Jump to content

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Well, the part you're ignoring is that middle 40%... the 40% that makes 42% of the income and pays 28% of the taxes. The rates go down for the top 10%, but up for the middle 40%

 

So if you aren't broke or if you aren't filthy rich, you get to pay more...

Please show me a link where you got your stats.  The link I provided shows that the top 25%, which excludes the middle 40%, pays 86% of the federal income tax burden.  

Also, the details on the brackets have not been released so this discussion on who will pay what in the new system is completely ridiculous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!

    9627

  • Leon Troutsky

    8096

  • Psychic Gibbon

    7930

  • AF89

    6238

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Saving for posterity...just sayin'

Besides some of the negatives (like some dumb tweets) I'm getting what I voted for.  I wanted an outsider who was willing to change the old status quo Washington and (GOP) and take care of the nasty,

That's your fall back, I should've just posted that for you to save you some time.  

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, kicker said:

Lol at the doom and gloom.  Also, wealth and income are not synonymous.  

i never once pretended that wealth and income are synonymous. i make the obvious point that repeatedly cutting income taxes on the rich has resulted in extreme wealth disparity. real median wages have barely moved in four decades while labor productivity has nearly doubled. where is the growth going?

xch_001_inequality_Ooyala.Still003.0.png

oh, right. 

Quote

The top 10% income earners paid 70% of the federal income taxes and earned 47% of the income.  

The bottom 50% income earners paid 2% of the federal income taxes and earned 11% of the income.  So yes, it's no surprise to anyone that lowering tax rates is going to benefit the people that actually pay the taxes. 

and you're explicitly ignoring payroll taxes, state income and sales taxes - all of which are much more regressive. the federal individual income tax accounts for less than half of the tax revenue raised annually. you also leave out that majority of income gained by the incredibly wealthy is unearned. it's being taxed at fifteen percent, dramatically lowering the effective tax-rates of the incredibly wealthy. so no, as a percentage of their income, it is definitely not engineered against them at all.

income.png&w=1484

you state these figures to create a sense of injustice on the wealthy, but it's absolute ********. corporate profit margins as a percentage of gdp are at historical highs and wages as a percentage of gdp are falling. wealth disparity has exploded in the last several decades - so these percentages are doing absolutely nothing to counter the ability to the wealthy get wealthier. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Rep. Mike Quigley recently said in an interview he expects Mueller's investigation to take 1-2 years, so we'll be a little over halfway through the first term before Mueller gets down to brass tacks anyways. 

I want him out of office yesterday, but I also really hope he doesn't get impeached  unless there's no other choice. I'd rather him finish his first term and not run again while stopping further damage through his agenda. 

People are bent out of shape and too emotionally fragile to handle a handful of football players taking a knee, I absolutely have zero confidence in their ability to be able to handle something as serious as the impeachment of just about any sitting president much less somebody with the cult following  and infallibility of Donald. They'd likely hurt themselves or others in that kinda flight or fight reaction. And in truth it's never good precedent, the evidence on Nixon for instance was overwhelming to the extreme.

Better to neuter Trump politically and vote him out and let them spend years afterwards using that energy on investigative fringe blogs on how Democrats have millions of illegal secret votes and gamed the system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kicker said:

Please show me a link where you got your stats.  The link I provided shows that the top 25%, which excludes the middle 40%, pays 86% of the federal income tax burden.  

Also, the details on the brackets have not been released so this discussion on who will pay what in the new system is completely ridiculous.  

Quote

Lol at the doom and gloom.  Also, wealth and income are not synonymous.  

The top 10% income earners paid 70% of the federal income taxes and earned 47% of the income.  

The bottom 50% income earners paid 2% of the federal income taxes and earned 11% of the income.  So yes, it's no surprise to anyone that lowering tax rates is going to benefit the people that actually pay the taxes.  

Your quote bud...

 

Top 10% plus bottom 50% leaves middle 40%...

70% of taxes plus 2% of taxes = 72% taxes. That leaves 28% taxes paid by the middle 40%...

