taxation
 

What is equitable ('fair') taxation?

That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

I would pay approximately...none.

The rich (I will define rich as anyone with more money than I have) will give 50%. Said 50% goes mostly to me.

I don't care about the roads or the infrastructure or services or community or animals or starving children or the space race or the cold war or the hot war or reduced lunches or shelters or bread or milk or the price of rice.

(Sorry, I was channeling another dwellar.) :blush:

Anyway, I don't really understand taxes I just know that I pay the hell out of them and I consider it to SUCK but I consider it integral to being a participant in a community.

I hope you get some interesting answers because I know there are a lot of folks here with some very evolved ideas on the tax system.

One thing I know (well, NOW I know, thanks to monster) is that corporations are NOT people, because Texas never executed one.

[/levity]

I'd say an ideal ratio would be 1/3 of income goes to taxes (federal, state, local, etc.), 1/3 goes to savings/investments, and 1/3 goes to expenses.

I haven't really thought it through, but it sounds like a good balance.

And toll roads should be illegal. Highway maintenance should be paid for with federal gasoline taxes.

Virginia is considering putting tolls on 95, so that it can tax out-of-state drivers passing through, just like all the other East Coast states do. Sure, I feel sorry for Delaware, where 50% of their traffic is out-of-state people driving through, but there has to be a better way to pay for things than to stop the flow of traffic to collect money.

So we should all pay 100% tax rates? Do we get to eat ;)

That's the third third.

1/3 actually sounds reasonable, but when one considers the lower incomes ...

I'd willingly give a buck fifty to those who suffer so through their own damn fault.

Mostly, it's the ones who don't want to GIVE who realize, when confronted with the harsh reality of the world, that they believe the world should GIVE to them.

They suffer so. More than anyone.

Don't you have to have an actual job to pay income tax?

nope, unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

Social Security is taxed as ordinary income...

and there is no withholding during the year so retirees can get caught
with unexpected taxes (depending on their other incomes)

ETA: also, each monthly SS payment includes a $45.50 deduction for Medicare

I suppose Merc would call all this double and triple taxation.

Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?
OK, so lets put that tired incorrect argument to rest.
So, the majority of nouseholds in the US do NOT pay ANY income taxes. Something just seems weong with that conceptually.
Two down.
As they should ... three for three.

Therein lies the rub ... Capital gains and dividend income. Tax it all the same and solve that issue.
from here
Its time for lawmakers from both parties to stop doing what is in their own best interests and do what is right for the country, for a change.
Look at the deductions like those mentioned above, which primarily benefit only the uber-rich and eliminate them - NOW.

The weasel words here give the escape route. "A" secretary and "A" millionaire. "Usually" Sure. I bet you can find a set of circumstances that make that "tired argument" to rest. I bet you can find "another" set of circumstances that make that claim that "Obama didn't say" true. Now we're fact checking things the President *DIDN'T* say? wtf?

Salary dot com says the average salary is 33k. hm. doesn't that mean that plenty secretaries make more and plenty make less? And, of course, the leading promoter of this image, probably the creator of this image is Warren Buffett. I feel confident that his secretary isn't making the average salary, though the secretary probably isn't making a million dollars. So, as far as I'm concerned, this myth is NOT busted.

I believe YOU would believe that in spite of the points in the article.

Here's more about why I think it's a poor argument.

"more taxes" what the hell equals more taxes? More dollars? Higher percentage? This vagueness in the language lets everybody claim greater victimhood.

"millionaire" What constitutes a millionaire? AGI? (by the way, that's adjusted gross income) By the time we're adjusting it, it's not really income anymore is it?

and this is the biggest SNAFU of all : Income.

You definitely hit this one on the head in the last point you made, full props, yo.

