The Democratic Party mentality...

[sasquatch]

Charshooter

show me a very rich man and I will place odds he is a Democrat

For whatever it's worth, the top three wealthiest US senators are Democrats: John Kerry of Massachusetts, with a net worth of at least $164 million; Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, with a net worth of at least $111 million, and John "Jay" Rockefeller of West Virginia, with an estimated net worth of at least $82 million.

Care to hazard a guess as to the political affiliation of Bill Gates?

 

[Charshooter]

This Pre-bate allows this family to spend $2283 per month before any "real" tax is levied ($2283 x 23% = $525).

Sounds good to me, seems we could almost live off the Pre-bate and pocket our SS, would we still get SS? If so great, if not then I would not like it because I get over $1200 on SS and a state pension. We just don't spend money, just food, much from hunting, heck, I would argue with the man who said I was not a subsistence hunter today. Now electric is our biggest bill, about $50 a month.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I live out where there is no municipal services, have to pay directly for the rural fire department. No sewer or garbage, all is done through septic and burning trash. The one thing I can say, is that Arkansas has very low taxes and Texas has tax breaks for landowners. Missouri is decent in the rural southern part, just not good on personal property.

Yeah, provided you are paying directly for fire and/or police (county sheriff, I'd assume) I don't see much reason you should be paying much of anything in property taxes. There's schools as well, which regardless of whether you have/had kids in them you experience the positive externalites of having (or rather, get to not experience the negative externalities of not having them)...but then, I've never been fond of funding schools directly from local property taxes anyway.

Overall, though, I do think they ought to only tax property on the value when purchased (plus inflation); that would eliminate a lot of the problems we run into up here where rising land prices due to immigration (from other states) can end up running property owners out of their homes due to increased taxes. Property should also never be taxed at anything other than the bare minimum rate required to maintain the most basic of services to that property(fire/police/maybe-schools), and those services don't really get much more expensive with increased value. Anything beyond that to me just seems like squeezing taxes from past income just as many times as humanly possible.

I mean, I barely consider the estate tax reasonable, and even then only with insanely high exemptions.

Sorry about calling you son, but I bet with your outlook, you are 30 years younger than me, around here, old men call young fellas son and it is not meant to be degrading. They sometimes call me pops!

Don't sweat it...sorry I bit your head off. I've heard it both ways (degrading and not), and I think due to my currently elevated stress level I automatically took it the wrong way.

 

[Eghad]

AS far as I am concerend after two times under Clinton and two times under Bush the Democrats nor Republicans have the answers. The both can go suck eggs.

 

[Scott Conklin]

For the former, I'd say part of the reason some people can't "help themselves" is because a majority of the people who own the businesses they'd work for (and let's face it, not everybody can be self-employed) aren't willing to pay them enough to do so. Not everybody can "help themselves," and some people will always be poor.

One, people go into business to make an income for themselves. It's not their responsibility to take care of you. If the income level isn't good enough, get another job. Two, if not for the onerous taxes on both the business and the income of the owner there would be more money to pay employees. But the government, backed by those who mumble silly crap about "fairness", sees to it the cash leaves before it can make it's way into the economy effectively.

Property taxes (such as on a home) can be argued either way. Personally I think it's a travesty anytime somebody has to sell a home because they cannot afford the taxes on it. However, there are certain services (police, fire, etc.) that you benefit from whether or not you still make any income...and taxes on the property where you live are an effective way to ensure that you still pay your part for these things, even if you're no longer employed (such as retirees).

No, they can't be argued either way. Property taxation is the most primitive of taxes, downright feudal and going back to the concept of living on the Lord's land at his permission. There is no defense for taxing one's home, not fire protection or anything else. It changes, guts, the entire concept of ownership. Just another means for government to intimidate and control. You're maybe the third person I have ever seen try to defend such an abomination.

Also, most property taxation winds up paying not for police or fire "protection", but for government schools. Nevermind the fact these are monstrous failures, many of us choose not to inflict them on our children and yet here we are, paying for 20 million dollar boondoggles in towns of 6000 people while still paying for a decent private education, too.

 

[WeedWacker]

now those who are living in poverty cannot afford little luxuries like food.

Ok I don't understand somthing here. You make it sound that if a flat tax is implemented these people will somehow end up with less money. If their tax rat does not chang and their wages do not change, how will they end up with less for food? A flat tax should mean cheaper utilities since they will not be taxed as heavily for their income (although we all know how things go) and a flat tax means that those who are rich can give even more to charity. A aflat tax means reform and lots of work is what reform means. It won't happen over night and the only detrimental thing I see coming out of this is the government no making as much money as in the past.

