The Liberal Myth that the Rich Pay "Virtually No Taxes"

[Sun Devil 92]

Remember MIT romneys taxes ? And this was a guy setting up for a prez run!

Why do the Romneys pay so little in taxes? - CNN.com

By now, most of us have probably heard that Mitt and Ann Romney paid just under $2 million in taxes on income -- virtually all from investments -- of just under $14 million for 2011, an effective tax rate of 14.1%. This is a low tax rate, lower than the typical middle-class American worker pays, especially when one considers payroll taxes, the largest burden for most Americans. It should concern us that individuals of Romney's wealth -- analysis has put his personal fortune as high as $250 million, not counting some $100 million in trusts set up for his five children -- pay so little as a percent in taxes.

Do you remember how much he donated to charity ?

1) church is not charity
2) who cares .

I said charity.....

Obviously, you don't.

But then, you don't see much.....do you ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not a member of the GOP

And why in your mind is a dollar any different than a gallon of gas?

Because they aren't the same thing. They don't necessarily have the same value, the same composition, the same utility, the same taste, width, depth or color. Nor can I use them equally to buy a candy bar.

Poor people don't pay less tax on gas rich people don't pay more regardless of their "ability to pay"

Depends on the poor person. Many don't have cars. So they pay far less on gasoline than a rich person with a speed boat, sports car, and SUV.

BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax

Not if we take into account things like...food. Shelter. Education for kids. Clothing. Utilities. And a myriad of other common expenses.

A person with tremendous disposable income would have a much greater capacity to pay than a person who barely has enough to cover their basic needs. Which is why I and virtually every 1st world nation on the planet favor applying more taxes to those with more disposable income.

If you want fish, fish where the fish are.

We disagree on the marginal utility theory

I think it's bunk and is rife with subjective value judgements

It's you telling me I don't need something so you should be able to take it from me

Most law involves at least some subjective value judgements. And the new 143 foot super yacht to replace the 137 foot super yacht isn't the same thing as say, struggling to pay the rent.

You may not acknowledge any distinction. Most people would. With that sentiment reflected in the taxation policies of virtually every 1st world country. And I use the word 'virtually', just to allow for an errant exception I'm unaware of. As far as I know, its the tax policy of every 1st world nation on the planet.

That doesn't work with any other type of property and it shouldn't work with money

I disagree. I think its perfectly reasonable, fair, and intelligent to base a tax policy on one's ability to pay. A sentiment reflected essentially universally in 1st world tax policy.

If you want fish, fish where the fish are. If its tax money you're looking for, go where the money is.

I really don't care what other countries do

You should. As if the same question is asked say, 150 times by 150 different peoples....and they all come to the same answer independently, that's a pretty strong indication that there are some powerful, practical reasons behind the decision.

I argue its because it makes fiscal sense, is reasonable, fair, and sustainable.

My only aim is to have laws that are actually nondiscriminatory and fair

That depends on what you consider fair. And the basis of your assumptions on what is 'fair' require that a new super yacht be considered the same thing as struggling to pay rent. Most people can recognize the distinction, even if you can't.

Or perhaps, won't.

And its that recognition that results in a tax policy based on ability to pay in our nation and virtually every other 1st world nation on the planet.

If we are going to have an income tax then all income should be taxed not some.

I know I am taking the hard road here but I am not a politician and this is merely an argument on the merits of the flat tax system

I know the system I describe would never be implemented as is but it's a starting point

I don't focus on what people buy with their own money as it's none of my, your, or the government's business if it was I'd start asking you why so many people you think can't pay a low rate flat tax smoke, drink, and waste their money on a myriad of other things

When you start deciding what some people need or don't need so you can take things away then the same judgements must be used for the people you want to give a free ride

 

[Skull Pilot]

Remember MIT romneys taxes ? And this was a guy setting up for a prez run!

Why do the Romneys pay so little in taxes? - CNN.com

By now, most of us have probably heard that Mitt and Ann Romney paid just under $2 million in taxes on income -- virtually all from investments -- of just under $14 million for 2011, an effective tax rate of 14.1%. This is a low tax rate, lower than the typical middle-class American worker pays, especially when one considers payroll taxes, the largest burden for most Americans. It should concern us that individuals of Romney's wealth -- analysis has put his personal fortune as high as $250 million, not counting some $100 million in trusts set up for his five children -- pay so little as a percent in taxes.

Just one more argument for the flat tax

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'll vote to raise taxes on the wealthy if you vote to create a minimum 2% fed tax regardless of income.

Do you mean like the already existing payroll taxes?

