| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2011 12:12:19 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I meant... what if they quit their jobs and go on welfare instead of working to earn their keep and 40% of the rest of America's keep. |
The U.S. top tax rate between 1944 and 1962 hovered around 90%. It also was the period with the greatest run up in gross domestic product, and the rise of the American middle class.
Today the top tax rate is 35%
The fact that you are shocked that the richest 3% pay 40% of the taxes might seem high, until you find out what they are being taxed on.
In 2007 the richest 1% controlled 42.7% of US financial wealth
The next 19% controlled 50.3% of total US financial wealth
The bottom 80% control just 7%
Does it surprise you that the top 20% of the rich pay most of the taxes, since they control 92% of what is taxable?
Does it still seem to you we need to balance the scales of the national debt by taking money from the small slice of wealth from the folks who just get by by working for a living?
PS numbers come from a study done by Norton & Ariely, 2010
|
|
|
|
07/14/2011 12:20:16 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Does it still seem to you we need to balance the scales of the national debt by taking money from the small slice of wealth from the folks who just get by by working for a living?
PS numbers come from a study done by Norton & Ariely, 2010 |
Just tell me what you would tell your daughter Susie to keep her motivated to keep earning when Johnny is out fishing and making the same amount of money (mostly off of his sister's work). (see my prior scenario)
It seems to me that every dollar made is taxable. No dollar more taxable than another. It should be the American way. It's what our country was founded on. Equality.
Message edited by author 2011-07-14 00:23:39. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 12:33:25 AM · #28 |
The American way? Really? Like when you could only vote if you were a male land owner? That American way? There is no American way but the direction we are headed in. At the moment it is one where the middle class is being squeezed out of existence and fewer and fewer people control more and more of our country.
Susie and Johnnie aren't paying taxes, but they better work hard, because we are cutting funding for schools and college will be running around 60k a year by the time they get there, and there won't be any help paying for it from Uncle Sam, he's broke, because our "job creators" need to get tax cuts. Perhaps Johnny will learn his lesson when he is living on the streets, because your notion of some mythic free ride does not exist.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2011 12:44:38 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The American way? Really? Like when you could only vote if you were a male land owner? That American way? There is no American way but the direction we are headed in. At the moment it is one where the middle class is being squeezed out of existence and fewer and fewer people control more and more of our country. |
But, you want them to FUND more and more of the country?
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Susie and Johnnie aren't paying taxes, but they better work hard, because we are cutting funding for schools and college will be running around 60k a year by the time they get there, and there won't be any help paying for it from Uncle Sam, he's broke, because our "job creators" need to get tax cuts. Perhaps Johnny will learn his lesson when he is living on the streets, because your notion of some mythic free ride does not exist. |
The equivalent of Johnny and Susie ARE paying taxes. That's my point. Working hard and earning more money does not pay... there's more percentage taken when more is earned. SO WHY WORK HARDER? If Johnny can work for one hour and get taxed for less and let Susie work for more hours and get taxed for more on the same dollars earned... why?
This country was founded on equality. So... why isn't the dollar earned equal for all?
Just because Susie knows that people want lemonade when they're hot and Johnny chooses to fish so he's not hot... why should Susie pay more tax on her dollar than Johnny? I want to know that.
I think people are missing the point here. Susie is working smart and Johnny is fishing and living off of Susie's money since she earns more of it.
Why is that okay in America?
Message edited by author 2011-07-14 00:47:43. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:30:12 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The American way? Really? Like when you could only vote if you were a male land owner? That American way? There is no American way but the direction we are headed in. At the moment it is one where the middle class is being squeezed out of existence and fewer and fewer people control more and more of our country. |
But, you want them to FUND more and more of the country? |
Why not? They own pretty much the whole country and have enough money to last a 100 lifetimes. Everyone else just owns the debt and you want them to pay more? They already have for generations, some more than others.
Message edited by author 2011-07-14 01:32:30.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:51:45 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Just tell me what you would tell your daughter Susie to keep her motivated to keep earning when Johnny is out fishing and making the same amount of money (mostly off of his sister's work). (see my prior scenario) |
This oft-posted motivation argument is completely unfounded. There was certainly no shortage of motivation (or wealthy individuals) in the 1950's and 1960's when the top tax rate was 90%, yet raising the top rate above 35% now would affect motivation? Heck, "socialist" Sweden ranks as the 4th most competitive country despite the second highest tax burden in the world.
