|
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Scout" wrote in
: "Gray Ghost" wrote in message . 97.142... RD Sandman wrote in : Gray Ghost wrote in . 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : gfn wrote in . com : On May 24, 3:00 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:fafaebf4-7788-4906-a699-839c2c5dac6b@ s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@ x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 1:23 pm, RD Sandman wrote: gfn wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0 @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com: On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith wrote: On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote: ... Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo you keep attempting to push? Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all of governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair share ... a flat tax can fix that ... Regards, JS I already said the tax data is at irs.gov Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I advocate is the FairTax. That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax. It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%. You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is. I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales. Sure I do. The "flat tax" has the government deriving its revenue from the income tax. Yep....at a flat rate for everybody. The FairTax is related because it is a flat sales tax that generates revenue from sales. It replaces the income tax as the method of funding government. If you fully understand the FairTax you will see exactly where I am coming from. Then to keep it from becoming regressive you must drop that sales tax from certain items, like food, housing, public transportation, gasoline, etc.. or you end up with the poor paying a much larger percentage of their income on those taxes than the wealthy. The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax. Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax. Yeah....and they both accomplish the same thing. The FairTax is better because a flat tax still involves taxing income which then leads to exemptions, deductions, and keeps the 16th amendment in place as well as the IRS, and I can go on and on about the pitfalls of our current tax system. A flat tax on income replaces the current tax system. If properly administered it only has ONE deduction and that is poverty level wages for a family of four. Everyone gets that ONE deduction, or exemption if you prefer, and no other. You can do your tax on a postcard. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator. Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner. You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so that it does not become regressive. I don't think so, I know so. Tell me how this is regressive? Current tax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 25%: $250. Taxpayer has $750 left to spend. Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $620 left. Fairtax system: Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a new toaster for a FINAL total of $130. Taxpayer has $870 left. I'll go one better under the fairtax system. Taxpayer earns $1000 a year. IRS takes 0%: $0 Taxpayer has $1000 left to spend Taxpayer buys a USED toaster for a total of $100. Taxpayer pays NO fairtax sales tax. Taxpayer has $900 left. So, again, how is that regressive. Same taxpayer......buys $100 worth of groceries.....pays $123 for them. Rich guy, he eats the same, so he buys a $100 worth of groceries...pays $123 for them. Which one spent the bigger percentage of their income on a necessity? OK, let's fix it....we will not pay that tax on groceries....oooops, you just generated an exception. Three suggestions for you to find out why as well as any other questions you might have: 1) go visit fairtax.org and read it from front to back. Pay particular attention to the FAQ. 2) Buy and read "The FairTax Book" by Linder and Boortz. 3) Then buy and read "FairTax:The Truth: Answering the Critics" It will all become crystal clear. I am familiar with sales tax schemes, they have been around for years. With exemptions, they become just as convoluted as the current system. Excise luxury taxes were another attempt to soak the rich as poor poeple would never buy luxury taxed items. How did that work out? Ask John Kerry. YOu mean after claiming everyone should pay their fair burden, he moors his yacht where the taxes are much less than if he moors it at home? Indeed. Yep, and goes to show how a prohibitive taxation rate reduces revenue. Before he probably would have moored it at home and paid some taxes on it. Now he moors it elsewhere and we get NO tax revenue from him for it. We get less, but his home state gets none. Same thing you are saying, just a difference of degree. Then, of course, there is all the fallout lose of tax revenue. Makers who don't pay taxes because they are out of business. Workers who don't pay taxes because they lost their jobs. People who would have provided goods and services to those workers who didn't because those workers aren't buying stuff because they lost their jobs, and so on and so forth. We saw the same thing when they passed some taxes on luxury boats in the 80s. I was in Florida at the time and the boat manufactuing business took a big hit as did the Carolinas. In one quick swoop in an attempt to "stick it to the rich" we all but wiped out one whole segment of the economy and sent it abroad. Bingo!. The French sold a lot of yachts for that reason. And you can't simply reverse the taxation and get it all back, because the expertise and experience has been dissipated and you can't just put the egg back together again. Well, not all at once. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Scout" wrote in
