Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

If you make more money you pay more in income tax. I fail to see what is surprising or unfair about that. All you are really doing is highlighting the income inequality in New York by pointing out a symptom of income inequality - tax inequality.


Would you also be surprised to find out those who own the most property in New York probably also pick up a huge share of the property taxes? Duh. I would be willing to bet those who own more cars pay more in vehicle registration fees and other car related fees to the city, and probably those who smoke the most cigarettes pick up a disproportionately high amount of the cigarette taxes.

New York City has four tax brackets with rates ranging from 2.907% to 3.648%

http://taxes.about.com/od/statetaxes/a/New-York-City-Income-Tax.htm

Sorry but that's barely even a progressive tax, its nearly flat. If 1% of NYC pays 43% of its income taxes, I'd bet its because 1% makes 20-30% of the entire income in the city.

 

[Article 15]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

If you make more money you pay more in income tax. I fail to see what is surprising or unfair about that. All you are really doing is highlighting the income inequality in New York by pointing out a symptom of income inequality - tax inequality.


Would you also be surprised to find out those who own the most property in New York probably also pick up a huge share of the property taxes? Duh.

Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup

 

[Steelplate]

Face it PUBES(a most fitting moniker), the more WE THE PEOPLE have to begin with, means the less THE RICH will have to pay to uncle Sam.

Wait pubes as in publius infinitum?

I've been gone too long, is there a new pubes or do you mean the guy who got banned for posting a bounty for personal information (on Ravi I believe)?

Ummm... neither... Pubes as in Re-Pube-licans.

 

[daveman]

We've been through this phenomenon mathematically umpteen million times. This stastistic of "x% of population pays y% of taxes" is not relative to the disparity in the tax rates. It's more relative to the disparity in income. It would still be so even with a flat tax.

Example:
5 guys makes 1,000,000 each.
10 make 100,000 each.
85 make 25,000 each.

All pay 10%.

1st 5 guys pay 500k.
next 10 pay 100k combined.
Next 85 pay 212.5k.

Total paid = 812,500.

True statement: "The top 5% paid 61% of taxes!"

See how that works? It's quoted to make upper tiers appear unduly burdened when really it's mostly simply because they control so much wealth.

If that lets you justify covetousness, sure.

In other words, his post smashed your copy/paste fail of an argument and you have no real retort.

Not really. He really is justifying his covetousness.

But have a Merry Christmas anyway.

I will, thanks. You, too.

 

[Cuyo]

If that lets you justify covetousness, sure.

In other words, his post smashed your copy/paste fail of an argument and you have no real retort.

Not really. He really is justifying his covetousness.

But have a Merry Christmas anyway.

I will, thanks. You, too.

I can make up words too ya know. In what way does my post exhibit non-whatsactuallyhappeningness?

edit:FYI I checked it out, and NYC has a bizarre income tax schedule. The difference in tax between $21.6k and $90k (which is the highest bracket!) is only 0.114%. Why bother with brackets?

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/pdf/interest_rates/pitrates.pdf

New York State is even stranger. The top bracket begins at $20,001.

http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_ny.html

 

[daveman]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

If you make more money you pay more in income tax. I fail to see what is surprising or unfair about that. All you are really doing is highlighting the income inequality in New York by pointing out a symptom of income inequality - tax inequality.


Would you also be surprised to find out those who own the most property in New York probably also pick up a huge share of the property taxes? Duh. I would be willing to bet those who own more cars pay more in vehicle registration fees and other car related fees to the city, and probably those who smoke the most cigarettes pick up a disproportionately high amount of the cigarette taxes.

New York City has four tax brackets with rates ranging from 2.907% to 3.648%

New York City Income Tax - New York City Income Tax Rates and Credits

Sorry but that's barely even a progressive tax, its nearly flat. If 1% of NYC pays 43% of its income taxes, I'd bet its because 1% makes 20-30% of the entire income in the city.

And there is it: "Income inequality".

Something really should be done about that. Right?

 

[daveman]

In other words, his post smashed your copy/paste fail of an argument and you have no real retort.

Not really. He really is justifying his covetousness.

But have a Merry Christmas anyway.

