Do the rich, "pay their fair share"?

[SoonerScribe]

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so...

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[yermom]

where is this wonderful place where all the rich people move to not pay taxes?

[SoonerScribe]

Switzerland, long a tax haven for the wealthy, has one of the lowest marginal tax rates, at 20%. Unemployment in the nation, as of 2009, stood at less than 3%.

Obviously, it's not that they would not be paying taxes in Switzerland, it's that they would be paying 'lower' taxes.

Next question?

[Chuck Bao]

All Americans must report their income to the IRS and pay taxes on foreign earned income in excess of something like $90k, as well as report to the Treasury Department all foreign bank accounts. I guess the truly rich could renounce their US citizenship, but that is straying from the point.

[SoonerScribe]

All Americans must report their income to the IRS and pay taxes on foreign earned income in excess of something like $90k, as well as report to the Treasury Department all foreign bank accounts. I guess the truly rich could renounce their US citizenship, but that is straying from the point.

That is 'EXACTLY' the point...

[Midtowner]

What a dumb analogy. A beer = government services?

Does the rich man or the poor man benefit more from government protection of his assets? Which man is going to be much more likely to go to war to protect those assets? How did the poor man end up poor in the first place? Did the rich man ship his old job to China?

Some of the rich may go "John Galt" on us, but the vast majority will not regardless of the tax rate. The fact is that during some of the middle class's most prosperous times, taxes on the rich were north of 90%.

This class war against the middle class and poor needs to stop.

[XingTheRubicon]

"Winners make the rules."



Sincerely,



-The history of Earth

[Curly Bill]

"Winners make the rules."



Sincerely,



-The history of Earth

...but it doesn't keep the losers from whining about it!

[KantoSooner]

Actually, the losers are us. Here's one little effect: When I was running a business in SE Asia, I needed to hire a couple of key people to coordinate between the US headquarters operation and the Asian operation. Looking at the costs, in balance, I could not justify hiring Americans. I hired one Canuck and one Australian instead. Primary difference in cost? US citizens must pay US tax even if they are full time resident outside the US and are paying local tax in that country of residence. We are currently the only major country on earth to require this.
So, bottom line result? Two Americans didn't get jobs, the two non-Americans who did get the jobs got a couple of years of international business experience and a nice line on their resumes.
Other anecdotes? An American geologist (well he's not American anymore) who became Australian in order to preserve his job.
Thank you US congress.

[olevetonahill]

...but it doesn't keep the losers from whining about it!

And there will always be losers .

Had an Instructor once say
Take all the money in the country , divide it equally between evey one in the country and within just a few years you would again have your Super Rich, yer Middle class and yer dirt poor

[Curly Bill]

And there will always be losers .

Had an Instructor once say
Take all the money in the country , divide it equally between evey one in the country and within just a few years you would again have your Super Rich, yer Middle class and yer dirt poor

Yep, people are what they are. Neither Brack, nor his Marxist friends are ever gonna change that.

[pphilfran]

Yes they pay their fair share...but due to excessive spending their fair share is now not enough....

[Curly Bill]

Yes they pay their fair share...but due to excessive spending their fair share is now not enough....

Yup, the problem isn't that peeps aren't taxed enough, it's that we spend too much. Hell, even if we did raise taxes does anyone really have faith that it would go to deficit reduction, as opposed to more spending?

[yermom]

Switzerland, long a tax haven for the wealthy, has one of the lowest marginal tax rates, at 20%. Unemployment in the nation, as of 2009, stood at less than 3%.

Obviously, it's not that they would not be paying taxes in Switzerland, it's that they would be paying 'lower' taxes.

Next question?

what is the tax on capital gains?

how open is their border? :D

[pphilfran]

They have a VAT

[diverdog]

Yes they pay their fair share...but due to excessive spending their fair share is now not enough....

Phil I really question whether they really do pay their fair share. A lot of people buy off that the rich pay their fair share and that is because they do not know how our tax system works. Americans under pay their taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars a year and the biggest abuse are tax shelters that are illegal and out right cheats.

[Sooner5030]

Upper middle class that have high-income wages pay way more than their fair share. Upper middle class and rich that receive the majority of their income from dividends and asset sales get to keep a relatively low effective rate......probably still a "fair share". It'd be nice if everyone paid SOME federal income taxes though.

[LiveLaughLove]

And there will always be losers .

Had an Instructor once say
Take all the money in the country , divide it equally between evey one in the country and within just a few years you would again have your Super Rich, yer Middle class and yer dirt poor

And it would be the same people in the same brackets pretty much too.

People are who they are.

[Midtowner]

Switzerland, long a tax haven for the wealthy, has one of the lowest marginal tax rates, at 20%. Unemployment in the nation, as of 2009, stood at less than 3%.

Obviously, it's not that they would not be paying taxes in Switzerland, it's that they would be paying 'lower' taxes.

Next question?

Really? Individual aspects of a foreign tax code are not a valid way to make comparisons. The Swiss are close to the US in revenues as a % of GDP, but even they are actually a little higher than we are.

And if you look at all of the countries which are crushing us in terms of education, crime, drug use, quality of life, etc. all have a much higher tax burden than we do.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG/800px-Tax-Revenues-As-GDP-Percentage-%2875-05%29.JPG

[AlboSooner]

There is something wrong with the system when Obama's secretary pays more taxes than Obama.

[Sooner5030]

There is something wrong with the system when Obama's secretary pays more taxes than Obama.

when the **** did this happen?

I know of some clever way to include payroll taxes to show she had a higher effective rate but not more in taxes. rate does not equal the total amount...yo

[AlboSooner]

when the **** did this happen?

I know of some clever way to include payroll taxes to show she had a higher effective rate but not more in taxes. rate does not equal the total amount...yo

This came out when Obama released his taxes. Percentage wise Obama pays less in taxes than his secretary. This is not to say that the secretary paid more in total amount of money.

[Sooner5030]

This came out when Obama released his taxes. Percentage wise Obama pays less in taxes than his secretary. This is not to say that the secretary paid more in total amount of money.

Then please change your ****ty post.

[AlboSooner]

Then please change your ****ty post.
U mad bro?

[AlboSooner]

I don't know how Obama can preach fairness and pay less in taxes than his secretary.

[Sooner5030]

U mad bro?

no just sick and tired of ignorance. Nothing personal. There is a reason why most do not include payroll taxes when comparing effective tax rates. I could explain it to you but I'd be wasting my time. Go back to sleep....your team (dems) is doing great.

[AlboSooner]

Dude you totally insulted me thar.

It's not my fault Obama pays less than his secretary in taxes. But I am not an internet accountant.

[Sooner5030]

albo....he did not pay less than his secretary in taxes. He paid a lower effective rate when and only when you include payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are capped and so are the benefits that you get in return for paying them. This is why most social scientist to date leave out payroll taxes when using the effective rate to push for any certain cause.

[AlboSooner]

albo....he did not pay less than his secretary in taxes. He paid a lower effective rate when and only when you include payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are capped and so are the benefits that you get in return for paying them. This is why most social scientist to date leave out payroll taxes when using the effective rate to push for any certain cause.

http://blog.misscabrina.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/WhyUMadTho.jpeg

[Sooner5030]

I'm not mad...just drunk...there is a difference. Although from your perspective you might not agree. I will be more polite in the morning.....or afternoon....whenever I wake up.

[diverdog]

Upper middle class that have high-income wages pay way more than their fair share. Upper middle class and rich that receive the majority of their income from dividends and asset sales get to keep a relatively low effective rate......probably still a "fair share". It'd be nice if everyone paid SOME federal income taxes though.

I am in the first group and I get killed by taxes. We cannot even itemize because the only write offs we have are our kids. The people who really get screwed in our system are the people who get W-2's who make between $65000 and $500,000 per year in income.

Like you I think everyone should have skin in the game.

[sappstuf]

albo....he did not pay less than his secretary in taxes. He paid a lower effective rate when and only when you include payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are capped and so are the benefits that you get in return for paying them. This is why most social scientist to date leave out payroll taxes when using the effective rate to push for any certain cause.

Except the White House put them in to try to push the need for the Buffett rule.

SWvf4X3uyyM

[SoonerScribe]

Does the rich man or the poor man benefit more from government protection of his assets?
Obviously, the rich man, the poor man doesn't have any assets that's why he's poor. (think before you type)

Which man is going to be much more likely to go to war to protect those assets?
If we're referring to going to war to protect their 'assets', then the rich man would be more likely to got to war to protect them, because as mentioned above, he's the one that actually has assets to protect.

How did the poor man end up poor in the first place?
Is this a serious question? I'll answer it regardless of whether it's serious or not, just to pacify you.
More than likely one of two ways:
First, laziness.
Second, he's trapped in the socially engineered system of entitlements (give aways). Why work hard when others can work hard then the Government takes their money and gives it to you?

Did the rich man ship his old job to China?
Possibly. The rich man owns the company. He can send his jobs any damn where he wants. It's called freedom. If you don't like it, then don't buy from the rich man's company, or start your own company and compete with him.

Some of the rich may go "John Galt" on us, but the vast majority will not regardless of the tax rate.
I love the 'Atlus Shrugged' reference. Evidently, you've seen the first movie or read the book, but I guess you didn't learn anything.
Maybe they'll leave, maybe they won't. But they own the damn ball, they don't have to take it and go 'home'. They can take their ball anywhere they want, because they are rich. Get it?

The fact is that during some of the middle class's most prosperous times, taxes on the rich were north of 90%.
See the above post. Seriously, if taxes ever approach that rate, do you honestly think the rich will stick around?

This class war against the middle class and poor needs to stop.
Class warfare needs to stop. Period.
If you want something, work for it. If not, stop bitching about those that actually create wealth, not only for themselves, but for many others.
I.E. Have you ever been hired for a job by a poor man?
I didn't think so...
[/QUOTE]

[diverdog]

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."
Drinks for the ten now cost just $80

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so...

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

This is the kind of BS red meat the right winger tea baggers live off of. The problem is it is not accurate nor factual. The top 1% of all income earners pay 21.5% of all taxes (state, federal, local) not 59% as this stupid example suggest. The next 30% pays 11.6% of all taxes and the bottom bracket pays 2% not zero.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0415/Taxes-and-the-rich-How-much-do-they-pay-now


And this whole argument of wealth distribution is nothing but BS propaganda from the right as well. SS and Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. Granted we have a safety net of social services like medicaid and welfare but to think that those people are getting wealthy from government subsidies is a joke. A lot of our tax dollars go to support corporate welfare and it was pretty much the rich who got bailed out in the housing bubble collapse.

Americans are not over taxed. If you say you are I call BS. I look at tax returns all day long and I have yet to see anyone who pays 40% taxes on all their income.

Yes we need to cut spending but we need to raise taxes.

[sappstuf]

This is the kind of BS red meat the right winger tea baggers live off of. The problem is it is not accurate nor factual. The top 1% of all income earners pay 21.5% of all taxes (state, federal, local) not 59% as this stupid example suggest. The next 30% pays 11.6% of all taxes and the bottom bracket pays 2% not zero.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0415/Taxes-and-the-rich-How-much-do-they-pay-now


And this whole argument of wealth distribution is nothing but BS propaganda from the right as well. SS and Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. Granted we have a safety net of social services like medicaid and welfare but to think that those people are getting wealthy from government subsidies is a joke. A lot of our tax dollars go to support corporate welfare and it was pretty much the rich who got bailed out in the housing bubble collapse.

Americans are not over taxed. If you say you are I call BS. I look at tax returns all day long and I have yet to see anyone who pays 40% taxes on all their income.

Yes we need to cut spending but we need to raise taxes.

There is a problem with your math. Since the story includes 10 men, that means you would actually need to find the number for the top 10%, not the top 1%. When you do, I bet that 50% isn't far off and might even be understating how much the of federal revenue they are responsible for.

Your article also quotes The Tax Foundation, how much do they say the top 10% is responsible for?

70.9%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Also, SS does not pay for itself with payroll taxes. It is in the red and projected to be in the red until it fails.

[olevetonahill]

There is something wrong with the system when Obama's secretary pays more taxes than Obama.

She dint "PAY MORE "
She paid a slightly higher PERCENTAGE. Big difference

Guess I shoulda read the whole thread before replying .

[SoonerScribe]

She dint "PAY MORE "
She paid a slightly higher PERCENTAGE. Big difference

Guess I shoulda read the whole thread before replying .

The point is, Obama whines about how Buffet's secretary pays a higher PERCENTAGE in taxes than Buffet himself. Never mind that Obama doesn't distinguish the difference is that Buffet pays capital gains tax, his secretary pays income tax. Then come to find out, Owebama's secratary pays a higher PERCENTAGE than Owebama himself. Not hypocritical at all, huh?

Also, if Buffet would actually pay the taxes that he owes then maybe he would have more room to preach to others about how they should pay more.

But, sure... the 'Buffet Rule' or more aptly the 'Buttef Rule', if collected for 250 years would be enough to pay for Owebama's 2011 budget. That's really gonna dig us out of this hole, right?
Or, look at it this way. The 'Butt-ef Rule', if collected for an entire year would fund that years budget for a whopping 11 hours.

[diverdog]

There is a problem with your math. Since the story includes 10 men, that means you would actually need to find the number for the top 10%, not the top 1%. When you do, I bet that 50% isn't far off and might even be understating how much the of federal revenue they are responsible for.

Your article also quotes The Tax Foundation, how much do they say the top 10% is responsible for?

70.9%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Also, SS does not pay for itself with payroll taxes. It is in the red and projected to be in the red until it fails.

Sapp:



The chart you referenced is for federal income taxes. I referenced all taxes (federal, state, local and I might add payroll).

SS would have paid for itself had congress not raided it. Until very recently it produced large surpluses that were raided and used to mask the debt. We blew through $2.6 trillion dollars in surpluses.

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3131/looting-social-security-socalled-trust-fund.html

[diverdog]

The point is, Obama whines about how Buffet's secretary pays a higher PERCENTAGE in taxes than Buffet himself. Never mind that Obama doesn't distinguish the difference is that Buffet pays capital gains tax, his secretary pays income tax. Then come to find out, Owebama's secratary pays a higher PERCENTAGE than Owebama himself. Not hypocritical at all, huh?

Also, if Buffet would actually pay the taxes that he owes then maybe he would have more room to preach to others about how they should pay more.

But, sure... the 'Buffet Rule' or more aptly the 'Buttef Rule', if collected for 250 years would be enough to pay for Owebama's 2011 budget. That's really gonna dig us out of this hole, right?
Or, look at it this way. The 'Butt-ef Rule', if collected for an entire year would fund that years budget for a whopping 11 hours.

Ummm the Buffet rule is nothing new. Reagan argued the exact same thing about tax fairness.

hF8IZ-t7Ih4

[okie52]

Ummm the Buffet rule is nothing new. Reagan argued the exact same thing about tax fairness.

hF8IZ-t7Ih4

And yet the libs hate him.

[Midtowner]

Ummm the Buffet rule is nothing new. Reagan argued the exact same thing about tax fairness.

hF8IZ-t7Ih4

Goes to show ya that when 'pubs invoke the greatness of Ronaldus Magnus, they're invoking a fantasy.

[diverdog]

And yet the libs hate him.

Not me. I voter for the gipper twice.

[Sooner5030]

diver had it right......those wage earners between 65k and 500k get bent over.

The lower tax rate on capital gains was meant to encourage investment.....however there should be some type of balance so that if capital gains make up more than 50% of your income........every additional $ from capital gains (above 50%) should be taxed at your marginal income tax rate.

But then again I am more pissed at Buffet and Obama for being somewhat dishonest while including payroll taxes in their cause to inflame the mob. Especially Buffet, he made a big deal about his claim and then when folks wanted more proof (professional skepticism) to do their own analysis he gets all pissy about protecting his secretary......the jackass should have kept his mouth shut if he didn't want folks inquiring further.

[I Am Right]

Fair= you pay the same % As everybody!

[StoopTroup]

Let the Traitors who want to live somewhere else than the US hand in their Passports and ask Switzerland for asylum.

This is one of the greatest Countries in the World and if you think your money can buy you a nicer place to live than here....by all means, get the hell out and never come back.

Hopefully your off-spring will understand what you gave away someday.

[I Am Right]

$1.00 at 10%= .10 $100.00 at 10%= $1.00 and so on. Equals FAIR.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Let the Traitors who want to live somewhere else than the US hand in their Passports and ask Switzerland for asylum.

This is one of the greatest Countries in the World and if you think your money can buy you a nicer place to live than here....by all means, get the hell out and never come back.

Hopefully your off-spring will understand what you gave away someday.Are you high...again?

[sappstuf]

Ummm the Buffet rule is nothing new. Reagan argued the exact same thing about tax fairness.

hF8IZ-t7Ih4

He wasn't arguing to raise taxes... He was arguing to lower marginal tax rates and to simplify the tax code getting rid of deductions for richer people. Nice selective editing though.

What Reagan was talking about was much close to Ryan's plan than Obama's.

[olevetonahill]

Are you high...again?

Voyager, The gift that keeps on giving

[diverdog]

He wasn't arguing to raise taxes... He was arguing to lower marginal tax rates and to simplify the tax code getting rid of deductions for richer people. Nice selective editing though.

What Reagan was talking about was much close to Ryan's plan than Obama's.

I would be more than happy to return to the tax structures under Reagan.

[sappstuf]

I would be more than happy to return to the tax structures under Reagan.

Reagan reduced the capital gains tax from 25% to 20% in 1981 and wanted to go to 17.5%...

You should be fairly happy with where we are right now by that account.

[okie52]

Not me. I voter for the gipper twice.

Are you saying you're a lib?

[diverdog]

Are you saying you're a lib?

By okie standards yes. Not so much for the rest of the country.

I did drop my NRA membership.

[okie52]

By okie standards yes. Not so much for the rest of the country.

I did drop my NRA membership.

Dropped the NRA membership as a protest? Did you dump the Sierra club too?

[pphilfran]

I would be more than happy to return to the tax structures under Reagan.

We need 10% more than what Ronnie generated...

Revenue as a % of GDP

1981 19.6
1982 19.2
1983 17.5
1984 17.3
1985 17.7
1986 17.5
1987 18.4
1988 18.2

[pphilfran]

The answer is not to make the tax code even more complicated...the answer is not to lump all the various taxes into one pile and bitch about the size of the pile...

You must look at each tax individually and determine how much each group is paying in and how much each group receives in benefit...

WB and Obama are being dishonest to us when they do not tell the entire story and use questionable one liners to divide the country even further...

Let's look at each individually...

State and local taxes are a smoke screen....the fed should not consider state or local taxes when determining their own needs and how that revenue stream should be implemented...if you don't like the rate of your state or local taxes then find a cheaper place to live...

SS estimator http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/benefit6.cgi

SS - Born 1945 - to retire 2015

If you make 20k per year you will receive $1094 per month
40k $1605
60k $2117
80k $2573
100k $2813
110k $2933
120k $3034
140k $3182
200k $3329
500k $3329

The person making 20k is getting a far better return, almost twice the return of the guy making 100k...some of the return from the better off is already being moved to those that have not done so well...

I don't see what is so unfair about the current system...I would like to see no increase in benefit once you reach the withholding limit..200k should get the same benefit as 120k...they paid in the exact same amount of money...

Now lets look at Medicare...this is going to look bad...keep in mind everyone is going to get the exact same benefit..rich or poor you getz the same basic coverage...2.9% of all wages...

20k paid $580 per year
40k $1160
80k $2320
100k $2900
200k $5800
500k $14500
1 cool million $29000

I just can't seem to find where the screwing is going on here....hmmmm...

Quick recap...

SS is weighted towards the less well off...a significant portion of SS benefits are moved to those that are more in need...
Medicare is heavily weighted toward the less well off...

Now we get to the meat of the matter...Fed taxes...

Without deductions the well off will pay a much higher rate...with deductions and tax shelters they can limit their tax exposure...but instead of looking at the shelters and deduction we want to add other layers to the tax code (Buffett Rule) or raise taxes that will do little to increase revenue without addressing core problem with the current code...

I am on record stating you can go back to Clinton tax level but don't expect to see diddly squat in revenue increases...a half percent of GDP if we are lucky...I am on record saying to increase the SS limit to 140k and add a couple of years before you can receive benefits...

[sappstuf]

The answer is not to make the tax code even more complicated...the answer is not to lump all the various taxes into one pile and bitch about the size of the pile...

You must look at each tax individually and determine how much each group is paying in and how much each group receives in benefit...

WB and Obama are being dishonest to us when they do not tell the entire story and use questionable one liners to divide the country even further...

Let's look at each individually...

State and local taxes are a smoke screen....the fed should not consider state or local taxes when determining their own needs and how that revenue stream should be implemented...if you don't like the rate of your state or local taxes then find a cheaper place to live...

SS estimator http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/benefit6.cgi

SS - Born 1945 - to retire 2015

If you make 20k per year you will receive $1094 per month
40k $1605
60k $2117
80k $2573
100k $2813
110k $2933
120k $3034
140k $3182
200k $3329
500k $3329

The person making 20k is getting a far better return, almost twice the return of the guy making 100k...some of the return from the better off is already being moved to those that have not done so well...

I don't see what is so unfair about the current system...I would like to see no increase in benefit once you reach the withholding limit..200k should get the same benefit as 120k...they paid in the exact same amount of money...

Now lets look at Medicare...this is going to look bad...keep in mind everyone is going to get the exact same benefit..rich or poor you getz the same basic coverage...2.9% of all wages...

20k paid $580 per year
40k $1160
80k $2320
100k $2900
200k $5800
500k $14500
1 cool million $29000

I just can't seem to find where the screwing is going on here....hmmmm...

Quick recap...

SS is weighted towards the less well off...a significant portion of SS benefits are moved to those that are more in need...
Medicare is heavily weighted toward the less well off...

Now we get to the meat of the matter...Fed taxes...

Without deductions the well off will pay a much higher rate...with deductions and tax shelters they can limit their tax exposure...but instead of looking at the shelters and deduction we want to add other layers to the tax code (Buffett Rule) or raise taxes that will do little to increase revenue without addressing core problem with the current code...

I am on record stating you can go back to Clinton tax level but don't expect to see diddly squat in revenue increases...a half percent of GDP if we are lucky...I am on record saying to increase the SS limit to 140k and add a couple of years before you can receive benefits...

Great post... Should be pinned at the top of the political page.

I would also means test on the back end of SSN.

But your point is valid, and I was going to make something along the same line.. It is hard to compare payroll taxes when the guy that makes less money is getting a much larger return.

[Chuck Bao]

Let the Traitors who want to live somewhere else than the US hand in their Passports and ask Switzerland for asylum.

This is one of the greatest Countries in the World and if you think your money can buy you a nicer place to live than here....by all means, get the hell out and never come back.

Hopefully your off-spring will understand what you gave away someday.

Well said.

You know damn well that the vast majority of rich Americans are not going to give up their American status regardless.

I belong to Americans Overseas and there was a recent article that a few are. But their prime example was an American woman married to a foreign national and how she couldn't get her husband to disclose all their bank statements to the US Treasury Department. That's understandable and besides she already had dual citizenship.

Rich Americans fleeing the US for some tax haven abroad will probably deserve the ****ed up mess that they are getting themselves into. If they burn their US passports as we have the lowest tax rates in more than 40 years, well good riddance. I hope they realize that their US assets and US income will still be taxed.

[diverdog]

Dropped the NRA membership as a protest? Did you dump the Sierra club too?

No I got tired of their fundraising phone calls. You know the UN is coming to take your guns, right? It had nothing to do with Nuge or a protest.

[olevetonahill]

No I got tired of their fundraising phone calls. You know the UN is coming to take your guns, right? It had nothing to do with Nuge or a protest.

I been a Paid up Life member for years, Never gotten a call from em wanting More

[badger]

Let the Traitors who want to live somewhere else than the US hand in their Passports and ask Switzerland for asylum.

This is one of the greatest Countries in the World and if you think your money can buy you a nicer place to live than here....by all means, get the hell out and never come back.

Hopefully your off-spring will understand what you gave away someday.

Tons have tried to tell Westboro protestors this for years with no success. If we can't convince Westboro to GTFO then odds are the billionaires and heirs won't be convinced either.

Food for thought: Would you rather Westboro get deported, or the billionaire tax cheats? :D

[SoonerScribe]

The answer is not to make the tax code even more complicated...the answer is not to lump all the various taxes into one pile and bitch about the size of the pile...

You must look at each tax individually and determine how much each group is paying in and how much each group receives in benefit...

WB and Obama are being dishonest to us when they do not tell the entire story and use questionable one liners to divide the country even further...

Let's look at each individually...

State and local taxes are a smoke screen....the fed should not consider state or local taxes when determining their own needs and how that revenue stream should be implemented...if you don't like the rate of your state or local taxes then find a cheaper place to live...

SS estimator http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/benefit6.cgi

SS - Born 1945 - to retire 2015

If you make 20k per year you will receive $1094 per month
40k $1605
60k $2117
80k $2573
100k $2813
110k $2933
120k $3034
140k $3182
200k $3329
500k $3329

The person making 20k is getting a far better return, almost twice the return of the guy making 100k...some of the return from the better off is already being moved to those that have not done so well...

I don't see what is so unfair about the current system...I would like to see no increase in benefit once you reach the withholding limit..200k should get the same benefit as 120k...they paid in the exact same amount of money...

Now lets look at Medicare...this is going to look bad...keep in mind everyone is going to get the exact same benefit..rich or poor you getz the same basic coverage...2.9% of all wages...

20k paid $580 per year
40k $1160
80k $2320
100k $2900
200k $5800
500k $14500
1 cool million $29000

I just can't seem to find where the screwing is going on here....hmmmm...

Quick recap...

SS is weighted towards the less well off...a significant portion of SS benefits are moved to those that are more in need...
Medicare is heavily weighted toward the less well off...

Now we get to the meat of the matter...Fed taxes...

Without deductions the well off will pay a much higher rate...with deductions and tax shelters they can limit their tax exposure...but instead of looking at the shelters and deduction we want to add other layers to the tax code (Buffett Rule) or raise taxes that will do little to increase revenue without addressing core problem with the current code...

I am on record stating you can go back to Clinton tax level but don't expect to see diddly squat in revenue increases...a half percent of GDP if we are lucky...I am on record saying to increase the SS limit to 140k and add a couple of years before you can receive benefits...

Seems 'fair' to me. Now let's get a 'fair tax', and we're set.

[SoonerScribe]

Well said.

You know damn well that the vast majority of rich Americans are not going to give up their American status regardless.

I belong to Americans Overseas and there was a recent article that a few are. But their prime example was an American woman married to a foreign national and how she couldn't get her husband to disclose all their bank statements to the US Treasury Department. That's understandable and besides she already had dual citizenship.

Rich Americans fleeing the US for some tax haven abroad will probably deserve the ****ed up mess that they are getting themselves into. If they burn their US passports as we have the lowest tax rates in more than 40 years, well good riddance. I hope they realize that their US assets and US income will still be taxed.

I agree with you that most Americans wouldn't bail just because of higher taxes. I believe the bigger concern is that they will eventual get fed up with being vilified.

In the past, when people looked at the rich they saw someone they wanted to become.

Now with Owebama's class warfare, when people look at the rich they ask themselves, "hey, why should they have so much? It's not 'fair'."

It's a sad day in America when success is vilified and demeaned.

[yermom]

they wouldn't be vilified if they didn't act like villians

[diverdog]

I agree with you that most Americans wouldn't bail just because of higher taxes. I believe the bigger concern is that they will eventual get fed up with being vilified.

In the past, when people looked at the rich they saw someone they wanted to become.

Now with Owebama's class warfare, when people look at the rich they ask themselves, "hey, why should they have so much? It's not 'fair'."

It's a sad day in America when success is vilified and demeaned.

Good lord. Trying arguing with facts. Their tax rate is the lowest it has been in decades and we just spent trillions bailing out Wall Street. There is class warfare going on and the rich have won it and it ain't even close. 64% of all income growth since 1979 has flowed to the top 10%. And no one has demeaned success. All Obama is asking is they pay what they paid under Reagan and Clinton.


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/09/090810-snapshot-thumb-454x469-25064.jpg


And Buffett makes a few good points:


I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
BTW where are they going to stash their money? Greece?

[REDREX]

No way to tax the Country out of our problems---Why send one more dime to Washington they will just **** it away

[Chuck Bao]

No way to tax the Country out of our problems---Why send one more dime to Washington they will just **** it away

Do you really think that? No more military. No more FBI. No more federal highway funds. No more state department and foreign embassies. No more CDC. No more SEC (even as ineffectual as it has been). No more student loan financing. No more attempt to keep our air and water clean from corporate dumping of pollutants.

Another dime to **** away? Dude, we still have the lowest tax rates in 40+ years. And, you're not willing to send in a dime?

I suppose that we need to go to hell and then the pendulum swings the other way.

[REDREX]

Do you really think that? No more military. No more FBI. No more federal highway funds. No more state department and foreign embassies. No more CDC. No more SEC (even as ineffectual as it has been). No more student loan financing. No more attempt to keep our air and water clean from corporate dumping of pollutants.

Another dime to **** away? Dude, we still have the lowest tax rates in 40+ years. And, you're not willing to send in a dime?

I suppose that we need to go to hell and then the pendulum swings the other way. Why not do what has to be done----Cut Gov't agencies and all the stupid programs that don't work.------Look at the Depts of Energy and Education---- Both failures but we keep funding them

[Chuck Bao]

Why not do what has to be done----Cut Gov't agencies and all the stupid programs that don't work.------Look at the Depts of Energy and Education---- Both failures but we keep funding them

Good points.

I think that our primary problem is that our court system and everyone so willing to sue and hit the jackpot lottery that society has changed and everyone is in such a safe mode as we collectively go down the toilet.

[Curly Bill]

I been a Paid up Life member for years, Never gotten a call from em wanting More

Same here.

[diverdog]

I been a Paid up Life member for years, Never gotten a call from em wanting More

Vet:

I use to go to three fundraisers a year and I have probably gotten on the fundraising list. They call me all the time and I ask them to stop. They didn't and I dropped my membership. Now they call me to get me back....aaargh.

[yermom]

they still send me mail all the time and i lapsed years ago. only money i ever gave them was one year of dues when i joined.

at least they didn't give my info to every liberal out there like the ACLU did. man, i only thought i hated NRA mail...

[49r]

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

How can anybody come to an even halfway reasonable conclusion on this subject when there is so much information missing in the OP?

I mean we don't even know what kind of beer these guys were drinking...was it imported? Or domestic?

[soonercruiser]

Well said.

You know damn well that the vast majority of rich Americans are not going to give up their American status regardless.

I belong to Americans Overseas and there was a recent article that a few are. But their prime example was an American woman married to a foreign national and how she couldn't get her husband to disclose all their bank statements to the US Treasury Department. That's understandable and besides she already had dual citizenship.

Rich Americans fleeing the US for some tax haven abroad will probably deserve the ****ed up mess that they are getting themselves into. If they burn their US passports as we have the lowest tax rates in more than 40 years, well good riddance. I hope they realize that their US assets and US income will still be taxed.

Correction!
"Highest corporate tax rate in the world" !!!!!
(I say that is fair enough!)

Why are all the so-called other western countries going in the opposite direction that we are trying to go in?
So, the Dems think that they can do better than....?
Today Netherlands! Tomorrow the U.S.!

[Chuck Bao]

Correction!
"Highest corporate tax rate in the world" !!!!!
(I say that is fair enough!)

Why are all the so-called other western countries going in the opposite direction that we are trying to go in?
So, the Dems think that they can do better than....?
Today Netherlands! Tomorrow the U.S.!

Where is your source in quoting that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world?

I highly doubt that.

I think that some others have correctly pointed out that some countries have lower personal and corporate income tax rates, but they have a national value added tax, which we don't.

[REDREX]

Where is your source in quoting that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world?

I highly doubt that.

I think that some others have correctly pointed out that some countries have lower personal and corporate income tax rates, but they have a national value added tax, which we don't.---YES the U.S. is NUMBER ONE in The WORLD in corporate tax rate--- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-corporate-tax-rate-now-highest-in-the-world-2012-04-02

[Midtowner]

Correction!
"Highest corporate tax rate in the world" !!!!!
(I say that is fair enough!)

Highest tax rate =/= highest effective rate. Which really matters? A number which is just the starting point before deductions as to what is paid in taxes or the amount actually paid in taxes? Let's talk about highest effective rate.

Really, we're middle to bottom of the pack in effective rate, but that doesn't make for a sexy and outrageous talking point.


Why are all the so-called other western countries going in the opposite direction that we are trying to go in?
So, the Dems think that they can do better than....?
Today Netherlands! Tomorrow the U.S.!

Yeah, let's talk about lowering the corporate tax rate while simultaneously talking about getting rid of the EIC or mortgage interest deduction. War on the middle class much?

I know folks who elect to be treated as C-Corps, thus subject to double taxation because of all of the huge tax advantages C-Corps can offer. If you can find a business out there actually paying 35%, you've found a business which needs to hire a new CPA.

[REDREX]

Highest tax rate =/= highest effective rate. Which really matters? A number which is just the starting point before deductions as to what is paid in taxes or the amount actually paid in taxes? Let's talk about highest effective rate.

Really, we're middle to bottom of the pack in effective rate, but that doesn't make for a sexy and outrageous talking point.



Yeah, let's talk about lowering the corporate tax rate while simultaneously talking about getting rid of the EIC or mortgage interest deduction. War on the middle class much?

I know folks who elect to be treated as C-Corps, thus subject to double taxation because of all of the huge tax advantages C-Corps can offer. If you can find a business out there actually paying 35%, you've found a business which needs to hire a new CPA.C-Corps are not at all good from a tax standpoint---- Although they are much easier to operate under we have never set one up for tax advantages

[Midtowner]

C-Corps are not at all good from a tax standpoint---- Although they are much easier to operate under we have never set one up for tax advantages

Anecdotally speaking, some folks seem to think otherwise.

[soonercruiser]

Where is your source in quoting that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world?

I highly doubt that.

I think that some others have correctly pointed out that some countries have lower personal and corporate income tax rates, but they have a national value added tax, which we don't.

Don't "get out" much, huh!
That is several weeks old news!

[StoopTroup]

Well said.

You know damn well that the vast majority of rich Americans are not going to give up their American status regardless.

I belong to Americans Overseas and there was a recent article that a few are. But their prime example was an American woman married to a foreign national and how she couldn't get her husband to disclose all their bank statements to the US Treasury Department. That's understandable and besides she already had dual citizenship.

