Taxes: 101

[OohPooPahDoo]

So let's say everyone pays a Fair Tax of 22 percent on every purchase.

Sounds great for business. I'm sure gonna buy a lot of stuff when the total federal + state + local sales tax is 31%.

 

[P@triot]

Contrary to democrat belief....it's low and middle income Americans who don't pay thier "fair share"

The poor rich. With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.

President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress say the wealthy must pay their fair share if the federal government is ever going to fix its finances and reduce the budget deficit to a manageable level.

A new analysis, however, shows that average tax bills for high-income families rarely have been higher since the Congressional Budget Office began tracking the data in 1979. Middle- and low-income families aren't paying as much as they used to.

News from The Associated Press

 

[P@triot]

Well then why is a sales tax fair when everyone pays the same amount? The sales tax on that cup of coffee is the same for the rich guy or the poor guy. Is that fair?

They both can't be fair.

First of all, sales tax isn't fair. If you're going to tax my income, then I shouldn't get hit over and over again with every purchase I make using what is left of my income after it has been taxed already.

Second, why should the "rich guy" be punished? Do you have any idea what a fucking asshole you sound like constantly looking for an angle to "get" the rich guy? It's so repulsive how envious you losers are of those that have been successful.

Third, since buying a cup of coffee is optional, the level of sales tax (not the sales tax itself) is absolutely fair. The "poor guy" shouldn't be buying caffeine stimulants anyway. He doesn't have the money to waste on stuff like that. He should actually show some maturity and responsibility and not spend what limited money he has on trivial items.

Your desperate attempt to demonize the wealthy and convince people you are justified in attacking them for their success is weak and simply doesn't hold up. But thanks for playing!

You are on the opposite side of conservatives if you are opposed to consumption taxes. Reading your posts is like watching a train wreck.

It's painful having to explain everything to you (you're seriously like a small retarded child who needs every trivial thing explained to them).

I'm not against consumption taxes. In fact, I'm 100% for them. What I'm against is having my income taxed and then having additional taxes on top of that.

Do you understand now, or do you need mommy to come read this to you and then explain it? I have outline above my original statement, and it couldn't possibly be any clearer...

 

[P@triot]

This illustration serves to show a flat sales tax is a much heavier burden on the poor than on the wealthy, and that is why sales taxes are called "regressive", and why great men like Thomas Jefferson believed that lower income people should be entirely exempt from taxation, and that higher incomes should be progressively taxed. Thomas Paine believed such inequalities should be further mitigated by a guaranteed income from the federal government to every US citizen.

You know who else believes this complete and total bullshit? Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Karl Marx. Joseph Stalin.

Why am I not the least bit surprised that you would align yourself with assholes like this? Oh that's right - because you're one of them.

 

[tooAlive]

This illustration serves to show a flat sales tax is a much heavier burden on the poor than on the wealthy, and that is why sales taxes are called "regressive", and why great men like Thomas Jefferson believed that lower income people should be entirely exempt from taxation, and that higher incomes should be progressively taxed. Thomas Paine believed such inequalities should be further mitigated by a guaranteed income from the federal government to every US citizen.

You know who else believes this complete and total bullshit? Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid. Karl Marx. Joseph Stalin.

Why am I not the least bit surprised that you would align yourself with assholes like this? Oh that's right - because you're one of them.

Nah, g5000 is far from that. Quite the opposite actually if you read his posts. I think both of you are on the same side, just misinterpreted each others posts.

A consumption tax (or sales tax, if you prefer) is regressive, but its regressive nature can be reduced.

But for the moment, imagine to survive in a US that had no taxes, an individual needed $10,000. This would be just enough to buy the food, water, shelter, heat, and clothing to barely survive.

If a person then earned $10,000 in income, and was charged a 10 percent sales tax on every purchase of his goods, he would come up $1,000 short of the necessary amount to survive.

However, a person earning a $1 million income stands no risk of ever coming up short on the necessities to survive, even with a 10 percent sales tax.

This illustration serves to show a flat sales tax is a much heavier burden on the poor than on the wealthy, and that is why sales taxes are called "regressive", and why great men like Thomas Jefferson believed that lower income people should be entirely exempt from taxation, and that higher incomes should be progressively taxed. Thomas Paine believed such inequalities should be further mitigated by a guaranteed income from the federal government to every US citizen.

A $300 a month check from the federal government would be walking around money for a wealthy person, but for a poor person it could mean the difference between mere existence and a modicum of comfort.

At this point, UnConservative media outlets would deploy teams of "journalists" to find negroes with HDTVs and Furbies to prove the sheer waste such a government program incurs.

However, even the great hard-hearted libertarian Milton Friedman believed in a negative income tax system.

