Republicans think you don't pay enough tax.

[RandFan]

BTW: There are other sources that corroborate my contention.

Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe

Questions about the role of God and religion in today's world have never been more relevant or felt more powerfully. Many of us are searching for a place where we can find not only facts and scientific reason but also hope and moral courage. For some, answers are found in the divine. For others, including the New Atheists, religion is an "enemy."'

But in Good Without God, Greg Epstein presents another, more balanced and inclusive response: Humanism. He highlights humanity's potential for goodness and the ways in which Humanists lead lives of purpose and compassion. Humanism can offer the sense of community we want and often need in good times and bad—and it teaches us that we can lead good and moral lives without the supernatural, without higher powers . . . without God.

While not directly trying to prove my claim, Epstein uses secular societies to demonstrate the high degree of flourishing and well being in the very same societies listed as high in the HDI. You can argue correlation is not causation and I will accept that. What you cannot argue is that social services are negatively correlated to flourishing societies. So, not only is the causation of social Darwinsts and their ilk not demonstrated, the evidence shows there ISN'T EVEN a correlation. On the contrary, there is a negative correlation.

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment

Before he began his recent travels, it seemed to Phil Zuckerman as if humans all over the globe were “getting religion”—praising deities, performing holy rites, and soberly defending the world from sin. But most residents of Denmark and Sweden, he found, don't worship any god at all, don't pray, and don't give much credence to religious dogma of any kind. Instead of being bastions of sin and corruption, however, as the Christian Right has suggested a godless society would be, these countries are filled with residents who score at the very top of the "happiness index" and enjoy their healthy societies, which boast some of the lowest rates of violent crime in the world (along with some of the lowest levels of corruption), excellent educational systems, strong economies, well-supported arts, free health care, egalitarian social policies, outstanding bike paths, and great beer.

Again, Zuckerman isn't trying to establish cause and effect relationship between social services and human flourishing. Like Epstein his point is about the negative correlation between non-religious and unhealthy societies. The result, of course, is to demonstrate the negative correlation between social services and unhealthy societies as the societies he uses as his basis are the nations that provide the highest level of social services, welfare, healthcare, food, shelter, etc.

I was once a social Darwinist (or something akin to it. The term has taken on a pejorative meaning and I think most would disavow social Darwinism formally while holding to the basic tenants). The facts moved me away from that position.

 

[eeyore1954]

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.

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.

No. No. My claim is simply that HDI demonstrates that social services are NOT negatively correlated to healthy societies.

I don't disagree with the statement social services are NOT negatively correlated to healthy societies.

I disagree with using that chart to indicate

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

I was relying on Wikipedia but I believe those are the three factors that go into making theHDI. They are discounted using something called the Atkinson index.

 

[RandFan]

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

I was relying on Wikipedia but I believe those are the three factors that go into making theHDI. They are discounted using something called the Atkinson index.

Fair enough. I stand by that claim also. Perhaps not as strong of a position but hardly controversial and Wikipedia, I would asserts supports the claim.

It is a standard means of measuring well-being.

But it was Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s work on capabilities and functionings that provided the underlying conceptual framework. Haq was sure that a simple composite measure of human development was needed in order to convince the public, academics, and policy-makers that they can and should evaluate development not only by economic advances but also improvements in human well-being.

The stated goal isn't opportunity of well being but improvements in well-being.

Now, if you want to disagree I'm fine with that. I think I'm on solid ground and I'm happy to keep making the claim but I don't claim 100% accuracy of the index OR Wikipedia.

 

[sarge]

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.

There are an insignificant number of Americans that pay no taxes. The majority of Americans in the 3rd and 4th quintile pay a high percentage of their income in total taxes, even after figuring the value of the EIC and the refundable portion if the Child Tax Credit.

 

[sarge]

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.

Save your snark for someone else - especially when you are likely wrong.

Your chart does not appear to include sales and use taxes at all. It appears to include only federal, state, and local income tax. On the surface, it is not likely that the bottom quintile pays only 16 percent of their income in taxes if sales tax, especially the exorbitant taxes on gas, and the 6.2% in social security taxes are included.