A secretary is likely making the money they live on, what you and I in ordinary language would call "income" from her wages or salary. I can't say from personal experience, (dammit), but I bet the vast majority of folks who make the money they live on that is in the seven figure range is NOT making that money, from wages (srsly? 1,000,000 / 2080 = $480/hr. not happening) could be salary, sure. But someone that "valuable" would negotiate hard to have that compensation categorized as something else that is less vulnerable to taxation than mere "salary". We will have a discussion on "carried interest" in a little while.

You rightly point out that inbound cash flow that is called "capital gains" has an entirely different tax structure. You rightly point out that the inbound cash flow that is called "dividend income" is taxed at a different rate. The capital gains one seems unfair, artificial. If I buy a __________ for 100 dollars and later I sell the same __________ for 150 dollars, the difference is 50 dollars. why does it matter what the __________ is that generated the net 50 dollars? Be assured, it does matter, as does the length of time between the first purchase and the subsequent sale. Why? The plain answer is that by our laws, we've decided to give preferential treatment to some kinds of transactions. Why we decided to do this and what we were told was the justification for this decision is a matter for a whole other thread, or board, or national shouting match about "class warfare". It is UNDENIABLE that there are differences, and the OVERWHELMING trend of these differences is to be more favorable to folks with more money than folks with less money. This same thing is true about the concept of "deductions". One man's deduction is another man's loophole.

We haven't even begun a discussion about deductions. I'm gonna need more beer first though.

Alright. enough for now.

huh.

I'm just now reading the article at your link. Unsurprisingly, it mentions the same stuff I've already mentioned.

Myth of 47% pay no taxes

That applied to ONE year, 2009, due to special circumstances, but boy oh boy, everyone just loves using that as representative of ALL years.


The normal percentage who don't pay any taxes is 14%, and those 14% are mostly seniors with no income or job at ALL, students who file but don't work full time, and the disabled who can't work.

But man, it sure sounds good to use that little snippet to "prove" a point, doesn't it? Too bad it's so terribly distorted.

I don't think there's a strictly numeric answer that is suitable. I think the taxes levied should be in proportion to how much a given project* costs, and the scope of such projects*. National scope--federal taxes, state--state, local--local.

* Projects. I struggled with this word, it is not the right word. Perhaps budget is a better word. But budgets should be the accounting for projects, projects should be the tools to effect goals. Certainly we have goals as a nation, as states, as communities. Interstate highways are projects that effect so many of our national goals, like commerce (and others) therefore federal taxes. Paying for public schools is a local taxation obligation.

Details, details... Some things are not easily and strictly put into a single box, national, state, local. And there are numerous authorities that can raise money for projects in ways that are not "taxes", like fees and tolls.

In general, I believe that those who benefit should pay. That is a very hard distinction to define precisely.

I've often seen posts where people say things like "yeah, it must be nice to not work and still suckle from the government tit". I've maintained that living at an income level of welfare or unemployment while not being a wage earner just plain sucks, and people don't choose to put themselves in that position. Considering that you're experiencing that now, what is your opinion?

It DOES suck.

I did NOT choose to put myself in this position.

I wouldn't wish it on a snake.

From Classicman above

Lets say there are something less than 2 income earners per household (e.g., assume 1.5 per household (?)

So if 51% are NOT paying taxes, then 49 % ARE paying taxes.
That would be less than a 1/3 of all households are earning enough income to pay some amount of taxes.
So how much is that contribution towards the Federal budget ?

Everyone believes what The Heritage Foundation reports in their completely unbiased way... :rolleyes:
The Heritage Foundation reports that corporate taxes paid in 2010(191 B$).
That is less than 9% of total federal revenue, while individual (personal) income taxes paid (898 B$), and is
were closer to 42% of the total.

The HF report also says “Payroll taxes” are the next largest source of federal revenue (40%).
While this may sound like a expense for businesses, the major components of Social Security and Medicare as collected in 2010
were employee contributions (6.2%) compared with (4.2%) from employers.

