PDA

View Full Version : Analysis: 'Fair share' in taxes? Not by the number!



Starbuck
02-21-2012, 09:54 AM
THIS is what we've all been talking about. Many people get "refunds" without having paid taxes.:mad:


As Americans sit down to file their federal tax returns, a simple question comes to mind -- what's a "fair share" to give the federal government in taxes?

For half the working population, fair means paying almost no income taxes at all.

"The top 10 percent income earners pay about 70 percent of federal income taxes," says Will McBride of the Tax Foundation. "The bottom 50 percent of tax filers have, they pay almost no federal income tax. They pay about 3 percent of federal income taxes."

President Obama’s phrase that everyone should “pay our fair share of taxes” has become something of a political mantra. He has used the expression in dozens of speeches, beginning back in his State of Union address in January. More recently, he told University students in Virginia, "we do expect everyone to do their fair share.”

But for many of the people who pay no taxes, the government also allows tax credits, which end up providing refunds.

"Close to a hundred billion in checks sent out by the IRS (go) to folks who have no tax liability," McBride said. "So the IRS is becoming a spending agency."

Arthur Brooks, head of the American Enterprise Institute, put it this way: "Half of the people who don’t pay anything in federal income taxes -- about half of them pay less than zero."

But Brooks says the system is tilted even more toward those in the middle class and below because they also get services from the federal government. As a result the per capita value of government spending exceeds what those individuals pay in federal taxes.

"Right now about 70 percent of Americans take more out of the tax system than they put into it, according to the Tax Foundation," Brooks said."That's something that should really alarm a lot of Americans."

The policies that left so many people paying no income taxes have been supported by presidents of both parties, and despite what Americans tell pollsters they believe is fair, that’s not how it shakes out.

"The interesting thing is that about two-thirds of Americans think that everybody should pay something,” Brooks said, "so they remember that our government isn't free."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/20/analysis-fair-share-in-taxes-not-by-numbers/#ixzz1n1K39RGU

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 10:41 AM
B-b-b-but, according to Arroyo, these are just lies put out by Fox. This can't be true, can it? :rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 10:49 AM
It would be interesting to see if there has been a demographic shift in the Earned Income Tax Credit or whatever they call the refund mechanism. It seems to me that the big tax preparer companies have been targeting the lowest wage earners lately. They also seem to be advertising a lot of "free" like free preparation and free filing. I can only assume they are making their money by taking a cut of the refund. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that.

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 10:56 AM
It would be interesting to see if there has been a demographic shift in the Earned Income Tax Credit or whatever they call the refund mechanism. It seems to me that the big tax preparer companies have been targeting the lowest wage earners lately. They also seem to be advertising a lot of "free" like free preparation and free filing. I can only assume they are making their money by taking a cut of the refund. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that.

That's a good point, and one that I hadn't thought of. It would make sense if they are roping in people to apply for free money and taking a cut.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 10:58 AM
B-b-b-but, according to Arroyo, these are just lies put out by Fox. This can't be true, can it? :rolleyes:

That wasn't bullshit; that was horseshit. Horseshit isn't manifestly false. It is subtle. Let's look at it real quick:


As Americans sit down to file their federal tax returns, a simple question comes to mind --

As they file their tax returns. Now, as everyone knows (well, most anyway ... you seem to be confused) income taxes aren't the only federal taxes assessed. You notice they do not say income taxes in that sentence, though. But they do use the word "returns." Now, you don't file a "return" for social security taxes or medicare taxes or any excise taxes so they slip that by without using the modifier "income." before they ask the question:


... what's a "fair share" to give the federal government in taxes?

Well, in a reasonable conversation, all taxes would be examined to try and come to a conclusion on that question. But this isn't meant to be a reasonable examination, is it?


For half the working population, fair means paying almost no income taxes at all.

The transition is complete. Now, the piece goes into the income tax burden only after making sure income taxes are the only ones being discussed.

I don't really care if the numbers they use are accurate, they use weasel words like "close to," "almost," and "about," but that is a secondary issue to the real problem of the argument (propaganda, really).

