of course, how much money would you save if you just taxxed everyone at 20% after the first $27,000. you could get rid of the IRS (at least the majority of it).
just take it straight out of payroll, and there's no need for an IRS. the rich would still pay more, the poor would pay nothing, and the middle class would pay less. everyone's happy. (well, probably not but oh well)
Quote:
The higher income bracket is on the whole paying proportionately less than the middle class etc etc.
The relative tax burden on the middle class from before the tax cuts to after the tax cuts is higher than the same tax burden for the upper class. That is taxes for the rich were decreased more so than taxes for the middle class overall.
The relative tax burden on the middle class from before the tax cuts to after the tax cuts is higher than the same tax burden for the upper class. That is taxes for the rich were decreased more so than taxes for the middle class overall.
Could that possibly be a result of taxes being made less progressive? Duh. In order to make taxes fair, those that are taxed at the highest rate will receive the most cuts to flatten out the rates. It's simple math really and it really is perfectly fair. Where I disagree with Bush is in the belief that his tax cuts helped stimulate the economy. Lowering the payroll tax would have helped stimulate the economy much more effectively.
I am starting to like you more and more. Sorry I got you banned that one time. No hard feelings?
And I'm starting to like both of you more. On my first visit to AO in a long time I find myself agreeing (for the most part) with SDW2001 AND BR! I have to go read my Bible now and see if this is a sign of the apocalypse. (sp?)
Back on topic, Loopy says that 10 years ago the middle class paid 15 cents on the dollar and now pay 18 cents on the dollar in taxes. I want to know what they paid when Bush came in to office approx 3 1/2 years ago. If they were paying more than 18 % back then, then I don't see how his tax cuts screw the middle class.
The poor, according to the Wall Street Journal, are just a bunch of lucky duckies. What those WSJ editorialists wouldn't give to be poor, because those lucky poor people don't have to pay much in taxes:
Quote:
This complicated system of progressivity and targeted rewards is creating a nation of two different tax-paying classes: those who pay a lot and those who pay very little. And as fewer and fewer people are responsible for paying more and more of all taxes, the constituency for tax cutting, much less for tax reform, is eroding. Workers who pay little or no taxes can hardly be expected to care about tax relief for everybody else. They are also that much more detached from recognizing the costs of government.
All of which suggests that the last thing the White House should do now is come up with more exemptions, deductions and credits that will shrink the tax-paying population even further.
In other words, they think it's wrong that the poor are paying little in federal income taxes, because then they won't be mad at gov't and taxes, i.e., they won't buy the standard Republican line. So Republicans need to make sure that taxes are high, so that people stay mad about taxes and vote for Republicans because they believe Republicans are the ones who will, uh, keep their taxes low. It's beautiful in an evil-genius, Bond-villain kind of way.
So how lucky are these duckies really?
First off, the rather large flaw in the idea that the poor don't pay taxes is that they're talking only about federal income taxes - the poor do pay social security, medicare, sales taxes, etc. etc. Yet they use the term "taxes" to imply all taxes, so if you don't think about it much you'll just assume what they're saying is true.
Second, those unfortunate wealthy people have seen a huge rise in their wealth and income, while those lucky poor and lower- to middle- classes have at best remained stagnant.
From this report, which has another interesting statistic about the total national wealth and how it has shifted over the past 25 years:
Share of National After-Tax Income
Bottom 40%
1979: 19%
2000: 15%
Top 1%
1979: 8%
2000: 16%
For whatever reason, whether it's our tax structure or political influence or inheritance or something else about our economy, the rich have done extremely well and the rest have not. But no, those poor people are really the lucky ones.
And why do people insist upon talking about Bush's tax cuts out of the context of spending? They aren't real tax cuts unless he decreases gov't spending, but Bush has increased spending more than any other president in a generation. All we've done is reduce the payments on our credit card bill. We still owe the money. And that's supposed to be a good thing? Wake up folks.
(related but not directly: How do people become homeless?)
Think. A free market system does not encourage economic mobility at all. If your parents are middle class you most likely will be middle class, the same goes for upper class, and lower class. You need money to make money, isn't that a well accepted phrase in the upper echelons of our free market society? Why doesn't that apply to all people?
