Taxes

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Shelby, by default - without higher tax rates on the wealthiest, a larger concentration of wealth funnels upward, creating a plutocracy. That is why tax rates for the wealthiest in this country have been traditionally high. This isn't some socialist movement by the Democrats - it's a principle of understanding how capitalism operates.

Look at this way - if you're a pitcher in MLB, earning 5 million a year, you're not going to be staying at a Best Western hotel when you travel. You're not going to be clipping coupons and shopping several grocery stores to buy their sale items. Chances are, you have a personal assistant, an accountant, possibly your own personal chef and you're own personal trainer, as well your talent agent - all of which cost you loads of money (which also reduces your taxable income). You've accepted that such costs come with being a high paid baseball player. If your tax rate goes from 28 percent to 35, you know what you're going to do? Have your accountant handle it...that's it. Are you going to whine and say all that hard earned dough is yours? Doubt it - considering it's the fans who show up for the games that pay your salary.

You're a regular Joe (no offense) who'll never even come close to that kind of income level, so you'll never have to worry about your tax rate going up. In fact, if you and your wife make less $200,000, you'll be getting a tax cut under Obama tax plan. That's 98 percent of all Americans - getting a tax cut. So all your worrying about MLB pitchers making 5 million a year having to pay more taxes is really much ado about nothing.

Funnel up, that is a theory, the opposite of the trickle down theory. Its easier to tax the rich than it is the poor, thats why I think traditionally the wealthiest have been taxed more.

Ok lets take this same player and pretend that he wasn't taxed disproportionately. Whats he going to do with this money? He not going just keep it under a mattress in his bedroom. He might give it to charity or pay his accountant more. He might go out and buy a sports car that will need a tune up ever so often by average Joe. Whos going to wash it, average Joe. Now Joe has money, when he tries to move up the ladder he will have better odds at moving up the ladder if everyone is paying the same tax rates.

You dont have to be a baseball player to feel the pain of this, sure your not the wealthiest but if your in the middle class you are wealthier than the "poor". I may never be in the wealthiest tax bracket but the way the system is set up I will probably never get out of the middle class bracket.

Shelby, look at our bloody tax codes for the last 90 something years - we have ALWAYS had a progressive tax! Let me ask you this - do you think there is a ceiling to how much capital can be created here in the states annually? If no, then explain how capital gains can be infinite? If yes, then knowing that maximum capital is a finite amount, divide that number by the number of incomes and you'll get the maximum average income level. Obviously, not everyone gets paid or should be paid the same amount, so those below that average means that some will earn more. So the reality is - redistribution of wealth (capital) happens.

That extra tax collected by the fictional MLB pitcher making 5 million a year means that those making less money have less of a tax burden on them. While you think about whether it means he'll pay his accountant more, most Americans are taking that extra $500 and spending on buying their kids shoes, or getting their car repaired....goes right back into the economy (redistribution of wealth), only in those cases - it's the regular Joe's...the auto mechanics, shoe salesman, that are benefitting.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[_Simpson_ 250]

I really want to finish this debate but unfortunately I have to leave. I will be back though.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDEN

New data released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, according to a new analysis by the Tax Foundation.

Consider:

• The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers -- those with an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) over $62,068 -- earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than 4 out of every 5 dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent).
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes.
• That means the top 1 percent paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups:

• Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound.
• Between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent.
• In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery, says the Foundation. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15117

Does that make you happy? Screw the rich!

guess who is in that top 25% and had to pay $2300 more on top of what was deducted out of our paychecks over the year, even after claiming married-0. that's right, a 15k fed income tax bill. and another 600 owed to state. total for the year was over 20k fed and state combined

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes this is how many democrates think the average Joe thinks, well us average Joes are out there busting our #### everyday and put some serious though into this, there is a bigger picture here that I dont think many democrats get.

This is how I feel about that money from the richest 2% I believe that the 2% would be better spent by those who earned it than the gov. Gov. is wasteful and does very little right. I believe that there is a moral majority and given the opportunity to do as they please with this money I think most of it would go to a good cause, but because of the overtaxing of the wealthiest the government gets to choose and I have very little faith in the government. I by no means think that every sports star is going to spend his money on noble things but I think more good will come if the people who earn the money choose were the money is spent. Also the more money the government has the more power they have, not good.

