Obama’s Class Warfare

[unsmiley 111]

No. It shows how much of the federal income they pay. Not what percentage of their income goes to tax.

Who cares what % they pay - why are you worrying about this? The top 1% pays something like over 50% in income taxes collected.

You should focus on the much more important percentage - ie: the 50% who pay ABSOLULTELY NOTHING in federal income taxes. THAT IS THE TRUE OUTRAGE.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think if you compared a poor person's income to a wealthy persons in Caliifornia, the poor person probably has up to a 1/3 of their income exposed to state and local taxes through consumption. A wealthy person is going to be much lower.

Since the poor get all their staples for virtually free and only have to pay for drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, you may be right.

Of course, with the exception of pot, I don't know how many drug dealers charge sales tax.

Edited January 25, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Absolutely true. Before worrying about the rich paying even more of the load, we need those 50% freeloading to get some skin in the game.

Want the poor to have skin in the game? Raise wages and they'll have skin in the game. Not that they don't have skin in the game already. The poor pay, for example, more of their meager incomes in payroll taxes than I and those situated like me or better do. That is because on part of my income, my social security tax is exactly zero. The poor don't have any part of their income not subjected to social security taxes. They pay the full 6.2% on every penny they earn.

[GandD 5,966]

Who cares what % they pay - why are you worrying about this? The top 1% pays something like over 50% in income taxes collected.

You should focus on the much more important percentage - ie: the 50% who pay ABSOLULTELY NOTHING in federal income taxes. THAT IS THE TRUE OUTRAGE.

The top 1% live off capital gains which means they pay a lower percentage than me. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

And for the 100th time, that 50% figure includes retired people.

Edited January 25, 2015 by GandD

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The top 1% live off capital gains which means they pay a lower percentage than me. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

Exactly. Earned income is taxed higher than passive income. That's a travesty.

[GandD 5,966]

Exactly. Earned income is taxed higher than passive income. That's a travesty.

It's not a travesty, it's just not properly offset.

[unsmiley 111]

I think to help your argument you should include all taxes. For instance most state consumption taxes are regressive. They effect the poor far more than the wealthy.

This is a false argument always dragged out by the left. We ALL pay sales taxes and the like, including the rich, and they are inescapable. But they amount to chicken feed. Federal income taxes are where the real money is, and where we need to collect from EVERYBODY to make the system fair and to have EVERYBODY have a stake in the system.

Only when the typical freeloader realizes that having, for example, his "free" Obamaphone actually takes even a few pennies from his own pocket, this endless, useless, conterproductive mad spending might finally end.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Exactly. Earned income is taxed higher than passive income. That's a travesty.

What are you talking about? At what income level does the average income tax rate exceed the capital gains tax of ~25%?

At $100,000, your tax bracket is 28% and your average tax rate is 18%

Edited January 25, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[unsmiley 111]

The top 1% live off capital gains which means they pay a lower percentage than me. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

And for the 100th time, that 50% figure includes retired people.

Let's put this another way:

So exactly what percentage, do you think is OK, of our working population to pay absolutely nothing in income taxes??

[GandD 5,966]

Let's put this another way:

So exactly what percentage, do you think is OK, of our working population to pay absolutely nothing in income taxes??

If you work, you should pay taxes. I'm not even sure how you could avoid paying income taxes on a paycheck.

Why do poor people ripping you off a relatively small amount make you more angry than super wealthy people ripping you off a huge amount? Addressing tax discrepancies in the highest paid group would benefit to overall tax coffers much much more than addressing the lower income tax brackets. I'm not saying both shouldn't be addressed. But getting ripped off by someone with more resources than me makes more more angry than getting ripped off by someone with far less resources than me. But hey, that's just me. Depends on what bothers you more, greed and corruption or laziness and ignorance.

[unsmiley 111]

Want the poor to have skin in the game? Raise wages and they'll have skin in the game. Not that they don't have skin in the game already. The poor pay, for example, more of their meager incomes in payroll taxes than I and those situated like me or better do. That is because on part of my income, my social security tax is exactly zero. The poor don't have any part of their income not subjected to social security taxes. They pay the full 6.2% on every penny they earn.

It is not a valid argument since Social Security benefits are also capped (as are the payments into the system). Of course those on the lower rung should be paying Social Security taxes, and be happy to do so, since they end up getting much more out of the system when they retire than what they put in (as do most beneficiaries). That's a no brainer and they benefit.

But they need to kick in some - any - federal income taxes to make the system fair. I don't want to hear another word about those already paying taxes to pay even more until EVERYBODY is paying something.

FLAT TAX, WITH NO ABSOLUTELY NO EXEMPTIONS OR EXCLUSIONS, IS THE ONLY FAIR SOLUTION.

[Sousuke 1,214]

This is a false argument always dragged out by the left. We ALL pay sales taxes and the like, including the rich, and they are inescapable. But they amount to chicken feed. Federal income taxes are where the real money is, and where we need to collect from EVERYBODY to make the system fair and to have EVERYBODY have a stake in the system.

Only when the typical freeloader realizes that having, for example, his "free" Obamaphone actually takes even a few pennies from his own pocket, this endless, useless, conterproductive mad spending might finally end.

Per the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (a non partisan, non profit think tank) it is true

Example. Georgia

Those earning less than 16k pay 10.4% in tax (everything combined Sales, income, property etc.)

Those earning between 16k and 30k pay 10.2%

Those earning between 30k and49k pay 9.4%

Those earning between 49k and 82k pay 9.2%

Those earning between 82k to 171 pay 7.9%

Those earning between 171 and 432 pay 7.1%

Those earning more pay 5%.

http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopaysreport.pdf

Also to I AM NOT THE GUY's credit. I noticed that California is much flatter between income groups, though there is a separation still.

Now looking through the study some states are very interesting because the middle class tends to get hit harder.

It is not a valid argument since Social Security benefits are also capped (as are the payments into the system). Of course those on the lower rung should be paying Social Security taxes, and be happy to do so, since they end up getting much more out of the system when they retire than what they put in (as do most beneficiaries). That's a no brainer and they benefit.

But they need to kick in some - any - federal income taxes to make the system fair. I don't want to hear another word about those already paying taxes to pay even more until EVERYBODY is paying something.

FLAT TAX, WITH NO ABSOLUTELY NO EXEMPTIONS OR EXCLUSIONS, IS THE ONLY FAIR SOLUTION.

Lol Gary is that you?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

non-partisan

[Póg mo 1,749]

What would incomes look like for U.S. families today if the income distribution were the same as it was in 1979?

Larry Summers recently made this really intriguing calculation in the FT.

His conclusions:

Families in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution would be making $11,000 more per year, on average, than they're earning today.

Families in the top 1 percent would be making about $750,000 less than they're earning today.

That got us thinking: What would those numbers look like in greater detail? How would the incomes of the poor, the middle class and the rich look different if you had 1979 levels of inequality in today's economy?

Here's what we found:



http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/01/22/377470959/how-much-more-or-less-would-you-make-if-we-rolled-back-inequality

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What are you talking about? At what income level does the average income tax rate exceed the capital gains tax of ~25%?

At $100,000, your tax bracket is 28% and your average tax rate is 18%

Right. And your long term capital gains and qualified dividend tax rates would be 15% in that scenario. Last I checked, 15% was less than 18%.

Not only that. Your long term capital gains and qualified dividend tax rates are 15% even if you are in the 33% or 35% tax brackets. These tax rates go up to 20% for those that are in the 39.6% tax bracket. Either way, they are lower than the tax rates on earned income.