9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

[nathanm]

BFD if you want to pay a "higher percentage". Chip in $50.00 more so others can chip in $5,000.00. WOW. Thanks for the big help there Mr. Charitable.

And stop with interpreting what my positions are. Bottom line. If you don't pay, or pay little, federal income tax, don't b!tch about raising taxes on anyone. Man, your jealousy is bordering on embarrassing.

More like an extra $10,000, actually.

Note that I don't want to. Of course I'd rather keep my ten grand. Hell, I'd rather keep all of my money. However, I look at my country's finances, see that it can't all be resolved with budget cuts, and realize that those of us who have the means to make sacrifices are going to have to do so.

[Red Arrow]

The world is all about percentages.  At least the real, real world.

Well, at least for increases.  Whenever there is a rebate or rate decrease the fact that "rich" are getting a bigger rebate or tax cut is all over the media.

[Red Arrow]

Note that I don't want to. Of course I'd rather keep my ten grand. Hell, I'd rather keep all of my money.

I think you actually do want to pay it.  You just don't want to be alone and you want to have everyone else be forced to do the same thing.  In percentage of course.

[nathanm]

I think you actually do want to pay it.  You just don't want to be alone and you want to have everyone else be forced to do the same thing.  In percentage of course.

No, I'd rather everything get paid for with magic. But since ifs and buts are not in fact candy and nuts I have to deal with the world as it actually is.

Think of it this way: I don't really want to pay for my house. I'd much rather it be free. Think of all the vacations I could take. Or maybe I could buy an airplane. But I have to have someplace to live, so here I sit, writing on TNF about how I have to make money to pay my mortgage instead of doing fun things.

And yes, I do think that all of us who have the means have the responsibility to dig our collective selves out of the hole we're in. I didn't ask for our wars, but I get to pay for them. Similarly, guido didn't ask for funding for planned parenthood, but he gets to pay for it.

By the way, I don't want any of this right now. It's bad economics to commit to austerity measures at present.

[Red Arrow]

And yes, I do think that all of us who have the means have the responsibility to dig our collective selves out of the hole we're in.

I agree with the statement above.  I also agree about no blood from turnips.  We disagree on how much is a fair share. 

[nathanm]

We disagree on how much is a fair share.  

Here's the thing, the bottom half of income earners only earn 13% of the income. A 100% tax rate on them would (in 2009) have gotten you a little over a trillion dollars. The top 50% of taxpayers, on the other hand, earned almost 7.4 trillion. Of that, the top 25% earned over 5.6 trillion.

Put another way, the 1,685,000 families like Guido's in America last year collectively earned half again as much money as the 69,980,000 families of the bottom 50% in 2008. And 2008 was an off year.

Why again is it that we're even talking about the bottom 50% at all? They collectively hold almost no wealth and collectively make about an eighth of all income.

[Red Arrow]

Here's the thing,

Here's the thing, you aren't going to convince me that I should pay 30% of my AGI in Federal income taxes.  Period.

I am not going to try to convince you that you are paying your fair share.

That's called a disagreement.

[nathanm]

Here's the thing, you aren't going to convince me that I should pay 30% of my AGI in Federal income taxes.  Period.

OK, what are we going to cut?

[Red Arrow]

OK, what are we going to cut?

We can start with the subsidy for corn based ethanol for fuel.  NPR, I sent a contribution to KWTU this year.  Mom always sends some money to OETA.  Close the loopholes that allowed GE to pay no income tax last year.  There are purchasing requirements when participating in a government contract that are definitely price adders.  Many of those are social engineering.  We need to evaluate the cost/benefit of them to determine if we are willing to continue paying that price.

I don't have a complete list. My list would probably be different than yours.  That is what our elected law makers are supposed to be doing for us.

[guido911]

Here's the thing, the bottom half of income earners only earn 13% of the income. A 100% tax rate on them would (in 2009) have gotten you a little over a trillion dollars. The top 50% of taxpayers, on the other hand, earned almost 7.4 trillion. Of that, the top 25% earned over 5.6 trillion.

Put another way, the 1,685,000 families like Guido's in America last year collectively earned half again as much money as the 69,980,000 families of the bottom 50% in 2008. And 2008 was an off year.

Why again is it that we're even talking about the bottom 50% at all? They collectively hold almost no wealth and collectively make about an eighth of all income.

For I think the third time in this thread, what does this have to do with tax policy? The fact you are avoiding this question tells me that your point is that a fair tax policy would be to close the income gap by seizing money from the rich and just giving it to the poor. Is that tax policy or social justice/wealth redistribution?

[nathanm]

For I think the third time in this thread, what does this have to do with tax policy? The fact you are avoiding this question tells me that your point is that a fair tax policy would be to close the income gap by seizing money from the rich and just giving it to the poor. Is that tax policy or social justice/wealth redistribution?

Read the first and second sentences you quoted and maybe then you'll grasp what it has to do with tax policy.

[guido911]

Read the first and second sentences you quoted and maybe then you'll grasp what it has to do with tax policy.

Nope. It doesn't. It sounds like a justification, or perhaps an excuse, to take more from one group of people, which in my opinion is not what income tax is supposed to. I thought the purpose of an income tax is to raise money for government and not to redistribute wealth.

[Red Arrow]

I thought the purpose of an income tax is to raise money for government and not to redistribute wealth.

Thinking ist verboten!

[nathanm]

Nope. It doesn't. It sounds like a justification, or perhaps an excuse, to take more from one group of people, which in my opinion is not what income tax is supposed to. I thought the purpose of an income tax is to raise money for government and not to redistribute wealth.

It doesn't what? The numbers don't demonstrate that asking the bottom 50% of income earners for more money is useless? An extra 5% on them (assuming the entirety of the increase is actually paid) would net the government $55 billion. A pittance. Tax us in the top 50% of income earners an extra 5% and you generate $355 billion.

I'm talking about raising money for the government's operations. You're talking about a bunch of irrelevant class warfare bullshit so you don't have to pay more tax while still receiving the benefits while trying to smear me as attempting to perpetrate class warfare against you.

I know you don't like it, but one of the implications of the extreme income inequality we have in this country is that almost all the money to run things has to come from the top. There just isn't enough money at the bottom to make a whit of difference to the federal government's budget.

Edited to add: Put another way, and I'm not advocating this as good tax policy, a 50% tax rate on the top 50% of income earners and zero percent on everyone else would pay all the federal government's bills. A 100% tax rate on the bottom 50% would cover less than a third of the federal budget. Perhaps that illustrates why I don't really give a smile whether or not we tax poor people, at least insofar as getting the bills paid goes. (I think there is a societal benefit to having them pay something, actually, but it doesn't actually solve any budgetary problems)

[Red Arrow]

(I think there is a societal benefit to having them pay something, actually, but it doesn't actually solve any budgetary problems)

You found something I can agree with.  I don't care if it's only $1.00, everyone should contribute something so they don't feel like a freeloader.  I also agree it won't do anything to solve the nation's budget.