Do you have any idea how our system works?
Poor is relative. The poor of today in the United States are still more likely to rent, but a fair percentage own their own home. They have one car, cable television, one video game system, a VCR, and like everyone else, are more likely to be battling obesity rather than hunger.
The middle class home around World War II was around 900 sq feet. Families might have owned one car, and were very unlikely to own a television. Does that mean the middle class was poor? It is relative. The wealthy today might own several $50k+ cars. Does that mean you are poor if you own two cars worth $5-7,000. Relatively yes, but you would be quite wealthy by pretty much any world standard and it would be quite hard to argue someone should have income redistributed so you can afford a nice garage for your two cars instead of a carport.
As for lack of mobility, what are you smoking? I've watched plenty of families change their financial status be it for better or for worse. Most poor do move up. I was "poor" in college because I was making probably $6-7000 a year if I was lucky. I do not make that now obviously. The reason most people stop at middle class is because they fear risk and have middle class assumptions. However the "rich" are supposedly about 3-5% of us which means there are lots of them, and they are pretty common.
Wow. Read the constitution my dear man. Read it and keep it on you, it could fit in your pocket. The preamble has some nice words about providing for the general welfare of the population, but I guess that has nothing to do with the actual welfare of the people, i suppose it has something to do with, well, I don't know since you obviously forgot all about it...
I would suggest you read it yourself since they don't PROVIDE the general welfare. They PROMOTE it.
Could that possibly be a result of taxes being made less progressive? Duh. In order to make taxes fair, those that are taxed at the highest rate will receive the most cuts to flatten out the rates. It's simple math really and it really is perfectly fair. Where I disagree with Bush is in the belief that his tax cuts helped stimulate the economy. Lowering the payroll tax would have helped stimulate the economy much more effectively.
So basically you dont believe there is an undue burden on the lower class to survive in this country? The most logical example is a consideration of the cost of living in an area is generally defined by what the middle class is willing to pay. The poverty line is below the cost of living almost everywhere in this country. If we were to have a regressive flat tax there would be a sizable chunk of the population whose livelihood would be taken away by taxation, simply put they would be taxed into poverty. Taxation, even our progressive tax system ensures that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class stays the same. This entire process is only accelerated as the tax becomes regressive. Taxes are essential for the maintanence of this country, but at the same time they need to be formatted such that considerations of livelihood are made.
I would suggest you read it yourself since they don't PROVIDE the general welfare. They PROMOTE it.
Nick
It's really sad when you have to argue with semantics. Are you going to now say that because they use the word insure, the government needs to take out a policy on tranquility?
Your examples are ridiculous. My parents were below the poverty line while my father was in Medical School. The thing is, they weren't always below the poverty line, and well, my dad is a physician.
I can cite examples out the yin yang too my good man. But specific examples while tugging at the heartstrings of man do not make for good arguments. Overall trends are what make good arguments.
[Rant] The wealthy clearly benefit more financially from this country's freedoms/laws (and off shore banks) so it is a reasonable argument to suggest that since they do benefit so much from the freedoms they should be more willing to dole out money to maintain the government that maintains their social/financial status. [/Rant]
It's really sad when you have to argue with semantics. Are you going to now say that because they use the word insure, the government needs to take out a policy on tranquility?
Hey if you are going to slap someone down as ignorant you had best at least know what words you are using.
As for your example where words can have multiple definitions, what does that have to do with using the wrong word? You didn't use the right word with a misunderstood definition. You used the wrong word, while chastizing someone about their understanding.
There are no functional differences to any of the words in the preamble (in regrads to the verbs used to describe what the more perfect union needs to do).
Your examples are ridiculous. My parents were below the poverty line while my father was in Medical School. The thing is, they weren't always below the poverty line, and well, my dad is a physician.
I can cite examples out the yin yang too my good man. But specific examples while tugging at the heartstrings of man do not make for good arguments. Overall trends are what make good arguments.
Yeah, well thanks for proving my point precisely. Your parents demonstrated upward mobility as do most other people as they go through life. Thus even though they may have been poor for a period, they were not poor for life. If you had pointed at how "oppressed" they were while attending medical school, you would have looked ridiculous because people understand the trade-offs of going to school and forgoing some income today to get much more income tomorrow.