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 11:00 AM
I think the lowest wage earners have always been targeted. They make themselves targets by not learning basic economics and limiting their thought process to what is going to happen today.

The article above referenced The Tax Foundation. I went to their website and talk about a plethora of information! Lots of publications, comments, charts; you name it.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:01 AM
It would be interesting to see if there has been a demographic shift in the Earned Income Tax Credit or whatever they call the refund mechanism. It seems to me that the big tax preparer companies have been targeting the lowest wage earners lately. They also seem to be advertising a lot of "free" like free preparation and free filing. I can only assume they are making their money by taking a cut of the refund. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that.

RALs. Refund Anticipation Loans. They get a cut buy basically giving a loan to the individual filing the return for less than the the refund. The refund itself goes to them.

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 11:04 AM
I will confess to being totally stumped by AD's response:confused:

What the HECK are you talking about? You talk about nuances in choice of words to make your case against the evidence but then do not make a case for anything else that I can discern.:confused:

You don't really care "if the numbers they use are accurate"? Really?

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:06 AM
I will confess to being totally stumped by AD's response:confused:

What the HECK are you talking about? You talk about nuances in choice of words to make your case against the evidence but then do not make a case for anything else that I can discern.:confused:

It is pretty straight forward; income taxes aren't the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 11:07 AM
RALs. Refund Anticipation Loans. They get a cut buy basically giving a loan to the individual filing the return for less than the the refund. The refund itself goes to them.

It also seems like the tax preparers drive this urgency to get your refund quickly even if you get less. There is a name for this which is no longer used in polite society, but my grandfather would have likened these people to merchants who sell bologna by the slice to a certain demographic.

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 11:07 AM
It is pretty straight forward; income taxes aren't the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.
OK. Got that. But the subject is income tax.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:17 AM
It also seems like the tax preparers drive this urgency to get your refund quickly even if you get less. There is a name for this which is no longer used in polite society, but my grandfather would have likened these people to merchants who sell bologna by the slice to a certain demographic.

I have a friend that is a think tank economist (very bright and very conservative). The last time he was in Ft Worth, we were having a general conversation and during it, he told me you can't get rich off poor people.

I laughed.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:19 AM
OK. Got that. But the subject is income tax.

And I think confining it to a specific tax when asking, "what's a "fair share" to give the federal government in taxes?" is disingenuous (at best).

Lager
02-21-2012, 11:19 AM
It is pretty straight forward; income taxes aren't the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

Perhaps we don't understand because those other federal taxes don't amount to enough to add pertinence to the discussion. Most of those other federal taxes are based on use, such as the federal tax on gasoline. So that doesn't lend itself to a debate about "fair" and "equitable" tax policy. It's the federal income tax where we see most evidence of the government using the tax code for political purposes.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 11:20 AM
I will confess to being totally stumped by AD's response:confused:

What the HECK are you talking about? You talk about nuances in choice of words to make your case against the evidence but then do not make a case for anything else that I can discern.:confused:

You don't really care "if the numbers they use are accurate"? Really?

Talk radio entertainers like Hannity tend to quote the highest possible amount of taxes paid, including all taxes (state, local, sales, SS, real estate, etc....), and Hannity in particular has claimed that he pays a truly incredible amount.

But when it comes to poor people and lower wage earners- these same jackasses only want to talk about federal taxes. They poo-poo the total bite taken from a person's income when you calculate all the taxes that lower income people pay and the fact that it's usually higher as a portion of income.

Here is an example. A woman who makes $10/hr and pays $1000 a year in property tax is paying about 5% of her income in tax. Between fuel, comunications, utilities, and sales tax she pays out another 10% of income. So 15% or more of her income is going to taxes, including the taxes which actually go to any services she is consuming on the local level. So to call her some kind of freeloader because she doesn't pay federal tax is bullshit.

Meanwhile, the last time I saw something on this, Exxon was getting $2.00 in tax dollar support for every gallon of gasoline they sell.

Meanwhile, the average Walmart has its wages supplemented to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per store.