: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... Gray Ghost wrote in . 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : "Scout" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgufi$l7$7@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 11:36 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote: On May 24, 11:24 am, John wrote: On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote: ... Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo you keep attempting to push? Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all of governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair share ... a flat tax can fix that ... Regards, JS I already said the tax data is at irs.gov Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I advocate is the FairTax. Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they will be contributing their fair share to run government ... http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html And how do you know that at the time of purchase? You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay their fair share of the cost of government. IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to go through a check on your income so they know how much tax to charge? C'mon, even you can't be that stupid. The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to catch on ... I was wrong. A flat tax is on income. It replaces the current method of calculating income tax by applying the same tax rate to all income not just wages and salaries. I gave an example of it here in this thread. Did you take the time to read it? It is really quite simply and quite short so you should have no problem understanding it. ;) What you proposed above is a sales tax and it sure as hell isn't flat. A flat sales tax would be the same percentage on whatever was purchased and no matter who purchased it. You need to learn a bit more before you venture out into the real world. Everyone paying their fair share, this is how the discussion began, or, basically, everyone being equally taxed. Let's see person A buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes. Person B buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes What's more fair than that? Same product, same taxes paid. Fair. Or a person earns $50K and is taxed 15% on amount over federal poverty level. Another person earns $500K and is taxed 15% on amount over federal poverty level. Same percentage on taxable income paid. Fair. The big problem with sales taxes is what is taxed. How about food or necessities? Food stamps? Now you begin to list exemptions....and the list goes on......Thanks, Sonny and Cher...... The real problem is... First you have to decide how much the government needs to funtion. That is true under any taxing scheme. To do that you have to decide what the government should be doing. Same here and that is most of the discussion and difference between liberals and conservatives. I think rather than discussing camoflaging how the feds fleece the taxpayer those questions really need to be answered. Yep, but, good luck. Those discussions have been going on for two hundred years. ;) I am of the opinion that taxes overall hurt the economy by taking people's hard earned money. I don't care if you are the bus boy or the owner of the chain. You earened it, it's yours. However, one does get things from having a government. Overall if the bite is reasonably low than whatever negative effects it has are mitigated. But the only really effective way to increase government revenues is to have a going, expanding economy. That way whatever "protection" money the government extorts from the people can increase without increasing the percentage that it takes. True. Of course that would require a complete ovrehaul of most federal policies and the expulsion of Marxists and enviromentalists. One would have to stop viewing tax policy as a method of molding people's behavior and relegate to the neccessary evil it is. Frankly I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how we can tax out way out of the current crisis wherein the debt equals the GDP and is likely to double in 8 years. There is simply no possible way to do it without removing so much wealth from the private sector as to thorougly tank the economy, which will in turn make the problem immeasurably worse. To get out of this will require BOTH taxes and spending cuts. Doing just one or the other won't do it. Agreed, but until I see some serious spending cuts and a clear, firm (and preferably Constitutionally mandated) path to control spending and reduce the debt, I would be most reluctant to accept the need for any increase in taxation. As would I. We've been promised spending cuts before in exchange for a tax hike. We got the hike....we didn't get the cuts. That's why we have elections. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : Gray Ghost wrote in . 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : "Scout" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 12:05 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgufi$l7$7@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 11:36 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 10:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote: On May 24, 11:24 am, John wrote: On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote: ... Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo you keep attempting to push? Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all of governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair share ... a flat tax can fix that ... Regards, JS I already said the tax data is at irs.gov Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I advocate is the FairTax. Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they will be contributing their fair share to run government ... http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html And how do you know that at the time of purchase? You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay their fair share of the cost of government. IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to go through a check on your income so they know how much tax to charge? C'mon, even you can't be that stupid. The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to catch on ... I was wrong. A flat tax is on income. It replaces the current method of calculating income tax by applying the same tax rate to all income not just wages and salaries. I gave an example of it here in this thread. Did you take the time to read it? It is really quite simply and quite short so you should have no problem understanding it. ;) What you proposed above is a sales tax and it sure as hell isn't flat. A flat sales tax would be the same percentage on whatever was purchased and no matter who purchased it. You need to learn a bit more before you venture out into the real world. Everyone paying their fair share, this is how the discussion began, or, basically, everyone being equally taxed. Let's see person A buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes. Person B buys product Z and pays 7% in taxes What's more fair than that? Same product, same taxes paid. Fair. Or a person earns $50K and is taxed 15% on amount over