 

I used your numbers and deductive reasoning... There's going to be 3 tax brackets. The suspicion is that these will stretch the middle class to the 25% bracket. Which sounds do-able, until you see that the deductions are being twisted/removed. The standard deduction is being doubled, that's their version of the bait and switch, because they're wanting to remove most other deductions claimed by the middle class. To some, that won't affect them (lower tier of the middle class), to others, it will hammer us. Someone like myself will probably fall into the upper tax rate (so really, this is probably good for my income), but most others will fall into the middle tax tier. Without the deductions, and with only using the standard deduction, their taxable income will rise...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

TIME TO TAKE THIS ***** NATIONAL. Dems should tie Roy Moore around the neck of every republican supporting him. 

Maybe, but conservatives have a tendency to circle the wagons when "outsiders" get involved.

The national attention probably did more harm than good to Ossoff for instance. (Well in that particular election not to his name brand which benefitted considerably)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, achilles return said:

i never once pretended that wealth and income are synonymous. i make the obvious point that repeatedly cutting income taxes on the rich has resulted in extreme wealth disparity. real median wages have barely moved in four decades while labor productivity has nearly doubled. where is the growth going?

xch_001_inequality_Ooyala.Still003.0.png

oh, right. 

and you're explicitly ignoring payroll taxes, state income and sales taxes - all of which are much more regressive. the federal individual income tax accounts for less than half of the tax revenue raised annually. you also leave out that majority of income gained by the incredibly wealthy is unearned. it's being taxed at fifteen percent, dramatically lowering the effective tax-rates of the incredibly wealthy. so no, as a percentage of their income, it is definitely not engineered against them at all.

income.png&w=1484

you state these figures to create a sense of injustice on the wealthy, but it's absolute ********. corporate profit margins as a percentage of gdp are at historical highs and wages as a percentage of gdp are falling. wealth disparity has exploded in the last several decades - so these percentages are doing absolutely nothing to counter the ability to the wealthy get wealthier. 

 

The tax code overall isn't touching payroll taxes, state taxes and sales taxes.  So yes, I ignored them because they aren't part of the tax overhaul and two out of the  three are outside of the purview of the US government.  Bringing them up is irrelevant to the federal income tax system.

You are the one that brought up wealth to show why the income tax system is broken.  That's a failed argument from the getgo.  You could tax income at 100% and not affect wealth.  

I'll address capital gains and dividend income in a separate post because I actually agree with you in premise that it's flawed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Your quote bud...

 

Top 10% plus bottom 50% leaves middle 40%...

70% of taxes plus 2% of taxes = 72% taxes. That leaves 28% taxes paid by the middle 40%...

 

I used your numbers and deductive reasoning... There's going to be 3 tax brackets. The suspicion is that these will stretch the middle class to the 25% bracket. Which sounds do-able, until you see that the deductions are being twisted/removed. The standard deduction is being doubled, that's their version of the bait and switch, because they're wanting to remove most other deductions claimed by the middle class. To some, that won't affect them (lower tier of the middle class), to others, it will hammer us. Someone like myself will probably fall into the upper tax rate (so really, this is probably good for my income), but most others will fall into the middle tax tier. Without the deductions, and with only using the standard deduction, their taxable income will rise...

Top 10 plus bottom 50 doesn't leave middle 40.  

Top 30 plus bottom 30 leaves middle 40.  

But in premise, the 50-90% that you mention actually do pay a proportionate share of the tax burden so it's hard for me to see a problem with it.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kicker said:

The tax code overall isn't touching payroll taxes, state taxes and sales taxes.  So yes, I ignored them because they aren't part of the tax overhaul and two out of the  three are outside of the purview of the US government.  Bringing them up is irrelevant to the federal income tax system.

the point is that your claim - that the tax code is somehow unfair to the wealthy is bollocks because you're explicitly ignoring both that it clearly doesn't produce that result and that other portions of the overall tax structure of the united states that are much less progressive. to paint the tax reform as merely doling out what is deserved to the high income earners without providing greater context is just dishonest. 

Quote

You are the one that brought up wealth to show why the income tax system is broken.  That's a failed argument from the getgo.  You could tax income at 100% and not affect wealth.  

hahahahaha what

are you seriously suggesting there is no relationship between income and the ability to generate wealth? that's one of the dumbest things i've read in a long time, bravo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh wow, it looks like incomes taxes can dramatically shape wealth outcomes over several decades!