The whole taxing the wealthiest idea is a slippery slope and it has directly affected me because this kind of thinking is the foundation for the tax bracket system, taxing the middle class more than the "poor" for example. I remember when I finally got responsible and went out and got a real job, I learned a cold hard lesson about our tax system. When I made a certain amount of money in a week I jumped up to the next bracket and found that my 15 hours of overtime led to me jumping into the next tax bracket and only getting paid the equivalent of 2hrs of overtime.

Either you ###### up your W4 or whoever was doing your wages was screwing you. What you described is impossible otherwise.

No not necessarily, thats how the tax bracket works. If your in one tax bracket you pay this percentage, if your in another tax bracket you pay a different percentage. Those extra hours put me in the next tax bracket.

Then you jumped from around a 20% tax to a 60-70% tax, at a guess. Way to go big guy

[_Simpson_ 250]

Yes this is how many democrates think the average Joe thinks, well us average Joes are out there busting our #### everyday and put some serious though into this, there is a bigger picture here that I dont think many democrats get.

This is how I feel about that money from the richest 2% I believe that the 2% would be better spent by those who earned it than the gov. Gov. is wasteful and does very little right. I believe that there is a moral majority and given the opportunity to do as they please with this money I think most of it would go to a good cause, but because of the overtaxing of the wealthiest the government gets to choose and I have very little faith in the government. I by no means think that every sports star is going to spend his money on noble things but I think more good will come if the people who earn the money choose were the money is spent. Also the more money the government has the more power they have, not good.

The whole taxing the wealthiest idea is a slippery slope and it has directly affected me because this kind of thinking is the foundation for the tax bracket system, taxing the middle class more than the "poor" for example. I remember when I finally got responsible and went out and got a real job, I learned a cold hard lesson about our tax system. When I made a certain amount of money in a week I jumped up to the next bracket and found that my 15 hours of overtime led to me jumping into the next tax bracket and only getting paid the equivalent of 2hrs of overtime.

Either you ###### up your W4 or whoever was doing your wages was screwing you. What you described is impossible otherwise.

No not necessarily, thats how the tax bracket works. If your in one tax bracket you pay this percentage, if your in another tax bracket you pay a different percentage. Those extra hours put me in the next tax bracket.

Then you jumped from around a 20% tax to a 60-70% tax, at a guess. Way to go big guy

Not sure what your implying or trying to joke about here but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and answer it in a serious manner.

I am a construction worker and it more like the 15% to the 25%

[_Simpson_ 250]

Shelby, look at our bloody tax codes for the last 90 something years - we have ALWAYS had a progressive tax! Let me ask you this - do you think there is a ceiling to how much capital can be created here in the states annually? If no, then explain how capital gains can be infinite? If yes, then knowing that maximum capital is a finite amount, divide that number by the number of incomes and you'll get the maximum average income level. Obviously, not everyone gets paid or should be paid the same amount, so those below that average means that some will earn more. So the reality is - redistribution of wealth (capital) happens.

That extra tax collected by the fictional MLB pitcher making 5 million a year means that those making less money have less of a tax burden on them. While you think about whether it means he'll pay his accountant more, most Americans are taking that extra $500 and spending on buying their kids shoes, or getting their car repaired....goes right back into the economy (redistribution of wealth), only in those cases - it's the regular Joe's...the auto mechanics, shoe salesman, that are benefitting.

Progressive Tax - A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income people than it does from low-income people.

Now I have never said that our system wasnt nor has that fact taken away from the point I have been trying to make. The progressive tax is a complaint of mine. Under some of the presidents that were brought into office because of there conservitive Ideas made a move in the right direction by removing some of that burden on the wealthiest but was it still progressive, well yes but it was a move in the right direction.

About the fictional baseball player, both could benefit under both of our examples. My point was that rather it be Joe who had more money in his pocket because of the way our tax system works and was able to buy those shoes for his kids or it be the the Joe that had more business to his auto shop because more rich baseball players were buying expensive cars thus giving Joe more money to buy shoes for his kids and maybe a little something for his wife. My point was that the Joe in my example would benefit more because he didn't have the government in the equation. The government is wasteful and has very little accountability. I think the more money we keep in the private sector the better off society will be.

