Who Pays the Taxes? Who Should?

[Foxfyre]

But I've shown you that they do in fact pay federal taxes. Did you ignore that part? Did it not make sense? I am not sure why you are refusing to understand this.

Remember before when I said you are unable to have a rational discussion? This is what I was talking about. When you are presented with facts, that you either refused to read of didn't have any disagreement with, you still revert back to your original statement which is blatantly false.

So whats the problem here with what we're discussing? Do you just not want to listen to the facts or do you not understand what they mean?

THEY PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

How many times do you you have to hear that explanation before it penetrates that thick ovine skull?

LOL, do you want me to link you to every instance on this site of your fellow idiots saying they "pay no taxes". There is a huge difference between that and paying no federal income taxes, which greatly waters down the argument about having "no skin in the game".

How many times do I need to correct you idiots before it penetrates your thick skulls?

Okay, explain how those who pay no federal income taxes are not motivated to vote to keep it that way? What skin do they have in the game to care about what federal income taxes anybody else pays so long as they contrinue to get a free ride?

Conversely, payroll taxes are a true flat tax that all wage earners pay regardless of their socioeconomic standing, and the lawmakers are far more reluctant to raise those because that effects everybody, including those the lawmakers count on to vote for them and keep them in power where they can continue to enrich themselves at our expense by favoring one group over another.

 

[RDD_1210]

THEY PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.

How many times do you you have to hear that explanation before it penetrates that thick ovine skull?

LOL, do you want me to link you to every instance on this site of your fellow idiots saying they "pay no taxes". There is a huge difference between that and paying no federal income taxes, which greatly waters down the argument about having "no skin in the game".

How many times do I need to correct you idiots before it penetrates your thick skulls?

Okay, explain how those who pay no federal income taxes are not motivated to vote to keep it that way? What skin do they have in the game to care about what federal income taxes anybody else pays in federal income taxes as long as they get a free ride?

Conversely, payroll taxes are a true flat tax that all wage earners pay, and the lawmakers are far more reluctant to raise those because that effects everybody, including those the lawmakers count on to vote for them and keep them in power where they can continue to enrich themselves at our expense by favoring one group over another.

You've already ignored the fact that payroll taxes (SS in particular) are not a total flat tax and have a ceiling that results in the rich paying a lower % of those taxes than the poor and middle class pay.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL, do you want me to link you to every instance on this site of your fellow idiots saying they "pay no taxes". There is a huge difference between that and paying no federal income taxes, which greatly waters down the argument about having "no skin in the game".

How many times do I need to correct you idiots before it penetrates your thick skulls?

Okay, explain how those who pay no federal income taxes are not motivated to vote to keep it that way? What skin do they have in the game to care about what federal income taxes anybody else pays in federal income taxes as long as they get a free ride?

Conversely, payroll taxes are a true flat tax that all wage earners pay, and the lawmakers are far more reluctant to raise those because that effects everybody, including those the lawmakers count on to vote for them and keep them in power where they can continue to enrich themselves at our expense by favoring one group over another.

You've already ignored the fact that payroll taxes (SS in particular) are not a total flat tax and have a ceiling that results in the rich paying a lower % of those taxes than the poor and middle class pay.

And you ignore that there is a ceiling on benefits that can be collected for social security taxes and it is that reason that there ius a cap on the wages on which the tax is assessed. This makes perfectly good sense and is entirely fair. The theory is that nobody should have to pay in more than the benefits they will receive.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

When Obama said, in the video, that he was in favor of "redistribution", if you listen to the entire video, he was saying he agrees with our progressive tax system. I agree.

And yes, that does mean that we all pay a FAIR share which is what the wealthy are against.

You'll never hear RobMe or Lyan Ryan say, for example, the single mother with no child support should pay less for the food she buys for her kids.

And yet, amazingly, from the uber wealthy, we have been hearing nothing but 'the wealthy should pay less' than their fair share.

They've been paying less since Reagan days and STILL, we don't see them producing jobs. In point of fact, it is the small businesses who create jobs and, thanks to people like Romney and Ryan, its an uphill battle.

OTOH, President Obama lowered taxes for small businesses, wants to give tax breaks to AMERICAN businesses who hire AMERICANS, gave small businesses a break with ObamaCare - iow, he supports small business.

Mittens thinks Bechtel is an example of a "small business". But, then, so do his 1% cronies.

Bottom line is that our tax system is grossly unfair and guarantees the rich will get richer while the rest of us run to keep up.

 

[RDD_1210]

Okay, explain how those who pay no federal income taxes are not motivated to vote to keep it that way? What skin do they have in the game to care about what federal income taxes anybody else pays in federal income taxes as long as they get a free ride?