This is easier to appreciate from the The Heritage Foundation report

I believe Obama and Buffet have said that a secrcetary pays a higher effective tax rate than a millionaire. Effective tax rate is the amount of tax dollars actually paid, as a percentage of all income. Secretaries can't afford the deductions or investments (the returns on which are taxed at a lower rate) that a millionaire can.

BTW, there was this guy who made $9 billion last year and paid zero taxes. What was his name????? Oh yeah, it was a military man. His name was General Electric.

Perhaps it would have been nice to actually read it BEFORE you comment on it. Have you been hanging around with themerc?
Please tell me where the distortion is. The year 2009 was the last year data was available and thats why it was used.

It sucks. I'm getting all the things I never had time to do done ... around the house, but being 7 weeks without an income blows.

The link was using the comparison that Obama and Buffet (as well as MANY on the left) have been using. The site simply corrected their inaccuracies. Changing it to another situation is nice and all, but not valid in this case.

FALSE
PLEASE READ THE LINK.

I did. Read my whole post, or follow the links I provided.

What I am curious about is, if my deductions would wipe out my tax liability due to the pitiful earnings I made, should I lose those deductions altogether? Even if Joe Blow earning 5 million gets them? Why is it something that so many people are up in arms about? That someone earned so little that they ended up not owing anything? We all get deductions and credits and exemptions. Every single one of us has them. Are we really that ignorant and greedy? But man, if someone gets to owe nothing, then by golly, that's not fair! Even if I earned 10x his salary and he's eating at soup kitchens, fuck him. Pay the hell up!

I mean, J. H. C. :greenface

I don't know why I bother.

Sorry Stormie, I was in rapidfire response to many posts all directed at me.
Now are you referring to ANY taxes or Federal income taxes? Fed Income taxes is what the article was discussing. According to YOUR link:
Perhaps you should read some of my posts from today particularly where I was advocating several option that address the "uber-rich" ... perhaps not.

I have followed this site for some time and and found it to be very good and accurate. It certainly isn't an extremist (either side) hack site which is commonly posted here.

Again, I'm sorry if I caused you any duress due to my earlier post. I enjoy reading your posts.

untwist your panties then we'll talk. Go ahead, I'll wait.





Ok. I posted in response to your post before reading the info at your link because I already know about this shit. It's all fucking posturing and posing and hot fucking air. You, me, Cronyn, anybody can make a statement that's supportable and oh em gee shocking, SHOCKING I tell you. Cronyn's statement is correct. It's misleading, but it's correct. It's misleading because it narrowly restricts the scope of his statement.

He's picked just one year (fine, let's pick a year and talk about it) and one kind of tax. This second one is a double restriction *federal* and *income*. So, by choosing this narrow set of circumstances and setting it against the noticeable threshold of 51% he draws attention to his remark. All good so far.

But here's where the discussion, even in this thread has derailed. Fewer than ten posts later, Lamplighter takes the bait. He even quotes your quote "... no income taxes..." and then breaks his own point by saying "... no taxes...". THIS is how it is misleading. Cronyn's narrow statement is true, but rarely repeated or discussed with the same strictness. Income taxes, payroll taxes these are just fucking accounting categories. It is all part of the same federal revenue stream that the federal government uses to meet its obligations. Income, payroll, what do these words mean? Certainly not what they pay for; they are the labels of the origin of the tax. Capital gains taxes? Taxes on capital gains. Taxes on dividends? The list goes on. We separate them by the source, but the money all goes into the same pot.

Let me ask you a question--(not a trick, I don't already know the answer though I did try for a while to find an answer). What percentage of households paid no capital gains tax in 2009? If it is even close to the SHOCKING 51% for the (narrow) income tax value, I'll eat my hat. Say it's 90%, 75%. THREE QUARTERS of households paid no capital gains taxes! That's totally believable, but I don't think that question's ever been raised. Why not? Well, for one, it's kind of a made up silly point, like the income point. But, if you look carefully, it's true for the same reason. Not many people qualify.

