http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/eco...&hpt=hp_t2

What I take from this article: If we had a flat federal tax rate as some propose the middle class would carry a much larger overall tax burden as a percentage of income.

Some excerpts.

When factoring in state and local taxes, the top 10% pay just under half the tab. And when calculating tax burden as a percent of income, the tax code is even less progressive. The top 10% paid an average of 30% of their income in local, state, and federal taxes in 2011, said McIntyre. That's not much different than the 25% percent paid by the middle class.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.

(03-12-2013 01:14 PM)BobL Wrote:  http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/eco...&hpt=hp_t2

What I take from this article: If we had a flat federal tax rate as some propose the middle class would carry a much larger overall tax burden as a percentage of income.

Some excerpts.

When factoring in state and local taxes, the top 10% pay just under half the tab. And when calculating tax burden as a percent of income, the tax code is even less progressive. The top 10% paid an average of 30% of their income in local, state, and federal taxes in 2011, said McIntyre. That's not much different than the 25% percent paid by the middle class.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010, the latest year figures are available, according to the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank. That's up from 55% in 1986.
The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all -- a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water last year.

What does that mean, "paid hardly anything at all"? I've paid income taxes every year, even when I made a lot less money. I don't believe there are anywhere near that many people that pay nothing, or hardly anything.

The tax code was written, and is constantly being amended, by the richest politicians in Washington DC. For example, if a senator from Massachusettes is helping write a bill that will raise the tax on his yacht, he most likely has already figured out a way to avoid paying the higher tax, before it even passes. He could dock it in a low tax state, for example.

Our progressive tax system was specificly designed by Progressives to keep taxes high. Any reduction in the tax rate will result in a bigger savings for the millionares and billionares , whom the president wants us to hate, and very little savings for who pay no taxes. We could not possibly lower taxes. That would mean tax breaks for the rich, and we are supposed to hate them. We are supposed to want the government to take their money to punish them for being so successful. How dare they!

They have lots of money and I don't.

(03-13-2013 09:10 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  The tax code was written, and is constantly being amended, by the richest politicians in Washington DC. For example, if a senator from Massachusettes is helping write a bill that will raise the tax on his yacht, he most likely has already figured out a way to avoid paying the higher tax, before it even passes. He could dock it in a low tax state, for example.

Our progressive tax system was specificly designed by Progressives to keep taxes high. Any reduction in the tax rate will result in a bigger savings for the millionares and billionares , whom the president wants us to hate, and very little savings for who pay no taxes. We could not possibly lower taxes. That would mean tax breaks for the rich, and we are supposed to hate them. We are supposed to want the government to take their money to punish them for being so successful. How dare they!

They have lots of money and I don't.

Yep. You nailed it.

We need a sea change in the Government's attitude, not just the tax rate....... because until that attitude is adjusted, the Government believes that it's not money that you're keeping for yourself, but it's money you're taking away from the Government.

Capitalism unchecked is nothing but a greed is good, survival of the richest type mentality.

First and foremost, a progressive tax system equalizes the total tax burden as a percentage of income.

This is where we will disagree..
Second, when upper income brackets are taxed at higher rates it serve as a way to discourage income disparities.

Before reagan reduced the upper tax rates the average CEO made 35 times that of the average worker in their company...today that is closer to 300 times.

There is no way that this income disparity is good for America as a whole.

(03-12-2013 01:14 PM)BobL Wrote:  http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/eco...&hpt=hp_t2

What I take from this article: If we had a flat federal tax rate as some propose the middle class would carry a much larger overall tax burden as a percentage of income.

I know, right? The title is of that article is BS, like paying a "majority" of taxes is some kind of injustice. If a group holds 90% of the wealth, that group should pay 90% of the taxes, not just a majority.

Part of this discussion MUST be around our government's propensity to spend spend spend.

(03-13-2013 12:31 PM)BobL Wrote:  Capitalism unchecked is nothing but a greed is good, survival of the richest type mentality.

First and foremost, a progressive tax system equalizes the total tax burden as a percentage of income.

This is where we will disagree..
Second, when upper income brackets are taxed at higher rates it serve as a way to discourage income disparities.

Before reagan reduced the upper tax rates the average CEO made 35 times that of the average worker in their company...today that is closer to 300 times.

There is no way that this income disparity is good for America as a whole.

So true, I've never understood the conservative corporation worship. It's in nobody's best interest but the CEO's.

Ralph Gomory, a former IBM mathmatician, studied mathematical models of corporations and globalization, wrote the book "Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests," and concluded...

Quote:We need to realize that the interests of the American global corporation, whose interest is profit, and the interests of most Americans, who want a higher standard of living, have been diverging.

I already felt this way anecdotally, but this says to me that even mathematically, a trickle-down economy does not work!

(03-13-2013 01:09 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Part of this discussion MUST be around our government's propensity to spend spend spend.

True. I do think we need the Progressive tax too, and I'm okay with a limited increase in taxes if we can show that we have the discipline to cut spending in some areas (in significant amounts) as well. And nothing is off the table for cuts.

(03-13-2013 01:09 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Part of this discussion MUST be around our government's propensity to spend spend spend.