In Missouri, they have a tax on things such as trucks, cars, boats, ATVs, motorcycles, any large thing you own they claim a partial right to.

i can see why they would tax your car and truck or motorcycle: roads aren't cheap. But I agree with you, not everything needs to be taxed.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Ok I don't understand somthing here. You make it sound that if a flat tax is implemented these people will somehow end up with less money. If their tax rat does not chang and their wages do not change, how will they end up with less for food?

Because right now people below a certain line don't really pay any taxes, and many in the bottom quartile pay at a rate that's sure to be lower than what would be instituted under a flat tax.

You're talking to somebody who just a couple years ago had an effective tax rate after filing of around 1.2%. I can guarantee that under a flat tax I'd be paying more than 1.2%. Unless, of course, you're talking about a flat tax with exemptions (which, of course, is no longer flat anyway) which is not what I was addressing with the above quote...that was addressed in the rest of the post that came from.

 

[sasquatch]

JuanCarlos

"Because right now people below a certain line don't really pay any taxes, and many in the bottom quartile pay at a rate that's sure to be lower than what would be instituted under a flat tax.

You're talking to somebody who just a couple years ago had an effective tax rate after filing of around 1.2%. I can guarantee that under a flat tax I'd be paying more than 1.2%."

Why shouldn't everyone pay their fair share, e.g. an equal percentage of their income, of the tax burden?

 

[SecDef]

Why shouldn't everyone pay their fair share of the tax burden?

Absolutely everyone should. However, the definition of "fair" is what is being discussed here.

As an aside, can someone point me to where the super-rich (top 2%) are actually paying a huge percentage in taxes? The only place I see high taxes is capital gains, which I do think could use some reform. When I look at high profile tax returns (available during such things as presidential elections, etc) I see people that make $5m+ per year paying about 12.5% in taxes. Oooh, that's so high... sounds like a bunch of whining.

edit: Here is the tax return of someone that makes a heck of a lot of money (at least to me). Is she paying too much or not enough?

 

[sasquatch]

SecDef

"When I look at high profile tax returns (available during such things as presidential elections, etc) I see people that make $5m+ per year paying about 12.5% in taxes. Oooh, that's so high... sounds like a bunch of whining."

Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995.

Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm

 

[Crosshair]

I came in to mention FairTax, but SecDef already said it but I will add a few more points I dug up.

http://delftsman.mu.nu/archives/086813.php

...here's some flat tax vs. FairTax issues some of you may want to consider.

1) In 1986 the Congress reformed our tax code to essentially give us a flat tax ... a flat tax with two rates. Fifteen and twenty-eight percent. Most deductions were eliminated. Today's tax code is the result of that effort.

2) A flat tax leaves the IRS in place. You'll still have to report your income to the IRS every year, and you'll still be subject to audits.

3) Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes? Still there.

4) Do you get 100% of your paycheck? No. Withholding will still be there.

5) Business taxes? Still there .. and they'll remain embedded in the price of every good and service you buy, so you'll be paying them.

6) Corporate board meetings? They'll still spend an inordinate amount of time working on the tax implications of business decisions, rather than just basing their business moves on what's best for their customers and shareholders.

7) K Street lobbyists? They're still there too. They'll still be drawing their six-figure incomes while they game the new flat-tax for the benefit of their clients.

8) Bring American businesses back home? Nope. Business taxes are still there, so American businesses will still locate their operations overseas in order to escape our punishing business income taxes.

9) Death Tax? Gift Tax? Still there in all the flat tax proposals I've seen.

10) Will the flat tax bring American wealth back home? The latest estimates put $10 trillion of American wealth in offshore financial corporations. There is only one reason that money isn't back here working ... and that's our income tax structure. Will the flat tax bring that money back home? Nope. The FairTax? Yup.

11) What about the poor? They're not paying income taxes now ... will they pay the flat tax? No way! But politicians will still be looking for a way to raise taxes on the rich so that they can relieve the poor, poor pitiful poor of the responsibility for paying for their own Social Security and Medicare.

12) Will all Americans be able to buy the basic necessities of life without any federal tax consequences under the flat tax? No. The FairTax? Yes.

13) Will foreign visitors to our shores contribute to our Social Security and Medicare programs under the flat tax? No. The FairTax? Yes.

We got a two bracket "flat tax" in 1986 and look where it led us, back to the same convoluted system we had before. The Tax code has been changed thousands of times in the past 20 years. We have to hire people to do our taxes because the code is so complex.

With the FairTax there are no ways to create loopholes, everything that is new is taxed. Everything is applied equaly. Reduce the tax, reduce it for everyone. You eliminate much of the IRS and the people are not punished for saving their money (Capital gains taxes.)

