It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wouldn't Federal Tax Cuts to the wealthy really be a welfare benefit aimed at the wrong demographic

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Those figures above showing how much the wealthiest Americans pay in taxes sound convincing... until you consider that the 30% or so they pay is not equal in man-hours to the pittance paid by the poor.

Wealthy people don't do the 9 to 5 thing. They basically 'work' a few hours per week, as opposed to the poor who, if they are holding down a full time and a part-time job (as many I know try to do), may work 70 hours a week or more. So in terms of labor, the wealthy do not get soaked... they get hit for the same amount of their labor as the poor.

For a poor man to make a week's salary at minimum wage ($7.25 now?), he will work 40 hours for $290. Someone well-off can make 100 times that with the click of a mouse using on-line trading and with a 2-minute phone call if doing things the old-fashioned way. There is the reason for the difference in what wealthy people pay as opposed to what the poor pay. The more you make per hour, typically the less hours you actually work.

There is also the consideration that a certain amount of money is used for necessities... basic food, heat, basic transportation, shelter.... these prices, if one considers the basics as that which is only required to sustain some sort of reasonable life, are fixed costs, whether one has forty-eleven zeros in their bank account or is constantly trying not to be overdrawn. So, if we allow that a certain amount of money is to seen as necessary and therefore will not be taxable, then that set amount is going to be equal to a greater percentage of income for those with less income.

Example: Person A is making $9 an hour working 40 hours a week. That's about $18,000 a year. Person B has a stock portfolio he lives off and receives $250,000 a year from investments. Person B spends about 8 hours a week watching the stock reports and researching companies to make sure his portfolio is sound.

Person A and person B both have to pay for necessities... heat, basic food, basic transportation... and this amount over the space of a year comes to, say, $15,000 ($1250/month). So person A actually receives a 'profit' of $3000 a year for working a little over 2000 hours, while person B receives a 'profit' of $235,000 a year for working 400 hours.

Person A is profiting $1.50 an hour. Person B is profiting $587.50 an hour.

Stay with me.... tax rates reported are based on total income, not this 'profit' I speak of. So if person A is paying 5% tax, that comes to $900, which is 30% of his 'profit'. If person B is paying 25% (5 times as much!!!) on total income, that comes to $62,500... 26.6% of his 'profit'.

Person A, by paying that measly 5%, still pays more of his after-necessities income that person B.

Let's look at it another way... person A is paying $900, which is equal to 100 hours of his labor. Person B is paying $62,500, which is equal to 106 of his hours. Person B is paying essentially the same amount, figured in man-hours instead of dollars, as person A.

So how is this not fair?

I will agree wholeheartedly that the rich should not be penalized for being successful, but the bottom line is that they are not being penalized by the US tax code (some states may do so). As long as the progressive tax rates reflect reality, there will be no problem.

For now, however, I disagree with extending the higher-bracket tax cuts, primarily because those who would receive these benefits are providing no additional jobs to the lower classes (thus disallowing supply-side economics to function), have already been the recipients of multiple unconstitutional bailouts of private industry, and have shown no indication that this will change.

As for corporate tax rates... there should be no tax on corporations! The tax should be assessed when dividends are paid out, be they to a wealthy investor or Grandma through her husband's retirement plan. Taxation can then be applied according to the individual tax laws onto the recipient, the actual person who receives it and uses it to live according to their own lifestyle. Corporations have no lifestyle; they are simply profit mechanisms used by people to make income.

Of course, that would mean corporations should likewise get no tax breaks... corporate reporting itself should only be limited to dividends paid to who, so the paperwork trail for income is established properly.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PeasantRebellion
 


I am not sure we are completely beyond the point. We are if Government continues down their path of central economic management. Planned economies are good for the State. It funds them. It disrupts the natural rise and fall that markets undergo. The idea that the State can control the economy is an extension they can control the people.

If Government would stop trying to provide fixes and let the markets settle (simplistic view of a more complex situation I know.), eventually things will normalize. People would have to understand though that we have been riding an artificially inflated economy for a long time now. Real wages would have to come down, prices of goods will have to rise, and an overall view that debt living is unsustainable needs to happen.

Unfortunately for all this to happen, the gate keeper, that being the Fed would have to be dismantled and we would have to go back to a tangible backing for the dollar.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Does that take into account all the tax loopholes the top 1-10% can use?


Originally posted by MMPI2
nah. you guys are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.

you need to take a look at federal tax rates across different income levels.