Meanwhile, McDonald's pay rate is supplemented by Section 8, SNAP, WIC, and childcare vouchers.

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 11:30 AM
That wasn't bullshit; that was horseshit. Horseshit isn't manifestly false. It is subtle. Let's look at it real quick:
Ah, we've established your field of expertise: Excrement!


As they file their tax returns. Now, as everyone knows (well, most anyway ... you seem to be confused) income taxes aren't the only federal taxes assessed. You notice they do not say income taxes in that sentence, though. But they do use the word "returns." Now, you don't file a "return" for social security taxes or medicare taxes or any excise taxes so they slip that by without using the modifier "income." before they ask the question:
As everyone here but you seems to understand, we all know that income taxes aren't the only federal taxes assessed. When an article talks about tax returns, it is understood by the people who pay income taxes (still a bare majority, BTW) that they are discussin income taxes. The only person claiming otherwise is you.


Well, in a reasonable conversation, all taxes would be examined to try and come to a conclusion on that question. But this isn't meant to be a reasonable examination, is it?
Is that why whenever you're asked to define a fair share, you run and hide?

I'll ask again: What constitutes a fair share of income to be taken out in taxes? Give me a number.


The transition is complete. Now, the piece goes into the income tax burden only after making sure income taxes are the only ones being discussed.
Uh, everbody knows that income taxes are what is being discussed.

I don't really care if the numbers they use are accurate, they use weasel words like "close to," "almost," and "about," but that is a secondary issue to the real problem of the argument (propaganda, really).
So, because you don't like the argument, you don't care if it's factually accurate?

RALs. Refund Anticipation Loans. They get a cut buy basically giving a loan to the individual filing the return for less than the the refund. The refund itself goes to them.
Ah... Another way of feeding at the trough.

It is pretty straight forward; income taxes aren't the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.
It isn't. We keep saying that we're talking about income taxes. You're the only one trying to claim that we're obscuring something.

BTW, the tax preparers aren't getting rich off of poor people, they're getting rich off of the government, which is taking the money from the people who pay the taxes (yes, I mean income taxes, obviously just using the word "taxes" without the specific qualifier invalidates all other arguments in your myopic little world) and giving it to people who don't pay them. The people who file returns for refunds from income taxes that they never payed are getting a nice little piece of somebody else's pie, and the tax prep companies are skimming, just like the government skims, from the productive people.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 11:32 AM
It would be interesting to see if there has been a demographic shift in the Earned Income Tax Credit or whatever they call the refund mechanism. It seems to me that the big tax preparer companies have been targeting the lowest wage earners lately. They also seem to be advertising a lot of "free" like free preparation and free filing. I can only assume they are making their money by taking a cut of the refund. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on that.

They do. They say they don't have a preparation fee but they do have filing fee which they take from the refund.

fettpett
02-21-2012, 11:34 AM
10% across the board, everyone pays it, no refunds, no deduction, and Can't be raised. Get rid of Capital Gains and the death tax, cut spending dramatically and watch the economy boom like no other in the history of the world.

While I prefer the Fair Tax, a Flat tax would work just as well.

Lager
02-21-2012, 11:34 AM
Nova, I agree with the argument that it's unjust to claim that the individual in your example isn't "paying any taxes." But all those taxes you describe are equitable and apply to all income levels the same. It's the epitome of fairness. It's the federal income tax that's at the forefront of the discussion because it's being used as a political tool of wealth redistribution rather than an honest, straightforward mechanism for funding the government.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:35 AM
Ah, we've established your field of expertise: Excrement!


The taxonomy of turds:

At the very bottom: dogshit. the lowest of the low-ragpickers, bag ladies, and people who hang out in dung heaps. when you treat somebody like dogshit, your contempt knows no bounds. Next we have chickenshit. Chickenshit allows for certain humanity. A chickenshit may be a disgusting coward, but at least he's not dogshit.

Bullshit comes after that-blatant and aggressive untruths. But at a certain level, of course, we admire our liars, don't we? Bullshitters get elected, chickenshits, never.