Conversely, payroll taxes are a true flat tax that all wage earners pay, and the lawmakers are far more reluctant to raise those because that effects everybody, including those the lawmakers count on to vote for them and keep them in power where they can continue to enrich themselves at our expense by favoring one group over another.

You've already ignored the fact that payroll taxes (SS in particular) are not a total flat tax and have a ceiling that results in the rich paying a lower % of those taxes than the poor and middle class pay.

And you ignore that there is a ceiling on benefits that can be collected for social security taxes and it is that reason that there ius a cap on the wages on which the tax is assessed. This makes perfectly good sense and is entirely fair. The theory is that nobody should have to pay in more than the benefits they will receive.

There is a ceiling on SS benefits? Where do you get this from?

Anyway, back to the main topic. If you are upset with people who "pay no taxes" than you have a beef with the elderly and disabled. Mostly everyone else pay some sort of federal taxes.

If you have a beef with people who pay no federal income taxes, you have a problem with the Bush tax cuts and I'm sure you're adamantly opposed to Obama extending those cuts in January. Correct?

 

[Foxfyre]

You've already ignored the fact that payroll taxes (SS in particular) are not a total flat tax and have a ceiling that results in the rich paying a lower % of those taxes than the poor and middle class pay.

And you ignore that there is a ceiling on benefits that can be collected for social security taxes and it is that reason that there ius a cap on the wages on which the tax is assessed. This makes perfectly good sense and is entirely fair. The theory is that nobody should have to pay in more than the benefits they will receive.

There is a ceiling on SS benefits? Where do you get this from?

Anyway, back to the main topic. If you are upset with people who "pay no taxes" than you have a beef with the elderly and disabled. Mostly everyone else pay some sort of federal taxes.

If you have a beef with people who pay no federal income taxes, you have a problem with the Bush tax cuts and I'm sure you're adamantly opposed to Obama extending those cuts in January. Correct?

I get it right out of the rules and regs governing social security.

And yes, I had a beef with the Bush tax cuts that dropped that 'fifth man" from the tax rolls as I have already explained. This thread, however is not a Bush vs Obama thread but one that discussing what the income tax law should be at the federal level.

Is it possible for you to focus on that?

Out for the next several hours, but I will be back.

 

[AmyNation]

The more I think about it, the more I think eliminating federal taxes and assigning a fee to each state is the best possible solution.

Only looking at income taxes is a too narrow view, as from everything I've read, the lions share of state taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of our nation. So complainig that the poor don't pay enough fed taxes is equal to whining the rich pay too few state taxes. Both are true, and yet each party only wants to address the one.

 

[RDD_1210]

And you ignore that there is a ceiling on benefits that can be collected for social security taxes and it is that reason that there ius a cap on the wages on which the tax is assessed. This makes perfectly good sense and is entirely fair. The theory is that nobody should have to pay in more than the benefits they will receive.

There is a ceiling on SS benefits? Where do you get this from?

Anyway, back to the main topic. If you are upset with people who "pay no taxes" than you have a beef with the elderly and disabled. Mostly everyone else pay some sort of federal taxes.

If you have a beef with people who pay no federal income taxes, you have a problem with the Bush tax cuts and I'm sure you're adamantly opposed to Obama extending those cuts in January. Correct?

I get it right out of the rules and regs governing social security.

Link? I'd love to read about that

And yes, I had a beef with the Bush tax cuts that dropped that 'fifth man" from the tax rolls as I have already explained. This thread, however is not a Bush vs Obama thread but one that discussing what the income tax law should be at the federal level.

Is it possible for you to focus on that?

Out for the next several hours, but I will be back.

How do the tax cuts enacted by Bush and continued by Obama not directly affect this conversation? Those cuts are why so many "don't have skin in the game". This conversation is about how much (or little) people pay in federal income taxes, is it not? If they aren't relevant to this conversation, what is?

Perhaps it's saying the word Bush that you don't like. So let's try this again in a different way.

Are you in favor of letting the tax cuts we currently have expire at the end of the year?

 

[Politico]

The questions isn't who should be paying. The question is why isn't everyone paying.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't you think it would be important to include a look at what % of wealth those groups hold compared with the tax %?

Did that thought never cross your mind?

No. Only envious losers would even care.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I get it right out of the rules and regs governing social security.

Link? I'd love to read about that

Me too.

but, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[RDD_1210]

Don't you think it would be important to include a look at what % of wealth those groups hold compared with the tax %?

Did that thought never cross your mind?

No. Only envious losers would even care.

So you don't care that people "aren't paying"

 

[edthecynic]

And you ignore that there is a ceiling on benefits that can be collected for social security taxes and it is that reason that there ius a cap on the wages on which the tax is assessed. This makes perfectly good sense and is entirely fair. The theory is that nobody should have to pay in more than the benefits they will receive.