Lowest quintile 4.2 %
Second quintile 10.2 %
Middle quintile 14.2 %
Fourth quintile 17.6 %
Highest quintile 25.8 %
Top 10 percent 27.5 %
Top 5 percent 29 %
Top 1 percent 31.2 %

edit on 11-12-2010 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)


what tax loopholes? aren't the deductions in the current tax code available to everyone?




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


That is what Regan use to think when trying to work with the economy, give to the rich so he can trickle down to the poor


But what we have learned so far since the economic downfall two years ago is that the trickle from the bailouts has not made it to the poor at all, the trickle is now reverse,is "flowing upward no downward"
we the poor and working class are paying for the wealthy to retain their wealth.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
In a word...............
YES

Trickle down economics is nothing but a scam to keep the middle class down. Of course the working man doesn't need a tax cut. The guy making a quarter mil a year does. It's like forcing Calista Flockhart to go on a diet while Roseanne Barr eats pies for breakfast. Funny thing is, not enough people talk about it. The fact that they call it "trickle down economics" is the first sign that it's complete horse doody. Call it what it is. Upper Class Entitlement.
edit on 11-12-2010 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
What is trickle down economics? Well, here you go. It takes money to make money. Someone once posted on ATS that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to create jobs'. Nope. If they chose to INVEST in something they are free to. And job are inevitably created. Bear in mind that corporations are real people, stockholders and investors.

The article that I'm about to link to was a huge private project that was canceled at the last minute due to the fear of a hoax, Cap and Trade. The complexity of these plants is indescribable, and the jobs created are very well paying. Not to mention the local tax boon to the cities and local businesses. galveston-crystalbeach.alicedonahue.com...

I hate to be the one to tell the OP that that he or she is being used. The demonization the he or she has been fed is only a slight of hand. Take the above project canceled due to a hoax, Global warming. Many jobs were lost in the above example, but who would gain from cap and trade?
scottystarnes.wordpress.com... ing-hoax-has-been-so-thoroughly-discredited-follow-the-money-they-will-all-make-billions-2/

If you wish to demonize the rich and corporations then you must include Nancy Pelosi. Locally, the people in Texas lost jobs due to the Dems agenda of Cap and Trade. But see how she works when you're not looking. www.factcheck.org...

And to speak of trickle down economics how about John Kerry. He employed many people ( overseas ) to build his 7 Million Dollar yacht. But did he ever pay that $500,000 Dollar tax bill on it?

They love to get people like the OP worked up because it provides them cover.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
That is what Regan use to think when trying to work with the economy, give to the rich so he can trickle down to the poor


So Obama's trickle-up poverty is the answer?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Wealthy people don't do the 9 to 5 thing. They basically 'work' a few hours per week, as opposed to the poor who, if they are holding down a full time and a part-time job (as many I know try to do), may work 70 hours a week or more. So in terms of labor, the wealthy do not get soaked... they get hit for the same amount of their labor as the poor.


You are perpetuating a myth that people who have wealth (money) do not work or barely work. This is the cornerstone in instituting wealth envy and the foundation of class warfare.

Why Do The Rich Keep Working? - Forbes.com

Some blog that references an Op-Ed from the New York Times

Real Clear Markets
Go to about 2 minutes into that video. That is the relevant portion.

And another...with more cited studies

Particular this:

His [Daniel Kahneman] study found that people who earn less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those earning more than $100,000 a year (more affluent than wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure.


So much for deny ignorance...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Anyone who is arguing for people that make over 250K/year (less than 5% of the population) to not get taxed is either:

a) making over 250K/year
b) brainwashed

Those are pretty much the two options.

5% of the population owns over 60% of the wealth in America.....and they want more.

The bottom 80% of the population own 7% of the total wealth (and that number is falling). Anyone who makes less than 75K/year is in this group. If you make less than 75K/year and argue for tax cuts for the top 5%, you are dumb. Im sorry, but someone has to tell you this...youve been suckered. Snookered. Rooked. Just admit it (because we all know it) instead of trying to keep fighting a losing battle. Trust me, it will feel better to let it all out.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
To the OP from the title on down:

Your premise is seriously bent at such an early stage of this argument that it's no wonder you don't get it.

1. An extension of the current (and decade old) tax rate is NOT a CUT!
2. TAXES are dollars you EARN that the government TAKES.
3. WELFARE is DOLLARS you DIDN'T EARN that the government GIVES.
4. As for the "demographic", are you reintroducing class warfare or want redistribution based on frivolous spending?