At the top of the hierarchy, at the summit of the heap: horseshit. Horseshit is false too, but it is not manifestly false. Horseshit is subtle. It's nuanced. It plays to win. Horseshit fools some of the people some of the time. Divine justice, for example, is horseshit, not bullshit. Indeed, we hold horseshit in such esteem that we decline to bestow the epithet on one another. A person can be a bullshitter but only a horse can be a horseshitter.



~ Paraphrased from Bible Stories For Adults by James Morrow

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 11:35 AM
It is pretty straight forward; income taxes aren't the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

Oh, so you're playing the semantics game too. Embedded taxes aren't income taxes. And these other federal taxes you and wee wee keep bringing up are minuscule compared to income taxes.

fettpett
02-21-2012, 11:36 AM
It is pretty straight forward; income taxes aren't the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

WE KNOW THAT. This is strictly talking about INCOME taxes. You need to get that through your thick skull and quit with the asinine meme that you developed over "other federal taxes".

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 11:38 AM
The taxonomy of turds:

At the very bottom: dogshit. the lowest of the low-ragpickers, bag ladies, and people who hang out in dung heaps. when you treat somebody like dogshit, your contempt knows no bounds. Next we have chickenshit. Chickenshit allows for certain humanity. A chickenshit may be a disgusting coward, but at least he's not dogshit.

Bullshit comes after that-blatant and aggressive untruths. But at a certain level, of course, we admire our liars, don't we? Bullshitters get elected, chickenshits, never.

At the top of the hierarchy, at the summit of the heap: horseshit. Horseshit is false too, but it is not manifestly false. Horseshit is subtle. It's nuanced. It plays to win. Horseshit fools some of the people some of the time. Divine justice, for example, is horseshit, not bullshit. Indeed, we hold horseshit in such esteem that we decline to bestow the epithet on one another. A person can be a bullshitter but only a horse can be a horseshitter.

~ Paraphrased from Bible Stories For Adults by James Morrow

However it's produced, you're clearly full of it.

And, once again, no answer to my question, nor do you address Lager's post, which sums up the issue nicely. I guess that you'd rather just talk $#'+. Typical, really, but not very informative.

I'll ask again: What constitutes a fair share of income to be taken out in taxes? Give me a number.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:38 AM
I agree with the argument that it's unjust to claim that the individual in your example isn't "paying any taxes." But all those taxes you describe are equitable and apply to all income levels the same. It's the epitome of fairness. It's the federal income tax that's at the forefront of the discussion because it's being used as a political tool of wealth redistribution rather than an honest, straightforward mechanism for funding the government.

That isn't true. Payroll taxes only apply to a certain level and type of income. They are not uniform.

I have no problem discussing the proper level of taxation but if you start from the premise that only income taxes should be discussed, leaving out taxes that fall more on the working poor and middle class, you are not seeking an honest discussion.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 11:40 AM
10% across the board, everyone pays it, no refunds, no deduction, and Can't be raised. Get rid of Capital Gains and the death tax, cut spending dramatically and watch the economy boom like no other in the history of the world.

While I prefer the Fair Tax, a Flat tax would work just as well.

I think 15% is the rate of the Hong Kong Miracle bandied about.

Each time I heard that though, I wondered who was paying the 15% tax. Every oriental business person I have ever known, actually most small retailers or restaurateurs are quite the little tax cheats. I watch the owner of the Vietnamese market I go to routinely sell nonfood merchandise to other orientals without sales tax. When I grew up in a neighborhood of Jewish merchants, they didn't charge each other tax either.

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 11:42 AM
That isn't true. Payroll taxes only apply to a certain level and type of income. They are not uniform.

I have no problem discussing the proper level of taxation but if you start from the premise that only income taxes should be discussed, leaving out taxes that fall more on the working poor and middle class, you are not seeking an honest discussion.

Sure we are. Income taxes fall disproportionally on the rich (and, by rich, we mean the upper 50% of the country, since half the country not only doesn't pay income tax, but gets "refunds" from those who do). You want to bring up other taxes, fine, but our question, the one that you keep dodging, is how much of someone's income should the government be permitted to claim as its due?

