Romney Will Explode the Debt By Trillions

[Neally]

Ah, so you cite statistics but do not include the source you used, just a generic "Google". Your case would have been stronger had you linked directly to the data you're citing, which would allow responders in this thread to assess the source material and its veracity and debate whether the data is as contextually correct as you seem to think it is.

Shoot the mailman. No one here has any serious challenge to the IRS stats. First the doubters cried about various "unsubstantiated" claims, then either totally ignoring the facts or sheepishly admitting that they were in fact "technically" correct. Now you demand to be spoon fed the actual data sources, which are widely available with 30 seconds of Googling?

But that would mean actual debate and discussion instead of rhetoric.

The discussion has long passed you up. Seems you're the only one now expressing any doubt about the statistical facts.

 

[Biscuit]

Shoot the mailman. No one here has any serious challenge to the IRS stats. First the doubters cried about various "unsubstantiated" claims, then either totally ignoring the facts or sheepishly admitting that they were in fact "technically" correct. Now you demand to be spoon fed the actual data sources, which are widely available with 30 seconds of Googling?

The discussion has long passed you up. Seems you're the only one now expressing any doubt about the statistical facts.

I will assume the best and you simply missed my post as you never responded to it.

I am not saying that 50% of the population doesn't pay federal income tax. I am saying that number isn't the whole story as it includes people who can't for various reasons pay federal income tax. Why don't you find out how many people that qualify by federal law to pay income tax don't?

You can knock the 10% of American's that are retired off that 50%

40% left

Lets say that 8% are unemployed

32% left

People living below the poverty level or in poverty is nearly 10%

22% left

I have taken care of over half of your unsubstantiated 50% claim. Now you do some work and remove every member of the military, college students, the disabled, and families that don't make enough or receive credits and see just how much is left.

Want to know why the wealthiest pay the largest percent of the income tax bill? Because they take the largest percent of the income.

home work 1

home work 2

 

[BenBurch]

I will assume the best and you simply missed my post as you never responded to it.

Expecting that person to admit that he is wrong isn't rational.

 

[Cain]

Sure and again Marx put in perfectly, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

If all it takes is a progressive tax, then Adam Smith was a Marxist before Karl Marx was a Marxist. Cool.

Affects to standard of living isn't necessily the criteria of "over taxed". Paying a greater portion of their income in income taxes is, therefore they are over taxed.

Suppose we have flat tax and the richest 20% pay in 40% of the govt. revenues while the poorest 20% contribute a measly 5% (lucky duckies). Due to the dynamics of the free-market, technology and so on, incomes for the rich jump, and now they're contributing more than 50% of government revenues while the bottom-feeders offer little more than 2%. Do these facts suggest the rich are over-taxed while the poor are under-taxed?

 

[Corsair 115]

The discussion has long passed you up. Seems you're the only one now expressing any doubt about the statistical facts.

People are certainly expressing concern over your interpretation of the data. And you appear to reject any criticism of your interpretation. You continue to harp on about "The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes" as if that is the entirety of the argument, that is proves your claims beyond any doubt, and that it is beyond any sort of additional examination.

I shall offer quotations from a CBO report, released in October of 2011, that examined the trends in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007. The CBO page for the report can be found here. On the upper left of that page is a link that will allow one to download the entire 63-page PDF.

From the Summary page of the report:

For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 ...

For others in the 20 percent of the population with the highest income (those in the 81st through 99th percentiles), average real after-tax household income grew by 65 percent over that period, much faster than it did for the remaining 80 percent of the population, but not nearly as fast as for the top 1 percent ...

For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of the income scale (the 21st through 80th percentiles), the growth in average real after-tax household income was just under 40 percent ...

For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income, average real after-tax household income was about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979 ...

There is also this passage (emphasis added):

As a result of that uneven income growth, the distribution of after-tax household income in the United States was substantially more unequal in 2007 than in 1979: The share of income accruing to higher-income households increased, whereas the share accruing to other households declined. In fact, between 2005 and 2007, the after-tax income received by the 20 percent of the population with the highest income exceeded the after-tax income of the remaining 80 percent.