+1. we have a spending problem. for decades politicians spent and promised things the could not keep. voters fell for it hook, line and sinker. now they have pissed the money way and want more to keep getting re elected

(03-13-2013 01:14 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  So true, I've never understood the conservative corporation worship. It's in nobody's best interest but the CEO's.

Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

Quote:We need to realize that the interests of the American global corporation, whose interest is profit, and the interests of most Americans, who want a higher standard of living, have been diverging.

And what Ralph needs to understand is that private corporations are not charities.

Since the government isn't implanting a career chip in your hand which denotes what job someone is required to do, then if you as the employee want a higher standard of living and the CEO makes to much money for you to reach that goal, then go work for another organization who profit motives and CEO salaries are more in line with your egalitarian thinking.

(03-13-2013 01:09 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Part of this discussion MUST be around our government's propensity to spend spend spend.

I agree

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:14 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  So true, I've never understood the conservative corporation worship. It's in nobody's best interest but the CEO's.

Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

Quote:We need to realize that the interests of the American global corporation, whose interest is profit, and the interests of most Americans, who want a higher standard of living, have been diverging.

And what Ralph needs to understand is that private corporations are not charities.

Since the government isn't implanting a career chip in your hand which denotes what job someone is required to do, then if you as the employee want a higher standard of living and the CEO makes to much money for you to reach that goal, then go work for another organization who profit motives and CEO salaries are more in line with your egalitarian thinking.

That is much easier said than done.

(03-13-2013 12:49 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  I know, right? The title is of that article is BS, like paying a "majority" of taxes is some kind of injustice. If a group holds 90% of the wealth, that group should pay 90% of the taxes, not just a majority.

I thought we tax income, not wealth. Is that something liberals want to change? The difference is not semantics.

I have some questions for each of you:

1) how many of you feel that you're undertaxed?
2) how many of you feel that you don't have enough government intervention in your life?
3) how many of you feel that congressmen should have a lifetime position in D.C.?
4) how many of you believe that the federal government is efficient?
5) how many of you really believe that the fed gov't creates jobs? aside from gov't agency jobs
6) how many of you believe we need more lobbyists and special interest groups working the halls of congress?
7) how many of you feel we need to add more tax codes?

bottom line: Washington D.C. is broken.......government is the problem, not the solution

(03-13-2013 11:18 PM)bigdhuskie Wrote:  I have some questions for each of you:

1) how many of you feel that you're undertaxed?
2) how many of you feel that you don't have enough government intervention in your life?
3) how many of you feel that congressmen should have a lifetime position in D.C.?
4) how many of you believe that the federal government is efficient?
5) how many of you really believe that the fed gov't creates jobs? aside from gov't agency jobs
6) how many of you believe we need more lobbyists and special interest groups working the halls of congress?
7) how many of you feel we need to add more tax codes?

bottom line: Washington D.C. is broken.......government is the problem, not the solution

The question is not whether we want more government intervention, really, it's whether we want less government intervention, depending on the ramifications of that.

Cutting down on the size of government will likely not decrease the lobbying/special interests, unfortunately. The best way to cut down on that is to stop spending so much on campaigns that the candidate is beholden to the special interests that fund their campaigns, IMO.

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

And that's the dillusion. My whole point is the models show that Americans' standard of living GOES DOWN as corportate profits rise. Sure they employ people and pay them a salary, but if they take more out of the system than they put back in, it's still a net loss.

(03-14-2013 12:19 PM)NiuCoils Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 01:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Probably because, well, a lot of Americans work for corporations. Corporations that pay a salary so Americans can enjoy a high standard of living.

And that's the dillusion. My whole point is the models show that Americans' standard of living GOES DOWN as corporate profits rise. Sure they employ people and pay them a salary, but if they take more out of the system than they put back in, it's still a net loss.

So what is your solution?

(03-13-2013 11:18 PM)bigdhuskie Wrote:  I have some questions for each of you:

Quote:1) how many of you feel that you're undertaxed?

Honestly, I probably am. My effective tax rate is something like 14%

Quote:2) how many of you feel that you don't have enough government intervention in your life?

That's a loaded question, I don't feel "intervened" at all

Quote:3) how many of you feel that congressmen should have a lifetime position in D.C.?

They don't. We vote them in. If we keep voting for them, that's our own problem.

Quote:4) how many of you believe that the federal government is efficient?

I dunno, I get my tax refund in about 1.5 weeks, still waiting for Illinois over a month later. In my daily life they're sufficiently efficient.

Quote:5) how many of you really believe that the fed gov't creates jobs? aside from gov't agency jobs

Quote:[edit]

Of course you can affect job creation with policy. You can also affect birth rates, which crops are grown, where tires are imported from, etc. Every policy had intended effects and unintended effects. To say the federal goverment has no power of job creation, I guess you must believe they have no power over anything.

Quote:6) how many of you believe we need more lobbyists and special interest groups working the halls of congress?

NO, I'm with you there. The biggest reason our democracy is broken is it's too entangled with corporate greed.

Quote:7) how many of you feel we need to add more tax codes?

I say base taxes rates not on arbitrary brackets of income, but on percentage of wealth held. Hold 90% of the nation's wealth? Then pay 90% of the nation's taxes. No wealth? No taxes. It's the opposite of a flat tax, it's progressive with infinate resolution.