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:42 AM
WE KNOW THAT. This is strictly talking about INCOME taxes. You need to get that through your thick skull and quit with the asinine meme that you developed over "other federal taxes".

Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

Get your fill!

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 11:43 AM
............Here is an example. A woman who makes $10/hr and pays $1000 a year in property tax is paying about 5% of her income in tax. Between fuel, comunications, utilities, and sales tax she pays out another 10% of income.........
Look at what you have done, though. You have constructed a perfect straw man and then skewered your own creation with your razor sharp sword.:cool:
WHAT?, 10 dollar an hour worker pays property tax? That doesn't happen. $10/hour workers don't buy houses. They rent, and they don't even rent from me because they don't qualify for my properties. And how on earth would you know what portion of my income MY property taxes are? Go to New Jersey. They pay $10,000 in property taxes. You just haven't thought it out.


Meanwhile, the last time I saw something on this, Exxon was getting $2.00 in tax dollar support for every gallon of gasoline they sell. ...
If true, SO? Poor people benefit from cheap US gas the same as I do. Go to Europe; pay more.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 11:43 AM
Since yoyo likes to play little games by posting little stories allow me to retort with my own:

The U.S. Tax System Explained In Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you
are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. – Professor of Economics.

Lager
02-21-2012, 11:44 AM
That isn't true. Payroll taxes only apply to a certain level and type of income. They are not uniform.

I have no problem discussing the proper level of taxation but if you start from the premise that only income taxes should be discussed, leaving out taxes that fall more on the working poor and middle class, you are not seeking an honest discussion.

That's not exactly true. Payroll taxes are fair because in theory, if not in practice, payroll taxes fund individual benefits that one receives later in life. The reason that payroll taxes are capped is because the benefits are capped. The left whines about how somebody who makes a million dollars pays the same amount in FICA taxes as someone who makes around 120,000. That's because the person who makes a million dollars will accrue the same benefits as the lower wage earner.

Rockntractor
02-21-2012, 11:45 AM
Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

Get your fill!

Emo's are calling, they want their troll back!:rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 11:47 AM
Emo's are calling, they want their troll back!:rolleyes:

Uh-oh. I disagreed with the Collective. Must be troll.

fettpett
02-21-2012, 11:49 AM
Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

Get your fill!

hey asshat, we're talking about one aspect, which is the vast majority of income to the federal government, not the other excise taxes and payroll deductions. Those are separate issues.

fettpett
02-21-2012, 11:49 AM
Uh-oh. I disagreed with the Collective. Must be troll.

you're a troll because you aren't adding anything to the discussion and constantly trying to derail it.

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 11:50 AM
And I think confining it to a specific tax when asking, "what's a "fair share" to give the federal government in taxes?" is disingenuous (at best).

So what would your position be on a consumption tax, which would replace all other taxes?

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 11:52 AM
Then it isn't a genuine conversation. It is propaganda eating.

Get your fill!

This shrill, angry pretense that you won't discuss this because it's not worthy of your reasoned input is pathetic, even for you. The fact is that you refuse to have a discussion, because you cannot win it, so you heap abuse on those who are trying to get an answer out of you. If you can't answer a simple question, just admit it and move on, but don't pretend that your refusal to answer is some sort of morally superior stance. We can tell the difference between moral high ground and a bunker.

I'll ask again: What constitutes a fair share of income to be taken out in taxes? Give me a number.

