Beware of the Class Warriors

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

I am a flat-tax guy, to start with. That would remove all the class-war issues. It would also remove all kinds of special-interest loopholes--which is one of the reasons why it has zero chance of coming to pass.

 

[Stella_Barbone]

Total taxes are pretty flat:

 

[clifp]

Normally I lurk. I'll go post an in introduction next, but this is a topic that gets me all worked up....

ChadR:"But I read that the 2009 tax year 47% of all filers paid zero federal income tax and some of them even got credits back. "

.

Terrific first post. I don't agree with all of it but much of it. Welcome to the forums.

 

[obgyn65]

hello Stella - I posted a few months ago on this website saying exactly the same as you did below : I would not mind paying more taxes as long as our society gets better, more accessible healthcare programs or quality education. Not many people agreed with me then...

We actually believe that we should pay a higher tax rate than we currently do.

 

[Midpack]

I believe we will have to increase taxes and reduce spending. But I'd argue that our marginal rates are progressive enough, and we ALL need to pony up with higher rates at all levels. What I disagree with is the let's just tax the rich more, when they already pay more than their share, and especially those who don't even bother to look at the data. That's simple class warfare, as if "the rich" are rich for no other reason than dumb luck.

And the post that said 'I'd be willing to pay more for more/better services' has clearly not bothered to look at our revenues, spending and deficits. We won't come meaningfully closer to balanced budgets until the electorate accepts significant changes in Soc Sec, Medicare, defense and revenues/taxes (individual and Corp BOTH). There are undoubtedly reductions possible in non-discretionary/non-defense spending, but nowhere near enough there alone.

 

[Gatordoc50]

I think we should increase taxes, both at the state and federal level, until it becomes evident that this government intrusion is impeding growth, causing high unemployment, hurting savers, and causing further divide between rich and poor. How long do you think that will take? lol

 

[REWahoo]

Total taxes are pretty flat:

Stella, it would be nice if you provided a source/link for information posted here, such as this graph. Not sure if this came from Fox News, Move On dot Org or....?

 

[Midpack]

Total taxes are pretty flat:

What would fair rates look like in your view? Higher rates on higher income is progressive, as has been posted the top 10% of the population now pays almost 70% of FIT for the population, so I'm trying to understand how much more progressive tax rates should be from your POV.

 

[Nemo2]

There is a pretty simple workable solution to the problem here. In order to have a better country with free health care etc. why don't we face the fact that retirement programs 401's etc are a huge tax give away to the wealthy. Any one who can afford to pile money into a retirement program simply has too much discretionary income. The Idea that any one in that income range should be allowed to put away money tax free when so many struggle every day to just make ends meet borders on obscenity and is absolutely unjust.

Since the money in those accounts was put away tax free it really does not belong to the individual. It is the property of the state until it has had all taxes payed on it. That being true why not just declare an economic emergency and force every one of those rich people to exchange what ever is in those retirement programs for the safest investment in the world, 30 year treasuries, at almost zero interest return. The value in the retirement programs would be enough to create a near utopian country.

Man, I just love satire!

 

[MichaelB]

What would fair rates look like in your view? Higher rates on higher income is progressive, as has been posted the top 10% of the population now pays almost 70% of FIT for the population, so I'm trying to understand how much more progressive tax rates should be from your POV.

The percent of total taxes paid by income group has nothing to do with the progression of the tax curve. The chart posted by Stella Barbone (provenience unknown) shows a similar curve to the data I posted in post #5 (subsequently ignored even though there were requests for hard data) and this data coincides with what I have seen elsewhere. In effect, once incomes move above poverty the effective tax rates paid are almost flat, with very little progression at all.

 

[Alan]

The percent of total taxes paid by income group has nothing to do with the progression of the tax curve. The chart posted by Stella Barbone (provenience unknown) shows a similar curve to the data I posted in post #5 (subsequently ignored even though there were requests for hard data) and this data coincides with what I have seen elsewhere. In effect, once incomes move above poverty the effective tax rates paid are almost flat, with very little progression at all.

FWIW, the chart you posted is much closer to my own experience when I was working. I don't think our effective tax rate was ever above 21% for household incomes well above $200k, and we only took standard deductions. (no mortgage, no State income taxes, in tax years 2004 - 2008).

 

[JohnP]

Who are these people who point fingers and accuse others of being Class Warriors?

Everyone here should be aware that the Publisher of this fine tome, ALEC, is a political spinoff of the Billionaire Koch brothers. Virtually everything put out by ALEC and the Koch brothers is organized-spin.

JohnP

 

[REWahoo]

Everyone here should be aware that the Publisher of this fine tome...

Not sure which "tome" you are referring to. Can you be more specific?

 

[Nemo2]

Not sure which "tome" you are referring to. Can you be more specific?

The original link provided by Midpack.