Does this data in any way factor into or otherwise affect your interpretation or position?

 

[Belz...]

Wow, you read minds. Can you predict the future too?

Yes. I predict you will not be rational on this subject.

Affects to standard of living isn't necessily the criteria of "over taxed".

It is, to me. Otherwise they're not over-taxed.

 

[steve s]

Sure and again Marx put in perfectly, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

The bible beat him to it...

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
Acts 4:32-35


Steve S

 

[Neally]

I will assume the best and you simply missed my post as you never responded to it.

I didn't miss it, your explanations as to why the numbers fall that way are the same as all the other apologists to the uncomfortable numbers. Trying to rationalize away the fact that half the people don't pay federal income tax doesn't change anything. The rich pay a disproportionate share. That should change.

Expecting that person to admit that he is wrong isn't rational.

Yet more mockery from the resident troll. How about adding instead of egging? Maybe because you really have nothing rational to contribute?

Suppose we have flat tax and the richest 20% pay in 40% of the govt. revenues while the poorest 20% contribute a measly 5% (lucky duckies). Due to the dynamics of the free-market, technology and so on, incomes for the rich jump, and now they're contributing more than 50% of government revenues while the bottom-feeders offer little more than 2%. Do these facts suggest the rich are over-taxed while the poor are under-taxed?

The ideal scenario would be for people to pay according to what government services they consume. Since there is no practical way to do this, a flat income tax or sales tax seems to me the most fair way to handle it. But do suggest alternatives that you might have.

People are certainly expressing concern over your interpretation of the data. And you appear to reject any criticism of your interpretation. You continue to harp on about "The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes" as if that is the entirety of the argument, that is proves your claims beyond any doubt, and that it is beyond any sort of additional examination.

My argument is that those facts show that the wealthy unfairly shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Twist it around all you want and scream about the "unsubstantiated" stats all you want, but that won't change those figures.

I shall offer quotations from a CBO report, released in October of 2011, that examined the trends in the distribution of household income between 1979 and 2007.

Does this data in any way factor into or otherwise affect your interpretation or position?

Not at all. The discomfort of the unequal burden that the wealthy contribute to income taxes must be pretty painful to the left, especially in light of their constant harping about the rich paying their fair share. Thus they, like you, dig around for other numbers to try to help their case. The growth of income, loss of income, etc. doesn't change the fact that the top earners pay a disproportionate share of the taxes.

It is, to me. Otherwise they're not over-taxed.

That sounds like a rational approach, "pay 'till it hurts".

The bible beat him to it...

Steve S

Sounds like a voluntary approach, you know, like charity. Can leave that to the people though. Too risky. Better make it a fundamental part of the tax code.

 

[Biscuit]

I didn't miss it, your explanations as to why the numbers fall that way are the same as all the other apologists to the uncomfortable numbers. Trying to rationalize away the fact that half the people don't pay federal income tax doesn't change anything. The rich pay a disproportionate share. That should change.
.

What part of your 50% could actually pay something?

Nice hand waving but you 50% claim is still nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

Flat tax is a bad idea.

Trying to rationalize away the fact that half the people don't pay federal income tax doesn't change anything. The rich pay a disproportionate share. That should change.

• The rich benefit more from the opportunities of being in America.
• Others paid for infrastructure and education and R&D to give the rich those opportunities.
• Charging the poor more won't really help the rich. In fact there is good reason to believe it will hurt them.
• Dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to nations with progressive tax rates.

A flat tax simply makes zero sense. It's bad for the rich. It's bad for the poor. It's bad for society.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, and BTW:

The rich pay a disproportionate share. That should change.

You only assert that it is unfair as if it is axiomatic but you don't explain why. It's not axiomatic that it is unfair.

• If the progressive tax provides the best environment for the wealthy to make the most money possible then it is more than fair.
• The rich in America were not born in the wilderness. They were not born in Somalia. They were born in the nations that provided among the greatest opportunities they could possibly have. Those opportunities came at a cost. People had to sweat and die.