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
It seems to me that every dollar made is taxable. No dollar more taxable than another. It should be the American way. It's what our country was founded on. Equality. |
There's no way around it: you've been conned by greedy individuals trying to protect their turf. Some dollars are massively more taxable than others, as the rich are disproportionately able to shelter income with overseas accounts, currency exchanges, high-end deductions, 15% capital gains and various tax loopholes. That's why companies like G.E. and Exxon Mobil are able to rake in billions of dollars in quarterly profits while avoiding taxes, and Warren Buffet legally pays 17.7% in taxes while his receptionist pays 30%. Does that sound equal to you?
No matter how much spending is cut, as the rich get richer federal revenue will decrease for the reasons shown above until the government is bankrupt. It's basic math and readily proven: from 2000 to 2010, individual tax revenue declined 30% and corporate taxes fell 27% even as the economy grew 16% and corporate profits gained 60% over the same period. Meanwhile household incomes fell as those gains went to the wealthy. Funny how "redistribution of wealth" isn't a problem as long as it's redistributed UP to the top 1%.
Republicans are deftly protecting the interests of their wealthy benefactors while marketing it in terms that sound good to ordinary Americans. They demand spending cuts to address the deficit, but only those that target middle and lower classes. Billions of dollars in government subsidies to obscenely profitable oil companies are off the table as spending. They refuse to accept any tax increase as an appeal to voters, but this only takes the form of refusing to allow temporary tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Closing loopholes that allow the rich to dodge existing taxes are off the table. They portray an increasingly heavy tax burden even though tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest since 1951. Unfortunately, I think this time the effort may backfire when failure to raise the debt limit results in irreversible economic consequences that more than offset whatever spending cuts they hoped to gain. I hope I'm wrong on that one, but we could find out in a matter of weeks. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:52:42 AM · #32 |
As an aside, I was a government employee for 26 years and never once flew first class. Not even business class. And was limited in the amount I could spend on a hotel and food for the day. And VERY regulated as to how I had to claim any and all expenses while traveling on behalf of the government. Not to mention I was ineligible to receive any gifts or gratuities. Nor was I considerably overpaid. I did get very good medical and dental care (though it was socialized medicine).
Not all government employees are lazy, on the dole, cheats, or crooks.
Carry on! |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:53:48 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The American way? Really? Like when you could only vote if you were a male land owner? That American way? There is no American way but the direction we are headed in. At the moment it is one where the middle class is being squeezed out of existence and fewer and fewer people control more and more of our country. |
But, you want them to FUND more and more of the country? |
Why not? They own pretty much the whole country and have enough money to last a 100 lifetimes. Everyone else just owns the debt and you want them to pay more? They already have for generations, some more than others. |
I just want people to be equal... As America was founded for.
Anyone who earns a dollar should pay taxes on that dollar.... whether they save it and give it to their kids or whether they spend it.
Seems fair to me.
Why do you want to penalize them for earning more money than you earn? Or I earn? Why? Why should they pay more per dollar that was EARNED than we pay for our dollars that we EARN?
I'm off to bed, and I hope I forget that I'm involved in this conversation in the morning. LOL!
Carry on!
Message edited by author 2011-07-14 01:54:57. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:57:32 AM · #34 |
Fully support a flat tax. Across the board. On everyone, corporate and individual, and every dollar. And it makes the math SO much simpler come tax time! Make it really easy - make it a flat SALES tax, not an income tax, then you tax only good and services consumed and everyone pays, from those who work for their money to those who steal it, make it on the sly, or inherit it. Johnny pays on the BMW, Susie on the Volkswagen (since Susie is smarter than Johnny).
Would this work? |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 02:14:22 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
But, you want them to FUND more and more of the country? |
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I want the top 20%, who own over 90% of the country, to pay a bit more.
I define the middle class as those between the poles, lets say 79% to 30% and they are the folks getting squeezed, but getting the services they need cut (public schools for the kids, medicare for the parents) and carrying a tax burden too close to the rich.