Over the years, I have come to believe the entire state and federal tax system should be entirely junked and replaced with the Fair Tax system.

This is basically a sales tax with prebates. Everyone gets a check from the government each month which would offset the sales tax. Walking around money for a millionaire, but a boon for the poor.

Advocates of the Fair Tax system often believe this would eliminate the IRS. But how could it? Who would manage the prebates? Prebates are dependent on the number of people in the household. You have to have an IRS to manage that.

But it would certainly be a much easier system to manage, and everyone would know exactly how much they are paying in taxes, and the government would not be able to hide any changes to the tax rate or prebate.

And it is a consumption tax, which is far superior to a production (income) tax.

Gold. This post is golden.

I'm a full supporter of the Fair Tax (H.R. 25). And thanks for clearing that part about the prebates up; that's definitely something I'll need to explain to my liberal friends when they complain about how regressive the Fair Tax is.

 

[bripat9643]

And the middle/bottom have a share of total earned income at the same % as the top 1-5. LOL

Yeah, which means they've been more successful. What's wrong with that? If bottom class actually got up off their lazy ass and did something, they would earn a lot more. "LOL"

The libturds think it's possible for the bottom 1/5 to have the same percentage of national earnings as the top 1/5.

 

[JoeB131]

A bunch of problems with this chart.

First, it says the "top 1%" earned more of the wealth than the top "2-5%". Seriously?

So let's take it that the top 25% earn 75% of the wealth in this country and pay more than that in income taxes.

What you leave out, of course, is that income tax isn't the only tax paid in this country. If you count Social Security, Medicare, State Income Taxes (all flat taxes), as well as residential property taxes, fees, licenses, etc. the burden shifts a lot more to the working class.

in fact, income taxes only make up a third of all government revenues.

 

[editec]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU]Ten years after - I'd love to change to world - YouTube[/ame]

 

[zeke]

Look at the two bars in the middle of the graph - the top 20% are paying nearly 70% of the taxes. That is an outrage.It's time the parasite class start paying their fair share. We need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, substantially reduce taxes on the middle class, and drastically increase taxes on the parasite class (as well as end entitlements for them that are allowing them to live off of the American tax payer).

Fuk that. You feel so bad for the ultra wealthy, so outraged, send them some of your money. Hell send them all your money. Maybe they'll give you a little stipend. But think how good you will feel, helping out the ultra wealthy like that.

What a stupid fuk you are.

 

[P@triot]

Under current law, retailers are required to collect sales taxes only in states where they have a physical presence. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is pushing for a vote on a new Internet sales tax that would hit all online businesses—no matter where they’re located.

DeMint says:
Consider the absurdity of such a law. When a customer buys a product in a store, does the cashier ask for the customer's home address? Of course not. The store simply charges the state and local sales taxes applicable for its physical location, no questions asked.

“Brick-and-mortar” stores like Wal-Mart are in favor of the Internet sales tax, because they see these online retailers as competitors. But the other big proponents of the tax are state governments, which would be able to reach into other states for revenue.

Beware the Internet Sales Tax | Internet Tax

 

[Agit8r]

I guess that payroll taxes aren't covered until Taxes 102

 

[P@triot]

Americans pay high taxes as it is, and with the 13 tax increases that hit this year, tax revenue is growing beyond its historical average as a share of the economy. But Washington’s deficits continue, because spending keeps going up.

Tax Day: Where Did Your Tax Dollar Go?

 

[lynn63]

The number of tax exempt tax returns increased from 900 under Bush to over 1300 under Obama. Smaller businesses pay a higher percentage tax rate then companies in the higher income brackets.

These are facts.

 

[kaz]

Look at the two bars in the middle of the graph - the top 20% are paying nearly 70% of the taxes. That is an outrage.

It's time the parasite class start paying their fair share. We need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, substantially reduce taxes on the middle class, and drastically increase taxes on the parasite class (as well as end entitlements for them that are allowing them to live off of the American tax payer).

How do you propose to get taxes out of people without earnings? or out of people who work, but only earn enough for basic necessities?

You can always count on a liberal to miss the point of any discussion.

The point is that the "rich aren't paying their fair share" nonsense is nonsense. No one proposed raising taxes on the poor.

Personally I don't think anyone should pay zero taxes. They don't get how taxes affect them and they just vote for whoever offers them the most free stuff.

 

[P@triot]

Look at the two bars in the middle of the graph - the top 20% are paying nearly 70% of the taxes. That is an outrage.

It's time the parasite class start paying their fair share. We need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, substantially reduce taxes on the middle class, and drastically increase taxes on the parasite class (as well as end entitlements for them that are allowing them to live off of the American tax payer).