Edited March 6, 2009 by looking_up

[Peikko 1,575]

My point, such as it was, is that you would have had to have been taxed way above 25% to lose 75% of your overtime, so even jumping a tax bracket and adding 10% to your tax, there is no way that it is possible to lose 75% plus of your overtime.

Let's show this with simple numbers:

Normal wage = $100.

Normal Tax @ 15% = $15.00

Total Take Home = $85.00

Overtime = $100

Overtime taxed @ 25% = $25.00

Total take home = $75.00

let's assume you get paid twice as much for overtime as you do for normal hours. So, if normally you got $100 for 10 hours work, on overtime you got $100 for 5 hours work. Break $75 into man hours, that represents 3.75 work. In other words you would 'lose' 1.25 of the hours you worked as taxes and that is only simply doing overtime puts you into the higher bracket. If you have to do some overtime before that happens then obviously the % is less.

Now, according to you, as soon as you started working overtime, you lost 13 out of 15 hours of that overtime as taxes. Mathematically, I can't get that to make sense.

[Time2gopeacefully 0]

Everytime i see the word TAXES, i get bad direaha!

[Peikko 1,575]

Everytime i see the word TAXES, i get bad direaha!

There's a cave for sale on ebay. That might work for you?

[_Simpson_ 250]

My point, such as it was, is that you would have had to have been taxed way above 25% to lose 75% of your overtime, so even jumping a tax bracket and adding 10% to your tax, there is no way that it is possible to lose 75% plus of your overtime.

Let's show this with simple numbers:

Normal wage = $100.

Normal Tax @ 15% = $15.00

Total Take Home = $85.00

Overtime = $100

Overtime taxed @ 25% = $25.00

Total take home = $75.00

let's assume you get paid twice as much for overtime as you do for normal hours. So, if normally you got $100 for 10 hours work, on overtime you got $100 for 5 hours work. Break $75 into man hours, that represents 3.75 work. In other words you would 'lose' 1.25 of the hours you worked as taxes and that is only simply doing overtime puts you into the higher bracket. If you have to do some overtime before that happens then obviously the % is less.

Now, according to you, as soon as you started working overtime, you lost 13 out of 15 hours of that overtime as taxes. Mathematically, I can't get that to make sense.

Okay I see what your saying, I threw those numbers out there, this was a little while ago and I don't know the exact numbers or what it came to but this I do know, that by jumping into that next tax bracket that I was not getting the equivalent of the 15hrs which makes sense considering what a tax bracket is. My overall point was to point out how the tax bracket system was flawed and how over taxing the rich can hurt us guys on the bottom too. You took one item out of all things I was covering and made a issue of it thus ignoring the bigger picture. My mistake though I should of mentioned that I didn't know the exact numbers and that it was awhile ago. I also should of mentioned that the overtime didn't equate to double time considering we all get paid piece price so my hourly rate could change depending on how much I got done.

[NickD 203]

I like paying taxes, that way my money is gone and done with.

If I didn't pay all those taxes, would just buy junk that would give me headaches or worries that somebody was going to steal it.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I like paying taxes, that way my money is gone and done with.

If I didn't pay all those taxes, would just buy junk that would give me headaches or worries that somebody was going to steal it.

they love your type on capital hill

[Peikko 1,575]

My point, such as it was, is that you would have had to have been taxed way above 25% to lose 75% of your overtime, so even jumping a tax bracket and adding 10% to your tax, there is no way that it is possible to lose 75% plus of your overtime.

Let's show this with simple numbers:

Normal wage = $100.

Normal Tax @ 15% = $15.00

Total Take Home = $85.00

Overtime = $100

Overtime taxed @ 25% = $25.00

Total take home = $75.00

let's assume you get paid twice as much for overtime as you do for normal hours. So, if normally you got $100 for 10 hours work, on overtime you got $100 for 5 hours work. Break $75 into man hours, that represents 3.75 work. In other words you would 'lose' 1.25 of the hours you worked as taxes and that is only simply doing overtime puts you into the higher bracket. If you have to do some overtime before that happens then obviously the % is less.