Lager
02-21-2012, 12:04 PM
"Taxes that fall more on the working poor and middle class" "Lower wage earners pay a disproportionate share of payroll taxes" These statements infest every left leaning discussion about tax rates, and they're effective only if one doesn't put much thought into them. But they're actually irrelevant. Yes, if a worker making $10,000 dollars a year pays $1,000 dollars in payroll taxes, that represents 10 percent of their income, but only 1 percent to someone who makes $100,000. Does that make it unfair? If so, then we should lower the price of food, gas, and housing for lower wage earners, because their percentage of income that goes to those expenses are going to be higher as well. Does a lower wage earner receive less value for the payroll taxes he pays, versus a higher wage earner? That would be the question to determine if the system was biased or not.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 12:18 PM
Look at what you have done, though. You have constructed a perfect straw man and then skewered your own creation with your razor sharp sword.:cool:
WHAT?, 10 dollar an hour worker pays property tax? That doesn't happen. $10/hour workers don't buy houses. They rent, and they don't even rent from me because they don't qualify for my properties. And how on earth would you know what portion of my income MY property taxes are? Go to New Jersey. They pay $10,000 in property taxes. You just haven't thought it out.


If true, SO? Poor people benefit from cheap US gas the same as I do. Go to Europe; pay more.

There are quite a lot of people who make $10 per hour who have mortgages and those who rent are paying the property tax through the rent.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 12:21 PM
So what would your position be on a consumption tax, which would replace all other taxes?

That would definitely shift the burden down.

What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 12:35 PM
That would definitely shift the burden down.

What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.

If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 12:37 PM
If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.


So the people who benefit most from society, property owners, are to be completely relieved from its obligations?

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 12:42 PM
So the people who benefit most from society, property owners, are to be completely relieved from its obligations?

Hey, I'm OK with giving property owners a kick in the slats if you like. Let's stop Section 8. You want to hear pigs squeal, just listen to the noise of these ten cent millionaires with rental properties if they couldn't fill them up with subsidized tenants. Funny how that welfare money works- it all ends up in the pockets of millionaires: landlords, doctors, and grocery stores.

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 12:51 PM
There are quite a lot of people who make $10 per hour who have mortgages and those who rent are paying the property tax through the rent.

OK. I live in a 15 year old 1900 s/ft ranch. I pay 900 dollars a year in taxes because I'm over 65. The question then becomes, "Where did a person making 10/hour get the money to buy my house?"

He didn't. He can't. At 10/hour people have to rent and their rent should be not more than 400/month. They ain't paying no 1,000/year in property tax.

And you oughta just give up on this idea of creating straw victims that you can then point to as a perfect example of whatever point you are trying to make. Do some work, and find some figures that support your position.

fettpett
02-21-2012, 12:54 PM
If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.

I agree with you, I personally would like to see the property tax go the way of the dodo.

I would like get away from both property and income taxes and go to only a Consumption tax. That coupled with the proposed amendment to cap spending and blanace the budget would go a long way to straightening out the government and keeping it from spending like a drunken sailor. Consumption is easy to assess and would be able to figure out how much there is to spend every year.

Sadly it'll take some balls and people in positions that are most likely Lame ducks with a lot of political capital to push it through, or first term that would be willing to sacrifice a second term to get it done

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 12:56 PM
That would definitely shift the burden down.

What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.

OK. Where is that model used? And what would the burden be on someone who owns, say a 200,000 home? And don't you think the property taxes would be passed through to renters, or would commercial property be exempt, and if it were, wouldn't that drive up demand (i.e. price) of commercial (rental) property?

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 12:56 PM
That would definitely shift the burden down.

What about a property tax instead? The Market Georgian model where there are no taxes of any kind on commerce (no taxes on income, sales, ect ..). The entire tax burden rests with property owners.
How much of a property tax? Would you permit deductions for mortgages? Would a property that had been in a family for multiple generations be exempt? Would the feds be allowed to confiscate property if it were not paid up? What is to prevent the feds from abusing the law to snatch up choice real estate (as they did with the Robert E. Lee estate, which became Arlington National Cemetery)? Once again, how much of our property would we get to keep?

And, it's a bad idea, not just for the reasons that Nova cites. A tax on property will discourage ownership of property. The incentive to rent, and let someone else suck up the tax, will be immense, and even if the tax is passed on to renters, there is no guarantee that rent control won't impose other penalties on landlords. The housing markets in cities like NYC and Los Angeles demonstrate this abundantly.


