|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 17, 2012 20:16:03 GMT -5
Would you support the rich paying all taxes to support our government?
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 17, 2012 22:56:42 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Aug 18, 2012 6:35:42 GMT -5
Would you support the rich paying all taxes to support our government? no, that is a silly thing to say. makes no sense. But why can they at least pay the same amount as the poor person who is paying % wise a lot more in taxes? why should the wealthy get to hide assets, and to pay less % of the claimed income than another person with less money. I make lets say 100,100 you make 100,000 I pay 20% you pay 38%.everything else being the same, except i made more. Is that ok with you? (these are not numbers that are in line with the tax law, just an example) or why should a millionaire pay 14% taxes, while a person whose income is 60,000 pay 38% of his /her income? |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 18, 2012 7:54:32 GMT -5
The tax issue is a red herring when our nation's leaders should be talking about the causes of income disparity between the economic classes. Partisan politics spoon feeds both sides to keep this simpleton mentalit that it's the rich's fault for our economic down turn. All the tax hikes described aren't going to fix our nations' production and wage woes. The fact is, the world changed and the US was too reliant on how things were in the "good old days." that they left the American worker holding the ball when it came to converting our nation into a "skilled" work force. "Here... is the actual story of the connection between income trends and changes in political economy and social norms. Economic policies were altered to give wider scope to entrepreneurship and competition, in accordance with advances in economics. Social norms shifted away from an emphasis on loyalty to the group and toward a greater emphasis on personal fulfillment (including through elective membership in groups of our own choosing). The upshot of these changes was to add to the increase in income inequality over the past generation through the following channels: • Increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (through increased immigration) Decreasing the relative demand for less skilled workers (through increased imports of labor-intensive products) • Decreasing the ability of less-skilled workers to command above-market wages through minimum wage laws • Decreasing wage compression through collective bargaining - I have been driving this point unti I'm blue in the face. • Increasing competition among employers for the most-skilled workers (because of a stronger connection between firm productivity and firm performance, and reduced barriers to moving from firm to firm)" When you study this, you can see that America's production continued great out puts, but the median wages began to drift after 1980. You can blame this on the tax cuts of the Reagan years but the Reagan years also lifted brought about steep competition and a greater emphasis on invidual accomplishment. Competition and individualist pursuits coupled with technological advances and the break down in the familly unit are direct correlations to income disparity. The above statement would give rise as to why TW and I disagree because he and I were raised with different mentalities. He raised in an era of loyalty to one business, etc while I was raised and groomed that through competition and individiaul pursuits that the tide of all working that way would raise all ships. In politics, it needs to be appreciated what has shaped the views of people. Many don't know this, but the mass media markets to 8th graders. Most Americans only have 8th grade reading comprehension, so is it any wonder we hear talking heads and leaders speaking to thAmericans as if they're stupid? Their not going to catch on? They do because they can. Also, I was watching C-Span yesterday and economist were explaing that the top 10% have 2.5 workers per household while the bottom 20 percent have .50 workers. An example of how income disparity affects the different economic classes. www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/Nostalgianomics.pdfPS. Happycamper, your post is crap. How capital gains taxes work: taxes.about.com/od/capitalgains/a/CapitalGainsTax_4.htmHow income taxes work: taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2012-Tax-Year.htmIf you want it fair, than you either raise the tax rates on the higher brackets or you lower the top tier taxes. Not to mention, you start making the other 53 percent of Americans who dont' pay income taxes, start paying them. Cetainly there is room to close loop holes, such as deducting the interest payments on 2nd and 3rd homes as the purpose of that deduction is to encourage home ownership for the middle class. But as usual, Congress writes legislation that benefits them as they often carry two homes or more with having one home in their home district and another abode in D.C. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 18, 2012 8:51:24 GMT -5
I heard a similar statement to the one you made in your last paragraph, about getting people to pay taxes, who don't pay them now. The difference was, he said 48%. After a somewhat lengthy discussion, we agreed that the figure is misleading because of a lot of things that created the high figure. If you take a moment to really rationalize what has happened, and how more "budget cuts" will do nothing more than add to this figure, you come to the realization that our government has to force industry and businesses to strongly consider moving operations back to the US, or face heavy taxation on products shipped into this country. This should not be a question of right versus left. People should be smart enough to realize what's causing this issue, not blindly follow political statements by people who lie to them constantly. Here's the cause. We all have to live with it, and force change. www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505 |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 18, 2012 9:05:37 GMT -5
You don't need to worry about me making that mistake. That is why I am clear to say, "No income taxes." Certainly I know Americans pay taxes in every aspect of their lives from property, to sales, to payroll and on, and on, and on, and on and on. That fact of life should be troublesome to many Americans in and of itself, but is also to complicated that most Americans would be bored with the discussion and the governmetn goes on taxing, growing government, raising more taxes to feed the growing government that has resulted in the tax base being exhausted developing a need to borrorw money to keep the bloated governmetn running. And I agree that people should not be following blind statements about what causes what in this country. The one percent were merely the beneficiaries of a work force that became less skilled and more dependent on government that was short sighted to see the emergence of an intertwining, global economy. The problem runs much deeper than, "So and so doesn't pay their fair share in taxes."  Experts have said that you could raise taxes to what Obama wants and it woudln't even put a dent in the deficit. Real reform is needed, not this chicken-s%$t lip service. |
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Aug 18, 2012 10:47:48 GMT -5
you do not get whaT I WROTE,,, do you think a millionaire should pay 14% of his taxable income vs, the 60,000 pay 38% of theirs
and any idiot knows by now that the whole system needs to be restructured.