The bottom quintile likely pays nothing in state and federal income taxes, but certainiy pays more than 16% in sales tax on food and clothes and social security.

 

[000063]

Save your snark for someone else - especially when you are likely wrong.

Your chart does not appear to include sales and use taxes at all. It appears to include only federal, state, and local income tax. On the surface, it is not likely that the bottom quintile pays only 16 percent of their income in taxes if sales tax, especially the exorbitant taxes on gas, and the 6.2% in social security taxes are included.

The bottom quintile likely pays nothing in state and federal income taxes, but certainiy pays more than 16% in sales tax on food and clothes and social security.

So...where's your chart? Where are your sources? I'm noticing a remarkable lack of backup for any of your claims.

I don't even have a dog in this fight; I'm not American, I don't live in the US. I'm just noticing a lot of sound and fury and not much being signified. To much "it seems", "might be", and "looks like", and not enough "is".

 

[Newtons Bit]

Save your snark for someone else - especially when you are likely wrong.

Your chart does not appear to include sales and use taxes at all. It appears to include only federal, state, and local income tax. On the surface, it is not likely that the bottom quintile pays only 16 percent of their income in taxes if sales tax, especially the exorbitant taxes on gas, and the 6.2% in social security taxes are included.

The bottom quintile likely pays nothing in state and federal income taxes, but certainiy pays more than 16% in sales tax on food and clothes and social security.

It's not my chart. It's a chart from a relatively liberal organization.

There are also other publications on the internet that show the same thing. For instance, a 2007 publication by the Institute On Taxation and Ecomonic Policy breaks state and local taxes down for the bottom quintile into 7.1% for sales tax, 3.7% for property tax and 0.2% in income tax for a total of 10.9%

Your argument from incredulity is rejected.

 

[Corsair 115]

The majority of Americans in the 3rd and 4th quintile pay a high percentage of their income in total taxes, even after figuring the value of the EIC and the refundable portion if the Child Tax Credit.

What exactly does "a high percentage" mean? 80%? 60% 40%? What exactly about the figure being paid makes it "high"?

 

[Harte]

The bottom quintile likely pays nothing in state and federal income taxes, but certainiy pays more than 16% in sales tax on food and clothes and social security.

I'm in the third quintile, and I didn't owe any federal tax in 2010. In fact, I got money back - everything I paid in and some of yours.

I believe your view on the matter is skewed.

Harte

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm in the third quintile, and I didn't owe any federal tax in 2010. In fact, I got money back - everything I paid in and some of yours.

I believe your view on the matter is skewed.

Harte

I suspect you're lying, as I'm looking at payin 2000 and I'm in the fourth quintile.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What exactly does "a high percentage" mean? 80%? 60% 40%? What exactly about the figure being paid makes it "high"?

On average, it's 25% and 28% respectively.

 

[Corsair 115]

On average, it's 25% and 28% respectively.

Okay, now we have some specific numbers. So perhaps sarge will explain what is it about 25% and 28% that makes them "high".

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Okay, now we have some specific numbers. So perhaps sarge will explain what is it about 25% and 28% that makes them "high".

I suspect sarge and NewtonBit disagree as to the numbers as well.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I suspect sarge and NewtonBit disagree as to the numbers as well.

I'm using actual studies that calculate the numbers. Sarge is guessing.

 

[sarge]

I'm using actual studies that calculate the numbers. Sarge is guessing.

I am guessing at nothing, and you are ignoring some of the actual numbers - willfully or not.

You keep refering only to income taxes, federal, state, and local. So far, everything you have posted ignores sales and use taxes. A family of four subsisting on 35K a year and driving to work will be taxed on all 35K - 6.2% for Social Security, 5-7% in sales tax on food and clothes, and $.35 a gallon on gas. The poor spend their entire income on taxable, non-discretionary items. The wealthy do not.

