Huffington Post Accidentally Admits Rich Pay More than 'Fair Share'

[Tehon]

...seems to me that they could stand to pay more of the tax burden.

That makes sense if the only goal is attacking the evil subhuman rich --a popular view. Doesn't matter if it makes everyone worse off, it's worth it as long as we can hurt the hated ones.

Sick.

It makes perfect sense if 20% of the population has 85% of the wealth in the nation. The money has to come from those who have it.

 

[Tehon]

...the infamous Top 1% — you know, the folks who don't pay their "fair share" — actually pay 25% of all federal taxes.

...seems to me that they could stand to pay more of the tax burden.

For what? What exactly do they owe more for?

The maintenance of the country.

You mean tax revenue to support the gov't? If that's our goal then we want to cut rates. If the goal is attack the inferior race rich then country-maintenance doesn't matter.

This is an old question that was posed back in '08 at a presidential debate:

Obama: Let's Raise Capital Gains Tax Even if Less Revenue- Fairness...

I'm not seeing a correlation between the tax rate on capital gains and taxes collected. Can you do better explaining your position than a uninformative youtube video.

Federal Capital Gains Tax Collections, 1954-2009 - Tax Foundation

 

[expat_panama]

...not seeing a correlation between the tax rate on capital gains and taxes collected...

That only matters if we're for sure interested in revenue being collected. It's a key question because while a google search key words "lower capital gains rate more revenue" shows a lot of support for a correlation, it also produces a controversy over 'fairness' and income equality.

So none of it matters unless we decide if we care about (like you pointed out) "maintenance of the government". Historic cap gains rates are available (again, like you posted) lots of places (personally, graphing the numbers is easier to follow). Matching that w/ historic total revenues can show the flow of total revenue slowing w/ rate hikes and surging w/ cuts. Or not, depending on bias.

The consensus at the '08 debate was that there was in fact not only a correlation but also a causality. That's where Obama argued that fairness is more important than revenue.

 

[Tom Horn]

I paid what I was supposed to pay.

You won't say what you pay because it's so little, if anything, that you'll be exposed as an envious turd who's too lazy or stupid to find a better paying occupation. We see right through you.....you want to punish people who are better at life than you are.

 

[Tehon]

(personally, graphing the numbers is easier to follow

That is understandable, however, in doing so it would be nice of you to provide a graph that remained within the confines of the discussion.
We are not discussing domestic investment so the graph is useless in comparing the capital gains tax rate to revenue derived from said taxes.

Matching that w/ historic total revenues can show the flow of total revenue slowing w/ rate hikes and surging w/ cuts. Or not, depending on bias.

Here again you are taking liberties and in doing so calling attention to what might be perceived as bias. But so be it. I think it is pretty clear that the flow of total tax revenue corresponds with downturns in the economy. I see no correlation to capital gains taxes in spite of whatever consensus may or may not exist.

 

[Tom Horn]

We are not discussing domestic investment so the graph is useless in comparing the capital gains tax rate to revenue derived from said taxes.

WTF? Capital gains are derived from investments unless they're stolen by taxes.....you really don't understand economics do you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

 

[Tehon]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Well, the theme of the IBD article the OP references is that tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers are fitting because they pay more than their "fair share." Well, one has to ask oneself just what constitutes a "fair share," and what defines "fair" in comparison to/with "unfair."

To start, ask yourself who are the wealthiest filers? It's not Bill Gates or any of the other less well off ~1900 billionaires in living in the U.S. It's corporations, the "persons" whose heart beats are viewed on a balance sheet, income statement and statement of cash flows. The fact of the matter is that something around 2.5 trillion dollars in wealth is held offshore in lower tax rate locales, sometimes in places that have zero-percent tax rates. What allows that to happen? A tax code that allows tax filers to, at their discretion, calculate their tax liability at an individual level or at a "family unit" level is what they receive in return for their expenditures incurred to pay something other than federal income taxes.

If one is a married human, it generally makes sense to file as "married, filing jointly" rather than as "married, filing separately," but if one is a corporation, the reverse is to one's advantage. Also, no matter how one files as a human, one's total income is captured as "gross income," but that simply isn't so for corporations that, enjoying personhood status in law, establish foreign subsidiaries.yet operate more or less cohesively/collaboratively and collect monies and net profit as would any human couple.

Now the really interesting thing about all that is that raising or lowering tax rates will have no impact on the filers who I've noted. Why, because the tax provisions that allow them to avoid paying federal income tax on their earnings have nothing to do with tax rates. The provisions that enable that are about what income is included as federally taxable income. Quite simply, if a given dollar isn't eligible to be be included in taxable income, one could tax it 90% and still reap no tax payment on that dollar.

So, again, I ask...What's fair? So many folks are quick to gripe about humans -- wealthy or otherwise -- and the tax rates applicable to them. In doing so, those complainers are focusing their acrimony in the wrong place.