There is a ceiling on SS benefits? Where do you get this from?

I get it right out of the rules and regs governing social security.

There is a max monthly payment but no limit on the number of months you can collect, therefore there is no ceiling on benefits. And you can easily pay in more than than you collect in benefits, especially if you die before you collect a dime.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the education of those who don't know how to google:

The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, the amount is $2,513. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

Maximum Social Security retirement benefit
That would be per month of course.

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

Average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker
That would also be per month of course

Ed is correct that a person can collect Social Security for as long as he or she lives so in that sense there is no maximum. Social Security rates and benefits are calculated on the average expected lifespan of the American retiree. The maximum benefit I referred to is the maximum benefit any social security recipient can receive in any given month or year, and because that maximum exists, there is a maximum payroll on which social security taxes are imposed.

Others who can collect Social Security early are certain persons on disability and dependent children of Social Security payees who die young.

Otherwise, if you die before you can draw Social Security, the government gets to keep all you paid in. You can't will it to your heirs or anybody else. It belongs to the government and they can do anything they wish with it. The other unconscionable component is that the government is not required to pay social security no matter how much they collect. Congress can end the program tonight and confiscate every penny that has been paid into it tonight and wouldn't have to pay you a dime of what you have paid in.

Nevertheless, every American regardless of socioeconomic status pays exactly the same rate for social security up to the exact same maximum. That is a true flat rate. And nobody who thinks social security is a great benevolent program objects to that.

I am simply proposing the same system to fund the general budget. A true flat rate that everybody pays.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't you think it would be important to include a look at what % of wealth those groups hold compared with the tax %?

Did that thought never cross your mind?

No. Only envious losers would even care.

So you don't care that people "aren't paying"

That wasn't your question. You're worrying about how much they have, not how much they pay.

 

[MisterBeale]

You might want to check your "facts"


FactCheck.org : A 3.8 Percent “Sales Tax” on Your Home?

The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

Fair enough. You are marginally correct. However, real political scientists know better than to trust Annenberg for anything, tax-exempt foundations are, after all, nothing but social engineering tax shelters for the 1%. And this one? Well hell, this is the one that trained and started Obama's career, has historical ties to the CIA and the mafia, has links to the Reagan and Nixon administrations, has ties to Operation Mockingbird, etc. etc., why on earth would anyone ever use Factcheck to find out credible information on anything about Obama? You're killing me.

But I did a little independent checking, and I concede, it appears that the GOP have fudged the quote from the National Association of Realtors:

Q: Who will be subject to the new taxes imposed in the health legislation?
A: A new 3.8% tax will apply to the “unearned” income of “High Income” taxpayers. Another 0.9% tax will apply to the “earned” income of many of these same individuals. Both levies are referred to as “Medicare” taxes. (For a description of the new 0.9% tax, see separate Q&A entitled “NEW TAX ON EARNED INCOME: WAGES, SALARIES AND COMMISSIONS.”)
Q: Who is a “High Income” Taxpayer?
A: Those whose tax filing status is “single” will be subject to the new unearned income taxes if they have Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of more than $200,000. Married couples filing a joint return with AGI of more than $250,000 will also be subject to the new tax. (The AGI threshold for married filing separate returns is $125,000.)
Q: Are the $200,000 and $250,000 thresholds indexed for inflation?
A: No. Thus, over time, more individuals may become subject to this tax.
Q: When does the new 3.8% Medicare tax take effect?
A: The new Medicare tax on unearned income will take effect January 1, 2013.

Don’t Always Believe What You Read!

So as you can see, it will affect all Americans that have incomes above $200,000, sell a home valued at over $250,000, and have investment income. I don't think that is "only a tiny percentage of home sellers."

But honestly, the Annenberg Foundation? One of the most corrupt foundations other than the Rockefeller or the Carnegie foundation. Why not just use the James Randi or maybe the Ford Foundation? Next you'll be want to use snopes to research the validity of a claim.

 

[RDD_1210]

No. Only envious losers would even care.

So you don't care that people "aren't paying"

That wasn't your question. You're worrying about how much they have, not how much they pay.

Oh so you do care.

That would make you a....let me check.......envious loser as you said.

 

[RDD_1210]

You might want to check your "facts"


FactCheck.org : A 3.8 Percent “Sales Tax” on Your Home?

The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

Fair enough. You are marginally correct. However, real political scientists know better than to trust Annenberg for anything, tax-exempt foundations are, after all, nothing but social engineering tax shelters for the 1%. And this one? Well hell, this is the one that trained and started Obama's career, has historical ties to the CIA and the mafia, has links to the Reagan and Nixon administrations, has ties to Operation Mockingbird, etc. etc., why on earth would anyone ever use Factcheck to find out credible information on anything about Obama? You're killing me.