That is why your argument is such bunk. Because the OVERALL trend is upward mobility out of poverty. Just because some only make it to middle class or upper middle class doesn't mean the system is oppressive or broken.
Find for me the percentage of people that stay in poverty their entire lifetime and never leave it. I would bet you it is a profoundly small percentage of the general population.
There are no functional differences to any of the words in the preamble (in regrads to the verbs used to describe what the more perfect union needs to do).
If you can't understand it, then don't lecture on it.
Actually I'd say the poor benefit more from the freedoms ensured by the government. After all in countries that are not free the poor are completely trampled over while the rich rule the system.
Actually I'd say the poor benefit more from the freedoms ensured by the government. After all in countries that are not free the poor are completely trampled over while the rich rule the system.
Note I said financially.
(Secondly, and much less importantly, how is your claim any different than what actually occurs here?)
of course, how much money would you save if you just taxxed everyone at 20% after the first $27,000. you could get rid of the IRS (at least the majority of it)....just take it straight out of payroll, and there's no need for an IRS.
The point of David Johnson's book (I saw him on NOW last night, too) is that there are two classes of taxpayers. The vast majority of us, who get our taxes deducted from payroll and really can't cheat the IRS too badly; and the uber-rich, who are far above all that. It wasn't about working class vs. upper class, but the super-super-rich vs. everyone. He mentioned the 145 people with the highest incomes in the country, whose incomes were all above (I think) $100M/yr.
Because of the nature of their wealth, they don't pay payroll taxes, they easily distort and hide income, the hide income in partnerships with more layers than an onion peel, move income offshore, and almost never get audited by the IRS anymore. And it's all perfectly legal, not in the least because they buy the access that they need to get the loopholes passed that they need. The net result is that the super-rich pay as little or less in taxes (as a percentage of income) than the upper-middle-class worker who pulls down $200k on the payroll, and the tax burden gets shifted more and more to the upper-middle class.
"Those people" would love to hear us bickering about the inequality of the income tax ladder, because they're simply above it, and it keep our attention away from the real problem.
Comments
just take it straight out of payroll, and there's no need for an IRS. the rich would still pay more, the poor would pay nothing, and the middle class would pay less. everyone's happy. (well, probably not but oh well)
The higher income bracket is on the whole paying proportionately less than the middle class etc etc.
how exactly is that?
Originally posted by SDW2001
I am starting to like you more and more. Sorry I got you banned that one time. No hard feelings?
It's all good. It's dumb to hold grudges in life, especially on internet forums where there is no personal contact anyway.
Originally posted by alcimedes
how exactly is that?
The relative tax burden on the middle class from before the tax cuts to after the tax cuts is higher than the same tax burden for the upper class. That is taxes for the rich were decreased more so than taxes for the middle class overall.
Originally posted by billybobsky
The relative tax burden on the middle class from before the tax cuts to after the tax cuts is higher than the same tax burden for the upper class. That is taxes for the rich were decreased more so than taxes for the middle class overall.
Could that possibly be a result of taxes being made less progressive? Duh. In order to make taxes fair, those that are taxed at the highest rate will receive the most cuts to flatten out the rates. It's simple math really and it really is perfectly fair. Where I disagree with Bush is in the belief that his tax cuts helped stimulate the economy. Lowering the payroll tax would have helped stimulate the economy much more effectively.
Originally posted by SDW2001 (referring to BR)
I am starting to like you more and more. Sorry I got you banned that one time. No hard feelings?
And I'm starting to like both of you more. On my first visit to AO in a long time I find myself agreeing (for the most part) with SDW2001 AND BR! I have to go read my Bible now and see if this is a sign of the apocalypse. (sp?)
Back on topic, Loopy says that 10 years ago the middle class paid 15 cents on the dollar and now pay 18 cents on the dollar in taxes. I want to know what they paid when Bush came in to office approx 3 1/2 years ago. If they were paying more than 18 % back then, then I don't see how his tax cuts screw the middle class.
