taxation

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Myth of 47% pay no taxes

Horse shit.

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

[classicman]

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.

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.

[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?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

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

Please... weak and uncalled for.

Cronyn's statement is correct. It's misleading, but it's correct. It's misleading because it narrowly restricts the scope of his statement.

Originally Posted by Obama

Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying a higher rate.

Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression

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

[BigV]

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.

[BigV]

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?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Obama
Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying a higher rate.

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?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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 MISLEADING.

FTFY

Can we move on?

Sure.

[henry quirk]

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?)

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

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.)

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 corporate welfare and subsidizing the ultra wealthy.

Myself fixed that for you

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

F<snip>
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%?

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.

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)?

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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

Not if you eliminate the deductions.

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

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

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.

Really, businesses don't pay taxes?

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.

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

[TheMercenary]

=henry quirk
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%?

You shouldn't. Everyone should pay.

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

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.

-**What is the purpose of taxation?

Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution.

-What’s the purpose of governance?

"....(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..."

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

At what level? Federal, state, or local?

*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)?

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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.

America suffers from virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, nearly 40% on average counting state corporate income taxes. Even China has a 25% corporate rate. The average rate in the European Union, which is reputedly mostly socialist, is even less than that. In formerly socialist Canada, the corporate tax rate is 16.5%, slated under current law to fall to 15% next year. Compared to America, Canada has been booming since Obama was elected.

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

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

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

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.

[TheMercenary]

Correcting President Obama's Myriad Tax Fallacies

Now we see President Barack Obama engaged in this same game regarding federal tax policy and financing for a so-called jobs plan based on the same Keynesian theory that he just proved fallacious yet again, as has been proved over and over since the 1930s. Campaigning for reelection on Monday, Obama said:

Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher tax rates than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffet’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it. It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that….They should have to defend that unfairness—explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that—paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it.

Let me explain it to you, Mr. President. The truth is that the unfairness you discuss is a fantasy. The facts are just the opposite.

Continues:

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