taxation

[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.

[classicman]

Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?

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?
The answer to that question is definitely not.
Most secretaries don't make that much. Salary.com put the average salary for an entry-level secretary at $33,249. The top marginal rate for the secretary would be 15 percent, and then typical deductions and exemptions would reduce the tax burden even more. If the secretary had children and no other income, the likely income tax burden would be zero.

OK, so lets put that tired incorrect argument to rest.

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.

So, the majority of nouseholds in the US do NOT pay ANY income taxes. Something just seems weong with that conceptually.
Two down.

Here's another accurate statement: The wealthy pay most of the income taxes in the United States.

As they should ... three for three.

Let’s say you’re a millionaire CEO, being paid a regular salary. In that case, you're paying the top marginal rate -- currently, 35 percent -- on everything you make above $379,150. (Earnings below that level are taxed at a lower rate.)

Numbers from the nonpartisan CBO show that the wealthy pay most of the taxes in the United States. In 2007, the top 10 percent of tax payers accounted for 72.7 percent of all income taxes owed. That top 10 percent included people making adjusted income of $102,900 or higher. Keep in mind, that top 10 percent accounts for 42 percent of all income earned. They paid an average tax rate of 26.7 percent.

Still, that doesn't mean all the rich were on the hook for that much. Again, because of the lower rates paid on capital gains and dividends, some wealthy people paid much lower rates than others.
"We estimate that nearly half of the benefits from the lower rates on gains and dividends goes to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households," he said. That top one-tenth includes people with incomes of $2.3 million dollars a year or more.

Therein lies the rub ... Capital gains and dividend income. Tax it all the same and solve that issue.

But even the most aggressive tax increases on the wealthy would raise only $700 billion to $800 billion over 10 years, when the federal government needs to be considering deficit reduction of between $1.2 trillion and $4 trillion over that time period.

To achieve real savings, lawmakers need to look at tax code in its entirety, eliminating all sorts of loopholes and special exemptions, he said. And, they need to make reductions on the spending side, particularly on entitlement programs projected to expand due to an aging population.

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.

[BigV]

Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?
Quote:
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?
The answer to that question is definitely not.
Most secretaries don't make that much. Salary.com put the average salary for an entry-level secretary at $33,249. The top marginal rate for the secretary would be 15 percent, and then typical deductions and exemptions would reduce the tax burden even more. If the secretary had children and no other income, the likely income tax burden would be zero.
OK, so lets put that tired incorrect argument to rest.

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.

[classicman]

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

[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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Myth of 47% pay no taxes

Horse shit.

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

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Horse shit.

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

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

[BigV]

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.

[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

[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.

[BigV]

huh.

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

[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.

[BigV]

It DOES suck.

I did NOT choose to put myself in this position.

I wouldn't wish it on a snake.

[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.