This complicated system of progressivity and targeted rewards is creating a nation of two different tax-paying classes: those who pay a lot and those who pay very little. And as fewer and fewer people are responsible for paying more and more of all taxes, the constituency for tax cutting, much less for tax reform, is eroding. Workers who pay little or no taxes can hardly be expected to care about tax relief for everybody else. They are also that much more detached from recognizing the costs of government.
All of which suggests that the last thing the White House should do now is come up with more exemptions, deductions and credits that will shrink the tax-paying population even further.
In other words, they think it's wrong that the poor are paying little in federal income taxes, because then they won't be mad at gov't and taxes, i.e., they won't buy the standard Republican line. So Republicans need to make sure that taxes are high, so that people stay mad about taxes and vote for Republicans because they believe Republicans are the ones who will, uh, keep their taxes low. It's beautiful in an evil-genius, Bond-villain kind of way.
So how lucky are these duckies really?
First off, the rather large flaw in the idea that the poor don't pay taxes is that they're talking only about federal income taxes - the poor do pay social security, medicare, sales taxes, etc. etc. Yet they use the term "taxes" to imply all taxes, so if you don't think about it much you'll just assume what they're saying is true.
Second, those unfortunate wealthy people have seen a huge rise in their wealth and income, while those lucky poor and lower- to middle- classes have at best remained stagnant.
From this report, which has another interesting statistic about the total national wealth and how it has shifted over the past 25 years:
Share of National After-Tax Income
Bottom 40%
1979: 19%
2000: 15%
Top 1%
1979: 8%
2000: 16%
For whatever reason, whether it's our tax structure or political influence or inheritance or something else about our economy, the rich have done extremely well and the rest have not. But no, those poor people are really the lucky ones.
And why do people insist upon talking about Bush's tax cuts out of the context of spending? They aren't real tax cuts unless he decreases gov't spending, but Bush has increased spending more than any other president in a generation. All we've done is reduce the payments on our credit card bill. We still owe the money. And that's supposed to be a good thing? Wake up folks.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Human worth by the amount of money they have?
How do people "become" poor?
(related but not directly: How do people become homeless?)
Think. A free market system does not encourage economic mobility at all. If your parents are middle class you most likely will be middle class, the same goes for upper class, and lower class. You need money to make money, isn't that a well accepted phrase in the upper echelons of our free market society? Why doesn't that apply to all people?
Do you have any idea how our system works?
Poor is relative. The poor of today in the United States are still more likely to rent, but a fair percentage own their own home. They have one car, cable television, one video game system, a VCR, and like everyone else, are more likely to be battling obesity rather than hunger.
The middle class home around World War II was around 900 sq feet. Families might have owned one car, and were very unlikely to own a television. Does that mean the middle class was poor? It is relative. The wealthy today might own several $50k+ cars. Does that mean you are poor if you own two cars worth $5-7,000. Relatively yes, but you would be quite wealthy by pretty much any world standard and it would be quite hard to argue someone should have income redistributed so you can afford a nice garage for your two cars instead of a carport.
As for lack of mobility, what are you smoking? I've watched plenty of families change their financial status be it for better or for worse. Most poor do move up. I was "poor" in college because I was making probably $6-7000 a year if I was lucky. I do not make that now obviously. The reason most people stop at middle class is because they fear risk and have middle class assumptions. However the "rich" are supposedly about 3-5% of us which means there are lots of them, and they are pretty common.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
Wow. Read the constitution my dear man. Read it and keep it on you, it could fit in your pocket. The preamble has some nice words about providing for the general welfare of the population, but I guess that has nothing to do with the actual welfare of the people, i suppose it has something to do with, well, I don't know since you obviously forgot all about it...
I would suggest you read it yourself since they don't PROVIDE the general welfare. They PROMOTE it.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
Could that possibly be a result of taxes being made less progressive? Duh. In order to make taxes fair, those that are taxed at the highest rate will receive the most cuts to flatten out the rates. It's simple math really and it really is perfectly fair. Where I disagree with Bush is in the belief that his tax cuts helped stimulate the economy. Lowering the payroll tax would have helped stimulate the economy much more effectively.
