• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

tax code written for the rich

Corwyn

Unregistered
C
"Democrats have the popular misconception that somehow the Bush tax cut unfairly benefit the rich."
I hear this all the time from the rep talking heads.

Is there ANY evidence for this??? Because everything that I find
tells me exactly the opposite. From all kinds of sources;


http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm
http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1776

There are dozen other links, admittedly more bias, bu especially "perfectly legal as been praised reps adn dems alike as a very balanced book.

Yes, the middle class got a few hundred bucks, but according to some estimated as much as 55% of the tax benefits go to the top 1%. The tax code IS written to benefit the rich.

If this trully benfits the whole country - i.e. trickle down economics - why don't the reps have the balls to come out and tell us the truth and make their case???
 
Should the title of this thread be "Tax Code Written by the Rich"?
 
Corwyn said:
Yes, the middle class got a few hundred bucks, but according to some estimated as much as 55% of the tax benefits go to the top 1%. The tax code IS written to benefit the rich.
Click to expand...
That does sound somewhat excessive. What portion of total income taxes are paid by the top 1%? And are we talking about the top 1% of income earners or the top 1% of income tax payers?

~~ Paul
 
And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.

No rewards for stupidity, bad choices, lack of education.

No penalties for intelligence, good choices, talent.
 
Flat tax woudl be great if it were the ONLY tax. Instead we have all these hidden/not so hidden taxes.

I probably pay a higher % in taxes out of my disposable income than say Teresa Heinz.
 
Phrost said:
And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.

No rewards for stupidity, bad choices, lack of education.

No penalties for intelligence, good choices, talent.
Click to expand...

Jusr cause some one doesn't make much money doesnt mean that they dumb or ignorant.

The richest people I know arent the happiest people I know.
 
Corwyn said:
"Democrats have the popular misconception that somehow the Bush tax cut unfairly benefit the rich."
I hear this all the time from the rep talking heads.
Click to expand...

The key word here is "fair". Republicans have a different concpetion than sane people.

If this trully benfits the whole country - i.e. trickle down economics - why don't the reps have the balls to come out and tell us the truth and make their case???
Click to expand...

The initial argument for Bush's first tax was this: "If the gubmit is runnin' a surplus, then it's takin' too much of YOUR money."

PERFECTLY LEGAL is an excellent book. David Cay Johnston's columns are also required reading.

Prhost blathered:
And I'd like to add that the only fair tax is a flat tax.

No rewards for stupidity, bad choices, lack of education.

No penalties for intelligence, good choices, talent.
Click to expand...

Be careful with what you wish for.

Tmy: what's so great/fair/wonderful about a flat tax? Besides, as Johnston shows (do a keyword search for these forums to see a previous post of mine on him) we basically already have a flat tax.
 
For the sake of discussion, what kind of flat tax? I hear a lot of talk about a flat tax but it seems that exactly how it's implemented is the big thing. I mean, a flat tax of X% beginning at the Y-th earned dollar...but what are X and Y?

I predict that a pure flat tax will never come about. There are a couple things too sacred for the government to get rid of and one of them is the home mortgage deduction. And another of them is 401(k)-type retirement programs.
 
Re: Re: tax code written for the rich

Cain said:

Tmy: what's so great/fair/wonderful about a flat tax? Besides, as Johnston shows (do a keyword search for these forums to see a previous post of mine on him) we basically already have a flat tax.
Click to expand...

Err, not even close, at least from what I understand the flat tax idea to be. We have a progressive tax, with so many loopholes and incentives and what have you, it is the antithesis of the flat tax idea.

Also, neither source on these seemed to address the relative tax for the rich and the poor. Sure, the rich get more money back from the tax refunds, but they paid more to begin with (at least in theory - with the tax laws, who really knows for sure?)
 
Im good with the idea of people payinga certain %. In theory its a good idea. IN THEORY COMMUNISM WORKS!!\\

I dont think a flat tax could work in real world situation.
 
Re: Re: Re: tax code written for the rich

DaveW said:
Err, not even close, at least from what I understand the flat tax idea to be. We have a progressive tax, with so many loopholes and incentives and what have you, it is the antithesis of the flat tax idea.

Also, neither source on these seemed to address the relative tax for the rich and the poor. Sure, the rich get more money back from the tax refunds, but they paid more to begin with (at least in theory - with the tax laws, who really knows for sure?)
Click to expand...

No, we have a mildly progressive federal income tax. If you account for all taxes -- payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc. -- the top and bottom and quintiles pay a very similar percentage. Johnston says taxes are effectively flat.
 
I know I'm not very civilized, but I think the rich should get over it and get used to paying more taxes. They can consider it a fee for not being slaughtered in a communist uprising to redistribute the wealth. Money well spent, when you think about it.