Stormieweather brings up another point, the percentage of households. Shocking! 51%! It is shocking, and the startling part is NOW with 51% of households not paying (federal income tax this year), means that every payer is supporting itself plus another household! Double taxation! (sorry, channeling mercy there). 51% is a majority and "majority rule" is an American idiom. It catches our attention. But the truth is we've long had a large number of households that don't pay income taxes. Sad but true.

Look--if you're scandalized that lots of people didn't pay federal income taxes, and you should be, look to the source of the problem NOT ENOUGH INCOME. Fix that problem, and the percentage moves in the desired direction, lower. And the nation's deficit moves in the desired direction, lower. Want more people to pay income tax? Get more income out there to tax.

Basically, the "job creators" managed to get the number of people who make too little money to pay income tax over 50% in 2009.

Horse shit.

It is about Federal income tax. Not all taxes. Fail.

I did - REPEATEDLY. I offered thought and options to rectify that specific issue. Perhaps you didn't read those posts either.
Politifact is a very neutral site without an axe to grind unlike the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities which is clearly partisan.

Are you challenging the assertion that federal taxes are paid by the large majority of households?

Please... weak and uncalled for.


Interesting that you didn't say the SAME THING about Obama's statement. Why is that?

I don't roll with mercy, you know that. I didn't make any responses to your post that were incorrect, though my *opinion* and politifact's *opinion* differ on the whole stupid millionaire/secretary stupidity.

I don't follow all the links, and in this case, I already knew what the hell I was talking about. No need to read it. I know the facts, I know my opinion. When I did read it, it was a complete affirmation of what I'd already said, excepting the already noted difference of opinion about the millionaire/secretary point.

As for why I don't make the same "true but misleading" assessment about Obama's statement that I made about Cronyn's statement is that I don't believe that.

Obama's statements are correct, as Cronyn's was. But the implications of Cronyn's statement, or more precisely the inferences made by the listeners who then proclaim their opinions of the President's statement are NOT misleading. Go look at your bold emphasis. Which one is wrong? None of them is wrong. None of them is misleading, so that is why I don't say the same thing about Obama's statement. It doesn't apply.

As for the editorial comment in the last text box, that is exactly what I'm talking about, people's inferences. "Oh... the pres said secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires. (fill in reaction here)". You can draw that conclusion, but he didn't say that.

the cost of running our country is high.

how to pay for all those expenses is really too big for one conversation. by the same token, no one thing will settle it. I read in one of these links about xyz program would only raise 800 billion over ten years, but, unfortunately, the level of deficit is 1.2 trillion, so.. dang.

come on people. the units of measure are being changed, keep up. 800 billion is a big portion of 1,200 billion. 800 dingalings is 2/3 of 1200 dingalings. if you need to drive 1200 miles, but you can only get 800 miles on one full tank of gas, you still go, right? refill the tank on the way?

the balance of where our national revenues come from has shifted DRAMATICALLY. Corporations pay less now than they have for decades. their profits are at historic highs. they benefit from the structure of our government but they dont pay in proportion. that is wrong.

The same is true for individuals. wooo hoooo. I'll just slide the burden of paying a little bit more for all of this to be passed on to the other guy, the next guy. it is disgusting disgusting.

let's set aside for the moment the math on rates etc....

what about relative levels of sacrifice? I think some good questions are:

what are we doing now for our children? Education? Environment? Opportunity? What are we building for the generations that follow ours?

I live in a country built for and paid for by those that came before. Only now, this fucking generation is so self centered, so greedy and selfish that the goose is gonna die, and we're gonna choke on our golden eggs.

It can't be sustained this level of I got mine and FUCK THE REST OF YOU! No more room in the boat. No more room in the country. No one is stealing your lunch money. Quit crying like a little girl, goddammit.

What does the dollar value of similar sacrifice look like? Why arent we trying to create a fairer society?