 

[Muhammed]

Republicans love to spend money on war, well you want to got to war, stop kicking the costs down the road and start paying for your wars, and that includes the VA to take care of the battered and the broken for the rest of their lives.

Do you live in oppositeland or are you just incredibly ignorant of US history?

 

[Wyatt earp]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

 

[xband]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

The tide comes in and goes out, always has and always will. White Castle is hiring if you want a job flipping burgers.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

The tide comes in and goes out, always has and always will. White Castle is hiring if you want a job flipping burgers.

So are you saying Obama produced burger flipping jobs?


Yup...

 

[xband]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

The tide comes in and goes out, always has and always will. White Castle is hiring if you want a job flipping burgers.

So are you saying Obama produced burger flipping jobs?


Yup...

My first job was a hog herder (hog beater because hogs don't mind) and am proud of that. Everyone has to start at the bottom of the ladder and White Castle Hamburgers smell better than hog shit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What part of the Huff Post article was conveniently omitted in the OP? This:

Only the richest one-fifth of households are paying a higher percentage in federal taxes than they were a decade or two ago, and that’s only because of increases passed under former President Barack Obama to pay for his signature health care law.

Meaning that for liberals who support the idea of a progressive income tax ― one that imposes higher rates on the wealthy ― the promise of a middle-class tax reduction as part of a coming “tax reform” package could actually be a Trojan horse. Given House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) longtime desire to lower the top rates, any reduction for middle and lower-income taxpayers would almost certainly be dwarfed by savings for the wealthiest.


“It’s almost became a religious belief, a religious cult. Tax cuts are an elixir for everything. They are always good,” said Norman Ornstein, of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, who in recent years has grown critical of congressional Republicans. “And the lowest rates are best for the richest, since they drive the economy. Evidence is not a part of this.”


Only the wealthiest one-fifth saw their average federal rate go up, from 23.8 percent in 1983 to 26.3 percent in 2013 ― but that was only because of tax increases under Obama following his re-election. That group’s tax rate had been 23.9 percent in 2012.
​

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

The tide comes in and goes out, always has and always will. White Castle is hiring if you want a job flipping burgers.

So are you saying Obama produced burger flipping jobs?


Yup...

My first job was a hog herder (hog beater because hogs don't mind) and am proud of that. Everyone has to start at the bottom of the ladder and White Castle Hamburgers smell better than hog shit.

Deflection


.

 

[xband]

The actual Huff Post article wasn't part of the OP. Instead the OP chose to highlight the fact that the richest Americans pay the largest percentage of the federal tax bill. As if it is some well guarded secret that the Huff Post just let out of the bag.

The OP would have us ignore the part of the article that states that there has been an overall tax reduction since the '80s. Which surely couldn't explain to some degree the rising debt and destroys any notion that tax reduction spurs the economy.

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

The tide comes in and goes out, always has and always will. White Castle is hiring if you want a job flipping burgers.

So are you saying Obama produced burger flipping jobs?


Yup...

My first job was a hog herder (hog beater because hogs don't mind) and am proud of that. Everyone has to start at the bottom of the ladder and White Castle Hamburgers smell better than hog shit.

Deflection


.

Reflection

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then how do you explain our 4.9 % unemployment rate?

The tide comes in and goes out, always has and always will. White Castle is hiring if you want a job flipping burgers.

So are you saying Obama produced burger flipping jobs?


Yup...

My first job was a hog herder (hog beater because hogs don't mind) and am proud of that. Everyone has to start at the bottom of the ladder and White Castle Hamburgers smell better than hog shit.

Deflection


.

Reflection

Pathetic

 

[xband]

The tide comes in and goes out, always has and always will. White Castle is hiring if you want a job flipping burgers.

So are you saying Obama produced burger flipping jobs?


Yup...

My first job was a hog herder (hog beater because hogs don't mind) and am proud of that. Everyone has to start at the bottom of the ladder and White Castle Hamburgers smell better than hog shit.

Deflection


.

Reflection

Pathetic

I like the number on your football jersey because I was born in 51. 51 is a prime number.

 

[Dragonlady]

Republicans love to spend money on war, well you want to got to war, stop kicking the costs down the road and start paying for your wars, and that includes the VA to take care of the battered and the broken for the rest of their lives.

Do you live in oppositeland or are you just incredibly ignorant of US history?

Ronald Reagan said "Deficits don't matter" and Republicans have been living that line ever since, except of course when Democrats are in power when deficits seriously matter.

As for Republican wars: Ike had Korea, and he got the ball rolling in Viet Nam. Nixon lost Viet Nam and he had Cambodia, even if Congress didn't know. Reagan invaded Granada (why, I do not know), Bush 41 had the Gulf War, and of course, W had Afghanistan and Iraq.

The VA was expected to deal with the WWII injured and not designed to care for a steady steam of war wounded. It's now way underfunded and overwhelmed.

 

[TNHarley]

Flat tax or evaporate the income tax and do a high consumption tax.