Until you understand the definition of the terms you're using, reason will not work with you.

Once you think you got it start here: When the government runs out of our money it's because they spent too much, not because they didn't take enough!



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


I argue for tax cuts in the name of freedom.

Simply because one can afford to pay more in taxes doesnt mean they should

Giving the government more money has never proven beneficial to anyone.

Income redistribution is 100% unconstitutional and should never be tolerated under any circumstances.
edit on 11-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by lpowell0627

You make some excellent posts... but I have to take exception with one thing:

Lastly, I believe that once unemployment benefits are actually curtailed -- meaning you would receive them for X amount of weeks, with no additional extensions, you will see unemployment go down. When faced with no income, people will take jobs that pay less, are a step-down, etc.

There is no step down here... a step down means I and my family will still go hungry.

You see, not everyone has maxed-out credit cards, a wide-screen plasma TV, or even a warm house. Some people are literally scraping just to get by with the barest necessities. Minimum wage where I live is (I think, they have been raising it so fast I can't keep up) $7.25 an hour. The only jobs I could 'step down' to are part-time. There are no full time jobs! Now assuming I get to work 30 hours a week in that part time job, that means my gross pay for the week is $217.50. Out of that gross pay I will have as a minimum 16% FICA tax deducted ($34.80) and state income tax of about another $40... leaving me to come home with a grand total (if nothing is taken out for Federal income tax) of $132.70.

My food bill usually runs about $80 a week. My electric bill, another $120 a month ($30 a week). That leaves me with $22.70 a week to spend on gas to get me back and forth to work - about 8 gallons. Enough gas in my car (30 mpg) to go 240 miles. So my work radius is about 24 miles, and that doesn't include any trips to town for groceries, clothes, supplies, anything but work. That's also not including heat (the electric bill would be more like $500 a month with that), air conditioning, or clothing.

It cannot be done.

No, you may not be rich... but I don't think you're hurting either. Worse, I don't think you understand that people are truly hurting. The example above is not my present condition, thanks to some good luck earlier this year, but I am on unemployment and have been for the past 2 years. I will take any job which allows me to support my family, but I simply cannot do it without a livable wage. Children are not a luxury you can just decide to do without this month because the money isn't there. Once you have them, you raise them... period. Electricity, food, clothing... these are not luxuries. They are necessities.

I do take whatever jobs I can find as I can find them to extend my unemployment a little while longer, as long as they don't interfere with school.... yes, school. The WIA program signed by Clinton has allowed me a way out of this mess by continuing unemployment while I earn a degree in a better-paying field than flipping hamburgers part-time, paid for by Federal scholarship. I am not lazy, sir, but I am one of those you think would be as well off without that benefit. I tell you now, no sir I would not!

The economy is crumbling beneath our feet. In any normal situation, I would agree with you completely. But today is not normal. And today, in light of what is actually happening, your proposal is ludicrous, cruel, and arrogant.

I only hope that it doesn't take experience to make you understand exactly what is happening.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Since when is keeping more of my own money a "welfare benefit"? A "welfare benefit" is when the government gives you money you did not earn, money from other people who DID earn it. There may be legitimate reasons for the government to provide welfare benefits to citizens. I don't dispute that. But right now the top 10% of income earners in the US pay almost 70% of all income taxes and the bottom 47% pay nothing at all. That's why you can't give a so-called "equitable" (not) tax cut to half the population. They don't pay income taxes in the first place. Here's a chart with the bitter truth. Note that the "top 10%" isn't all that high, about $114K. That includes a lot of people here. Oh, yeah, that won't include kids still living in their parents' basements, but it does include a whole lot of working stiffs, including a whole lot of married people where both work.

Besides, who said this is a "tax cut"? It's all relative. As far as I'm concerned it's a lack of a tax raise. To say it is a 'tax cut' is a subjective statement.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Anyone who is arguing for people that make over 250K/year (less than 5% of the population) to not get taxed is either:

a) making over 250K/year
b) brainwashed


Neither do I make over 200K/year (the 250K mark is for married couples) nor am I brainwashed. I have perfect control and understanding of my own views and have come to the conclusions I stand for upon my own free will.

So no, those pretty much are not the two options.

So let us examine the rest of your post. Which I have a bad feeling isn't going to fair well given the above attitude you exhibit above.


5% of the population owns over 60% of the wealth in America.....and they want more.