He doesn't say they pay more taxes, he says "they shouldn't" pay more taxes. It's not the same thing, but I can see how it was misinterpreted. Every other reference is about rate/percentage, which is correct and is what this issue is all about.

Can we move on?

FTFY
Sure.

First, thank you, all, for participating in this thread... :)

-----

In another forum (the couch) the forum owner responded to my *question with this...


annual income $10K or less: taxed at 5%
$10K to $20K: 10%
$20K to $50K: 20%
$50K to $100K: 25%
$100K to $500K: 30%
$500K and above: 40%


...she had other suggestions for tax equity but the above is what struck me and prompted this question (to her, and, now, to you)...


Why would you tax someone with an annual income of $10K or less, 5%, and, someone with an annual income of $500K and above, 40%?

That is: what does the number of dollars one has have to do with how much of any one dollar should go to taxes?


Other questions:

-**What is the purpose of taxation?


-What’s the purpose of governance?


-Especially in the American system: do we have 'governance', 'proxy-hood', or something else entirely?






*What is equitable ('fair') taxation? That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?


**Keep in mind: the first income tax was a war tax…generously, then, taxation (in any form) is the fuel for the mechanism of governance (at least, that's my view...what's yours?)

Myself fixed that for you ;)

Ask Willie Sutton...

Anything less than a progressive tax gives disproportional advantage
to some (the wealthy) over others (the not-wealthy).

Taxes and/or fees are not just to pay for governmental services,
but can be used to achieve social goals as well.

As benign dictator, I'd install at least one new form of government revenues at all levels of society...

Businesses now specify the qualifications they want/expect in prospective employees,
such as read/write English, high school, Bachelor's, Master's, Ph.D., M.D.,
licensed electrician, plumber, certified insulation installer,
or X years experience as a xxxxx, etc.

But the cost educating and training a child up to these various levels
is borne by the family, property taxes, and other resources
that have no connection to each particular business.

That is, I can set up a business that hires only licensed physicians and nurses,
and my business would only pay their salary and a (very limited) amount of payroll taxes.
My business income taxes are based on profits and loss, not on how much it cost to educate my employees.

So, my plan is an annual fee based upon the cost of educating or qualifying
each of the employees that work in the business.
Such fees could be something like the gasoline or cigarette taxes,
and their use by governments could be restricted to support of the education system.
A secondary advantage might be that employers would set more realistic qualifications for their employees.

Not if you eliminate the deductions.

That's part of the problem with government. Wealth re-distribution.



Really, businesses don't pay taxes?

Cool so I can set up a company of ditch diggers and pay no fees?

You shouldn't. Everyone should pay.

It should have no bering on how much one pays but it does. The wealthy pay most of all federal income tax in the country and often the Uber-wealthy pay little to none, while have pay little to none on the other end of the scale. The system is broken.



Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution.


"....(In)Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

At what level? Federal, state, or local?


Everyone would pay the same percentage of income at all levels, with the exception of a very low threshold based on current poverty levels.

Why are so many leaving the US and moving their headquarters overseas. Wow. Great idea, raise taxes on the corps, so we can get more from them. But when they pick up and move overseas now we went from getting something from them to getting nothing from them. The US has among the highest taxes on corps in the world. That is why they are leaving.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...tax-fallacies/

We have had a number of successive generations that also believe the government should provide everything for them, also part of the "self-centered" attitude you spoke of. And a government that has proven time and time again that they don't know how to spend the dollars they do collect wisely. When those things change I will consider spending more of my income to them, otherwise the only thing I can do is try to make sure that my family is taken care of and given all of the opportunity to succeed.

Correcting President Obama's Myriad Tax Fallacies

Continues:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...tax-fallacies/

And here is why it is never going to happen....

If you believe President Zero you are being duped....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...x-fallacies/2/

The tax hike Obama is touting isn’t about paying off debt or creating private-sector jobs, it’s about politics. He is pandering to his base and he needs them to get elected.

