Republicans think you don't pay enough tax.

[RandFan]

Can someone tell me what it is exactly the GOP DOES want? It seems to me, and I said "seems", that "it", is whatever our corporate masters says it is. Since income tax has little to nothing to do with the rich and powerful I'm not sure why anyone would think the GOP would give a ****. Wasn't this rather predictable? Now, if we are talking tax breaks for corporate jets, well, that is sacrosanct, right? No way in hell are we going to stop those. Since supply side has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, particularly since the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 why don't we all sit down, shut up and take whatever the rich will allow us to have? I mean, we are afforded free air, right?

 

[leftysergeant]

I mean, we are afforded free air, right?

So far. Whether the wild captured product remains acceptable after the invewstor class figure a more economicly feasible way to bottle it is quite another question.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Net taxes, not income taxes.

????
The amount of an earned income credit is unaffected by the amount of Social Security taxes paid, and vice versa. It is a simple fact that the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income in social security taxes than do the poor (or middle income earners).

A family of 4 making 30K a year before taxes would have a take home salary of about 32K* - and they would spend virtually every penny on taxable goods. Poor(er) people in America pay a lower percentage in income taxes, but a much higher percentage in Social Security and sales/use taxes. In my posts, I have been as accurate as I can be - I'm not trying to trap with semantics. The poor pay more in net taxes as a percentage of total income than do the rich, generally.


*making the generous assumption that they would pay no state or local income taxes.

Here's a chart I made of average effective federal tax rates as a percentage of total taxable income:



Blue is federal income tax, red is social security tax, green is medicare.

Source: IRS tax statistics from 2008.

 

[BenBurch]

Personally, I was more concerned with the extension of Unemployment Benefits, than the payroll tax holiday.

Without a doubt, but the GOP never said that they love unemployment insurance, but they have been quite explicit about their pathological phobia about taxation.

 

[sarge]

Here's a chart I made of average effective federal tax rates as a percentage of total taxable income:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_163294ef74596f38c1.jpg[/qimg]

Blue is federal income tax, red is social security tax, green is medicare.

Source: IRS tax statistics from 2008.

The chart isn't perfectly applicable to this discussion.

The rich pay a slightly higher percentage of their income in taxes unless a significant majority of their income is from investments - then the rich may pay a lower percentage than the middle class. The rich pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes once state/local taxes and sales/use taxes are factored in.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The chart isn't perfectly applicable to this discussion.

The rich pay a slightly higher percentage of their income in taxes unless a significant majority of their income is from investments - then the rich may pay a lower percentage than the middle class. The rich pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes once state/local taxes and sales/use taxes are factored in.

My chart is based off of total taxable income, which includes long-term capital gains. My medicare number is probably a bit high for people on the far right-end of that chart, as a substantial amount of their income comes from capital gains, but everything else is accurate for all forms of income.

Your statement that the rich pay a lower percentage in total taxes once state and local taxes is factored is also correct, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Your statement that the rich pay a lower percentage in total taxes once state and local taxes is factored is also correct, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice.

Err, what the hell? Your statement is INCORRECT. Don't know what went wrong there.

 

[RandFan]

The chart isn't perfectly applicable to this discussion.

The rich pay a slightly higher percentage of their income in taxes unless a significant majority of their income is from investments - then the rich may pay a lower percentage than the middle class. The rich pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes once state/local taxes and sales/use taxes are factored in.

My heart bleeds for oppressed rich people. Who the hell will fight for them? Where can you find people smarmy enough to demand that no amount of wealth is enough?

Here's a chart of nations that have more contentment and well being than the USA without the wealth inequality.

 

[RandFan]

Maher Tells Media To Be Honest About Income Disparity

 

[sarge]

My chart is based off of total taxable income, which includes long-term capital gains. My medicare number is probably a bit high for people on the far right-end of that chart, as a substantial amount of their income comes from capital gains, but everything else is accurate for all forms of income.

Your statement that the rich pay a lower percentage in total taxes once state and local taxes is factored is also correct, according to the Citizens for Tax Justice.

Somehow, I am failing to communicate effectively. With no attempt at condescension, I am going to use bullets.

- the wealthy pay a higher income tax rate than the poor.

- the gap in the income tax rate between rich and everyone else narrows the more the rich earn in Capitol gains, but never closes completely.

