or low income earners already. It's right there in the Federal tax tables if you don't believe me.

Who pays more in luxury taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc., the poor and middle class or the wealthy.

If that's not a non-incentive to succeed I don't know what is.

Who employs the majority of the poor and middle class?

Who donates more to charitable organizations?

Who invests in capital improvements and new business starts?

Taxing the snot out of the wealthy to stimulate the economy makes about as much sence as slitting the throats of the cows to increase dairy production.

and don't forget earned income credit

i rode that gravy train myself when i was poor

many years i got more back on the tax return than i paid in

income redistribution in its pureest form

ms · « **Reply #13 on:** July 18, 2009, 08:54:45 PM »

Buffett Slams Tax System Disparities
Speech Raises at Least $1 Million for Clinton Campaign

COMMENT
NEW YORK, June 26 -- Warren E. Buffett was his usual folksy self Tuesday night at a fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as he slammed a system that allows the very rich to pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class.

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said. And he challenged Congress and his audience to see what the people who "clean our offices" are taxed, to loud applause.

A populist tone permeated the 70-minute talk with the billionaire investor and philanthropist in Manhattan on Tuesday night. The talk, given to about 600 Wall Street bankers and money managers, raised at least $1 million for Clinton's presidential campaign, the Associated Press reported.

The event comes as public frustration has grown over executive compensation and disparity in pay. It also comes as Congress debates changes to the tax code that would decrease take-home pay for managers of private-equity firms and hedge funds, pools of money for wealthy families and institutional investors. The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent.

Buffett said that he and other privileged Americans must do more to help the less fortunate.

"We have the chance in 2008 to repair a lot of damage," Buffett said.

"We have a wonderful economy. . . . Our problem is how we conduct ourselves in the world." Buffett, the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway in Omaha, has not endorsed Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But he has already donated the maximum $4,600 allowed by an individual to Clinton's presidential campaign. Buffett called Clinton "the person to run the country." He has not donated to any other candidate, according to public records, although he has said he would also support Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a similar event.

Buffett is on the board of directors of The Washington Post Co.

Clinton acted as moderator. Topics included Buffett's views on the impact of the real estate slump on the economy (he doesn't see it spilling over to the broader market) and how to get started in investing (you are more likely to find diamonds in the rough among small companies).

Clinton finished by asking Buffett, "Why are you a Democrat?"

Buffett said he thought Democrats would do a better job in evening out the field for those who had drawn the unlucky tickets in life.

Casull · « **Reply #14 on:** July 18, 2009, 09:20:32 PM »

Quote

Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said.

Then Buffett is a damned liar. If he was "not trying to avoid paying higher taxes", then virtually all his income would have been taxed at 39.6%, except for long term capital gains, which would have been taxed at 20% (and when you consider that the long term capital gains tax is a tax on appreciation and/or inflation, then the effective rate is actually higher). How can you buy into this crap? Just look at the tax tables. Just look.

nomosendero · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2009, 05:47:03 AM »

Quote from: Casull on July 18, 2009, 09:20:32 PM

Quote
Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent.

Buffett said that was despite the fact that he was not trying to avoid paying higher taxes. "I don't have a tax shelter," he said.

Then Buffett is a damned liar. If he was "not trying to avoid paying higher taxes", then virtually all his income would have been taxed at 39.6%, except for long term capital gains, which would have been taxed at 20% (and when you consider that the long term capital gains tax is a tax on appreciation and/or inflation, then the effective rate is actually higher). How can you buy into this crap? Just look at the tax tables. Just look.

He is a Socialist & a Liar & an enemy to this Country. And oh, what a hypocrite, he was quite on his way to the top & now he has to get it right for those that follow!

Besides, he is free to send in money anytime he feels undertaxed. He did not speak out until he attained his wealth, he wanted it, but does not care anything about the American dream, which is all but gone & he & his buddy Soros (after he made his wealth) now want the rest of us to just "eat cake".

ms · « **Reply #16 on:** July 19, 2009, 05:53:37 AM »

How can anyone say the rich pay there fair share in taxes? They write the tax codes they write the laws in the country not middle class or poor people.

jimster · « **Reply #17 on:** July 19, 2009, 08:32:17 AM »

"How can anyone say the rich pay there fair share in taxes? They write the tax codes they write the laws in the country not middle class or poor people."