Tax Facts About Millionaires
09/21/2011 by Peter Hart

http://www.fair.org/blog/2011/09/21/...eillys-threat/

Taxes should be on any income above a subsistence level*. How can you ethically ask someone to pay taxes when they can't feed even their family?

*TBD

It seems as though a lot of the taxing and duties being levied now aren't really providing for common defence and general welfare but more for defending special interests (corporations) and specific welfare (people earning over $750,000 per yer) As to the uniformity of them, I can't say but I do wonder how "uniformity" was meant to be interpreted by the authors.

I just pulled that dollar figure out of my ass, btw because that's the biggest number I can wrap my head around at this point.

Anyway, it just seems that the people who are in control are stacking the deck in their favor but telling us it's a thorough shuffle.

And by people in control I don't mean whoever the president puppet du jour is, I mean the people in control.

you and your constitution....

:D

how about this?

We do away with all personal income tax and only tax corporations and businesses. Maybe a smattering of sales tax. Time for Corporations to get off the tit.

In addition to income taxes, I think we need a person tax - you pay a certain amount each year just to live in this country, whether you have an income or not. It would be kind of like rent. It might discourage people from having babies, and from keeping the old folks alive.

Just a damn minute there, sir !

I meant those way older than you, LL.

Well, OK then. ;)

A poll tax? You wait until Dana gets here, you're gonna be in TROUBLE!

I put all the tax american's paid into a special 'help me' fund.

I guess that's why I don't get to decide. :)

My outlandish, fantastical, notion of tax reformation...
 

My opening question: 'If you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?'

Since nothing about the question demands a 'realism' (that is: a snowball's chance in hell of coming to pass), my suggestion is...


End the IRS...end income tax...eliminate ALL exemptions, loopholes, cuts, credits, and special status for EVERYONE (rich, poor, real, or *paper persons are individuals and should be treated EXACTLY as any other person).

End all state income tax...eliminate ALL exemptions, loopholes, cuts, and special status for EVERYONE (rich, poor, real, or *paper persons under are individuals and should be treated EXACTLY as any other person).

Implement national and state point of purchase taxes...that is: at every purchase of a product or service there is a tax (say, **15%).

Everyone loses and wins.

The only drawback I can see is government (local, state, federal) may not have the kind of revenue those 'in' government like.

Boo-hoo for them

Since those in government (on both sides of the aisle, across the board, all the damned time) can't seem to get a handle on 'spending' for themselves, having a restricted reservoir of cash may be just the inoculating shot needed to get the bunch of them 'on track'.

Again: everyone loses (no privilges for the rich, the poor, or those 'in-between') and everyone wins (it's pay as you and consume...the more you consume, the more you pay...the less you consume, the less you pay).

It's simple: there are no corporate taxes, or death taxes, or 'whatever the hell else' taxes...you buy (a loaf of bread, a coffin, the services of a lawyer or plumber or proctologist, a yacht, a junker, a massage, cold medicine, and on and on) you pay...again: no exemptions, no rebates, no earned income, no reductions for martial status (or religious status).

It -- a direct, simple, national and state point of (all) purchases tax -- is equity incarnate.









*Corporations are a rotten idea...the fictional entity, the paper person is a rotten idea...if, however, we have paper people, then those 'folks' should be subject to the same woes as everyone else...another outlandish idea: BP could stand trial (for the deaths of those in the Gulf spill)...if found guilty then 'jail' BP...shouldn't be too difficult to translate the consequences of jail to a paper person...jail is essentially a loss of the capacity (to move freely, to transact, to 'do'...simply jail BP (if found guilty)...and: if BP is found guilty in a death penalty state: execute...for a paper person that means a legal termination of the corporation (BP ceases to exist).

*shrug*



**Pulled out of my ass for conversation's sake...such a tax may be higher or lower.