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
This country was founded on equality. |
Equality of whom? This country was founded on high ideals, but certainly not with the idea of all people being of equal worth. The notion of one person one vote was not there at the founding, it was arrived at by fits and starts.
Equality of taxation has never been a goal. Taxes are by their nature punitive, since it is taking an individual's money, no matter what the lofty hopes are for the expenditure of that money (building schools, armies, roads, what have you).
We tax whiskey at a different level that milk because we, as a people think it is better to drink milk than whiskey. We tax first houses differently that fifth houses for the same reason.
The notion of a graduated income tax is based partly on the belief that a strong middle class was a good thing to have. The leveling off of a progressive tax has done the expected, to pool more and more of the nation's wealth in the top tier of the rich. The wealthier developed nations tend to have a higher marginal rate than the poor third world countries, and our rate of 38% is right between the first and third world average. I would prefer it if the future generations of Americans did not grow up in a third world nation of the very rich and all the rest.
Johnny and Susie are creations of your imagination. Have you ever been on public assistance? Ever seen the people who are? My sister runs a social welfare agency in a nearby county, and I can tell you the people she helps are not living the life of indolence and pleasure you picture for Johnny. It is ugly at the bottom. No one stays there if they can get out. If they need some help to get out, I for one am willing to see my tax dollars used there (plus a bit more on top of that). |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 07:34:51 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The American way? Really? Like when you could only vote if you were a male land owner? That American way? There is no American way but the direction we are headed in. At the moment it is one where the middle class is being squeezed out of existence and fewer and fewer people control more and more of our country. |
But, you want them to FUND more and more of the country? |
Why not? They own pretty much the whole country and have enough money to last a 100 lifetimes. Everyone else just owns the debt and you want them to pay more? They already have for generations, some more than others. |
I just want people to be equal... As America was founded for.
Anyone who earns a dollar should pay taxes on that dollar.... whether they save it and give it to their kids or whether they spend it.
Seems fair to me.
Why do you want to penalize them for earning more money than you earn? Or I earn? Why? Why should they pay more per dollar that was EARNED than we pay for our dollars that we EARN?
I'm off to bed, and I hope I forget that I'm involved in this conversation in the morning. LOL!
Carry on! |
The top percenters are not being punished. They pay less taxes than you do! I still can't believe people still believe this foolishness in the age of information. Skip the political websites, go to the scholars. Read what the economists say about the economy, who's controlling it, who has the money, and who really isn't paying their way.
And Deb, I agree with you 100%! Sales tax all the way. Those rich people sure love their toys. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 11:28:24 AM · #37 |
| You sure you guys aren't all congressmen? |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 12:24:29 PM · #38 |
Here's a more interesting question because it's harder to answer. How should Social Security and/or Medicare be cut?
EDIT: Actually, we can leave that question for later. I wanted to chime in and say that people have been approaching the "tax the rich" question from a "is it morally right or wrong?" angle. I would propose that it is better to think about it from a mechanical point of view.
Money is like interstellar dust. In the beginning, at least theoretically, it is evenly distributed across society. But money tends to clump and accumulate (like the dust does through the action of gravity). If left to its own devices, the great majority will wind up in very few locations. That is bad for the economy. There is less money circulating through the system which means less to buy with or exchange for services. A mechanism needs to exist that will redistribute this and counteract the "gravity" of money and its tendancy to clump. Traditionally this has been the death tax, but we know how unpopular that is these days. Taxing the rich at an increased rate provides a drag on the clumping effect. Note that it does not stop it. Money will still clump, but it takes the rich longer to accumulate wealth because more is being skimmed off as it comes in.
This is a fact of economic reality. We cannot pretend it is not true. A system needs to exist to counteract this and the Republicans, either through ignorance, greed, or a misguided sense of morality, have done their best to dismantle it. Death taxes cut. Capital gains cut. Top tax bracket percentages cut. The current gap between rich and poor is subsequently as inevitable as Newton's apple falling on his head.