The IRS says so...they have reported many times that most all of the taxes are paid by the wealthy and a small percentage of that wealthy pay most the taxes. That does not mean we all don't pay a lot...we all do. Everyone pays too much because of runaway spending, the more they spend the more they take, and that is pretty simple stuff to understand. Add to that some "Blue states"...like Michigan take the rest of the money with their "business tax" income tax, property tax, gas tax, tobaco tax and anything else they can get their hands on...and it hurts eveyone pretty bad. If you own a business and get hit by fed and blue state taxes, you transfer that cost to the consumer, there is no way to stop that...unless government takes over everything and sets the price of the products and services that businesses supply...stay tuned, maybe they will grab that as well, they are grabing everything else.

The idea is to pit the middle class against the wealthy...and the poor against everyone...looks to me by reading these posts, that plan is working pretty well in some cases. What that does is keep the same idiots in office...divide us up...

No matter what you make, they tax too much...spending is why. Adding all this extra information on tax codes, who writes them, why this happened.....it all means nothing. They spend too much. They have no money...except what they can take.

Casull · « **Reply #18 on:** July 19, 2009, 08:48:40 AM »

Quote

How can anyone say the rich pay there fair share in taxes? They write the tax codes they write the laws in the country not middle class or poor people.

Jimster, trying to talk sense to ms or tm7 is like trying to explain quantum physics to 1st graders. They just can't get it.

The wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent. The bottom 50 percent however earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. BTW, ms, that is how anyone can say the rich pay their fair share (and then some).

Quote

Likely, the biggest myth in America is how much taxes wealthy folks anty up. The Founders never envisioned such a top heavy system of influence, avoidance and classism.

tm7, that is just so wrong on so many levels. The Founders certainly never envisioned the redistribution of wealth that we have. AND, if you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know that it, in essence, prohibited an income tax at the time of its creation. Somehow, I doubt that they would have thought that having ANYONE pay 40% or more (which is the combined tax burden on many) of their income in taxes was not enough. Just because you and ms don't like something, does not make it wrong, or make your socialist leanings correct.

ms · « **Reply #19 on:** July 19, 2009, 10:16:56 AM »

Quote from: Casull on July 19, 2009, 08:48:40 AM

Quote
How can anyone say the rich pay there fair share in taxes? They write the tax codes they write the laws in the country not middle class or poor people.

Jimster, trying to talk sense to ms or tm7 is like trying to explain quantum physics to 1st graders. They just can't get it.

The wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent. The bottom 50 percent however earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. BTW, ms, that is how anyone can say the rich pay their fair share (and then some).

Quote
Likely, the biggest myth in America is how much taxes wealthy folks anty up. The Founders never envisioned such a top heavy system of influence, avoidance and classism.

tm7, that is just so wrong on so many levels. The Founders certainly never envisioned the redistribution of wealth that we have. AND, if you knew anything about the Constitution, you would know that it, in essence, prohibited an income tax at the time of its creation. Somehow, I doubt that they would have thought that having ANYONE pay 40% or more (which is the combined tax burden on many) of their income in taxes was not enough. Just because you and ms don't like something, does not make it wrong, or make your socialist leanings correct.

YOU MUST BE TALKING ABOUT THE POOR PEOPLE THAT WIN THE LOTTERY.

nomosendero · « **Reply #20 on:** July 19, 2009, 10:37:17 AM »

Yea, the lottery guys, go gettem Tiger!

jimster · « **Reply #21 on:** July 19, 2009, 11:59:23 AM »

And lets not forget the built in welfare tax deal too...my sister in law who does not wish to work full time, or hardly at all for that matter, pays in a few hundred bucks in fed taxes, and gets back 3500! what the heck is that?

Using the tax code for redistribution...isn't that just great. Mean while they rape the rest of us, wealthy included...then somehow manage to get us mad at the wealthy people, who employ other people. Somehow that does not work out in the math.

If I made a million a year I'd be trying to tie it up in realestate, non taxable deductions...any type of thing I could get to keep more of MY money.
Does that make me bad?? Cause I don't want too much of my money going to the government? Would that make me some type of.....RIGHT WING NUT?

45-70.gov · « **Reply #22 on:** July 19, 2009, 12:03:17 PM »

Quote from: jimster on July 19, 2009, 11:59:23 AM

And lets not forget the built in welfare tax deal too...my sister in law who does not wish to work full time, or hardly at all for that matter, pays in a few hundred bucks in fed taxes, and gets back 3500! what the heck is that? Using the tax code for redistribution...isn't that just great. Mean while they rape the rest of us, wealthy included...then somehow manage to get us mad at the wealthy people, who employ other people. Somehow that does not work out in the math.