federal poverty level. Another person earns $500K and is taxed 15% on amount over federal poverty level. Same percentage on taxable income paid. Fair. The big problem with sales taxes is what is taxed. How about food or necessities? Food stamps? Now you begin to list exemptions....and the list goes on......Thanks, Sonny and Cher...... The real problem is... First you have to decide how much the government needs to funtion. That is true under any taxing scheme. To do that you have to decide what the government should be doing. Same here and that is most of the discussion and difference between liberals and conservatives. I think rather than discussing camoflaging how the feds fleece the taxpayer those questions really need to be answered. Yep, but, good luck. Those discussions have been going on for two hundred years. ;) I am of the opinion that taxes overall hurt the economy by taking people's hard earned money. I don't care if you are the bus boy or the owner of the chain. You earened it, it's yours. However, one does get things from having a government. Overall if the bite is reasonably low than whatever negative effects it has are mitigated. But the only really effective way to increase government revenues is to have a going, expanding economy. That way whatever "protection" money the government extorts from the people can increase without increasing the percentage that it takes. True. Of course that would require a complete ovrehaul of most federal policies and the expulsion of Marxists and enviromentalists. One would have to stop viewing tax policy as a method of molding people's behavior and relegate to the neccessary evil it is. Frankly I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how we can tax out way out of the current crisis wherein the debt equals the GDP and is likely to double in 8 years. There is simply no possible way to do it without removing so much wealth from the private sector as to thorougly tank the economy, which will in turn make the problem immeasurably worse. To get out of this will require BOTH taxes and spending cuts. Doing just one or the other won't do it. Well, I disagree on this. The leech class has been feasting on the middle calss for a long time. I think it's time the middle class got a break and the leeches were starved. Given the amount of debt that we are discussing the only things that will work are reducing spending, reducing taxes and regulation so the economy can come back and then the expanding economy will pay it down. Provided the leech class doesn't restart spending. I don't think we can cut enough and get the folks reelected we want in there. Too many people are stuck to too many entitlements for those to be drastically cut.....nibbled at and cut over time, yes.....but not all at once. Medicare, for example, is forecast by the Medicare Trust folks to hit a cost of $931B in the next 10 years. Medicaid will double, and SS will go up by 70%. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Scout" wrote in
: "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in message ... "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... "Sid9" sid9@ bellsouth.net wrote in : "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... Gray Ghost wrote in . 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : "Scout" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote: ... Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture of who pays the federal income tax burden in this country. If you want to talk about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the government then your right. I know of no place that compiles that data. ... OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I need them pointed out to me. If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you have no hope of understanding any data presented to you. Which explains some of your ideas..... If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem ... you are attempting a circular argument ... Just post something which proves your point ... if you can, from the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH! I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data: 2008 Top 1% AGI$380,354 Percentage 38.02 Top 5% AGI$159,619 Percentage 58.72 Top 10% AGI$113,799 Percentage 69.94 Top 25% AGI$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34 Top 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30 Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70 2007 Top 1% AGI$410,096 Percentage 40.42 Top 5% AGI$160,041 Percentage 60.63 Top 10% AGI$113,018 Percentage 71.22 Top 25% AGI$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59 Top 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11 Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89 Here is the site: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html The Virginian-Pilot © May 15, 2011 By Don Tabor Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the check, but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox lies the cause of much of the bitter partisanship and polarization that poisons our political process. But to understand that problem, we must consider how taxes are applied to the production of goods and services. So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to market? A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to be made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income taxes based on his profit from the sale and property tax on his farm and equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of view, just another cost of doing business in the course of earning his living, no different from fuel for his tractor or wages and taxes for employees. Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and taxes, the price they charge the miller must cover their expenses and taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income and savings. Otherwise, there would be no point in growing wheat. All of these costs and taxes were passed on to the miller, embedded in the price of wheat. Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the wheat to the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social Security taxes he withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes, were all passed on to the baker. The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying with it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all those previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their employees, hidden in the price of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his family ate the bread, and, having done so, could not sell it to anyone else and pass the taxes along, as the baker and everyone else before had done. So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with the farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they withheld from all of their employees. From bread to automobiles to brain surgery, the price of everything we buy carries in it the hidden taxes of everyone who contributed to the production of that product or service to the tune of, on average, 23 cents of every dollar we spend for federal taxes alone. Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality, a scheme to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and unknowing tax collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to keep voters from realizing who really bears the burden of those high taxes. There is no way around this central reality that all income and business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are eventually paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods and services. It doesn't matter what tax rate is applied to which tax bracket, or what deductions you receive. These devices change only the degree to which you are a tax collector, but the burden taxes place on your life depends solely on what you spend. Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm. First, it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and services that are provided by highly taxed individuals and companies, like health care, are artificially more expensive than necessary, while raw materials and natural resources are underpriced, leading to overconsumption and waste. But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political process, encouraging government overspending by politicians who exploit the mistaken belief of many voters that government spending can be paid for solely by taxing corporations or the "rich." All of the exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which brings so much ill will to our politics and drives wedges between Americans who would be better served by mutual respect and compassion - is ultimately the meaningless exploitation of a lie. Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates, appears progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive. Currently, the lower income 45 percent of wage earners may pay no income tax directly, but in reality, with their FICA taxes added to the hidden embedded tax, their true federal tax burden is almost 30 percent of their meager income. Voters might well choose differently were they aware that government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone, through an invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of living. Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather, Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com. He is a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton. A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD! Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax as Mr. B. Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B does. No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL. If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then Mr B gets the exact same exemptions. Otherwise, it's not a flat tax. And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is the rich not paying a hundred times what the poor do. And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think so. The best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same percentage without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs. Which is what my flat tax proposal does. AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and why. GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you. Paying the "same percentage" is not fair. The BURDEN is much less on the wealthy. The wealthy are paying most of the income tax burden. You wouldn't be happy with any tax scheme that didn't penalize the wealthy and not charge you a dime. . . They pay the aggregate of most of the money and it has far less impact on their lives than the ordinary working American. To that extent it's unfair. Well, SOB, you mean there's actually an advantage to getting ahead? If there wasn't, then why would people work their asses off to do so? Looks to me like you're simply ****ed because you're poor and they're not. Exactomundo!! Him and his butt buddy, John. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith wrote in news:irk824$d8u$9@dont-
email.me: On 5/25/2011 4:50 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/25/2011 3:59 PM, Scout wrote: "John wrote in message ... On 5/25/2011 12:43 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in news:irh49m$id0$3@dont- email.me: On 5/24/2011 1:18 PM, wrote: ... You chose the easy point of my post to reply to. The point you ignored is that your suggested system - "Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax, the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that way they will be contributing their fair share to run government ..." - is either impossible to implement, or requires a dictatorship. ... Yes, that is a fair system, you simply want to take it literally and say it doesn't work. I am not stuck on any particular system to implement it with. Any system which can demonstrate that it can successfully accomplish the goal, and costing the least, would be great. THINK for a change, John. How would a system like that have to work? How would a merchant know whether to charge 7% sales tax or 42% sales tax or some amount in between? Any system only needs to manage that 1% of those with control of 42.7% of the financial money pay 42.7% of the sales taxes. And that 20% at the top pay 50.3% of the taxes. And just how do you think it knows which one you are? Or who is in those brackets? You are looking at Big Brother from 1984 big time. I simply gave a simplified version of what is to be accomplished. No, you showed that you really don't understand what is involved in that scheme. Those with any common sense would have realized it was over simplified ... REally, really oversimplified....so much so that you don't seem to have any grasp of the basics. I don't give a rats arse how you get the water from the well, just that the water comes from the well ... If you are whining about the costs and fairness of things, you really should care. In this case you are pushing the costs would completely overwhelm the result. I said everyone needs taxed at an equal rate on every dollar earned ... So