So basically you dont believe there is an undue burden on the lower class to survive in this country? The most logical example is a consideration of the cost of living in an area is generally defined by what the middle class is willing to pay. The poverty line is below the cost of living almost everywhere in this country. If we were to have a regressive flat tax there would be a sizable chunk of the population whose livelihood would be taken away by taxation, simply put they would be taxed into poverty. Taxation, even our progressive tax system ensures that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class stays the same. This entire process is only accelerated as the tax becomes regressive. Taxes are essential for the maintanence of this country, but at the same time they need to be formatted such that considerations of livelihood are made.
Originally posted by trumptman
I would suggest you read it yourself since they don't PROVIDE the general welfare. They PROMOTE it.
Nick
It's really sad when you have to argue with semantics. Are you going to now say that because they use the word insure, the government needs to take out a policy on tranquility?
Originally posted by trumptman
Poor is relative. Blah blah blah.
Your examples are ridiculous. My parents were below the poverty line while my father was in Medical School. The thing is, they weren't always below the poverty line, and well, my dad is a physician.
I can cite examples out the yin yang too my good man. But specific examples while tugging at the heartstrings of man do not make for good arguments. Overall trends are what make good arguments.
Originally posted by billybobsky
It's really sad when you have to argue with semantics. Are you going to now say that because they use the word insure, the government needs to take out a policy on tranquility?
Hey if you are going to slap someone down as ignorant you had best at least know what words you are using.
As for your example where words can have multiple definitions, what does that have to do with using the wrong word? You didn't use the right word with a misunderstood definition. You used the wrong word, while chastizing someone about their understanding.
Just grab your ankles and take it like a man.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
Your examples are ridiculous. My parents were below the poverty line while my father was in Medical School. The thing is, they weren't always below the poverty line, and well, my dad is a physician.
I can cite examples out the yin yang too my good man. But specific examples while tugging at the heartstrings of man do not make for good arguments. Overall trends are what make good arguments.
Yeah, well thanks for proving my point precisely. Your parents demonstrated upward mobility as do most other people as they go through life. Thus even though they may have been poor for a period, they were not poor for life. If you had pointed at how "oppressed" they were while attending medical school, you would have looked ridiculous because people understand the trade-offs of going to school and forgoing some income today to get much more income tomorrow.
That is why your argument is such bunk. Because the OVERALL trend is upward mobility out of poverty. Just because some only make it to middle class or upper middle class doesn't mean the system is oppressive or broken.
Find for me the percentage of people that stay in poverty their entire lifetime and never leave it. I would bet you it is a profoundly small percentage of the general population.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
There are no functional differences to any of the words in the preamble (in regrads to the verbs used to describe what the more perfect union needs to do).
If you can't understand it, then don't lecture on it.
Clear enough?
Nick
Originally posted by Scott
Actually I'd say the poor benefit more from the freedoms ensured by the government. After all in countries that are not free the poor are completely trampled over while the rich rule the system.
Note I said financially.
(Secondly, and much less importantly, how is your claim any different than what actually occurs here?)
Originally posted by alcimedes
of course, how much money would you save if you just taxxed everyone at 20% after the first $27,000. you could get rid of the IRS (at least the majority of it)....just take it straight out of payroll, and there's no need for an IRS.
The point of David Johnson's book (I saw him on NOW last night, too) is that there are two classes of taxpayers. The vast majority of us, who get our taxes deducted from payroll and really can't cheat the IRS too badly; and the uber-rich, who are far above all that. It wasn't about working class vs. upper class, but the super-super-rich vs. everyone. He mentioned the 145 people with the highest incomes in the country, whose incomes were all above (I think) $100M/yr.
Because of the nature of their wealth, they don't pay payroll taxes, they easily distort and hide income, the hide income in partnerships with more layers than an onion peel, move income offshore, and almost never get audited by the IRS anymore. And it's all perfectly legal, not in the least because they buy the access that they need to get the loopholes passed that they need. The net result is that the super-rich pay as little or less in taxes (as a percentage of income) than the upper-middle-class worker who pulls down $200k on the payroll, and the tax burden gets shifted more and more to the upper-middle class.
"Those people" would love to hear us bickering about the inequality of the income tax ladder, because they're simply above it, and it keep our attention away from the real problem.