If I made a million a year I'd be trying to tie it up in realestate, non taxable deductions...any type of thing I could get to keep more of MY money.
Does that make me bad?? Cause I don't want too much of my money going to the government? Would that make me some type of.....RIGHT WING NUT?

that is earned income credit

jimster · « **Reply #23 on:** July 19, 2009, 12:25:05 PM »

The point is in all of this, wealthy people pay a lot of taxes, more than me, and I pay too much. It's not the government that is supposed to spend money during an economic down turn, it's the people. You can't get people or businesses to spend money if you take it from them. If they would just roll back the taxes they would not even have to print money, it's already there....but they can't. They can't stop spending. Then they even tell us HOW to spend money...(see failed stimulas package). Next thing you know the government will make a new button on all calulators...it will say GOV...push it and you go from negative to positive no matter what the formula.

IRS also had some good stats on when they receive the most income, it's when tax rates are lowest. I wonder why that is...

You would think they would start listening to their own IRS and CBO people. The math can't be covered up...it's real.

nomosendero · « **Reply #24 on:** July 19, 2009, 02:07:22 PM »

Hillary & BHO could not have said it better!

Right out of the playbook.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2009, 02:18:25 PM »

Well Nomo, TM has admitted his socialist leanings on the communist health care plan. Why would it change on taxation?

I'm glad to see that the major portion ofb folks here are good conservatives. Its a good thing to have socialist liberals here to give us a view into the ideology of the left.

jimster · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2009, 02:33:19 PM »

Yep...temperment does get a little clouded when they grab 900 a month out of my paycheck, state and fed combined...hehe.
Add some sales tax, some gas tax, some property tax, various other taxes ...and then have some politician tell me he needs to spend my money, not me...LOL!

Course all I need is someone to tell me it ain't so, or they could tell me all that money is coming out of my check, cause my boss ain't payin any! And that's because the owners of the company ain't payin enough...and the poor people are flippin the whole bill by themselves.

hehe....bad temperment for sure. I probably would have a better temperment if I didn't do my own taxes and just listen to the politicians and "progressives".
(did not use the woed socialism, I held back as to not offend anyone)
Probably doesn't help that I sit next to finance at work and know what things cost a business...that's something I should not know either.
I simply know too much and it's my own undoing and my own fault I have a bad attitude.

I'm too smart for my own good...and that's that. Dumb is where it's at.

They have to spend to save us....in order for them to spend we must give them a large portion of our money. I get it now...I'm on board.

ms · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2009, 02:39:07 PM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on July 19, 2009, 02:18:25 PM

Well Nomo, TM has admitted his socialist leanings on the communist health care plan. Why would it change on taxation?

I'm glad to see that the major portion ofb folks here are good conservatives. Its a good thing to have socialist liberals here to give us a view into the ideology of the left.

Billy I think you better go to a neurologist. And have that brain checked out for to much barbecue smoke.

jjas · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2009, 03:47:26 PM »

I see both sides of this issue....I've never really agreed w/getting more back than you paid in taxes, but how many of you would turn it down?

Secondly, I have a very successful friend who makes over $200,000 every year. He's in sales, drives a company car for both business and personal use. To get to use that car for personal use + provided gas, insurance and maintenance for that car he pays $125.00 per month. Pretty good deal for a brand new car every year.

He also defers a huge portion of his sales commission checks so uncle sam can't touch it until he reaches retirement age (when he hopes his tax rate will be much lower).

Now, I don't begrude the man his success or his loopholes. But it illustrates that the government throws all of us a bone or two, now doesn't it.....

Jim

Casull · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2009, 07:57:43 PM »

Quote

And we all know the USA has had a rich history of progressive taxation just as the Founders envisioned, except you again.

tm7, you just open your mouth and the diarhea starts flowing. Sheesh. Exactly when did the Founders start or envision a so-called progressive income tax? Now, please answer the question and don't just spew out more fecal matter.

And btw, as an example, even if Buffett was somehow telling the truth for once, and made say $50,000,000 and paid 17 1/2% on that, his payment to the Fed's would be $8,750,000, while if his secretary made $100,000 and paid 30% (which I don't believe for a second), she would have paid $30,000. For those with conceptual difficulties (tm7), this means that Buffett would have paid over 290 times as much as his secretary. Now, tell me how the rich don't pay their fair share (because if if were truly FAIR, everyone would pay the same amount to live in this country).