taxation

[BigV]

huh.

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

[Stormieweather]

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 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the "Making Work Pay" tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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 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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

nope, unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

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?

[BigV]

It DOES suck.

I did NOT choose to put myself in this position.

I wouldn't wish it on a snake.

[Lamplighter]

From Classicman above

Which leads us to another fact-check of ours. We fact-checked Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas,
who said, "Fifty-one percent -- that is, a majority of American households -- paid no income tax in 2009."
We rated that True.

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...
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

[Spexxvet]

Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression
Now does a secretary usually pay higher tax rates than a millionaire?

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.

[Spexxvet]

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

huh.

I'm just now reading the article at your link.

Perhaps it would have been nice to actually read it BEFORE you comment on it. Have you been hanging around with themerc?

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

That applied to ONE year, 2009, due to special circumstances, but boy oh boy, everyone just loves using that as representative of ALL years. Too bad it's so terribly distorted.

Please tell me where the distortion is. The year 2009 was the last year data was available and thats why it was used.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Considering that you're experiencing that now, what is your opinion?

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

From POLITIFACT - NOT classicman[/url]

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

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I believe Obama and Buffet have said that a secrcetary pays a higher effective tax rate than a millionaire.

FALSE
PLEASE READ THE LINK.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by classicman

Please tell me where the distortion is. The year 2009 was the last year data was available and thats why it was used.

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.

I don't know why I bother.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

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

I mean, J. H. C.

I don't know why I bother.

Sorry Stormie, I was in rapidfire response to many posts all directed at me.

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.

Now are you referring to ANY taxes or Federal income taxes? Fed Income taxes is what the article was discussing. According to YOUR link:

In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent. [2]

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.

[BigV]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

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