much for sales tax then. Once again, I really don't care how it is implemented, it just has to work out to a final flat tax on all the money earned ... make a dollar, pay the tax on the dollar, make a hundred, pay the tax time a hundred, make a thousand pay the tax times a thousand ... scalable in either direction. That is, basically, what my flat proposal is. You, however, have been ranting about making the rich pay a hundred times more than the poor guy or schemes which know whether you are in the top 1% or top 20% at the time you buy something. And, has been mentioned, no matter what system is finally chosen, crooks will ALWAYS attempt to escape paying their fair share ... as is happening with the rich elite today ... Nothing you have mentioned will change any of that. You are entitled to your personal opinions and rants, since we both accept that, and since you have offered nothing to back them up ... again, plonk ... Yep, I did....you didn't understand them and thanks for plonking me. Saved me the trouble. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
"Scout" wrote in
: "RD Sandman" wrote in message ... Gray Ghost wrote in . 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : "Scout" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote: ... Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture of who pays the federal income tax burden in this country. If you want to talk about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the government then your right. I know of no place that compiles that data. ... OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I need them pointed out to me. If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you have no hope of understanding any data presented to you. Which explains some of your ideas..... If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem ... you are attempting a circular argument ... Just post something which proves your point ... if you can, from the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH! I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data: 2008 Top 1% AGI$380,354 Percentage 38.02 Top 5% AGI$159,619 Percentage 58.72 Top 10% AGI$113,799 Percentage 69.94 Top 25% AGI$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34 Top 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30 Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70 2007 Top 1% AGI$410,096 Percentage 40.42 Top 5% AGI$160,041 Percentage 60.63 Top 10% AGI$113,018 Percentage 71.22 Top 25% AGI$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59 Top 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11 Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89 Here is the site: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html The Virginian-Pilot © May 15, 2011 By Don Tabor Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the check, but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox lies the cause of much of the bitter partisanship and polarization that poisons our political process. But to understand that problem, we must consider how taxes are applied to the production of goods and services. So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to market? A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to be made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income taxes based on his profit from the sale and property tax on his farm and equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of view, just another cost of doing business in the course of earning his living, no different from fuel for his tractor or wages and taxes for employees. Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and taxes, the price they charge the miller must cover their expenses and taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income and savings. Otherwise, there would be no point in growing wheat. All of these costs and taxes were passed on to the miller, embedded in the price of wheat. Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the wheat to the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social Security taxes he withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes, were all passed on to the baker. The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying with it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all those previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their employees, hidden in the price of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his family ate the bread, and, having done so, could not sell it to anyone else and pass the taxes along, as the baker and everyone else before had done. So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with the farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they withheld from all of their employees. From bread to automobiles to brain surgery, the price of everything we buy carries in it the hidden taxes of everyone who contributed to the production of that product or service to the tune of, on average, 23 cents of every dollar we spend for federal taxes alone. Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality, a scheme to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and unknowing tax collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to keep voters from realizing who really bears the burden of those high taxes. There is no way around this central reality that all income and business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are eventually paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods and services. It doesn't matter what tax rate is applied to which tax bracket, or what deductions you receive. These devices change only the degree to which you are a tax collector, but the burden taxes place on your life depends solely on what you spend. Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm. First, it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and services that are provided by highly taxed individuals and companies, like health care, are artificially more expensive than necessary, while raw materials and natural resources are underpriced, leading to overconsumption and waste. But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political process, encouraging government overspending by politicians who exploit the mistaken belief of many voters that government spending can be paid for solely by taxing corporations or the "rich." All of the exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which brings so much ill will to our politics and drives wedges between Americans who would be better served by mutual respect and compassion - is ultimately the meaningless exploitation of a lie. Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates, appears progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive. Currently, the lower income 45 percent of wage earners may pay no income tax directly, but in reality, with their FICA taxes added to the hidden embedded tax, their true federal tax burden is almost 30 percent of their meager income. Voters might well choose differently were they aware that government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone, through an invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of living. Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather, Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com. He is a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton. A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD! Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax as Mr. B. Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B does. No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL. If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then Mr B gets the exact same exemptions. Otherwise, it's not a flat tax. And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is the rich not paying a hundred times what the poor do. And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think so. The best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same percentage without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs. Which is what my flat tax proposal does. AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and why. GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you. Actually, I think if we fixed the income the federal government had to work with by eliminating their power to impose or increase taxes, I bet the rest would, over time, resolve itself. Somebody has to be able to adjust tax rates... If not Congress then who? As law makers have to live within their means then priorities would be required and those items which were luxuries or not required would keep getting pushed further and further towards the short end of the stick. In a dream world. Unfortunately, in this one, what one set sees and luxuries, the other side sees as entitlements. If we, as a people, decide that the government simply doesn't have the funds to provide the necessary services, then we, as a people, can decide to raise our taxes to provide more funding so such necessary services can exist at a level we desire. Look at the hullabaloo over modifying SS and Medicare and tell me with a straight face that the people will vote for money to provide necessary services and will not vote for money that aren't. Particularly when that opinion of what is on what side of the line is all over the place. We are, after all, the ones paying for it all, so we should have a direct say in how much we will pay. Yep, but look at the above and you can see why a direct democracy won't work. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:52:12 -0400, "Scout" wrote: The "burden" to the lowest income is significant compared to what they make. Really? I've seen no data that shows the relative burden is any less for the wealthy. ya ****ing fool any tax table would show you even if you were too stupid to figure out that someone with just a $1 million pays a pittance in (all) taxes compared to their income than a burger flipper has left over from what it takes to survive. Well, SOB, maybe there is an advantage to getting ahead and busting ass to do so. You might no longer have to live paycheck to paycheck on a substance living condition. Still doesn't establish that the burden is any less for the wealthy individual. Unless you think everyone would be living like a burger flipper. Do you? |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:59:21 -0400, "Scout" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:44:10 -0400, "Scout" wrote: Let's say your burger flipper makes $30,000 and your "wealth class" makes $1,000,000 The burger flipper (given the numbers above, the ones you snipped) would be paying all of $900 in taxes. Your "wealth class on the other hand would be paying $146,400. The effective tax rate, and you love talking about effective rates, would have the effective tax rate on the burger flipper be 3%, your wealth class, on the other hand, would have an effective tax rate of 14.6% $900 for a low income in taxes is almost 90% of what they have over what it takes to live on Let's see about that shall we... Poverty level (ability to survive) is $24,000 Which means he's $6,000 above that. Of which he pays $900 in taxes or....15% of what they have over what it takes to live on. So where did you get 90%? Pull it out of your ass? Because you assumed that a national poverty figure, set by the ****ing idiots that back the wealth class, is a figure that has validity Ok, then what number would you like to use? I don't really care since it's going to be the same for everyone. Second, the $900 you're proud of is only the FICA taxes, not the total taxation paid by a low income earner. Add to that $900, state, local, county, and other federal taxes on food, clothing, shelter, utilities, everything else. Totally missing out on what is being said, aren't you? |
Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
Gray Ghost wrote in
. 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : Gray Ghost wrote in . 97.142: RD Sandman wrote in : "Scout" wrote in : "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 5/24/2011 12:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 11:40 AM, RD Sandman wrote: John wrote in : On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote: ... Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture of who pays the federal income tax burden in this country. If you want to talk about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the government then your right. I know of no place that compiles that data. ... OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I need them pointed out to me. If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you have no hope of understanding any data presented to you. Which explains some of your ideas..... If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem ... you are attempting a circular argument ... Just post something which proves your point ... if you can, from the site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH! I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data: 2008 Top 1% AGI$380,354 Percentage 38.02 Top 5% AGI$159,619 Percentage 58.72 Top 10% AGI$113,799 Percentage 69.94 Top 25% AGI$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34 Top 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30 Bottom 50% AGI$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70 2007 Top 1% AGI$410,096 Percentage 40.42 Top 5% AGI$160,041 Percentage 60.63 Top 10% AGI$113,018 Percentage 71.22 Top 25% AGI$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59 Top 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11 Bottom 50% AGI$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89 Here is the site: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html The Virginian-Pilot © May 15, 2011 By Don Tabor Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the check, but he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox lies the cause of much of the bitter partisanship and polarization that poisons our political process. But to understand that problem, we must consider how taxes are applied to the production of goods and services. So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to market? A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to be made into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income taxes based on his profit from the sale and property tax on his farm and equipment. Those taxes were, from his point of view, just another cost of doing business in the course of earning his living, no different from fuel for his tractor or wages and taxes for employees. Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and taxes, the price they charge the miller must cover their expenses and taxes, plus their after-tax disposable income and savings. Otherwise, there would be no point in growing wheat. All of these costs and taxes were passed on to the miller, embedded in the price of wheat. Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the wheat to the baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social Security taxes he withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes, were all passed on to the baker. The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying with it his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all those previous taxes from the farmer, miller and their employees, hidden in the price of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his family ate the bread, and, having done so, could not sell it to anyone else and pass the taxes along, as the baker and everyone else before had done. So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with the farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they withheld from all of their employees. From bread to automobiles to brain surgery, the price of everything we buy carries in it the hidden taxes of everyone who contributed to the production of that product or service to the tune of, on average, 23 cents of every dollar we spend for federal taxes alone. Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality, a scheme to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and unknowing tax collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to keep voters from realizing who really bears the burden of those high taxes. There is no way around this central reality that all income and business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are eventually paid by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods and services. It doesn't matter what tax rate is applied to which tax bracket, or what deductions you receive. These devices change only the degree to which you are a tax collector, but the burden taxes place on your life depends solely on what you spend. Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the illusion of income-based taxing does a great deal of harm. First, it distorts our economic decisions. Goods and services that are provided by highly taxed individuals and companies, like health care, are artificially more expensive than necessary, while raw materials and natural resources are underpriced, leading to overconsumption and waste. But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political process, encouraging government overspending by politicians who exploit the mistaken belief of many voters that government spending can be paid for solely by taxing corporations or the "rich." All of the exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which brings so much ill will to our politics and drives wedges between Americans who would be better served by mutual respect and compassion - is ultimately the meaningless exploitation of a lie. Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates, appears progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive. Currently, the lower income 45 percent of wage earners may pay no income tax directly, but in reality, with their FICA taxes added to the hidden embedded tax, their true federal tax burden is almost 30 percent of their meager income. Voters might well choose differently were they aware that government spending is ultimately paid for by everyone, through an invisible sales tax disguised as a high cost of living. Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather, Libertarian activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com. He is a dentist in Norfolk and Hampton. A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD! Agreed. A flat tax. Mr A buys a product he pays the same tax as Mr. B. Mr. A pays the same rate of taxes on his income that Mr. B does. No exceptions, no exclusions, except those which apply to ALL. If you're going to exempt Mr. A housing, food, medical, then Mr B gets the exact same exemptions. Otherwise, it's not a flat tax. And it won't fix the problem he is whining about....which is the rich not paying a hundred times what the poor do. And truthfully you never will. It is childish whining to think so. The best you can hope for is that everyone pays the same percentage without a plethora of deductions and weasel outs. Which is what my flat tax proposal does. Indeed and I like it. AFter, of course, you tell me exactly how much the guv needs and why. GG, somehow I doubt that decision is up to you. Yes, but if that question is not answered we will never solve the problem. The problem is that it IS an ongoing problem and always will be. Therfore we need to keep solving it as we go along. There is no magic one shot elixer to fix it. -- Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman) If you woke up this morning.... Don't complain. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com