$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[Flopper]

It is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to feed the hungry or care for the handicapped.

Yes it is

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to uphold laws passed by congress and congress has passed such laws.

If your point is that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass such laws because there's no explicit statement that says it does then consider this. You have no explicit right in the constitution to travel, to a fair trial in federal court, or to judicial review. There is no specific authority in the Constitution for any emergency military action, passage of any social welfare, environmental protection, and most financial regulations. Authority comes through interpretation.

As Jefferson said, "In the end, a literal interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments is not practical or desirable. Common sense and leadership must take precedence over party politics and ideological bickering."

 

[asterism]

As I said before, the wealthy seem to be doing quite well in the U.S. - They appear to be content to set up shop in the U.S. and avail themselves to this enormously lucrative U.S. marketplace.

So shifting more of the tax burden off the very wealthy and onto the poor and lower income brackets with an all-inclusive flat tax seems to be an attempted fix to a problem that doesn't appear to exist.

Mitt Romney pays an effective tax rate of 16%. I don't blame him for not paying more. I don't advocate anyone paying more than required and I don't begrudge a single penny to anyone. But it's hard to argue that 16% is over taxing the wealthy.

I don't know of anyone making the argument that 16% is too much. The problem is that there is widespread public support for doubling and tripling that rate. It won't work because that will disincentivize people to earn at that level.

If you look at the premise of this thread, declining income tax rates across the board actually shift the burden TO those at the upper end and not onto the poor and lower income brackets.

However, we're at a point now where more and more people want more and more government programs without regard to cost because they think someone else will be forced to pay for them.

Well - the 16% is an "effective" rate. The book rate on the higher income levels is quite a bit higher. But since almost everyone lowers their effective rate with deductions and tax credits, the effective rate for the most wealthy (and the effective rate for everyone) turns out to be a lot lower than the "book rate."

Instead of jacking up the rates, why not eliminate some of the deductions and credits?

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

 

[hangover]

So what?

BTW when I was working summers to save up tuition I never made just minimum wage and I never worked just one job. When I couldn't afford to pay for an entire semester I went part time.

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...

It's amazing what letting millions and millions of low skill workers invade our country will do to the wages of our native low skill workers.

Yes it was intended to provide a living wage, because the greedy have been trying to screw workers since before the Civil war. That's also why unions were created. And because of them we now have a 40 hour work week, week ends, holidays, workers comp, workers health benefits and retirement. All of which cons are still trying to destroy.

The average age of those making minimum wage is 35.

 

[dcraelin]

I don't know of anyone making the argument that 16% is too much. The problem is that there is widespread public support for doubling and tripling that rate. It won't work because that will disincentivize people to earn at that level.

If you look at the premise of this thread, declining income tax rates across the board actually shift the burden TO those at the upper end and not onto the poor and lower income brackets.

However, we're at a point now where more and more people want more and more government programs without regard to cost because they think someone else will be forced to pay for them.

Well - the 16% is an "effective" rate. The book rate on the higher income levels is quite a bit higher. But since almost everyone lowers their effective rate with deductions and tax credits, the effective rate for the most wealthy (and the effective rate for everyone) turns out to be a lot lower than the "book rate."

Instead of jacking up the rates, why not eliminate some of the deductions and credits?

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

one thing both right and left could agree on I think is the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.....the right could agree because these bonds fund some of the most idiotic of local projects....unneeded and unused"convention centers" and sports stadiums for the super-rich. ...the left could agree because these bonds go for corporate Welfare and because they are a tax loophole really only useful for the wealthy .

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't know of anyone making the argument that 16% is too much. The problem is that there is widespread public support for doubling and tripling that rate. It won't work because that will disincentivize people to earn at that level.

If you look at the premise of this thread, declining income tax rates across the board actually shift the burden TO those at the upper end and not onto the poor and lower income brackets.

However, we're at a point now where more and more people want more and more government programs without regard to cost because they think someone else will be forced to pay for them.

Well - the 16% is an "effective" rate. The book rate on the higher income levels is quite a bit higher. But since almost everyone lowers their effective rate with deductions and tax credits, the effective rate for the most wealthy (and the effective rate for everyone) turns out to be a lot lower than the "book rate."

Instead of jacking up the rates, why not eliminate some of the deductions and credits?

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

I'm not sure that I'm following you argument. Are you saying that cutting the tax rate in half increases the taxable income by 20 times?