Now, according to you, as soon as you started working overtime, you lost 13 out of 15 hours of that overtime as taxes. Mathematically, I can't get that to make sense.

Okay I see what your saying, I threw those numbers out there, this was a little while ago and I don't know the exact numbers or what it came to but this I do know, that by jumping into that next tax bracket that I was not getting the equivalent of the 15hrs which makes sense considering what a tax bracket is. My overall point was to point out how the tax bracket system was flawed and how over taxing the rich can hurt us guys on the bottom too. You took one item out of all things I was covering and made a issue of it thus ignoring the bigger picture. My mistake though I should of mentioned that I didn't know the exact numbers and that it was awhile ago. I also should of mentioned that the overtime didn't equate to double time considering we all get paid piece price so my hourly rate could change depending on how much I got done.

I thought it was pertinent. If you honestly paid, or believed you paid nearly 80% of your overtime out as taxes that could easily explain a very negative attitude to taxes.

I have to say though, that I find it whiney when people moan about paying taxes. We live in a society where certain every day necessary activities are carried out by the state and everyone has to pay a contribution so that these necessary activities, garbage, fire service, schools, libraries, sewage, water etc etc etc can be performed in order for our society to function reasonably safely.

What I think is legitimate is to discuss what exactly is necessary to form a reasonable society and whether the representative of the state is cost effective in collecting and distributing the taxes to the agreed parties. I think most of the problems really occur in the perception that the state is wasteful and that taxes are used by politicians for politicians. If we could concentrate more on ensuring that this was not the case then I think a lot of the perceptions about taxes could be changed.

Of course the US does suffer from a double whamy on taxes with having both a state and federal tax and it can be quite difficult to reconcile this seemingly wasteful duplication. Again, it's problably something that exists more in the public perception than reality, but because it's such an inflammetory issue, my guess is those within the government who like to perpetuate the 'too much tax' perception are quite likely to be those who are greedily siphoning funds into places they should not go. Nothing like a good smoke screen when you are attempting to commit fraud.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I thought it was pertinent. If you honestly paid, or believed you paid nearly 80% of your overtime out as taxes that could easily explain a very negative attitude to taxes.

No because the over all message wasn't as much about that 80% as it was about a person working harder to only find themselves in a higher tax bracket and be being punished due to how a tax bracket system works. Punish hard work is the message I think it sends, bad very bad.

I have to say though, that I find it whiney when people moan about paying taxes. We live in a society where certain every day necessary activities are carried out by the state and everyone has to pay a contribution so that these necessary activities, garbage, fire service, schools, libraries, sewage, water etc etc etc can be performed in order for our society to function reasonably safely.

I dont find it as whiney I see it as keeping the government in check and trying to somewhat hold them accountable, could you imagine if no one said antything. Do you think the laws alone would be enough? Sure I agree we need taxes for things such as schools but I think that goes without saying if your a reasonable minded person.

What I think is legitimate is to discuss what exactly is necessary to form a reasonable society and whether the representative of the state is cost effective in collecting and distributing the taxes to the agreed parties. I think most of the problems really occur in the perception that the state is wasteful and that taxes are used by politicians for politicians. If we could concentrate more on ensuring that this was not the case then I think a lot of the perceptions about taxes could be changed.

I think both debates would be legitimate and would like to debate these things too.

Of course the US does suffer from a double whamy on taxes with having both a state and federal tax and it can be quite difficult to reconcile this seemingly wasteful duplication. Again, it's problably something that exists more in the public perception than reality, but because it's such an inflammetory issue, my guess is those within the government who like to perpetuate the 'too much tax' perception are quite likely to be those who are greedily siphoning funds into places they should not go. Nothing like a good smoke screen when you are attempting to commit fraud.

The thing is I dont need to look to the government to realize Im taxed to much. The 'too much tax' issue is something that Ive learned here in the working world, I know the rhetoric from both sides. It was my real world experience that made me start questioning how are tax system works not the other way around because of some rich politican or pundit goes on and on about how were taxed too much.

Edited March 6, 2009 by looking_up

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Everytime i see the word TAXES, i get bad direaha!

i'm not impressed with them either, see my post #33 in this thread.