 

[JohnP]

Thanks Nemo2 - Yes I was referring to this publication from the OP... http://www.alec.org/AM/pdf/tax/11rsps/RSPS_4thEdition1.pdf

JohnP

 

[ERD50]

The percent of total taxes paid by income group has nothing to do with the progression of the tax curve. The chart posted by Stella Barbone (provenience unknown) shows a similar curve to the data I posted in post #5 (subsequently ignored even though there were requests for hard data) and this data coincides with what I have seen elsewhere. In effect, once incomes move above poverty the effective tax rates paid are almost flat, with very little progression at all.

MichealB, it was not ignored at all, and it was appreciated. I also want to see 'the big picture' and that must include all taxes (though, if we are talking federal issues, limiting to federal taxes could be appropriate, FIT, FICA, Medicare, gas tax, plus x,y,z?) I took that data and put it in a spreadsheet (not easy as the pdf formatting hosed up copy/paste for me). So it took a while.

At that point, I was trying to run a few calculations on it, to try to answer my own question -"How much would we need to raise overall rates on 'the rich' to reach our 1.4x spend/revenue gap?"

Here's the ss with just the data from that pdf (plus a few columns on the right with basic calcs), if anyone else want to run some scenarios.

edit/add for recent post:

Virtually everything put out by ALEC and the Koch brothers is organized-spin.

JohnP

JohnP, practically everything put out by anybody is organized spin. We need to parse out the facts and try to make our own sense of it.


-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

At that point, I was trying to run a few calculations on it, to try to answer my own question -"How much would we need to raise overall rates on 'the rich' to reach our 1.4x spend/revenue gap?"

-ERD50

But a combination of spending cuts and tax increases might make this more palatable, as well as more passable...

 

[donheff]

But a combination of spending cuts and tax increases might make this more palatable, as well as more passable...

As might a combination of spending cuts as well as increased revenues from both the rich and the middle class. What many object to is proposals to cut to the bone with no new revenues whatsoever.

 

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Man, I just love satire!

Look out! This is not impossible.

AND you would be surprised how government looks at 'savings'. Savings is anything that is not spent by a household. So, if they take it in taxes, it is by definition, 'savings'.

 

[REWahoo]

Uh oh. I think I see a mod headed this way...

 

[rescueme]

I am shocked, GregLee

Why? H/she met my expectations ...)

 

[rescueme]

Few rich people hate the not-rich.

Ha

Yes, IMHO that is a true statement ...

I don't regret sharing the "blessings" that I/DW have received in this life, but I do have a problem with those that "demand" that which we sacrificed to accumulate to just give to them.

If they made the same sacrifice that I/DW made to achive our financial status and failed, I would look at possibly sharing to make things equal.
But to ask us to finance those who don't give a dam*? Sorry, that's not going to happen.

 

[rescueme]

Any one who can afford to pile money into a retirement program simply has too much discretionary income.

And how would you prepare for retirement, assuming you get SS and nothing else?

 

[ERD50]

But a combination of spending cuts and tax increases might make this more palatable, as well as more passable...

As might a combination of spending cuts as well as increased revenues from both the rich and the middle class. What many object to is proposals to cut to the bone with no new revenues whatsoever.

I agree. That's why I wanted the raw numbers - we can play with them anyway we want.

I'm not trying to delve off into the politics of this, but to just look at the numbers and say "what is feasible". Not to elaborate on this, but just to get it out there to put this in context, I'm fine with revenue increases if ti comes about by simplification of the tax code. And I'm probably be fine with a more progressive tax rate ( additional 'knees' at something above $250K is one thought) - I just don't want it overstated as to how much that can help. I get the impression that many in the general public think that we can keep spending where it is by simply taxing the rich. I need to futz with that ss some more to see if that is feasible.

I think this is a good discussion. Hopefully, there aren't a rash of extreme posts getting deleted that cause the mods a lot of work. I'd hate to see it get closed because some others can't follow the rules and be respectful.

-ERD50

 

[Sevo]

My satire was really more of black humor. You may rest assured that this idea is much more seriously considered that we want to accept. My personal opinion is that some form of this action is going to be absolutely necessary as the debt grows larger and larger and as the plight of the lower and middle income groups deteriorates.

The one critical idea I wish I could get across is this. Every one on this board, people who have enough assets that they can or can even contemplate retirement, are the rich!

There are few absolutes in this world but this is one. As a person with assets and a comfortable non working life style, our idea of paying our "fair share" is going to be radically different from the next voter who is working as hard as they can who is having trouble just keeping the lights on and the water running. Desperate voters will make desperate choices at the polls.

In a nut shell the question is not how much more should we tax the "rich" but is there anything that we can and should do to guide our country towards a more productive out come so that the average person in the country can be more secure , have a productive job, and can have a reasonable hope of having a reasonable retirement.