Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by glasshouse
We should also take all the wealth the super rich have hidden in overseas accounts, for the simple reason crime shouldnt pay.
I have been robbed by these corrupt institutions who have destroyed our economy so many times I couldn't even begin to count. Probably you have as well.
edit on 31-8-2012 by poet1b because: Add n't
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil
Are you a billionaire? If not, then no, raising taxes on the super rich wouldnt take money from you, by returning the illgotten gains of the super rich back into the flow of the market economy would put more money into your bank account.
It's not redistributing wealth, it's re-redistributing the wealth back to the middle class.
If you bothered to pay attention you would notice that as the US government has sank deeply on debt, the rich have gotten richer.
Seriously, why do support policies against your own best interests?
edit on 30-8-2012 by poet1b because: Correct mistake in first statement.
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil
Did you really create those jobs? Or did the people who developed the tech that allows your business to operate create those jobs?
Do you get back from the government what you pay into it?
I know I don't, and I sure don't think future generations should pay all the fed debt built up to make the super rich, rich.
No I don't....should I not be paying taxes? Great!
Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by pavil
Do you you do business across state and national borders? Then you should pay taxes.
Did you vote for the last repub pres? Did you support free economics, deregulation? Policies that created our huge debt?
No of course not, that's why the current Administration has to go..... they are not getting the job done. Are you honestly going to tell me that President Obama has done a good job with the economy and the National Debt? The man really has no plan that will work. The best way out of this mess is to shrink Government and Grow jobs and revenue via creating more job and more opportunities for jobs. More employed people and less Government are what we need. It's really not rocket science.
Do you think it is alright to leave this huge national debt to future generations?
Nope, that would be my brothers... And you think we have problems now, wait till the entitled Boomers really hit Medicare and Social Security. You'll be talking to your kids about the "good ole days" back in 2010. I haven't benefited from much of anything other than a little luck and my own skills.
Are you one of the boomers who grew up in a time of great prosperity who is now leaving a huge mess? Are you one of those who have benefited greatly from the policies that have favored the boomers and screwed everyone who came after them?
Originally posted by poet1b
I do agree, the upper middle class get screwed under current tax rates. But continuing to pretend that corporations and the super rich pay their fair share, is, once again failing to look out for your own best interests.
I hope, and assume, that you are referring to income and not wealth. Even estate taxes don't get paid until the money is moved from one person to another. I won't support taxing someone's Porsche or yacht, just because they have it.
Someone with 10 times the wealth of another should pay 10 times the cost of police protection.
Not a bad idea, but we can't do it. People on Medicaid, food stamps, welfare programs, etc., can't pay in accordance to what they get from the government, that's why they're on the programs. So somebody else has to.
You should pay in accordance to what you get from government.
Not sure what you mean by Costco repairs, but a heavy truck, on average, pays about $9,000 a year in federal taxes, and an average of $5,000 in state fees. That is about a third of the highway trust fund revenues, considerably less than the 99% you mention (I didn't check that number). I'm agreeing with you, for now, that trucks to do much more damage than they pay for. This is related to your other comment:
Shipping creates 99% of road damage, shippers should pay 99% of the Costco repairs.
Let's say we triple the cost of shipping things, because, after all a tax is part of the cost, what will the truckers and corporations do then? If they ship fewer products, it's Joe Six-pack that gets hit with shortages. Don't you suppose they'll raise the cost of the goods to match the extra tax? Poor old Joe now gets hit with higher prices.
All international corporations and investors who earn money from international commerce shoul pay the cost of government support for international commerce.
After the War, corporations went to work to change the federal tax system. Not only did they succeed in shifting the tax burden from corporations to individuals already by 1960, but that shifting has gone on steadily to the present. Consider also that while the individual income tax is partly progressive (the higher your income, the higher the percentage you pay), since 1980, it has become ever less important for Washington's total tax revenues than the faster rising regressive Social Security and Medicare tax systems (the higher your income, the lower the percentage you pay).