Charshooter
Sounds good to me, seems we could almost live off the Pre-bate and pocket our SS

Remember, that is for a family of 4 and you will be paying the FairTax on everything new you buy. (Used items are not taxed.)

 

[SecDef]

Sasquatch:

The problem with those numbers is that the top 5% represents a number of people, and the top 53.8% of all taxes paid.

But there is an inherent disconnect. There is no correlation between the top 5% and how much they make.

I.e. it is important to determine what percentage of their income they are paying to make a comparison in terms of fairness, no?

For instance, 100 people, (a) 50 of which make $20k per year, (b) 45 who make $50k per year, and (c) 5 who make $500k per year.

Knowing this, even if everyone paid a flat tax of 20%, the top 5% would be paying 41% of all taxes paid! But that is completely fair since they make 41% of the income, yes?

Without knowing the income of the top 5%, how can you complain about how much tax they pay?

Again, if they are only paying 12.5%, they are little whiners.

 

[sasquatch]

SecDef

The problem with those numbers is that the top 5% represents a number of people, and the top 53.8% of all taxes paid.

But there is an inherent disconnect. There is no correlation between the top 5% and how much they make.

The top 5% of income tax payers pay over 50% of all income taxes. The bottome 50% of all income taxpayers pay less than 4% of income taxes paid?Where is the disconnect?

"it is important to determine what percentage of their income they are paying to make a comparison in terms of fairness, no?"

In my opinion, no. They should all pay an equal percentage of their income if you are talking "fairness".

 

[SecDef]

In my opinion, no. They should all pay an equal percentage of their income if you are talking "fairness".

No, that's my point.. if they make 53% of the income, there is no problem with paying 53% of the taxes.

There is a disconnect in that it doesn't say how much they make.

We have no idea what percentage they pay.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Why shouldn't everyone pay their fair share, e.g. an equal percentage of their income, of the tax burden?

Because not everybody benefits equally from living here. One can argue that somebody like Bill Gates has benefitted much more from living here than I have; both in terms of economic stability, national security, etc. I'd go so far to say that he has benefitted even more than our relative incomes would suggest.

Also, making everybody pay an equal percentage of income (no exemptions) still doesn't address the issue that the dollars you're taking from those towards the bottom (as in, some of the many people making $20K or less) are "worth more" than those you'd be taking from those towards the top ($100K or more, say)...because those are the dollars they're spending on basic items like food/shelter, as opposed to things like nicer televisions.

Though that's just part of it. The previously linked website actually gives what I think is a pretty decent argument against things like flat taxes.

With the FairTax there are no ways to create loopholes, everything that is new is taxed. Everything is applied equaly. Reduce the tax, reduce it for everyone. You eliminate much of the IRS and the people are not punished for saving their money (Capital gains taxes.)

The Fair Tax is actually interesting. I've read some economic analyses of it that go both ways, and I'm basically on the fence regarding it. I'm pretty sure it can't be worse than the system we have now.

Also note that the Fair Tax is not a flat-rate system, either...those at the bottom are still paying less than those at the top, and you'll still have people who pay nothing at all.

 

[sasquatch]

JuanCarlos

Because not everybody benefits equally from living here. One can argue that somebody like Bill Gates has benefitted much more from living here than I have; both in terms of economic stability, national security, etc. I'd go so far to say that he has benefitted even more than our relative incomes would suggest.

What a steaming pile that is !!! Bill Gates has worked harder at becoming successful, I'd say, but that is his choice, and yours. If his income works to his benefit that most certainly is his reward for working hard to get where his is. How has Mr. Gates "benefitted" more?

making everybody pay an equal percentage of income (no exemptions) still doesn't address the issue that the dollars you're taking from those towards the bottom (as in, some of the many people making $20K or less) are "worth more" than those you'd be taking from those towards the top

There is an easy answer to that one. The guy on the bottom works hard to improve himself, and make more money. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

 

[JuanCarlos]

There is an easy answer to that one. The guy on the bottom works hard to improve himself, and make more money. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

Except that the amount of money one makes is not directly proportional to work, nor is it always directly correlated. Or are you suggesting that A) nobody in the bottom quartile is working hard and B) Bill Gates works a billion times harder than I do?

A billion times harder. Heck, even a million times harder.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, are you a Horatio Alger fan?

 

[WeedWacker]

I am assuming he doesn't mean work more hours, work towards a better job as in get some more schooling. For example a position as a Radiologcaltechnician pays about $45,000 a year and takes anywhere from 2-4 years at a technical school and night classes cover all aspects needed to get the certificate.

 

[Al Norris]

My, my! How quickly this has gone from talking about the Democratic Party to taxation.

You want to continue discussing national taxation? Start a new thread. This one has drifted way too far.

Closed.