If we have a property tax, any property tax, then we have no property per se. Presumably, one could own a home which has been paid for for centuries, and lose it to the government because he can't or won't pay the taxes. That's not ownership, it's a form of quit rent more similar to feudal leasehold than true ownership. In modern terms, once your house is paid for you should not have to rent it from the government even for 1% per year.

It's funny, Virginians get angry every year at the personal property tax, a substantial sales tax paid each year on the declining value of their automobiles, boats, and travel trailers. But they don't see that the property tax is essentially the same thing. Perhaps that is because they perceive that they get value back from the real estate tax, in schools and roads.

There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.
I agree with everything up to the last paragraph, and only disagree with one part of that. If we tax commerce, we discourage it. Similarly, if we tax property, we endanger it. John Marshall stated unequivocably that the power to tax is the power to destroy, so we must ask ourselves what areas we want government to destroy?

So the people who benefit most from society, property owners, are to be completely relieved from its obligations?
Until you define the obligations, I refuse to acknowledge them as obligations. They're simply impositions by people who refuse to explain how much I ought to pay.

Hey, I'm OK with giving property owners a kick in the slats if you like. Let's stop Section 8. You want to hear pigs squeal, just listen to the noise of these ten cent millionaires with rental properties if they couldn't fill them up with subsidized tenants. Funny how that welfare money works- it all ends up in the pockets of millionaires: landlords, doctors, and grocery stores.
Years ago, I wanted to build a house in Los Angeles (I was working there at the time, soon-to-be-married, and could buy a lot with a tear-down house on it for less then a vacant lot and build for less than the price of a home that was already there, such are the vagueries of CA real estate), and I was told that the permits would take a year, but if I was willing to allocate a portion of that bulding to low-income housing, they would expedite the process and I'd have my permits in a few weeks. Since I planned to live there, I didn't want Section 8 roommates, and told them where they could stick their permits. Needless to say, I dodged a bullet by not owning property in Los Angeles, but I don't know any landlord who would prefer to rent to Section 8 tenants when he can rent to people who won't destroy the property or the neighborhood.

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 01:05 PM
You guys aren't getting this. Let's go back to first principles.

What is the purpose of taxes? Any taxes, income or otherwise? Is it to redistribute wealth? Is it to provide the government with the means of manipulating behavior so that it can achieve desired outcomes? Or is it to fund the functions of government? And if it is only to fund the functions of government, then what are the legitimate functions of that government? Does the government have the right to exceed its Constitutional limits and then stick us with the bill? Does the government have the authority to decide that some people make too much, some make too little, and to try to "spread the wealth around"? Or does it have an obligation to treat all people equally before the law, regardless of their income?

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 01:22 PM
There needs to be a tax system which permits a person to fly under the radar if he so chooses. A person should theoretically be able to live in his house, eat from his farm, and fish in his pond only paying taxes if he engages in commerce.

You do realize you've just made an argument for The Fair Tax don't you?

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 02:10 PM
Hey, I'm OK with giving property owners a kick in the slats if you like. Let's stop Section 8. You want to hear pigs squeal, just listen to the noise of these ten cent millionaires with rental properties if they couldn't fill them up with subsidized tenants. Funny how that welfare money works- it all ends up in the pockets of millionaires: landlords, doctors, and grocery stores.

Not too sure what a "ten cent millionaire" is.:tongue:

Welfare money goes to welfare recipients. What they do with it is up to them, but it would be hard to envision them spending it somewhere where no one owns a store, or no one owns the real estate, and doctors work for nothing.:smile:

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 02:43 PM
You do realize you've just made an argument for The Fair Tax don't you?