How do you propose to get taxes out of people without earnings? or out of people who work, but only earn enough for basic necessities?

You can always count on a liberal to miss the point of any discussion.

The point is that the "rich aren't paying their fair share" nonsense is nonsense. No one proposed raising taxes on the poor.

Personally I don't think anyone should pay zero taxes. They don't get how taxes affect them and they just vote for whoever offers them the most free stuff.

It's so true Kaz - the only one's not "paying their fair share" are the poor. The wealthy in this country are burdened beyond reason.

What is funny (and tragic) is how liberals actually believe con artists like Obama "care" about them. Obama sits on tens of millions of dollars (talk about the 1%), galavants all around the world to the Hawaii, Martha's Vineyard, the finest golf courses, etc. while his own family (brothers, aunt, etc.) live in poverty. They are completely destitute and he won't share one damn nickel with them. He hoards all the wealth for himself.

The only thing Obama cares about is your vote to retain his power. After that, he could give a fuck if your child dies from cancer and you go hungry. He's proven that with his OWN family.

 

[P@triot]

The American Revolution, of course, began as a tax revolt. So when the Founders were drafting the Constitution, they were careful about assigning the power to tax. They didn’t want states, interests, or industries to use the national legislature to burden other states, interests, or industries unjustly. Therefore, the Constitution creates certain limitations on indirect taxes and direct taxes.

Indirect taxes were on goods including “duties, imports and excises.” They were expected to produce enough revenue to fund the national government’s normal operations. Direct taxes, those imposed directly on individuals, needed to be apportioned, or spread throughout the states based on population. If an income tax is subject to apportionment, a state with one-tenth the national population, for example, has to bear one-tenth the aggregate tax liability, regardless of the state’s financial condition.

Congress did take a stab at an income tax during the Civil War, but that levy ended after the war did. When it tried again to pass a modern-style “progressive” income tax in the 1890s, the Supreme Court struck it down. For almost 20 years it was accepted legal practice that an unapportioned income tax violated the Constitution.

That changed 100 years ago with the ratification of the 16th Amendment: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The bold change left Washington free to impose an income tax, and the tax burden has only grown in the decades since. Congress’s power to spend has soared to surpass its power to tax. If you’re grinding your teeth about your tax bill, blame the progressives and their slapdash constitutional reform.

Tax Day: Progressives Created the Income Tax

 

[JoeNormal]

Oh, goody. Another thread where conservatards get to pretend they know something about math.

Income distribution follows a log-normal distribution like this:

This means that at the low end, there are a whole bunch of data points and at the high end, there are few. The peak (normal) occurs at relatively near the low end and the point at which you designate the upper 1% has only 1% of the data points but they are at a very high value. The 0.01% is at a much, much higher value. As sigma gets higher, the distribution is skewed to set the normal at a lower level and allow the high end to rise exponentially. The income distribution at this point in time is skewed to favor the high end to the point of absurdity.

Your graph (inaccuracies notwithstanding) reflects that distrubution. If it's getting worse as you claim, it's because the distribution continues to skew upwards.

 

[JoeNormal]

Rottweiler, are you ignoring this or did it just go over your head?

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler, are you ignoring this or did it just go over your head?

Ah yes, the smug libtard who works a minmum wage union job but makes more than the minimum wage because of said union. My favorite type of USMB poster...

Yes - that went completely over my head. Would you care to explain it - citing specifics of the tax chart provided and not generalities like the first time in hopes of concealing your ingorance on all of this?

I eagerly await....

 

[velvtacheeze]

Because dumbocrats are so profoundly stupid, please allow me to explain this simple chart to you.

In each section, the bar on the left (since most dumbocrats can't tell their left from their right, they color-coded it for you - so the left is the gray bar) is the percentage of wealth that group has accumulated (in this case, the first one is the top 1%). The bar on the right (again, color-coded for the dumbocrats - so look for the orange bar) is the percentage of taxes that group has paid.

So in the first example, the Top 1% of the wealthy (think Bill Gates level) has accumulated 13% of the wealth. Now, if they were to pay their "fair share" like the idiot liberal dumbocrats scream they want, then they should pay 13% of the taxes. Instead, they pay 22% of the taxes.

In each case, the taxes (ie bar on the right) exceeds the wealth earned (ie bar on the left) for the upper class. It's not until you get to the middle class that this trend ends.

So you see, as I've long been saying, in order for the wealthy to pay their "fair share", we would have to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy.

This demonstrates how profoundly stupid the dumbocrats are....

The rich, leisure class can pay far more, and still live very comfy lives. For the life of me, I dunno why conservatives worry about the livings standards of the rich so much. In NYC and San Francisco, the rich are voting for liberals anyway.