- the rich pay a lower social security tax rate than the poor, always.

- the rich may pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes than the poor, once sales and use taxes are included. If the state or local goverment taxes food stuff, this is virtually guaranteed. Gas at .50 tax a gallon, food at .06 a dollar, and clothes at .07 a dollar hits the poor much harder than the rich - and absolutely results in situations where the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income to total taxes than anyone else.

Your charts, while perfectly accurate, do not apply to a discussion about total taxes.

Your link has nothing to counter the fact that the poor may pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the rich. Your link addresses income taxes.

 

[sarge]

My heart bleeds for oppressed rich people. Who the hell will fight for them? Where can you find people smarmy enough to demand that no amount of wealth is enough?

Here's a chart of nations that have more contentment and well being than the USA without the wealth inequality.

[qimg]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/3143/hdiax.jpg[/qimg]

I haven't actually argued that our regressive system of total taxation is bad. I'm just trying to point out that the rich in America may pay a lower total tax rate than the poor.

 

[eeyore1954]

My heart bleeds for oppressed rich people. Who the hell will fight for them? Where can you find people smarmy enough to demand that no amount of wealth is enough?

Here's a chart of nations that have more contentment and well being than the USA without the wealth inequality.
[qimg]http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/3143/hdiax.jpg[/qimg]

According to the HDI which has only a few factors included. Once you latch on to something I guess you like to post it over and over in various threads.

People may very well be more content in other countries than the US but this limited statistic does not prove anything.

 

[RandFan]

I haven't actually argued that our regressive system of total taxation is bad. I'm just trying to point out that the rich in America may pay a lower total tax rate than the poor.

Sorry Sarge, you were not my target.

 

[RandFan]

According to the HDI which has only a few factors included. Once you latch on to something I guess you like to post it over and over in various threads.

People may very well be more content in other countries than the US but this limited statistic does not prove anything.

The information is critically important for many reasons. First and foremost is the negative correlation of govt services and dysfunctional societies. In the end that's pretty much all that the GOP has in its arsenal at the moment. To Make liberalism a scary word and get people to fear that if they provide a strong social safety net to citizens then society will get worse. For those who know the facts and repeat the meme they are lying. I will keep posting the facts just as I keep hammering home evolution to creationists.

Let me make something clear. I don't buy this good guy vs bad guy ****. I desperately want the GOP to be a viable opposition to the Dems. I'm not a partisan in any sense of the word. I want the GOP to be a bulwark against govt intrustion and over regulation. So my reason for posting this isn't to score some victory against a perceived boogeyman. I want us to improve our game. Stop the religous like devotion to social Darwanism or its ilk.

RE: The HDI, it's NOT a limited statistic. Unless of course you disavow science or make an ad hominem argument against the scientists who create the index. It's not simply contentment either. It's a comprehensive index. And please note, the USA always scores high. I'm not saying that the GOP is bankrupt in their ideas or that conservatism is nonsense. I'm saying that much of the current GOP message is built on known falsehoods including Social Dawarnism or ideas similar to it, also, the claims that there is something inherently bad about welfare or social safety nets. That is anachronistic BS and we need to move beyond that.

*The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. There are also HDI for states, cities, villages, etc. by local organizations or companies.

And please note, the USA is consistently in the top 20 (top 3 if you don't adjust for inequality).

So, sorry, just as I keep posting facts about evolution to disabuse creationists I will continue to post facts about social welfare and govt services to counter the misinformation. Attacking the poor and using rhetoric like "wealth redistribution" and "welfare queens" is intellectually lazy and dishonest. Stick to the importance of entrepreneurship, thrift, risk, self reliance, personal responsibility, etc.. We can have all of those and provide a comprehensive social safety net that includes food, shelter, health care and emergency services for all. That's a fact. How do I know? Human Development Index.

 

[eeyore1954]

I haven't actually argued that our regressive system of total taxation is bad. I'm just trying to point out that the rich in America may pay a lower total tax rate than the poor.

Of course there are rich people in the US who pay less taxes than some poor people. And income tax statistics don't show it. Many wealthy people (especially older and conservative investors) have a lot of tax exempt income.

But I do stand by my earlier assertion that poor people with families usually pay no net tax. Even once state, local and sales taxes are factored in.
The reason for this is the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit.