All of the working poor who pay nothing in "income" taxes pay payroll taxes on their income, and 2/3 of all who pay income taxes pay as much or more in payroll taxes, while capital gains tycoons pay nothing in payroll taxes no matter how many billions they make in capital gains and get a reduced income tax rate on their capital gains to boot.

That's what happens when the government decides to take care of you

We could get into the argument of why SS should be privatized if you want

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now, for perhaps the 6th time....who said that the rich pay 'virtually no taxes'?

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yup

Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.

So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?

Mine.

It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax

Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.

Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.

I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.

why is captial gains on the table?

Why shouldn't capital gains be on the table?

The fact that we tax investment earnings at a lower rate than sweat earnings is criminal

They should be and if we are talking about protecting the working folks then the 401k regs should be revamped

People do not realize that these type of retirement accounts actually screw the average Joe because of the tax treatment of the gains

 

[Skull Pilot]

And when you think about stock trades, what is being produced? What is being made? What is being improved? Nothing. It creates nothing, improves nothing, refines nothing. Its sole product......a split second faster liquidity. A benefit that 99% of the time (literally) benefits the very traders who are producing it. Its one of the most useless professions imaginable.

As its sole purpose is to leech wealth in exchange for nothing.

Where actual labor, actual work, actually *earning* money adds value. Its how virtually every good and service in our nation is produced. Its how roads are built, how planes are made, how schools are built, how children are educated.

And yet in defiance of all reason, we offer a *fantastic* tax discount for uselessness that enhances nothing, nor builds a thing........while charging much higher tax rates for the work that builds everything.

Why? Because it favors the wealthy.

Another argument for the flat tax

 

[Skull Pilot]

BTW if one has an income one has the ability to pay income tax

And unless that income is capital gains, they all pay payroll taxes on that income up to a cap of $100,000+. The government collects an almost equal amount in taxes from the regressive payroll taxes and the progressive income tax, but other than you, the Right only harps about the income tax.

That's the price you pay for wanting the government to take care of you

We should be able to opt out of payroll taxes

 

[Campbell]

Remember MIT romneys taxes ? And this was a guy setting up for a prez run!

Why do the Romneys pay so little in taxes? - CNN.com

By now, most of us have probably heard that Mitt and Ann Romney paid just under $2 million in taxes on income -- virtually all from investments -- of just under $14 million for 2011, an effective tax rate of 14.1%. This is a low tax rate, lower than the typical middle-class American worker pays, especially when one considers payroll taxes, the largest burden for most Americans. It should concern us that individuals of Romney's wealth -- analysis has put his personal fortune as high as $250 million, not counting some $100 million in trusts set up for his five children -- pay so little as a percent in taxes.

That taxable year my wife and I paid almost the same percentage on combined earnings of less than $100,000. I've been bitching about Romney ever since I read about it. I told about this close friend of mine who owns a metal building construction company which earns an average of just under a million dollars a year. He said that if he ever had to pay a combined 20% for all his taxes he would hire a new accountant.

It's like I posted earlier.....poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in other forms of taxation and fees than any rich person when totals are closely observed. Why not? Rich people came up with the system. Now it takes an act of god to change anything.

The one the well to do are really trying to push is a flat tax for everyone. Their tax rates would automatically be reduced with a deal like that.

 

[edthecynic]

Now, for perhaps the 6th time....who said that the rich pay 'virtually no taxes'?

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

Obama said that was a tax increase threshold point, the Right calls them "rich."

 

[rightwinger]

What a stupid op.

Where are those liberals who make the claim that the ultra rich pay virtully nothing in the way of income taxes....where are those people other than in the head of the OP.

Uhhhh, there are two threads going right now in which liberals have claimed that the rich "pay virtually nothing" in taxes and/or that "the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class," etc., etc. Those comments, and many others I've seen/heard in recent years, prompted me to write this thread.

If the wealthy are paying 17% effective tax rate compared to the 50% they should be paying, does that qualify as "virtually nothing"?

You make two dubious assumptions and then proceed from there.

Why should anyone have an effective tax rate of 50%?

Does your fuzzy-math claim about a 17% effective tax rate include all the taxes that the rich pay in state and county taxes? I am barely in the top 20% and my state takes about 5% of my gross income and refunds about $100 of that money to me each year. And, good grief, I pay many thousands of dollars in state sales tax and county property tax. Two of my relatives own businesses, and they pay a huge amount in state and county business and property taxes. Does your 17% figure include state and county taxes?

Why?

Because that is where our tax rate used to be before we were running up record debt. It is where our tax rate used to be when taxes actually paid more for infrastructure, education and healthcare. It is where our tax rate used to be when the Government actually accomplished things

We have seen what Supply Side tax rates have done for this country...time to fix the mistake

Accomplished things like what ?