It's not reasonable to simply ignore that time and again. People don't reasonably get to benefit so much from a society and then cry that they they pay too much while the disadvantaged struggle. You can cry but no one is going to take you seriously.

 

[BenBurch]

• The rich benefit more from the opportunities of being in America.
• Others paid for infrastructure and education and R&D to give the rich those opportunities.
• Charging the poor more won't really help the rich. In fact there is good reason to believe it will hurt them.
• Dysfunctional societies are negatively correlated to nations with progressive tax rates.

A flat tax simply makes zero sense. It's bad for the rich. It's bad for the poor. It's bad for society.

If they want a flat tax with a cut-off, 90% above 150,000 is supposed to be revenue neutral.

 

[Random]

Well, found a chart of how much people pay in total taxes (Federal, State, and Local) in relation to their percentage of national income. Remember that while half of Americans pay no Federal Income tax due to its progressive structure, there are lots of other taxes out there that are pretty regressive like Social Security.

Source

 

[Darth Rotor]

The politics forum, where Skepticism goes to die.

Right on schedule. Elections are pending.

 

[fishbob]

The current situation is unfair with 50% of the people paying no income tax and the wealthy are paying a disproportionate share. To make it more fair involves them paying less and others paying more. There is nothing "internally inconsistent" about that.

Whoa there little buckaroo - 2 questions for you.

1 - What disproportionate share? 15% on capital gains? 0% on inheritance? As a percentage of income, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes are far lower for the wealthy than for the rest of us.

2 - Who are these others? It would be stupid to suggest the people with little or no money who disproportionately pay much more as a percentage of their income for sales, property, and other taxes; so what 'others' are you talking about?

 

[fishbob]

but we don't have inflation right now . . .

Not quite. Granted - the official rate of inflation, excluding the volatile cost of food and fuel, is low.
In reality, the volatile cost of food and fuel seldom if ever goes down.

 

[lomiller]

It could be a problem, but we are facing just the opposite now, over taxation of the rich and under taxation of the poor, as per my previous post.

Do you have some rationale behind that belief, because it seems distinctly at odds with the facts.

The right in the US are the only group making major income gained over the last few decades while the poor have lost ground in terms of their real income. As you would surmise from this the gap between wealth at the upper and lower ends of the income scales are approaching levels not seen since the great depression.

 

[lomiller]

Sure and again Marx put in perfectly, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Go debate that with Marx because no one here has said anything remotely resembling that.

 

[BenBurch]

Go debate that with Marx because no one here has said anything remotely resembling that.

Neally hasn't even READ Marx. He has that soundbite and nothing more on one of the most influential economists/social theorists EVER.

 

[Neally]

Whoa there little buckaroo - 2 questions for you.

1 - What disproportionate share? 15% on capital gains? 0% on inheritance? As a percentage of income, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes are far lower for the wealthy than for the rest of us.

Disproportionate share of federal income tax like I've been saying all along. Do try to keep up.

Do you have some rationale behind that belief, because it seems distinctly at odds with the facts.

It's not a belief, it's a fact pulled from the IRS data.

The right in the US are the only group making major income gained over the last few decades while the poor have lost ground in terms of their real income. As you would surmise from this the gap between wealth at the upper and lower ends of the income scales are approaching levels not seen since the great depression.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that 50% of the people pay no federal income tax and that the wealthy pay a disproportionate share.

Go debate that with Marx because no one here has said anything remotely resembling that.

LOL. When they finally accept the facts from the IRS data, the only rationale that the left uses to justify the unfair tax burden on the wealthy, is a variation of that classical Marx statement, that the wealthy should pay disproportionately more, because they can. It's been used at least twice in this thread. Do follow the discussion.

Neally hasn't even READ Marx. He has that soundbite and nothing more on one of the most influential economists/social theorists EVER.

I've read that statement, and it matches exactly to the rationale the left uses, apparently to their great embarrassment, since now we have people actually denying that the very same argument was ever used.