I looked up in Wikipedia (I trust it for this info) and was surprised that more states than I thought do indeed tax food groceries.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Somehow, I am failing to communicate effectively. With no attempt at condescension, I am going to use bullets.

- the wealthy pay a higher income tax rate than the poor.

- the gap in the income tax rate between rich and everyone else narrows the more the rich earn in Capitol gains, but never closes completely.

- the rich pay a lower social security tax rate than the poor, always.

- the rich may pay a lower percentage of their income in total taxes than the poor, once sales and use taxes are included. If the state or local goverment taxes food stuff, this is virtually guaranteed. Gas at .50 tax a gallon, food at .06 a dollar, and clothes at .07 a dollar hits the poor much harder than the rich - and absolutely results in situations where the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their income to total taxes than anyone else.

Your charts, while perfectly accurate, do not apply to a discussion about total taxes.

Your link has nothing to counter the fact that the poor may pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than do the rich. Your link addresses income taxes.

No. The link I provided is for all taxes, including state and local. It's obvious in the graphic. If you're going to waste your time, you should at least click on the link first.

Here it is again.

Notice how it includes state and local taxes. That includes sales tax, property tax, etc.

 

[Harte]

http://www.freep.com/article/201112...lans-fail-in-Senate-House-GOP-ready-for-fight

I guess they don't want an economic recovery if it benefits a Democratic President.

"Republicans think you don't pay enough tax."

Given that about half of all wage earners pay (in effect) no Federal Income Tax whatsoever, they might just be right.

Harte

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

"Republicans think you don't pay enough tax."

Given that about half of all wage earners pay (in effect) no Federal Income Tax whatsoever, they might just be right.

Harte

Ahaahahahahaha, no.

 

[eeyore1954]

RE: The HDI, it's NOT a limited statistic. Unless of course you disavow science or make an ad hominem argument against the scientists who create the index. It's not simply contentment either. It's a comprehensive index.

I don't have to disavow science to believe the uses of the HDI are limited.
It is a limited statistic and you have been trying to use it to show more than what it is meant to measure.

Here's a chart of nations that have more contentment and well being than the USA without the wealth inequality.
http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/3143/hdiax.jpg

It is a measure made up of a few factors
Life expectancy, GDP , literacy and an education index: Mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling.

Do you think these few indicies can give an accurate measure of contentment and well being in a country?

They can give a general reading as to which countries offer good opportunities for "human development" and what countries are lacking.

As a general overview of what countries have

 

[RandFan]

Please to pay close attention and focus on my claim.

I'm sorry but you missed the point of my post. I'm willing to debate the side issue but please address the main point.

I don't have to disavow science to believe the uses of the HDI are limited.

Fair enough but you haven't made a case that the uses of HDI are limited. Even if you had, it wouldn't obviate my claim. Namely that social services are NOT negatively correlated to healthy societies.

It is a limited statistic and you have been trying to use it to show more than what it is meant to measure.

No. No. My claim is simply that HDI demonstrates that social services are NOT negatively correlated to healthy societies. There is much rhetoric that asserts otherwise. I don't simply gainsay. I provide scientific based evidence to disabuse people of the religious like devotion to concepts such as Social Darwinism (and/or concepts similar in nature).

It is a measure made up of a few factors Life expectancy, GDP , literacy and an education index: Mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling.

No, those are NOT the only factors, you left out OTHER measurements. But I would be willing to accept your list only, for sake of argument, in support of the side issue. Those are pretty damn important indexes.

Do you think these few indicies can give an accurate measure of contentment and well being in a country?

They are not a few, but let's advance the side issue and assume that they are only a few. They are a damn good indication, but you again miss the salient point. HDI demonstrates that social services are NOT negatively correlated to healthy societies.

They can give a general reading as to which countries offer good opportunities for "human development" and what countries are lacking. As a general overview of what countries have

No. I can't agree with this proposition but it's not too far from the mark. I would say that it is a general overview of both A.) opportunity provided by social policies with a strong safety net AND B.) the results of those services. Good health isn't just an opportunity for happiness. Still, even if I agreed with you, I don't, it would still miss the point. HDI demonstrates that social services are NOT negatively correlated to healthy societies.