This should be good.

Glad you asked....

What did we accomplish before we bought into supply side economics?
WWII, interstate highway system, put a man on the moon

What have we accomplished since supply side?
Our infrastructure has been allowed to crumble in the name of lower taxes, we have pulled support from colleges and universities in the name of lower taxes, we have allowed our cities to crumble

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Remember MIT romneys taxes ? And this was a guy setting up for a prez run!

Why do the Romneys pay so little in taxes? - CNN.com

By now, most of us have probably heard that Mitt and Ann Romney paid just under $2 million in taxes on income -- virtually all from investments -- of just under $14 million for 2011, an effective tax rate of 14.1%. This is a low tax rate, lower than the typical middle-class American worker pays, especially when one considers payroll taxes, the largest burden for most Americans. It should concern us that individuals of Romney's wealth -- analysis has put his personal fortune as high as $250 million, not counting some $100 million in trusts set up for his five children -- pay so little as a percent in taxes.

That taxable year my wife and I paid almost the same percentage on combined earnings of less than $100,000. I've been bitching about Romney ever since I read about it. I told about this close friend of mine who owns a metal building construction company which earns an average of just under a million dollars a year. He said that if he ever had to pay a combined 20% for all his taxes he would hire a new accountant.

It's like I posted earlier.....poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in other forms of taxation and fees than any rich person when totals are closely observed. Why not? Rich people came up with the system. Now it takes an act of god to change anything.

The one the well to do are really trying to push is a flat tax for everyone. Their tax rates would automatically be reduced with a deal like that.

What part of government do the rich utilize that

Uhhhh, there are two threads going right now in which liberals have claimed that the rich "pay virtually nothing" in taxes and/or that "the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class," etc., etc. Those comments, and many others I've seen/heard in recent years, prompted me to write this thread.

If the wealthy are paying 17% effective tax rate compared to the 50% they should be paying, does that qualify as "virtually nothing"?

You make two dubious assumptions and then proceed from there.

Why should anyone have an effective tax rate of 50%?

Does your fuzzy-math claim about a 17% effective tax rate include all the taxes that the rich pay in state and county taxes? I am barely in the top 20% and my state takes about 5% of my gross income and refunds about $100 of that money to me each year. And, good grief, I pay many thousands of dollars in state sales tax and county property tax. Two of my relatives own businesses, and they pay a huge amount in state and county business and property taxes. Does your 17% figure include state and county taxes?

Why?

Because that is where our tax rate used to be before we were running up record debt. It is where our tax rate used to be when taxes actually paid more for infrastructure, education and healthcare. It is where our tax rate used to be when the Government actually accomplished things

We have seen what Supply Side tax rates have done for this country...time to fix the mistake

Accomplished things like what ?

This should be good.

Glad you asked....

What did we accomplish before we bought into supply side economics?
WWII, interstate highway system, put a man on the moon

What have we accomplished since supply side?
Our infrastructure has been allowed to crumble in the name of lower taxes, we have pulled support from colleges and universities in the name of lower taxes, we have allowed our cities to crumble

Those are all meme's.

If we are playing this game, since supply side, we have had a technology explosion.

If I were really stupid enough to think the two were linked, I'd say it.

But I know the difference. Just like I know that pre-supply side, our workforce and lack of global economy allow things like that.

Circumstances change and fools like you don't take that into account.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now, for perhaps the 6th time....who said that the rich pay 'virtually no taxes'?

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

Obama said that was a tax increase threshold point, the Right calls them "rich."

Obama lumped 250K earners into the category of "wealthy citizens"

 

[rightwinger]

Are you sure? Steve Forbes applied his flat tax scheme only to wages. Not capital gains. Cruz only mentions income in his flat tax, not capital gains. The Heritage Foundation's flat tax proposal goes to elaborate lengths to avoid even mentioning capital gains rates, never including them in the myriad of taxes that the flat tax will replace. Rand Paul at least includes capital gains.

So......I guess the question would be, whose flat tax?

Mine.

It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax

Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.

Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.

I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.

why is captial gains on the table?

Why shouldn't capital gains be on the table?

The fact that we tax investment earnings at a lower rate than sweat earnings is criminal

Its not 'criminal'. Its a concrete demonstration of the wildly disproportionate power and influence of the wealthy on our law. As its one of the primary methods of earnings for the top 1%. But not for the public at large.

And given the wildly disproportionate influence of the wealthy, tax policy flagrantly favors of the methods of income that the wealthy use to generate their income: investments.