One such argument runs roughly as follows: "Half of Americans pay no income taxes, while the richest 5 percent of taxpayers pay over half of Washington's income taxes." First of all, the vast majority of those Americans who do not pay income taxes do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. As the Washington Post made clear (September 23, 2011), using data for 2011, of the 46 percent of US households who will not be paying federal income tax for 2011, the vast majority will be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. The truth is that only 18 percent of US households will pay neither income tax nor Social Security and Medicare taxes. All but 1 percent of those who pay no taxes to Washington are either elderly or else have household incomes under $20,000.
Another such argument runs roughly as follows: "The richest 5 percent of income receivers in the US pay over half of all of Washington's income tax receipts." First of all, those same people pay a tiny percentage of Washington's Social Security and Medicare receipts. That is simply because the richest Americans earn the largest portion of their income from sources other than wages and salaries - such as interest, rents, dividends and capital gains. Incomes from such other sources do not have to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes. Since Washington's Social Security and Medicare tax receipts are now as large or larger than its individual income tax receipts, any honest assessment of what the richest Americans pay cannot exclude counting Social Security and Medicare taxes paid disproportionately by the bottom 99 percent - just what most of the right-wing analyses routinely do.
Did the US federal tax system hurt the top 1 percent and help the remaining 99 percent; does it operate "unfairly" as they claim? An answer emerges from the best professional statistical work yet done on the US income distribution: that of Professors Piketty and Saez (widely available on the Internet). Their work covers 1993 to 2007 (before the current crisis hit). They found that the average annual growth in US real incomes over those years was 2.2 percent. In contrast, the real annual income growth of the incomes of the richest 1 percent was 5.9 percent. The real annual income growth of the other 99 percent of the US was 1.3 percent. The US federal tax system that right wingers portray as unfair and burdensome to the richest Americans allowed them for the last two decades to gather still greater income than everyone else. The US federal tax system enabled greater inequality. And the same results apply to the US distribution of wealth. No wonder the right resents, opposes and seeks to silence those who suggest even modest changes in a tax system so convenient for the richest.
One corporation paid $26,000 a year to maintain a post office box in Bermuda as its legal headquarters. That little trick saved them $40 million in corporate taxes. Not bad. Taxes on the wealthy used to be high. During the Eisenhower years in the 1950′s, a fairly conservative period which saw tremendous economic growth, the tax rate for the haves was 91 percent. Today it’s a third of that, and few actually pay that much. In true Orwellian fashion, if you raise these issues you are accused of class warfare. There is class warfare all right. It’s been successfully waged by the affluent 1 percent against everybody else.
You're absolutely right, of course. But I was looking at federal income tax because it seemed that that was what the comments I was responding to were about. My argument wasn't inaccurate, it was dealing with something different from what you would like to talk about. We stumbled over "taxes."
You're looking at "income tax" but not total "income distribution" which is how tax money is appropriated and includes all taxes.
The table shows that the lowest 20% of income earners, have an effective tax rate of 0.8%. The next 20% pay 5.7%, the next pay 12.4% the next pay 16.4% and the top 20% pay 23.1% The top 1% pay 30.8%.
Taxes and the Poor: How does the federal tax system affect low-income households?
Low-income households pay relatively low federal taxes, primarily because tax credits reduce or eliminate their income tax liability, and some (called refundable credits) result in net payments to them. Stimulus measures enacted to offset the adverse effects of the 2008-09 recession further re-duced the tax-burden on these families. In 2011, tax units in the lowest income quintile (that is, the 20 percent of all tax units with the lowest incomes) on average paid federal income, payroll, and es-tate taxes equal to 0.8 percent of their cash income, less than a twentieth of the 18.1 percent average effective tax rate for all tax units (see table).