Message edited by author 2011-07-14 12:41:12. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:14:02 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Republicans are deftly protecting the interests of their wealthy benefactors while marketing it in terms that sound good to ordinary Americans. They demand spending cuts to address the deficit, but only those that target middle and lower classes. Billions of dollars in government subsidies to obscenely profitable oil companies are off the table as spending. They refuse to accept any tax increase as an appeal to voters, but this only takes the form of refusing to allow temporary tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Closing loopholes that allow the rich to dodge existing taxes are off the table. They portray an increasingly heavy tax burden even though tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest since 1951. Unfortunately, I think this time the effort may backfire when failure to raise the debt limit results in irreversible economic consequences that more than offset whatever spending cuts they hoped to gain. I hope I'm wrong on that one, but we could find out in a matter of weeks. |
I think you (and others) have said all that needs saying here. I'm completely astounded that any ordinary person (meaning those not in the ranks of the very wealthy, the vast majority of us) would buy into the Republican line on this issue. Please consider that virtually every Republican in Congress just voted to pass the Ryan budget, a plan that would require the debt ceiling be raised at least another dozen or so times over the next decade. And please consider that they talk out of both sides of their mouth every day when they say that not raising the debt ceiling would be of little consequence, yet they're using it as the mother of all bargaining chips to win concessions that, at worst for them, would result in a deal skewed 10-to-1 in their favor. And please also consider that if balancing the budget and controlling the debt and deficit were really of the utmost importance, they might be willing to concede one dollar, just one dollar, in tax increases for the wealthiest among us.
With respect to fairness and equity, does anyone really think it's fair and equitable to take $4 trillion out of the pockets of those least able to afford it and not ask those most able to afford it to sacrifice anything?
One thing I'll say for the Republicans, they sure can serve up the horseshit and convince some people it's yummy chocolate pudding.
Message edited by author 2011-07-14 15:52:59. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:15:54 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How should Social Security and/or Medicare be cut? |
Start by cutting benefits to those who don't need them. A multi-millionaire drawing medicare or SS checks is like Robin Hood in reverse.
The rich absolutely DO NOT pay more than others— Warren Buffet pays 17.7% in federal income tax (about half the rate of his employees) and Exxon Mobil, with quarterly profits in the tens of billions, pays zero in federal income tax... and gets billions in government subsidies on top of that. Taxing this wealth is not just a matter of fairness, it's a mathematical necessity. If Johnny has 80% of the money and growing, while Susie has 20% and falling, then taxing both 35% when Johnny is able to shelter most of that income means Susie must shoulder an ever-increasing tax burden until the inevitable government bankruptcy. THIS is what Republicans are defending. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:22:11 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How should Social Security and/or Medicare be cut? |
Start by cutting benefits to those who don't need them. A multi-millionaire drawing medicare or SS checks is like Robin Hood in reverse. |
But, an honest question, how much would this accomplish? If, as we've pointed out, the "rich" are a minority of Americans, are we then just cutting Social Security to 3% of Americans? That isn't going to take much off the tab.
Originally posted by Scalvert:
The rich absolutely DO NOT pay more than others— Warren Buffet pays 17.7% in federal income tax (about half the rate of his employees) and Exxon Mobil, with quarterly profits in the tens of billions, pays zero in federal income tax... |
Another honest question. While EXXON doesn't apparently pay the tax, wouldn't the profit, as soon as it is converted to personal wealth be taxed on the individual? The CEO, or whomever, gets a large bonus because Exxon has a great year and the profits are distributed, isn't that taxed? It strikes me that the money is only untaxed as long as it is unrealized as profit by somebody. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:26:40 PM · #42 |
| We might look to see how insurance companies screen patients they pay for, differently than their medicare patients. I have noticed comparing my experience with a bad knee how reluctant my provider is to operate, but when my mother went in with a similar complaint she was put on the surgical calendar that week. Medicare is seen as an easy profit pool where the elderly are over treated to bolster the bottom line. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:38:03 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
. While EXXON doesn't apparently pay the tax, wouldn't the profit, as soon as it is converted to personal wealth be taxed on the individual? |
The nice thing about getting a lot of money is that if you are smart and hire smart people, much of your compensation can be shunted to areas that get some tax advantage, or if you go the route of tax-deferred shelter trusts or the like, you can minimized your tax obligation, you can turn hobbies into money loosing ventures (think horse farms, exotic car museums, and charter yachts). So yes, some of the salaries to employees does get taxed as personal wealth, but not at the same rate it would be if you were a cubicle drone at EXXON and spent every paycheck as it came in. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:45:21 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