 

[hunarcy]

Read Article 3

Ah, you said Article I Section I. When refuted, now you want to try Article III. Why not invite me to a snipe hunt next? Next time, put up the information you think supports your point of view and stop wasting our time.

Have to run.

No, I'm afraid it was you who brought up the Constitutional issue which is covered under Article 3

Maybe you should run. You are taking too big a beating here

REALLY???? Are you sure?

This wasn't you?

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

You very clearly said Article 1 Section 1. Guess you lost track of your lies.

LMAO@you. Shoo. Apparently you have nothing to offer but lies and I'm not wasting another second on you.

 

[hunarcy]

It is the responsibility of the federal government to uphold laws passed by congress and congress has passed such laws.

Great. Now, we'll have a long list of laws which Obama's Administration has refused to uphold or defend.

Good luck with all that.

 

[hunarcy]

You mean where I learned about Madison's interpretation of the "provide for the general welfare" clause in the Constitution? (which, is similar to yours) And when I learned about the Hamilton interpretation of that clause (which echos my position)? And when I learned about SCOTUS repeatedly upholding Hamilton's view over Madison's ????

You mean THAT civics class?

Even if you attended a civics class, you obviously failed. Prior to the New Deal, SCOTUS narrowly interpreted the General Welfare Clause and limited the power to spend for matters affecting only the national welfare. Your interpretation is relatively newly in vogue and is bankrupting this nation.

However, you may feel free to google the topic and try to appear academically competent. And, while I have to sign off for a while, I'll check back later.

LOL - yeah

Providing for the public welfare is nothing new and was going on long before the new deal.
The "poor laws" adopted by the English in the 1500s were carried over and continued in the colonies and in the new nation.

So maybe you should google a bit, and learn a bit more about what you are trying to talk about.
Just a suggestion, you do whatever you like.

Ah, the fake academician now wants to move from SCOTUS decisions which didn't really rule the way he thought until the New Deal and wants to talk about English common law.

That's how I know he's a fake. NO one who is truly an academic would frame his arguments like this guy. He isn't really even that good with Google.

LMAO@him

 

[alan1]

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

Your analogies are kind of idiotic.
Lets take the ham sandwich one to show just how foolish you are. If my religion says to only pay tax at 1% and your religion makes no reference to tax, then I guess the government can tax you more on the same income. See how foolish your argument is?

The point - which I should have anticipated would go right over your head - is that equal is not always fair.
Get it?

Probably not - but that's Ok.

So, if everybody paid an equal tax percentage, most liberals would find that unfair. And the result ends up being what they call "fair share", which is both unequal and unfair

 

[alan1]

Yes it is

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to uphold laws passed by congress and congress has passed such laws.

If your point is that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass such laws because there's no explicit statement that says it does then consider this. You have no explicit right in the constitution to travel, to a fair trial in federal court, or to judicial review. There is no specific authority in the Constitution for any emergency military action, passage of any social welfare, environmental protection, and most financial regulations. Authority comes through interpretation.

As Jefferson said, "In the end, a literal interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments is not practical or desirable. Common sense and leadership must take precedence over party politics and ideological bickering."

The key phrase would be "common sense". Both sense and its commonality seem to be lacking these days. "General welfare" did not mean using the power of government to take money from one person in order to give it to another. No nation has ever made the poor wealthy by taxing the rich. No nation has ever taxed the populace into prosperity, it simply can't be done.

 

[alan1]

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...

It's amazing what letting millions and millions of low skill workers invade our country will do to the wages of our native low skill workers.

Yes it was intended to provide a living wage, because the greedy have been trying to screw workers since before the Civil war. That's also why unions were created. And because of them we now have a 40 hour work week, week ends, holidays, workers comp, workers health benefits and retirement. All of which cons are still trying to destroy.

The average age of those making minimum wage is 35.

The median age of a minimum wage worker is 24.

More statistics here,
Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents
snip,

Relatively few Americans earn the federal minimum wage.[2] In 2011 and 2012, 3.7 million Americans reported earning $7.25 or less per hour—just 2.9 percent of all workers in the United States.[3] These numbers include workers who also earn tip income. Many of those earning less than the minimum wage work in restaurants and make more than the minimum wage after taking tips into account.

Edit to add,
Last night (like every Thursday night) I had dinner and drinks with my daughter, her fiance and our friends Nancy and Blair (my other daughter couldn't make it). We were at the restaurant for four hours. I left a $20 tip, Nancy and Blair left a $15 tip. The tips alone represent $8.75 an hour and we were just one table. That waitress isn't hurting for money even if she only makes minimum wage as her salary.

 

[edthecynic]

Your analogies are kind of idiotic.
Lets take the ham sandwich one to show just how foolish you are. If my religion says to only pay tax at 1% and your religion makes no reference to tax, then I guess the government can tax you more on the same income. See how foolish your argument is?

The point - which I should have anticipated would go right over your head - is that equal is not always fair.
Get it?

Probably not - but that's Ok.

So, if everybody paid an equal tax percentage, most liberals would find that unfair. And the result ends up being what they call "fair share", which is both unequal and unfair

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

 

[alan1]

The point - which I should have anticipated would go right over your head - is that equal is not always fair.
Get it?

Probably not - but that's Ok.

So, if everybody paid an equal tax percentage, most liberals would find that unfair. And the result ends up being what they call "fair share", which is both unequal and unfair

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

I'm the one saying to tax all income at the exact same rate and eliminate all deductions.
Your liberal buddies on this board are espousing something different. They want different tax rates for different people, not me.
Get it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...

It's amazing what letting millions and millions of low skill workers invade our country will do to the wages of our native low skill workers.

Yes it was intended to provide a living wage, because the greedy have been trying to screw workers since before the Civil war. That's also why unions were created. And because of them we now have a 40 hour work week, week ends, holidays, workers comp, workers health benefits and retirement. All of which cons are still trying to destroy.

The average age of those making minimum wage is 35.

Yes it was intended to provide a living wage

Why do kids entering the work for the first time need to make a living wage?

The average age of those making minimum wage is 35.

Link?

 

[boedicca]

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to uphold laws passed by congress and congress has passed such laws.

If your point is that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass such laws because there's no explicit statement that says it does then consider this. You have no explicit right in the constitution to travel, to a fair trial in federal court, or to judicial review. There is no specific authority in the Constitution for any emergency military action, passage of any social welfare, environmental protection, and most financial regulations. Authority comes through interpretation.

As Jefferson said, "In the end, a literal interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments is not practical or desirable. Common sense and leadership must take precedence over party politics and ideological bickering."

The key phrase would be "common sense". Both sense and its commonality seem to be lacking these days. "General welfare" did not mean using the power of government to take money from one person in order to give it to another. No nation has ever made the poor wealthy by taxing the rich. No nation has ever taxed the populace into prosperity, it simply can't be done.

General welfare didn't mean taking away from one person to give to another.

It meant the things people share in common, such as national security and equal treatment under the law. It had nothing to do with the government doling out specific benefits to specific individuals.

 

[alan1]

It is the responsibility of the federal government to uphold laws passed by congress and congress has passed such laws.

If your point is that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to pass such laws because there's no explicit statement that says it does then consider this. You have no explicit right in the constitution to travel, to a fair trial in federal court, or to judicial review. There is no specific authority in the Constitution for any emergency military action, passage of any social welfare, environmental protection, and most financial regulations. Authority comes through interpretation.

As Jefferson said, "In the end, a literal interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments is not practical or desirable. Common sense and leadership must take precedence over party politics and ideological bickering."

The key phrase would be "common sense". Both sense and its commonality seem to be lacking these days. "General welfare" did not mean using the power of government to take money from one person in order to give it to another. No nation has ever made the poor wealthy by taxing the rich. No nation has ever taxed the populace into prosperity, it simply can't be done.

General welfare didn't mean taking away from one person to give to another.

It meant the things people share in common, such as national security and equal treatment under the law. It had nothing to do with the government doling out specific benefits to specific individuals.

Indeed.
Liberals should read this, Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txcRQedoEyY]Fess Parker - Ballad of Davy Crockett (1955) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point - which I should have anticipated would go right over your head - is that equal is not always fair.
Get it?

Probably not - but that's Ok.

So, if everybody paid an equal tax percentage, most liberals would find that unfair. And the result ends up being what they call "fair share", which is both unequal and unfair

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

How do you flatten the sales tax?

 

[edthecynic]

So, if everybody paid an equal tax percentage, most liberals would find that unfair. And the result ends up being what they call "fair share", which is both unequal and unfair

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

How do you flatten the sales tax?

Easy, get rid of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

How do you flatten the sales tax?

Easy, get rid of it.

But then we'd need huge cuts in government.

 

[alan1]

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

How do you flatten the sales tax?

Easy, get rid of it.

I agree.
Sales tax is controlled at the state level, not the federal level.