Fact; one trillion dollars will be added to the deficit in 10 years if the Rep. bill giving the break to the 2% making over 250,000 dollars holds and all else is the same.
top 2% earning 800,000 year would see more tax breaks for them and nobody else.
please tell me how you can force the people who do not pay taxes at all to get them to do so,, I would love to see the bums pay there fair share.
Name one President in your young tenor on this earth that does not feed lip service<< they are all bribed by the wealthy to allocate the huge sums of money there direction. If you cannot see that, good luck.
Then I say this as well, to make any change maybe if they got 85% of the voteing public to vote , it would start to send a message, but alas the people who vote the most are the ones earning 80,000 of more, it because even as bad as the system is they realize not to do ANYTHING is worse than casting your vote for the best of the group in each persons mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 19, 2012 14:36:27 GMT -5
do you think a millionaire should pay 14% of his taxable income vs, the 60,000 pay 38%... No. because millionaires are taxed higher for INCOME EARNED. SEE BELOW Income derived from investments--WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS TAXABLE INCOME--is only taxed at 14%. Quit regurgitating what Obama and Buffett tell you. They may just be manipulating you. [Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)] •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus •25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus •28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus •33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus •35% on taxable income over $388,350. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 19, 2012 16:12:20 GMT -5
Too simplistic for openers PC. No variables are shown for dependents, or other things that modify the actual income. In the process, we'd be collecting taxes from people only to hand it back to them through assistance programs. Do I disagree with the figures? Not really. Why? Because I don't consider myself expert enough to produce figures that are truly accurate as far as how they'd enter into the scope of creating independence for the average American. As far as the figures themselves, I can go back to past tax brackets and say that I believe people are deluding themselves into believing they pay more today than in the past. You can't base it on the total dollars paid. That's not a true picture. Someone paying 14% in the past obviously paid less taxes than someone today, at 10%. The reason is simple. The person from yesteryear was making $100 a week, and paid out $14 in taxes each week. Today, the same job pays $400 a week, and 10% of that is $40. That's the way politicians deceive people. They say you pay "more" in taxes, when in reality, you actually pay less in percentage, and based on the value of a dollar between those days and now, it's even less outlay today, because the dollar has lost value considerably more. Here's the tax brackets, top & bottom, over the years: www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.htmlHow about deductions for dependents? That's changed dramatically as well. Look at these figures, and you'll see just how much of a break people get today, as compared to the past. www.ehow.com/info_8671839_history-personal-tax-deduction-dependents.htmlMy personal opinion is that the US has to return to a system of taxation that rewards small business owners and workers for being part of the system that creates a tax base that works for the nation, and the entrepreneurs who invest in this country directly should receive incentives. All of this based on total income, and fairly proportioned, not on percentage, but based on a relative scale that equates for contributions that create reason for all to thrive. As for those, who would rather put their wealth into foreign manufacturing, and investments, pay taxes at a rate that's exacted by other nations throughout the world, which often approaches 80% of gross profits. |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 19, 2012 16:26:28 GMT -5
The brackets I offered were for a single person; its baseline.
What is simplistic is trying to equate that the Capital Gains tax rate is commensurate with earned income tax rates. The two are being interhcanged in the political realm and its complete garabage when trying to have a constructve debate about tax fairness.
I completely agree with your last 2 paragraphs, but many would point out that we are being "old fashioned" in our approach to an emerging world economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Aug 20, 2012 6:50:31 GMT -5
do you think a millionaire should pay 14% of his taxable income vs, the 60,000 pay 38%... No. because millionaires are taxed higher for INCOME EARNED. SEE BELOW Income derived from investments--WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS TAXABLE INCOME--is only taxed at 14%. Quit regurgitating what Obama and Buffett tell you. They may just be manipulating you. [Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)] •10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus •15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus •25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus •28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus •33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus •35% on taxable income over $388,350. you do realize that is something #35% over, if they do nothing with the taxable income, but in reality, they take the money defer it, to shelters etc, so they pay less. get more later. |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 20, 2012 13:55:48 GMT -5
Pssst. This lower-middle income person does the same thing with his income through his 403b. Shhhhhh....I dont' want Obama's goon squad finding out. My taxes may go up. Oh wait, they already have. Never mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 20, 2012 14:03:21 GMT -5
Not everyone is eligible for 403b. You should know that.
Most Americans are only eligible for the 401k plan which is severely limited.
In fact, the 401k and the normal interest rates from banks, would end up losing real value over a 20 year period of time being deposited. In the end, if the person was making enough money to enter a tax bracket including the 401k, they'd get screwed for the second time, by paying taxes on something worth less than when they deposited it.
Maybe the 403b should disappear as well. It's favoritism.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Aug 20, 2012 14:15:19 GMT -5
401 K's are tax deferred as well. 403B's are, essentially, 401K's for non-profits and they are not linked to the average interst rate of banks. They are tied to the stock market and its peformance..
I make 7-10% on my portfolio, but don't tell happycrapper that or he'll want a share.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Aug 20, 2012 14:41:11 GMT -5
You also forgot to mention that you have more investment latitude within the 403b than a person does with the 401k, thereby making profit taking easier, but at the same time, riskier.
|
|