I will, thanks. You, too.

I can make up words too ya know. In what way does my post exhibit non-whatsactuallyhappeningness?

Do you not want to take more money away from rich people?

 

[Cuyo]

Not really. He really is justifying his covetousness.

I will, thanks. You, too.

I can make up words too ya know. In what way does my post exhibit non-whatsactuallyhappeningness?

Do you not want to take more money away from rich people?

I'm not in the business of taking money away from anyone. I'm just pointing out the uselessness (and false pretenses) of the "x% pay y%" argument.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Rich" and "Poor" are subjective terms. Do you think that someone who makes more money than 90% of working New Yorkers shouldn't be considered "rich"?

$105K is not rich. I make more than that and I live in a 2 bedroom condominium.

We make less than that and we live in a 3000 sq ft house, your point?

Yeah. It has to do with WHERE one lives. Location, genius...Could you afford a 3k square foot house on Bainbridge Island or any of the other Puget Sound enclaves? Hell no.
Stop being a liberal hack and open your eyes.
No one is taking anything from you. All who make excuses about the wealthy being wealthy because they "stole" or are "stealing" are simply buying into the class envy class warfare nonsense being spewed by the political left.

 

[The T]

$105K is not rich. I make more than that and I live in a 2 bedroom condominium.

We make less than that and we live in a 3000 sq ft house, your point?

Yeah. It has to do with WHERE one lives. Location, genius...Could you afford a 3k square foot house on Bainbridge Island or any of the other Puget Sound enclaves? Hell no.
Stop being a liberal hack and open your eyes.
No one is taking anything from you. All who make excuses about the wealthy being wealthy because they "stole" or are "stealing" are simply buying into the class envy class warfare nonsense being spewed by the political left.

That's because they make the presumption that the economy is a zero sum game.

 

[daveman]

I can make up words too ya know. In what way does my post exhibit non-whatsactuallyhappeningness?

Do you not want to take more money away from rich people?

I'm not in the business of taking money away from anyone. I'm just pointing out the uselessness (and false pretenses) of the "x% pay y%" argument.

So, you're complaining about a situation but have no suggestions how to improve it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Rich" and "Poor" are subjective terms. Do you think that someone who makes more money than 90% of working New Yorkers shouldn't be considered "rich"?

$105K is not rich. I make more than that and I live in a 2 bedroom condominium.

Really? Seems a bit hard to believe.

What is hard to believe?
According to ...https://www.efanniemae.com/sf/refma...oice=county&CITY=new+york&FormsButton1=Search.
The median income for all workers in the New York Metro area Metropolitan Statistical Area(MSA) is $80.200.....Hence, $105k in that region is 20% above average. Or NOT rich.
In fact,m if you're under $100k per year in the NYC Metro area, you're just "getting by".

 

[Cuyo]

Do you not want to take more money away from rich people?

I'm not in the business of taking money away from anyone. I'm just pointing out the uselessness (and false pretenses) of the "x% pay y%" argument.

So, you're complaining about a situation but have no suggestions how to improve it.

The only situation I'm complaining about is your stupid argument. You on the other hand are complaining about a solution in search of a problem.

 

[daveman]

I'm not in the business of taking money away from anyone. I'm just pointing out the uselessness (and false pretenses) of the "x% pay y%" argument.

So, you're complaining about a situation but have no suggestions how to improve it.

The only situation I'm complaining about is your stupid argument. You on the other hand are complaining about a solution in search of a problem.

Guess you didn't read the thread, huh?

 

[thereisnospoon]

We've been through this phenomenon mathematically umpteen million times. This stastistic of "x% of population pays y% of taxes" is not relative to the disparity in the tax rates. It's more relative to the disparity in income. It would still be so even with a flat tax.

Example:
5 guys makes 1,000,000 each.
10 make 100,000 each.
85 make 25,000 each.

All pay 10%.

1st 5 guys pay 500k.
next 10 pay 100k combined.
Next 85 pay 212.5k.

Total paid = 812,500.

True statement: "The top 5% paid 61% of taxes!"

See how that works? It's quoted to make upper tiers appear unduly burdened when really it's mostly simply because they control so much wealth.