. While EXXON doesn't apparently pay the tax, wouldn't the profit, as soon as it is converted to personal wealth be taxed on the individual? |
The nice thing about getting a lot of money is that if you are smart and hire smart people, much of your compensation can be shunted to areas that get some tax advantage, or if you go the route of tax-deferred shelter trusts or the like, you can minimized your tax obligation, you can turn hobbies into money loosing ventures (think horse farms, exotic car museums, and charter yachts). So yes, some of the salaries to employees does get taxed as personal wealth, but not at the same rate it would be if you were a cubicle drone at EXXON and spent every paycheck as it came in. |
This is quite true, but statistics, being what they are, can often be utilized to say things that aren't quite true. When one says "Exxon pays zero tax", it leads to an impression that there are upper management goons out there buying Ferrari's and women and booze all with tax free money. This is not the truth. Corporate tax IS an interesting quandry and I don't claim any expertise at all (zero, in fact), but it doesn't seem quite right if the system would tax the corporation at some high rate and then ALSO tax the individuals in the corporation once the profit is converted to personal wealth. It strikes me that corporate taxes SHOULD be low but individual taxes should be high. All corporate money eventually becomes individual money (unless it is unutilized or spent in the course of business). |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:49:45 PM · #45 |
I think that complaining that the top 2% of people are taxed too much is not remotely defensible, and 98% of people want them taxed more!
What pisses me off is that these tea party folks, who seem like decent fed up citizens, righteously upset with government, are whipped into a false grass-roots fervor by billionaires, and two bad things happens. 1) they latch onto idiotic politicians- feeding into their own fears and sense of frustration, and 2)they start attacking their own- they go after unions and public employees, all the time their gaze is diverted away from the billionaires who laugh ion the corner while they remove wealth upwards!
Lydiatoo- I'm not going to change your mind- but know this; although the extremely wealthy pay in aggregate a big share of "federal income tax" - they do not pay a greater share of payroll tax, and as previously noted, investment income is taxed at a lower rate.
you seem quite naive to say you want america to be equal, but perpetuate the almost lordship of the rich 2%- seemingly indicate that they are working as hard as those at the bottom. TO acquire wealth may be a hardworking noble goal, but to secure your families social, monetary and political dominance forever sounds more like Britain, or even Old Cuba then it does America.
The debt ceiling has been raised many times and it must be again. It is tea party people making you take your eye off the ball- and what you need to see is that, when you have the lowest tax rates since the 1950's, 2 and 1/2 wars, (at least one that was completely unnecessary- Iraq) coupled with a fleecing of america by banks and investment houses through ridiculously unregulated instruments, creating the worst economy since the great depression. Lets forget about abortion, gay rights issues, healthcare, the environment, ending corporate welfare and corporate subsidies- lets make sure no one we knows votes tea party in the next elections. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 01:55:16 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It strikes me that corporate taxes SHOULD be low but individual taxes should be high. |
Why should my business be taxed at one rate of it is a sole proprietorship where I am legally responsible for it's debts and actions, but at a lower rate should I become an employee of a corporation that I own and control? What are the advantages to the country that are being rewarded? I can see the advantages to me, but why should I be rewarded by having lower initial taxation for incorporating, for no longer being as legally culpable for the actions of my business, or the debt it incurs?
Taxes are punitive by their nature, shaping the marketplace, pushing commerce one way or another. What are the aspects that make corporations an entity to be rewarded over other forms of ownership?
Message edited by author 2011-07-14 14:14:05. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 02:09:13 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But, an honest question, how much would this accomplish? If, as we've pointed out, the "rich" are a minority of Americans, are we then just cutting Social Security to 3% of Americans? That isn't going to take much off the tab. |
People complain about welfare fraud and loafers living off the government dime. Why is it any different when the 20% of Americans that control 90% of the financial wealth accept government handouts? That's ultimately a much bigger drain on resources than petty thievery at the other end. Think of it this way: a low income person might use welfare to buy beer or a flat screen TV and it draws outrage, yet a tax cut for the wealthy, intended to stimulate trickle-down growth, is far more often used to buy real estate, derivatives or static investments like Old Master's paintings. In both cases the purchases are for personal gain that does not serve the intended purpose of the government handout, but the latter is an overwhelmingly bigger expense.