But I did a little independent checking, and I concede, it appears that the GOP have fudged the quote from the National Association of Realtors:

Q: Who will be subject to the new taxes imposed in the health legislation?
A: A new 3.8% tax will apply to the “unearned” income of “High Income” taxpayers. Another 0.9% tax will apply to the “earned” income of many of these same individuals. Both levies are referred to as “Medicare” taxes. (For a description of the new 0.9% tax, see separate Q&A entitled “NEW TAX ON EARNED INCOME: WAGES, SALARIES AND COMMISSIONS.”)
Q: Who is a “High Income” Taxpayer?
A: Those whose tax filing status is “single” will be subject to the new unearned income taxes if they have Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of more than $200,000. Married couples filing a joint return with AGI of more than $250,000 will also be subject to the new tax. (The AGI threshold for married filing separate returns is $125,000.)
Q: Are the $200,000 and $250,000 thresholds indexed for inflation?
A: No. Thus, over time, more individuals may become subject to this tax.
Q: When does the new 3.8% Medicare tax take effect?
A: The new Medicare tax on unearned income will take effect January 1, 2013.

Don’t Always Believe What You Read!

So as you can see, it will affect all Americans that have incomes above $200,000, sell a home valued at over $250,000, and have investment income. I don't think that is "only a tiny percentage of home sellers."

But honestly, the Annenberg Foundation? One of the most corrupt foundations other than the Rockefeller or the Carnegie foundation. Why not just use the James Randi or maybe the Ford Foundation? Next you'll be want to use snopes to research the validity of a claim.

One key point is that it's not homes with a value of over 250k, it's homes that sell for more than $250k profit. BIG difference.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now we can continue to allow Congress, the President, and the bureaucracy to continue spending our money and borrowing in our name at the current rate, and think that is okay if we can just make those earning good money or selling houses for a good profit pay a lot more on their taxes.

But the fact is, taxing those earning good money and liquidating capital gains more, will discourage both from taking risk and investing their money in ways that helps the rest of us to make money.

And sooner or later, we all will have to pay the piper for the debt that continues to accrue. So would you prefer to accrue a national debt at the rate it is now accruing rather than accept a fair share of the burden such as a flat tax? Leaving the system as it currently is has not been popular in our straw poll.

Let's see if we can put this into better perspective.

Do you know that the national debt passed the 16 Trillion---that's trillion with a T--mark during the Republican Convention this year? Does anybody understand how much money that is?

How long does it take you to earn $50,000? How long to pay $50,000 in taxes?

Well, 16 Trillion = $50,000 spent every single second for the last 100 years. And that include all the many years of the last 100 years when the growth of the national debt was very slow.

$50,000 every single second.

Acceptable?

Or does that concern anybody?

 

[JoeB131]

Now we can continue to allow Congress, the President, and the bureaucracy to continue spending our money and borrowing in our name at the current rate, and think that is okay if we can just make those earning good money or selling houses for a good profit pay a lot more on their taxes.

But the fact is, taxing those earning good money and liquidating capital gains more, will discourage both from taking risk and investing their money in ways that helps the rest of us to make money.

And sooner or later, we all will have to pay the piper for the debt that continues to accrue. So would you prefer to accrue a national debt at the rate it is now accruing rather than accept a fair share of the burden such as a flat tax? Leaving the system as it currently is has not been popular in our straw poll.

Let's see if we can put this into better perspective.

Do you know that the national debt passed the 16 Trillion---that's trillion with a T--mark during the Republican Convention this year? Does anybody understand how much money that is?

How long does it take you to earn $50,000? How long to pay $50,000 in taxes?

Well, 16 Trillion = $50,000 spent every single second for the last 100 years. And that include all the many years of the last 100 years when the growth of the national debt was very slow.

$50,000 every single second.

Acceptable?

Or does that concern anybody?

I'm concerned about the debt, but frankly, I don't see how giving the rich 5 Trillion in new tax cuts is going to help all that much.

And killing Big Bird's 440 million dollar subsidy is a drop in the bucket.

To put it in perspective, 16 Trillion in debt is about the GDP of the country. At the end of WWII, the national debt was 125% of GDP. By 1952, we got the debt down to 50% of GDP. Part of it was due to growth, but part of it was that we taxed the wealth at an appropriate rate.

The Debt is only part of the problem. The reason why GDP isn't growing is because we have annual trade deficits of 500 Billion a year. And this has been the case since 1976, about the same time the national debt started growing out of control.