They still paid 61% of the taxes, dipstick.

That's the bottom line. Anyone who claims "that isn't sufficient" is simply a scumbag class warrior and a thief.

What's your point? The premise of the OP is that they pay too much and it's 'Unfair.' What, do you advocate a regressive tax?

Fair does not belong in the issue.
The issue is whether or not higher income people pay enough vs the lower income people who use more services pay little or nothing?
Let's cast aside permanently the notion of "the rich can afford it". That is a deflection from the facts.
The reality is, a society cannot become prosperous by taxing itself to the point where taxation becomes confiscatory and it cannot become prosperous by punishing the top. It CAN become prosperous be raising those at the bottom levels of income.
That does not mean "give them"....That means offer those who earn low wages the opportunity to advance themselves and create incentives for them to do so.
One of those things is to LOWER the amounts available for unemployment compensation on a sliding scale. The longer one collects, the smaller the checks.
The incentive is to accept work instead of collecting.
Another way is to STOP taxing savings and investment. Cash flows back into the economy when people feel they have more to spend.
People feel better about themselves when they are productive. They are also healthier.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you see that someone has less and you think you are entitled to things at their expense.....you're just fucked in the head.

Ahhh.. not the case.... as in a system where everyone pays an equal share on each and every dollar earned... you are not getting at the expense of someone making less... you are indeed paying your way as well...

Nice try though

You don't think that the CEO and top level execs getting fat salaries and bonunes doesn't come at the expense of the rest of the company that they pay dirt wages to?

NO!
The zero sum game does not exist.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes, so some other schmo can take the job they left while the big picture and overall disparity changes not a lick.

Indeed.

You do realize that there is a progression in employment and income don't you? I started out as a teenager in high school sacking groceries for $1.60 per hour. I worked there part way thru college and because I wasn't a slacker and had a good work ethic, I was given greater responsibilities and more pay. I went to work for a bank right out of college and when they switched me to full time back in 1980, they started paying me $900 a month and I thought I was living like a king. By the time I turned 28, I was making more than my dad was after 32 years in his union job. 31 years down the road, I won't tell you how much I make, but it's much better than that $900 a month back in 1980. I've never been out of work a single day of my adult life.

You make your own luck thru the choices you make. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were average kids with an idea and a dream who started companies in their garages and became part of that 1% rich bastard group. Is there disparity in income? Of course there is. Is there disparity in the length of dicks or the size of boobs? Yeah, there is. Individuals cam close their own disparity gap thru the choices they make. Using the government to take wealth from one person to give to another person in an attempt to be "fair" is pure and simple bullshit.

Yes, I realize there is a progression.

I also realize that over the last few decades, regardless of that progression, and in the grand scheme of things, the rich have gotten richer while the middle class has shrunk.

And I think that's fucked up.

Why do you think it's fucked up?
What would be your solution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

I am not in the top 1%... but I want equal treatment and equal % per dollar earned in tax burden for all citizens... even if it 'lowers' the rate on those who earn more than me...

Because for me, it's not about envy of those who make more...

So you want to raise taxes for most Americans in order to cut taxes for the highest earners.

Will you also raise taxes on those with children in order to lower taxes for those without, who currently pay much higher taxes no matter what their income?

 

[Cuyo]

So, you're complaining about a situation but have no suggestions how to improve it.

The only situation I'm complaining about is your stupid argument. You on the other hand are complaining about a solution in search of a problem.

Guess you didn't read the thread, huh?

Sure I did. You opened with the old x% pays y% and indicated that you think that's unfair. I dismantled that argument mathematically and even showed that New York City and State both have tax structures that are, for the sake of this argument, flat.

You've been flailing ever since, and that brings us up to right now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

I'll do what is necessary, but not while 50% is sitting there contributing NOTHING to this country while reaping the rewards of living in a free country. Nor will I sit by while the rich use the loop holes and subsidies afforded them that they don't need. And they can take a hit just like me.

I will not, however let the small business people take the hit. They are the job makers of this country.

The main reason most Americans who don't pay income taxes don't is because of the deductions, exemptions, and credits they get for having children.

Should we end the tax benefits given for raising children?