Of course, my opinion will definitely change once I reach a certain income bracket myself:

"Oh my God, I'm rich! I suddenly have an opinion about the capital gains tax!" --Leela, Futurama
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: tax code written for the rich

Cain said:
No, we have a mildly progressive federal income tax. If you account for all taxes -- payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc. -- the top and bottom and quintiles pay a very similar percentage. Johnston says taxes are effectively flat.
Click to expand...

Maybe... I'll take your word for it for now. But that is still decidedly not the idea of a flat tax. Yes, the similar rate is, but the other big part is transparency and ease of use. As a personal experience, though, I certainly pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes now than I did in my old, lower-paying job.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: tax code written for the rich

Cain said:
No, we have a mildly progressive federal income tax. If you account for all taxes -- payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc. -- the top and bottom and quintiles pay a very similar percentage. Johnston says taxes are effectively flat.
Click to expand...

Yeah. When I put 20 gallons of gas in my Jeep and the rich guy in the Porshe puts 20 gallons in his car, we pay the same amount in taxes.

Alot of these Bush tax break guys like to think that Fed income tax is the only tax out there. How convienent when talking "fairness".
 
I propose that the word fair be left out of all discussions about taxes. It implies that there is only one dimension to tax fairness, which is obviously absurd.

How about we start by splitting the income tax into two taxes:
  • A flat service fee per individual. This is for all the services the government provides, whcih are of equal value to all citizens.
  • A graduated income redistribution tax, for purposes of reimbursing the service fee for those who need it, and for subsidizing government projects that cannot be considered a service.

~~ Paul
 
I commonly see two arguments against a progressive income tax. One is that the rich end up paying a greater share of the taxes. But the same would be true under a flat tax.

A conservative once posted these figures to make some misguided point:

Lowest: -2.3%
2nd: 0.3%
3rd: 5.2%
4th: 14.3%
Highest: 82.5%

For comparison, this is what it was before Reagan:

Share of income taxes paid by income quintile (1979):

Lowest: 0.0%
2nd: 4.1%
3rd: 10.7%
4th: 20.2%
Highest: 64.9%
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that marginal tax rates were compressed, the richest 20% ended up paying a greater portion of the total taxes. What these figures do not show is that over the same period the incomes for most people stagnated while high income "earners" became even more insanely wealthy (the Forbes 400, for example, tripled its net wealth between 1983 and 1989; it tripled again under Clinton's term).

The next argument is that as a matter of fairness and morality everyone should pay the same percentage (plus, as Dave says, it's easier). But even under most flat tax plans this isn't true because a certain portion of one's income is exempted. Under the Forbes plan I think the first 32,000 dollars was off-limits. But any sort of exemption renders the tax progressive. Assume a 20% "flat" tax:

Income: 32,000
Tax Burden: 0

Income: 64,000
Tax Burden: 6,400
Tax burden as a percentage of income: 10%

Income: 128,000
Tax Burden: 19,200
Tax burden as a percentage of income: 15%

Omi-God, socialism.

Of course one can always argue that a person making less than 10,000 dollars a year ought to pay 20% of her income to Uncle Sam. But even Republicans aren't that cruel.

A modest proposal.

I've asked it in the past: Why should conservatives push for a consumption tax or a flat (percentage) tax? When they say flat tax they should mean a flat tax. What they should mean is a flat fee. For example, a person making 10 million dollars a year gets taxed 50 grand. A person making 25,000 dollars a year gets taxed 50 grand (or whatever fee is agreed upon by our economically diverse, democratically elected legislators). Those who can't pay 50,000 dollars can sell themselves to the rich as serfs or something. I dunno, let the market decide.

Even under a flat tax, the rich, CEOs especially, are basically slaves to the poor. How is that you ask? Because without a flat fee you have the wealthy subsidizing those who refuse to pay their fair share. National defense doesn't come cheap. This is redistributionism, forced labor, slavery.*

My flat fee is fair.

*I will note that some soft-headed crypto leftist Republicans argue that the wealthy should pay more for national defense since more of their property is protected. Yeah, that's it, punish the rich for being rich.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:

[*]A flat service fee per individual. This is for all the services the government provides, whcih are of equal value to all citizens.
[/list]

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

How many govt services are EQUAL to ALL people???

Lets take the FAA. I fly a couple of times a year vs. a business man who flies 50x vs. and old lady who never flies. You can argue how we all benefit from the safe air travel system.

How would your service fee system work??
 
I certainly think that tax codes should be revisited every time there is a significant change in cost-of-living and the distribution of wealth.

Some areas could get tax breaks while others tax increases.
 
We should just turn over tax collection to the Mafia. Tell them how much we want, and let them go get it. How? You don't want to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom