13% of Taxpayers pay 72% of the tax burden

lots of them... my father and grandfather, to name two right off the top of my head... both of them continued to want to increase their wealth, and did so here in America... and they were certainly not the outliers from my perspective. Every one of their peers from that generation all continued to actively seek out ways to increase their wealth and to be able to pass it on to their progeny.

 

Try to learn something about the subject, you keep repeating the same debunked nonsense, and ignoring reality....

 

The Buffet vs. Secretary comparison has already entered lib folklore. Buffet himself is the source, and he did it to ingratiate himself to the Administration that makes decisions he profits from, e.g., blocking the oil pipeline from Canada benefits his Burlington Northern railroad.

So what's the truth? The income tax taxes income. Most of Buffet's "income" is actually appreciation of assets - stock or bonds or real property that rise in price. Changes in asset prices are not taxed because there's no way of knowing what the assets will fetch when they're eventually liquidated. Prices can fall as well as rise, so you can't tax someone for price changes in assets prior to liquidation, because you might be taxing a loss. Since Buffet usually holds his investments indefinitely, he minimizes his income tax. That's one of the secrets behind his fortune. Buffet's "earned income" - wages for services - is probably very small. Buffet also benefits from many deductions his secretary doesn't - deductions for the risk he takes when performing the socially constructive act of investing in businesses. So the supposed inequity libs love to invoke is really illusory.

The US tax code is already highly progressive, but if you object to the deductions someone like Buffet can use, which lower the tax burden of many high earners, then you must support the zero-deduction flat-rate tax proposals advanced by conservatives such as Rand Paul. See http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/pf/taxes/rand-paul-flat-tax/

 

The taxpayer in this case is the estate, it is a "living" entity until the estate is distributed, whenever that may be.

For an individual taxpayer, wealth can also be taxed in specific circumstances. The IRA is one example of this in which it must be withdrawn within 5 years.

Then you are ignoring the balance of all other types of payments.

Total revenue means total revenue. Most of it comes from personal income taxes, but it also comes from corporate, estate, or excise taxes. Again, look at the whole picture.

You need to understand the term, "above the line:
.

Bookkeeping is not complicated. Tedious yes, but not complicated. Besides, there are always two values, book value and tax value and they are not always the same. Furthermore, the same type of recordkeeping happens on the individual side. How do you prove someone lived with you a majority of the time? There is no balance sheet for that Bluesguy and for most, it is not based on holding every receipt.

The year long reporting is a tedious task. If done daily, it is quite simple most of the time. It gets interesting when you mess up the books and do not record propertly your daily, weekly, or monthly transactions. In addition, private business is not audited the same way as public businesses are. And usually, you don't get audited using GAAP rules unless you are wanting to obtain a very large loan that is at least 50% of your revenue, more or less.

 

I did and so did the Congressional Budget Office. Their conclusion was that there was no correlation between capital gain tax rates and the amount of the investment. The graph that Vixen showed did not even show correlation between the two groups.

 

bobov - - - corporationist stooge:

Moi , on the side of the recognizes the tax reality is REGRESSIVE.
The uber wealthy use deductions and other stunts never to realize the "Progressive Rate" they really owe.
True ? bobov
And that is what makes the "Flat Rate" so appealing.
Support a "Progressive/Flat Rate". You Pay Your Rate !(major explanation point) ​

Moi
Anti Corporationist

​

 

There is no correlation Vixen. Your own graph shows that with a positive increase and with varying rates of capital gains. It has to do with other factors, not the rate itself.

And what cased the investment boom of t he 1990s" It certainly was not the capital gains tax rates that came into effect in 1997.

 

That is false. BEA closely correlate Capital Gains with increases in Gross Capital formation. If there are any other factors, it relates to Corporate Taxes, which are related with Capital Gains.

I just explained what caused the boom. Did you not read the sentence that you responded to?

 

"The uber wealthy use deductions and other stunts," AND "that's what makes a flat rate" - with NO deductions - "so appealing."

You argue against yourself with such spirit there's little I can add.

Deductions aren't "stunts." They encourage activities beneficial to society such as doing business and building things.

A flat rate (or a couple of rates) substitutes a lower rate for EVERYONE for the old "progressive" rates. Most people, including the middle class, would pay less. The people who don't like this are those who make money or get power from the current tax system - accountants, tax lawyers, publishers of tax advice, tax preparers, IRS employees, the politicians who manipulate the tax code, etc. It's also unpopular among the "robbing hoods" like "community organizers" who want infinitely high taxes on certain people so they can use the money to pander to their constituencies.

 

"Deductions aren't "stunts." They encourage activities beneficial to society such as doing business and building things. " Enlarged quotes so no one think I would right that manure.


Exactly what one would expect from a tool of the corporations and the uber rich.
So wrong. So wrong.
Deductions by the uber rich are, YES THEY ARE "stunts" reserved for the uber rich not to pay their progressive rate in full.


Those beneficial activities would happen anyways ! & !
Some people are doers and builders. Did Carnegie or Vanderbilt or Morgan or Ford do it for the deductions?

Solution: Progressive Tax rates, limit deductions to interest on mortgage payments of primary residence only.
Who needs medical deductions in a time of ObamaCare.
No Other Deductions !



Moi
If Bobov counters, I give his delusions the last word,
y'all judge for yourselves - Chime In
[video=youtube;C3lMhBsIyec]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3lMhBsIyec[/video]

No ​

 

If I'm a stooge of the corporations, you're a stooge of the government. The difference is that the corporations feed, clothe, house, transport, and care for us. They provide all the goods and services we need and want. They provide all the meaningful jobs.

You're making the uber-lib mistake of assuming that the government is inherently good. Government is the biggest, most powerful, and most corrupt corporation of all, and it does less for us than any other corporation. What it does is done largely for itself despite all the false "pubic service" rhetoric. What it does is important, but it did all that 100 years ago. Most everything since is just wasteful over-reach and political empire building.

Your idea that smart people will serve the world regardless is ridiculous. Most people need financial incentives. If doctors earned the same as supermarket stock-boys, most doctors would be gone. Sure, there will always be a few dedicated souls, but they're a small minority. Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, and Ford didn't do it for the deductions. They did it to be RICH.

 

Anyone who tries to earn an honest living is bound to be. However, I think the 13% should stop playing along. It won't stop until people take a stand for their rights and quit listening to the top-down directives of the statists who are trying to subjugate us all to centralised, top-down national authority, and trying to make us all wholly dependent on that authority to live! They tax us to death, then we're supposed to turn around and beg for handouts from them - a small part of what they take away from us in the first place - in the form of welfare.

The current economic system under which we're suffering has long been robbing us of our wealth as our money has lost value while earnings have failed to keep up. Welfare programs and private credit have stepped up to try and make up for this, though obviously in some very sick ways as they then place you into debt and gain further power over you and your assets.

We lost all power over our government when we lost our wealth to fiat money and a crooked 2-faced plutocratic, oligarchical system of government that is in fact little more than a facade for banker rule..

 

This thread amazes me. Democrats have been fighting for more equitable taxation with more distribution. Now Democrats are being attacked for lack of distribution.

As the recession ends and the number of impoverished people decreases, more lower-income households will start paying taxes. Unfortunately, as loophole laws are created and passed regularly, the rich will continue to pay less. It's the Republicans who are making loopholes for the rich, and now it's the Democrats who get blamed for it.

 

You are aware that Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Morgan all lived in a time BEFORE tax deductions, aren't you?

 

And pay a HUGELY disproportionate amount base on that. The top 1% earn about 20% on the income and pay 40% of the taxes, THAT is the point. If that is not progressive enough then what would be?

No they don't, they sit on boards which control the companies and to work to seek companies to invest in and create jobs and boost the economy. That is what the left never understands about wealth, you earn wealth by putting your money at risk and making it work for you which you don't do just sitting around all day. And yes most of those people also have earned incomes.

That is precisely what you suggest.

Having a reading problem?

Me>> Why should I pay a higher tax rate than he does?

Once again, my wife and I have saved all our lives and have quite a bit saved up for retirement, we sacrificed to do so. My neighbor makes the same as us but has not saved, has nothing. Why should I pay a higher tax rate than he does? Why should I pay more in actual dollars than he does?

What is the mischaracterization?

You>> Quote Originally Posted by Jonsa View Post
I provided you with a quintile breakdown of INCOME and ASSETS that demonstrate that in fact top earners are not hard done buy when it comes to taxation.

ASSETS = wealth. You and others propose my tax rate should be based on my wealth, ie I save all my life and get punished for doing so.

Why should I pay a higher tax rate because of it? I fail to see why I as a responsible person should have to pay a higher income tax rate over someone who is not responsible and blew their money and now expects the government to provide for them in retirement.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
How many faced an effective tax rate of 85%?

They either lied to you or were entirely stupid. But do state the years and post a link proving that the effective tax rate on the highest earners was 85%.

- - - Updated - - -

Try refuting the facts.............oh but then you can't can you. Perhaps YOU need to learn something about the subject before you try to debate it.

Once again

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
The Democrat Congress did that over his lower spending request and failure to pass all his rescissions.



Which 4 years? The worst four years of Bush/Republican budgets was $1.35. Obama/Democrats $4.4 in four years.

So whose policies did better?



Nope it fell from a peak $400B from te 2000/2001 recession/recovery to a paltry $161B in 2007. What is your objection?



Wrong, Clinton came into office on a soaring economy and raised taxes and slowed that growth and slowed the growth of tax revenues, it was the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate cuts he was forced to signed that kick the economy back into high gear and that along with the spending restraints and welfare reforms he opposed produced the brief surpluses.



Presidents don't control interest rates.



He inherited an economic expansions but slowed it with his tax increase.



ROFL yes after Dick Morris told him he better do it because the economy wasn't performing as it should and he would lose the election. He signed and the economy took off and we had the brief surpluses in spite of him.

Now are you claiming ignorance with your snarky remarks or can you refute what I posted?

 

It is not a taxpayer it is an estate and a one time tax that amounts to nothing in the big picture and an IRA is a differed tax on earnings.

Then you are diverting again. INCOME TAXES, clear now?

So what is unbalanced about the top 1% paying 40% of income taxes and the bottom 50% paying virtually nothing?

Diverting again but as I stated earlier no one tauting higher tax rates and "fairness" will ever directly address the questions posed. Thank you for proving the point.

You need to understand the term "flat tax".
.

ROFL so the person making minumum wage has no more burden in reporting taxes than a multimillion dollar corporation employing hundreds of people with huge inventories and assets and carryovers and credits.............you engage in the absurd now.

 

They don't pay a disproportionate % of their income.

If income tax contributions was stuctured so each quintile paid an equivalent % calculated as %overall earnings equalling the % of total tax collected, then the burden falls on the middle income quintiles. they pay more and all those consumers would have less money to consume things.

Might want to rethink that argument a tad.

Some sit on boards, and that is income. Yes I am familiar with concept of investment. Does anyone think the rich are like McScrooge hoarding his wealth in a vault on his vast estate? or perhaps in the mattress.

But you know what? All that capital will still do its job within the system regardless of the competency or involvement of the owners.

reading comprehension doesnt seem like a strong point.


Having a reading problem?

Me>> Why should I pay a higher tax rate than he does?

Once again, my wife and I have saved all our lives and have quite a bit saved up for retirement, we sacrificed to do so. My neighbor makes the same as us but has not saved, has nothing. Why should I pay a higher tax rate than he does? Why should I pay more in actual dollars than he does? [/quote]

Yes you do have a reading problem as well, since I answered this pretty succinctly.
If you earn the same income, you should pay the same tax rate (presuming equivalent deductions). If with your investments your income is higher, YOU STILL WILL PAY THE SAME RATE ON YOUR EMPLOYMENT INCOME AS YOUR NEIGHBOUR EVEN IF IT PUTS YOU INTO A HIGHER TAX BRACKET. You do know how progressive taxation works don't you?

How is proposing that there be a tax on assets? that is your mischaracterization of what I posted. I posted both Income and Asssets to demonstrate that the highest income earners not only have a disproportionate income, they have a disproportionate asset base. This is the second time I have explained this.

YOu pay the higher tax rate if you earned more income. Its a pretty damn simple equation. And only if your investment income puts you into another tax bracket, but you pay the same % as your neighbour on the same amount of income. Why is it so hard for you to grasp?

 

What is not equitable now? Again the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, what is not equitable about that?

 

was it, somehow, inequitable during the Clinton administration?

 

They do exactly that, they pay double the percentage in taxes to their income percentage that is HIGHLY disproportionate.

It's not by an stretch as shown above which you claim is not disproportionate enough, well what would be?

No rethinking necessary but answers on your part would be appreciated.

And many are Presidents and CEO's and CFO's and make LOTS of earned income which like their unearned income they pay the highest marginal and highest effective rates.

Your point being what?

For you no it doesn't.


Me>> Why should I pay a higher tax rate than he does?

Once again, my wife and I have saved all our lives and have quite a bit saved up for retirement, we sacrificed to do so. My neighbor makes the same as us but has not saved, has nothing. Why should I pay a higher tax rate than he does? Why should I pay more in actual dollars than he does? [/quote]

Yes you do have a reading problem as well, since I answered this pretty succinctly.

The question and the assertions is that my tax RATE should be based not only on my income but how much wealth I have, not the tax I pay on the gains on that wealth, the wealth itself. The more wealth I have the higher that tax rate I should pay on all my income. Why?

Scroll back.

And so what, what does their assets have to do with the tax rate on their earned income or even unearned?

And scroll back and read the leftist here demanding that wealth should also be a part of the equation to determine that tax rate.

 

You first

What is not equitable now? Again the top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes while the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing, what is not equitable about that?

And then, which part of the Clinton administration, before he passed his tax rate hike or after he was forced to sign the Gingrich/Kasich tax rate reductions? You see I don't fall for the "equity" thing I merely ask those who do to explain what this equity would be and if they do not believe it equitable now what would be.

As predicted none will give a straight answer. I believe rates should be set at a level that produces the most revenues to the treasury while insuring the availablity of capital and income in the market to keep the economy strong and growing and producing jobs. If you want to discuss the Clinton years then look at the realize capital gains and resulting tax revenues under the various tax rates. The distribution will fall where it falls.

 

Marginal tax rates are an ever changing set of figures that is re-negotiated in our ongoing political process. Sometimes they go up, and when they do, the republicans want them to go down. Sometimes they go down, and the democrats want them to go up.

Really. This isn't rocket science.

 

Nothing is free. Someone has to pay. What you mean by the government providing things for "free" is that it takes money from those who worked to earn it in order to use that money to buy things made by corporations and give them to people whose votes it's after.

"But without deductions, they wouldn't have had any incentive to become rich." There was no income tax, so no deductions, when Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Morgan built their fortunes. When Ford started his fortune, the top rate was only 25%.

Your statement that people want to become rich in order to get tax deductions is literally incomprehensible to me. You'll have to explain.