While far higher rates on methods that most everyone else uses: actual work.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mine.

It's the only fair way and in all honesty by getting rid of all deductions and tax credits etc and taxing all income from dollar one the rate could very possibly be less than the current capital gains tax

Yours isn't the one being promoted by the GOP front runners, those most likely to have a snowball's chance in hell of actually enacting it. They either carve out specific exemptions for capital gains or they get really, really vague about the topic. While being very specific about other forms of taxation.

Which tells you that capital gains isn't going to be treated the same. With the aforementioned exception of Rand Paul.

I think a fair scheme would be based on one's ability to pay. A method adopted by pretty much every 1st world nation on the planet.

why is captial gains on the table?

Why shouldn't capital gains be on the table?

The fact that we tax investment earnings at a lower rate than sweat earnings is criminal

Its not 'criminal'. Its a concrete demonstration of the wildly disproportionate power and influence of the wealthy on our law. As its one of the primary methods of earnings for the top 1%. But not for the public at large.

And given the wildly disproportionate influence of the wealthy, tax policy flagrantly favors of the methods of income that the wealthy use to generate their income: investments.

While far higher rates on methods that most everyone else uses: actual work.

Labor is a product sold by the laborers nothing more

 

[rightwinger]

Now, for perhaps the 6th time....who said that the rich pay 'virtually no taxes'?

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

Obama said that was a tax increase threshold point, the Right calls them "rich."

Obama lumped 250K earners into the category of "wealthy citizens"

Actually, the $250 plus tax bracket was established by Reagan

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've already stated that I think the rich should pay more.

I've also stated that I think everyone should pay 2% federal income tax regardless (our army does not selectively defend the rich at the most basic level).

I also believe we need some cost cuts at the federal level. Let the states decide if they want some thngs.....and let them tax accordingly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Now, for perhaps the 6th time....who said that the rich pay 'virtually no taxes'?

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

Obama said that was a tax increase threshold point, the Right calls them "rich."

Obama lumped 250K earners into the category of "wealthy citizens"

Actually, the $250 plus tax bracket was established by Reagan

So what? You think I am a fan of that big government whore?

Obama categorized 250 K earners as some of the "wealthiest"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Uhhhh, there are two threads going right now in which liberals have claimed that the rich "pay virtually nothing" in taxes and/or that "the rich pay less in taxes than the middle class," etc., etc. Those comments, and many others I've seen/heard in recent years, prompted me to write this thread.

If the wealthy are paying 17% effective tax rate compared to the 50% they should be paying, does that qualify as "virtually nothing"?

You make two dubious assumptions and then proceed from there.

Why should anyone have an effective tax rate of 50%?

Does your fuzzy-math claim about a 17% effective tax rate include all the taxes that the rich pay in state and county taxes? I am barely in the top 20% and my state takes about 5% of my gross income and refunds about $100 of that money to me each year. And, good grief, I pay many thousands of dollars in state sales tax and county property tax. Two of my relatives own businesses, and they pay a huge amount in state and county business and property taxes. Does your 17% figure include state and county taxes?

Why?

Because that is where our tax rate used to be before we were running up record debt. It is where our tax rate used to be when taxes actually paid more for infrastructure, education and healthcare. It is where our tax rate used to be when the Government actually accomplished things

We have seen what Supply Side tax rates have done for this country...time to fix the mistake

Accomplished things like what ?

This should be good.

Glad you asked....

What did we accomplish before we bought into supply side economics?
WWII, interstate highway system, put a man on the moon

What have we accomplished since supply side?
Our infrastructure has been allowed to crumble in the name of lower taxes, we have pulled support from colleges and universities in the name of lower taxes, we have allowed our cities to crumble

The city I live in isn't crumbling.

Just the opposite.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Only the Right say that by taking out of context anyone who points out the fact that the "truly wealthy," like the Rockefellers, Melons, DuPontes, etc., pay little or no taxes on their billions in capital assets, and spins "truly wealthy capital billionaires" into the "rich making $250k in wages."

Last time I checked it was Obama and his minions who said people making 250K a year were rich

Obama said that was a tax increase threshold point, the Right calls them "rich."

Obama lumped 250K earners into the category of "wealthy citizens"

Actually, the $250 plus tax bracket was established by Reagan

So what? You think I am a fan of that big government whore?

Obama categorized 250 K earners as some of the "wealthiest"

skull
250k a year puts you in the top 2% of earners. It is almost 5 times greater than the median income.

Obama was absolutely correct and you are absolutley wrong if you think making 20k a month does not make you amoung the wealthiest Americans.

Skull, get someone to show you how to use Google.