Rich Americans fleeing the US for some tax haven abroad will probably deserve the ****ed up mess that they are getting themselves into. If they burn their US passports as we have the lowest tax rates in more than 40 years, well good riddance. I hope they realize that their US assets and US income will still be taxed.

I'm not saying they should give them up. Pass a law that says that if they don't have 75% of their personal wealth invested here.....they are a person without a Country.

And BTW...that's just a suggestion. I'm sure it would end up being much more complicated than that. Maybe add something along with it that says if you are out of the Country more than 25% of year or have a work Visa in another Country issued you must file taxes on all of your overseas income under the tax code.

The real thing for me is this. If they are going to keep their wealth abroad....it just doesn't do anything good for America for them to do so. So if they do it as a tax haven....why would I care what happens to them or their Family outside our Borders?

I don't wish to make it worse for guys like you Chuck who do love working outside the US but these folks who run Mega-Corps are way out of control and they need to be reminded of their commitment to being a US Citizen IMO.

Chuck....where I get this view from is this. I remember a mandatory read in School of "A Man without a Country". ( "The Man Without a Country" is a short story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_story) by American writer Edward Everett Hale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Everett_Hale), first published anonymously in The Atlantic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic) in December 1863) It was a sad story. When I was a kid I read this and as Nolan aged it seemed extremely sad that something couldn't have been done to help the guy as eventually I think he was just an old mentally ill man who had lost himself in his mistakes of the past. As I've gotten older...I no longer feel sorry for anyone that would turn their back on this Country for any reason. Tax Shelter, Political Difference, Marriage....it just doesn't matter IMO. Everytime you put your hand over your heart as a kid you said the Pledge of Allegaince to the Flag and The United States of America.

After 9-11-2001....it meant something and IMO it should mean something everyday.

These Corps are no different than Cruise Ships that don't fly a US Flag but use our ports to collect passengers and operate a huge successful business. It's ashame we have zero cruise ships and if we don't do something about all of this....one day we won't have any Corporations here either.

[soonercruiser]

Highest tax rate =/= highest effective rate. Which really matters? A number which is just the starting point before deductions as to what is paid in taxes or the amount actually paid in taxes? Let's talk about highest effective rate.

Really, we're middle to bottom of the pack in effective rate, but that doesn't make for a sexy and outrageous talking point.



Yeah, let's talk about lowering the corporate tax rate while simultaneously talking about getting rid of the EIC or mortgage interest deduction. War on the middle class much?

I know folks who elect to be treated as C-Corps, thus subject to double taxation because of all of the huge tax advantages C-Corps can offer. If you can find a business out there actually paying 35%, you've found a business which needs to hire a new CPA.

Gee! I guess we should all be living off of our dividends like Buffet.
Then we can brag how our hard working neighbors pay more taxes than we millionaires.
Or, maybe Buffet could shut his dirty lying mouth and pay the $Million in taxes that he is holding back from the gobment!
Hypocrisy!

Classic class warfare lines of the socialists!

[Midtowner]

Gee! I guess we should all be living off of our dividends like Buffet.
Then we can brag how our hard working neighbors pay more taxes than we millionaires.
Or, maybe Buffet could shut his dirty lying mouth and pay the $Million in taxes that he is holding back from the gobment!
Hypocrisy!

Classic class warfare lines of the socialists!

Does Warren Buffet's tax rate or tax aversion make what's happening here any more or less better as far as public policy is concerned?

Stop focusing on idiotic sideshows and focus on the issues.

[StoopTroup]

Gee! I guess we should all be living off of our dividends like Buffet.
Then we can brag how our hard working neighbors pay more taxes than we millionaires.
Or, maybe Buffet could shut his dirty lying mouth and pay the $Million in taxes that he is holding back from the gobment!
Hypocrisy!

Classic class warfare lines of the socialists!

No....Our Country just needs to get rid of all the deductions that are now part of the tax code. It's a very difficult thing to follow unless you make your living preparing taxes.

Now I'm sure having a 10% Tax Rate like the Republicans were spewing about 15-20 years ago isn't very popular to CPAs and Tax preparers but if it were even for everyone and it went up only when we needed the dough to pay for whatever our Country needed....things would be much easier and we might not even need a Political Forum on this board. Ever since the Tax Codes have grown and the number of deductions risen....we have had every American at each others throat while the Wealthy sat back laughing all the way to the bank. Thanks to Chris Rock for reminding people what the difference is between Rich and Wealthy.

Also....you need to really get off this idea that Socialism is going to ruin you and this Country. We've had socialism in this Country for years and there have been plenty of folks in both major parties that have continued to support it.

[Sooner5030]

I think most of us will admit that in theory tax revenue increases combined with spending cuts is the way to fix our problems. However, through the last 50 years of practice we have learned that overall spending will never be cut. Because of this...most of us want a reset...default.....the quickest way to default is keep taxes low and spending high. As an individual you have to hedge against the possibility of default or inflation.

Got this from Zerohedge...and no I did not check to see if his stats were right.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES9C7fX_Co&feature=player_embedded

[soonercruiser]

As I've said here before, in my 29 years in the Air Force, the Dems did a great job of cutting the military significantly 3 times!
That IS the only thing that they can cut!