For many years now Buffett has pointed out that he pays less tax than his secretary. How could the country’s most well-known billionaire, worth $50 billion, get away with that? Here’s the significant reason — one that Buffett omits from his Op-Ed: He has traditionally drawn a tiny salary from his company Berkshire Hathaway and gives no dividends to shareholders like himself. So, even if Buffett raised income tax rates on the wealthy, he might not pay significantly more in taxes. By keeping his wealth in his company, Buffett has discovered one of the best tax avoidance schemes ever invented. And Buffett never suggests that corporate loopholes that he’s personally taken advantage of for decades should be closed. For example, his Berkshire Hathaway company has acted as an effective holding company for his vast investment portfolio. Last I checked, Berkshire Hathaway was generating over $7 billion in dividend income each year from stocks the company owned. Due to a special exemption (read: loophole) Buffett enjoys, his company benefits from the fact that nearly 90 percent of the dividend income is exempt from any corporate tax! (I do too, as I am a shareholder as well.) !
Well, of course they are, so are collections of coins, cars, wine bottles, and everything else. Part of the problem is that they vary in value. In the case of stocks and bonds, they vary daily. You buy stocks and bonds with money you've paid taxes on, and on whatever interest or dividends they pay, and whatever profit you make when you sell them. I may be missing your point, but are you suggesting a property tax on anything of value?
All STOCKS AND BONDS ARE EXEMPTED FROM PROPERTY TAX.
Sure, fine, but those vary from state to state. Besides, the rich have higher value homes, so they pay more property taxes. The rich also buy, more, and more expensive things, so they pay more excise taxes. As I say, these are state policies. Many states (including mine) have property tax refunds if your income is low.
So you need to include property taxes, sale taxes, etc.
I hesitate to ask, but would you remind me again of your point on taxes and the rich? I seem to be drifting now into a fog of uncertainty.
But the lengthy study by the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank, found more remarkable comparisons between states.
For example, the five lowest tax states, Wyoming, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nevada and Alaska pay about 40 percent less in taxes than the highest tax states, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Wisconsin and Rhode Island.
Why the disparity? For Alaska and Wyoming, massive oil and gas revenues make them outliers. Nevada enjoys sizable gaming and tourism income.
But experts say the decisions and political choices of lawmakers also play a role in how much states tax their residents.
"How much lawmakers spend is driven by who elects them," said Tax Foundation economist Marc Robyn. "A small government state, they elect small government type leaders and they won't be spending as much."
(But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)
In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate.
How are these huge gains possible for the top 400? It's due to cuts in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, which were down to a mere 15% in 2007 thanks to the tax cuts proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress in 2003. Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it's not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few. Overall, the effective tax rate on high incomes fell by 7% during the Clinton presidency and 6% in the Bush era, so the top 400 had a tax rate of 20% or less in 2007, far lower than the marginal tax rate of 35% that the highest income earners (over $372,650) supposedly pay. It's also worth noting that only the first $106,800 of a person's income is taxed for Social Security purposes (as of 2010), so it would clearly be a boon to the Social Security Fund if everyone -- not just those making less than $106,800 -- paid the Social Security tax on their full incomes.
As for the top 1% -- those who take in $1.3 million per year on average -- they pay 30.8% of their income to taxes, which is a little less than what the 9% just below them pay, and only a tiny bit more than what the segment between the 80th and 90th percentile pays.
An executive has $200 million of company shares. He wants cash but doesn’t want to trigger $30 million or so in capital-gains taxes. 1. The executive borrows about $200 million from an investment bank, with the shares as collateral. Now he has cash. 2. To freeze the value of the collateral shares, he buys and sells “puts” and “calls.” These are options granting him the right to buy and sell them later at a fixed price, insuring against a crash. 3. He eventually can return the cash, or he can keep it. If he keeps it, he has to hand over the shares. The tax bill comes years after the initial borrowing. His money has been working for him all the while.
Three years later, the note is repaid. McDuck now owns 100 percent of a partnership sitting on a $50 million pile of cash—the amount McDuck would have received from selling his stake in the real estate—without triggering any capital-gains tax.