Originally posted by Scalvert:
While EXXON doesn't apparently pay the tax, wouldn't the profit, as soon as it is converted to personal wealth be taxed on the individual? The CEO, or whomever, gets a large bonus because Exxon has a great year and the profits are distributed, isn't that taxed? |
This is NET INCOME... what's left after the CEOs and employees are paid. However since you brought it up, the highest salaries paid to the CEO and executives are largely sheltered by mechanisms like stock options and gifts that aren't available to typical workers (that's why Buffet can pay 17.7% in taxes while his employees pay an average of $32%+). So the situation is actually worse than corporate profits alone suggest. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 02:12:33 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
The top 3% of the earners pay FORTY PERCENT of taxes! Taxing the rich is not the way to go. |
The top 3% control something between 60-80% of the total wealth. And their income is largely classified as "unearned" income -- derived solely from returns on "investments" and not for actually making anything (besides money) or performing any service (except helping others make money) -- for that they get taxed at half the rate of those people lucky enough to work for their income. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 02:16:54 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All corporate money eventually becomes individual money (unless it is unutilized or spent in the course of business). |
BS. Net profits are what's left AFTER the individuals are paid. The real reason Apple has such a huge stockpile of cash is that most of it is earned and held overseas. By keeping it there, they dodge the taxes that would otherwise be due. |
|
|
|
07/14/2011 02:24:11 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But, an honest question, how much would this accomplish? If, as we've pointed out, the "rich" are a minority of Americans, are we then just cutting Social Security to 3% of Americans? That isn't going to take much off the tab. |
People complain about welfare fraud and loafers living off the government dime. Why is it any different when the 20% of Americans that control 90% of the financial wealth accept government handouts? That's ultimately a much bigger drain on resources than petty thievery at the other end. Think of it this way: a low income person might use welfare to buy beer or a flat screen TV and it draws outrage, yet a tax cut for the wealthy, intended to stimulate trickle-down growth, is far more often used to buy real estate, derivatives or static investments like Old Master's paintings. In both cases the purchases are for personal gain that does not serve the intended purpose of the government handout, but the latter is an overwhelmingly bigger expense. |
Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for cutting Social Security to the rich. I think it's reasonable. BUT, the question is how much will that actually take off our deficit? My sense is not much. Do you have any numbers on this? It's all context. The Obama plan cuts the deficit by, what, $4 trillion? That sounds like a lot. But in reality it is over 10-12 years and our deficit will still increase by something like $6-8 trillion in that period of time even with that cut. I don't want us to fall into that false sense of security where it seems like we're actually doing something here.
Originally posted by Scalvert:
This is NET INCOME... what's left after the CEOs and employees are paid. However since you brought it up, the highest salaries paid to the CEO and executives are largely sheltered by mechanisms like stock options and gifts that aren't available to typical workers (that's why Buffet can pay 17.7% in taxes while his employees pay an average of $32%+). So the situation is actually worse than corporate profits alone suggest. |
More statistical jiggery. What employees are paying an average of 32%? You seem to be taking Buffet's rate at his actual rate, but then calculating the employee rate by adding up all their accumulated taxes and not discounting anything. My own actual income tax (this does not include other taxes) was something in the 10-15% range once common deductions were taken out (nothing special, I don't even hire a CPA, and I don't make enough money to qualify as "rich" by Obama's standard). In these situations statistics can be made to say almost anything.
Still, the point is NET INCOME is the same as PERSONAL INCOME, is it not? And I remain on the record saying I'm uneasy about taxing it twice at a high rate. Once as corporate profit, then once as individual profit. I'd be more inclined to remove all corporate taxes in exchange for higher top tier individual tax brackets. Once again, for the money to be worth anything to anybody, it has to be realized as personal profit somewhere. Stock options and the like should be taxed at a higher rate than Bush's capital gain rate of 15%(?). But those are, once again, individual taxes, not corporate taxes. |
|