Quote

Thus, the answer seems to be that trade shocks, which certainly had a large impact on the labour market in the early 2000s, are not responsible for all of society’s ills. The dramatic rise in inequality experienced in the US since 1980 can be traced to the Reagan tax cuts, not to trade.

http://voxeu.org/article/drivers-inequality-trade-versus-tax-rates

who could have known?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the idea of the alternative minimum tax (AMT)  Basically a separate tax calculation that ensures people will pay a minimum tax amount.  Of course the problem I have with it is that it's focusing on the wrong income...earned income.  It should be focused on individuals that have much more control on how they are paid, people like business owners that can either pay themselves via dividends.  

The current AMT requires that upper earned income earners pay at least 28% in taxes.  The Pease limitation effectively made it 29%.  Unfortunately it actually applies to people making far less than what their otherwise effective tax rate would be.  Just my personal opinion, but it's bull**** that people getting hit with AMT and paying a 29% effective tax rate while the top 1%, as Achilles Return points out pay an average rate less than 20%.  There should be a minimum rate for the top 20% and that rate should be around 25%.  

The Obama administration regularly cited Buffett as a reason to raise taxes on the rich but really only let the Bush capital gains tax cuts expire.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, achilles return said:

the point is that your claim - that the tax code is somehow unfair to the wealthy is bollocks because you're explicitly ignoring both that it clearly doesn't produce that result and that other portions of the overall tax structure of the united states that are much less progressive. to paint the tax reform as merely doling out what is deserved to the high income earners without providing greater context is just dishonest. 

hahahahaha what

are you seriously suggesting there is no relationship between income and the ability to generate wealth? that's one of the dumbest things i've read in a long time, bravo.

I never said that there wasn't a relationship between income and wealth, I said that they were not synonymous and also said that citing wealth inequality as a reason to fix the tax code is ****ing dumb. Wealth inequality has almost nothing to do with taxes.  Education, marriage and family planning are far bigger drivers of wealth and it isn't a coincidence that degradation in the latter two is adding to wealth inequality.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Leon Troutsky said:

IF Democrats are going to introduce articles of impeachment it should be over the firing of Comey and his meddling in the House investigation via Nunes.  Insulting NFL players isn't grounds for impeachment.

Yeah, it would be an extreme reach to call the NFL issue an abuse of powers.

Unless.. there was some sort of direct financial gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kicker said:

I never said that there wasn't a relationship between income and wealth, I said that they were not synonymous and also said that citing wealth inequality as a reason to fix the tax code is ****ing dumb. Wealth inequality has almost nothing to do with taxes. 

there is a documented, direct relationship between income taxes and exploding wealth inequality.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19075

http://www.epi.org/publication/rising-income-inequality-role-shifting-market/
 

the tax code is one of society's single best tools for wealth transfer. it's money taken off directly the top and can used to fund the very things like education that you want to paint as a separate issue. it's nonsense. no one is buying your garbage, dude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

literally, my argument from the beginning:

* lowering income taxes for the wealthy significantly contributes to income inequality *

* higher income inequality produces greater wealth inequality over time *

both of these phenomenon are well supported in data from the last several decades. and it's created a society that's worse-off, for the average person. this really isn't defensible from either a moral or economic perspective. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, achilles return said:

oh wow, it looks like incomes taxes can dramatically shape wealth outcomes over several decades!

http://voxeu.org/article/drivers-inequality-trade-versus-tax-rates

who could have known?

Lol.  I wonder what else happened around that time in the US...

So let's get this straight...the article you provided discusses that most wealth gains have been in the top 1% of earners, and you previously noted that most of the top 1% don't receive most of their income from wages, that instead they receive it from passive gains such as capital gains and dividends, which Reagan's tax overhauls barely touched.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kicker said:

I never said that there wasn't a relationship between income and wealth, I said that they were not synonymous and also said that citing wealth inequality as a reason to fix the tax code is ****ing dumb. Wealth inequality has almost nothing to do with taxes.  Education, marriage and family planning are far bigger drivers of wealth and it isn't a coincidence that degradation in the latter two is adding to wealth inequality.   

Buddy....this is a pretty tough hill to defend. 

Current tax structures have absolutely exacerbated wealth inequality. While there are certainly other contributing factors, you'd be hard pressed to present a compelling argument that the decrease in marriage or spawning is more causally impactful than the various tactics employed to minimize the tax burden of the folks receiving the largest shares of income. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...