We have a regressive Social Security tax, we have a regressive sales tax system, and we have a flat capital gains tax structure - also regressive in that only the relatively well off can take advantage of it. Add to that our relatively low income tax rates, and the wealthy (especially those making most of their money from investments) are getting a very good deal indeed.

Add a bracket to the income tax structure, taxing the very wealthy at a more normal 40-45%, eliminate the ceiling on income subject to social security taxes, raise the rate on capital gains (pegged to total income), and install a progressive sales and use tax structure. Then the wealthy will be paying their "fair share".

 

[sarge]

I'm in the third quintile, and I didn't owe any federal tax in 2010. In fact, I got money back - everything I paid in and some of yours.

I believe your view on the matter is skewed.

Harte

I believe you have failed to read much of this thread. My "opponents" are ignoring total taxes and focusing on federal and state income taxes only. You got none of your Social Security taxes back. You almost certainly paid sales taxes. You probably paid some forms of use taxes. You did not escape paying taxes last year, period.

 

[BenBurch]

I believe you have failed to read much of this thread. My "opponents" are ignoring total taxes and focusing on federal and state income taxes only. You got none of your Social Security taxes back. You almost certainly paid sales taxes. You probably paid some forms of use taxes. You did not escape paying taxes last year, period.

Totally correct. Tax burdens fall disproportionately on the poor. EVEN if we have a strongly progressive income tax.

What I would most like to see is a major change in the way property taxes are dealt with. I think that all property should be taxed at the same rates, and the money all should go in a pool for the whole state (or the whole country) and then re-allocated according to what it costs in particular places to provide appropriate services. For things like schools I would like to see as much standardization as we see at McDonalds - rich children and poor children provided with the same educational opportunities. Right now, rich school districts can have schools that prepare children for good incomes and poor school, districts have generally poor schools that do not do a good job of preparing children for careers, or even of making them literate.

 

[eeyore1954]

I am guessing at nothing, and you are ignoring some of the actual numbers - willfully or not.

You keep refering only to income taxes, federal, state, and local. So far, everything you have posted ignores sales and use taxes. A family of four subsisting on 35K a year and driving to work will be taxed on all 35K - 6.2% for Social Security, 5-7% in sales tax on food and clothes, and $.35 a gallon on gas. The poor spend their entire income on taxable, non-discretionary items. The wealthy do not.

We have a regressive Social Security tax, we have a regressive sales tax system, and we have a flat capital gains tax structure - also regressive in that only the relatively well off can take advantage of it. Add to that our relatively low income tax rates, and the wealthy (especially those making most of their money from investments) are getting a very good deal indeed.

Add a bracket to the income tax structure, taxing the very wealthy at a more normal 40-45%, eliminate the ceiling on income subject to social security taxes, raise the rate on capital gains (pegged to total income), and install a progressive sales and use tax structure. Then the wealthy will be paying their "fair share".

A family of 4 with 2 children under 17 and 35,000 in wages will recieve a refund of about 2800 on their federal income tax.

The SS tax would have been less than 2000 with the 2% reduction from last year.
The net federal taxes would have been over 800 negative. Whether or not they would have paid enough state, sales and other taxes to offset this depends on where they live and other factors.

35,000 is about 150% of the federal poverty guidelines for a family of four.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am guessing at nothing, and you are ignoring some of the actual numbers - willfully or not.

You keep refering only to income taxes, federal, state, and local. So far, everything you have posted ignores sales and use taxes.

No.

It's not my chart. It's a chart from a relatively liberal organization.

There are also other publications on the internet that show the same thing. For instance, a 2007 publication by the Institute On Taxation and Ecomonic Policy breaks state and local taxes down for the bottom quintile into 7.1% for sales tax, 3.7% for property tax and 0.2% in income tax for a total of 10.9%

Your argument from incredulity is rejected.

I'm not sure if you're not reading what I'm writing, or you're intentionally trying to misrepresent what I've wrote.

 

[bit_pattern]

the Institute On Taxation and Ecomonic Policy

Sounds like a reputable outfit