Where did you get your numbers? Also, do you mean the top 5% percentile in accordance to the IRS or the top 5% of the population?



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Where did you get your numbers? Also, do you mean the top 5% percentile in accordance to the IRS or the top 5% of the population?



sociology.ucsc.edu...

Its not its some big secret. The wealth disparity in this country is at its worst since (surprise surprise) the Great Depression.

Interesting quote from the document:
"And the top 1% of income earners, who average over $1 million a year, actually pay a smaller percentage of their incomes to taxes than the 9% just below them. These findings are discussed in detail near the end of this document."



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by aching_knuckles
 


Giving the government more money has never proven beneficial to anyone.

Income redistribution is 100% unconstitutional and should never be tolerated under any circumstances.


Please prove these 2 assertions using specific examples and citing Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitionality of social programs.

Im waiting. Not only that, I am still waiting for an answer to a question I posed on a similar thread:

We have already spent the money. We are still paying for Vietnam, much less Afghanistan or Iraq. If you are giving tax cuts to the top 2%, WHO IS PAYING MORE TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE? You can talk about cutting all you want, but we still have to pay for several major wars, and paying for war is OK, why isnt paying for health?
edit on 11-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-12-2010 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Neither do I make over 200K/year (the 250K mark is for married couples) nor am I brainwashed. I have perfect control and understanding of my own views and have come to the conclusions I stand for upon my own free will.

So no, those pretty much are not the two options.




On Thursday, the Republicans refused to sponsor funding for 9/11 first responders, many of whom are sick and dying. They refused to give them the aid they need until the Democrats allowed the tax cuts for the top 2%. Not the tax cuts for EVERYBODY, but just for the top 2%

www.silive.com...


Rex's father, Gerald Sr., a Great Kills resident and NYPD lieutenant, died of cancer in 2009 after working on the pile following the 2001 terrorist attack.
...
Senate Republicans stalled the bill, saying they wouldn't move on it until a separate tax-cut package negotiated by President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans is passed.


So you support this? You agree with this? If not, how can you suport Republicans? Werent the Republicans the ones saying "Youre either with us or youre against us?" Republicans repeatedly prove themselves to be against us, and if you cant see that, then you are brainwashed.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy

If you took my post that way, I apologize. The wealthy (with the exception of the 'silver spoons') does/did indeed work hard for their money. They probably have worked harder than the rest of society to get where they are. That the wealthy do nothing all day long was not my intended point, so please forgive me if it came across that way.

What I am saying is that someone who makes their income trading stock does not have to work as long or as hard as those who are in the middle or lower class. CEOs, while definitely worth their greater incomes, do not have to spend all day every day at the office. The entrepreneur does not punch a time clock and is not docked for being 5 minutes late.

The middle and lower class are subject to those restrictions on their time, and thus on their earning potential.

It is self-evident that the man making $1,000,000/year does not work 50 times harder nor 50 times longer than the guy making $20,000/year. What he probably has done is work harder, longer, and smarter previously to be in the position where he can make that much. After all, where would the true benefit be to having the nicer things in life, a yacht, a summer home, a membership at a country club, if there was no time to enjoy them? Some people actually manage to live in run down homes because they are almost never there to improve them, between multiple jobs.

The point being that while I do not blame nor degrade those who are making the big bucks, I do simply recognize that due to their present position in society they are in a better position to make more money easier and faster than the rest of us. Thus, a higher percentage of dollars equates to a similar percentage of man-hours worked... and in some case a smaller percentage. If they choose to continue to work hard, then they still receive the benefit of that, albeit admittedly at a higher tax rate than the less fortunate.

That in itself is another reason to accept the incremental tax policy... because these people who I speak of are already wealthy; they have little need for increased wealth (although they may have a desire for such). The lower classes have an actual need, and deserve the opportunity to climb that ladder as well. By encouraging those who have succeeded to spent their time in the leisure they have earned, it allows more opportunity for others to achieve. At any one time, there are only a finite number of employment or investment positions available, after all.

I know that should I succeed to the point where I would be affected by this legislation, it would not be my major concern, nor would making more money. My concern would be maintaining my wealth and enjoying the leisure time I have earned.

I hope that clears things up.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
The wealthy need their tax cuts so they can stimulate the economy.

First of all, if they would tax corporations less, then they really could invest more and create jobs. But taxing INDIVIDUALS less doesn't necessarily stimulate the economy as history has shown.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join