The starting point for any discussion on taxes should be the sum total of government services that we are willing to pay for. Once we have established that a program is Constitutionally mandated, then we can determine how much we want to spend on it, and then, and only then, determine how we will raise the revenues. Before a program should be enacted or continued, it should be evaluated to determine if it is mandated by the Constitution (not implied, hinted at or can be justified by a tortured reading of the language of the Constitution, but actually mandated). If not, it needs to be phased out. Then, and only then, can we look at raising revenues to fund the remainder of the government. We have several options, but they need to be understood before we can weigh their relative merits:

Taxes: This includes taxes on income, transactions (purchases of specific commodities), property, savings or investments. However, the more we tax any one area, the more that we discourage growth in that area.
Sales: The government owns huge swathes of land and other property. Sales of government-owned land with proven oil or gas reserves could be a significant source of revenues, but once a property is sold, it cannot be sold again, so revenues from sales of government property are not renewable. They can be used for stopgap funding, in a pinch, but you don't want to rely on them. OTOH, the more land that the feds sell, the less of it they have to administer, which reduces other costs.
Leases: Leasing government land can generate revenues, but since the government continues to dictate the use of the land, despite the leasing, these leases are not as attractive as they could be. The current moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is one example. Trying to enforce a contract with the government can also be frustrating and expensive.
Duties and Tariffs: These are basically taxes paid at entry through customs. They impose taxes on imports, but discourage exports, as other countries tend to retaliate in kind.
User fees: Fees charged for the use of federal property. Think toll roads (although most of these are either private or municipal, but there's a whole federal highway system out there). The upside is that the fees can be used exclusively to maintain the property that is charging the fee, so that it is a pay-as-you-go system that is about as equitable as it gets, while the downside is that such fees tend to suppress use of the property.
Debt: Probably the easiest way for government to gain revenues, as it avoids the pain of raising taxes, but permits politicians to do whatever they want. Current levels of debt make further borrowing highly unadvisabe, especially since even a slight uptick in interest rates could prove ruinous to the US economy. In addition, imposing debt on future generations, without their consent, is clearly immoral. Those who argue that a fetus is not a person have no business borrowing money in his name. For this reason, borrowing should be limited to existential crises, such as war or disasters on a national scale.
Inflation: Governments have the capacity to print money, and the money that they print and then spent amounts to a transfer of wealth from those who are holding currency, as the value of the currency that they hold is reduced proportionally to the amount of new money circulated. It's another clever way to bilk the public, but inflation tends to add up, and after a few years of inflationary monetary policies, the politicians start to suffer at the polls. Also, inflation drives up interest rates, which makes borrowing more expensive.

Now that we've established how government can fund programs, I think we can all agree that borrowing and inflation are not viable longterm solutions, and in fact, they are patently unethical, as borrowing imposes debt on future generations who had no say in the borrowing, while inflation is simply clever theft. Leasing simply perpetuates government control of otherwise potentially productive land, and encourages takings of land in order to increase its holdings. Also, leasing is dependent on the good will and integrity of politicians. Duties and tariffs encourage retaliation that can harm trade and economic activity (See the Hawley-Smoot tariff for a prime example). That leaves us with user fees and taxes. User fees are generally good for paying for specific projects, but if the fees exceed the value of the gains made from using the project, they will discourage economic activity that is dependent upon those projects. For example, if a toll on a highway discourages trucking, then economic activity is reduced. So, while user fees have their uses, they must be used sparingly. That leaves us with taxes.

If we accept the premise that all Americans are equal before the law, and in the eyes of government, then those programs which can be said to be for the benefit of the public are, obviously, of equal benefit to all, at least legally, and the obligation to fund them is therefore equal. Thus, the starting point for any tax plan should be to establish the federal budget, determine the gross cost of funding it for the year, and then dividing up the cost among the consumers equally. Now, Obama's budget was something on the order of $3.7 trillion for 2012. Divided among 300 million or so Americans, that gives us approximately $12,333 per person in tax liabilities for FY 2012. His budget for 2013 is $3.8 trillion, or $12,666 for every man, woman and child in America. That is everyone's fair share of the federal budget, as currently proposed. Now, I don't think that anyone here wants to pay $12,666 for their share of the federal government, so clearly, we need to take a look at making some spending cuts. I'm open to suggestions.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 03:52 PM
The problem is, the left doesn't want a "fair share". To be fair means everyone should be paying the same rate. What the left wants is exactly the same way that it is. They want the "poor" to be excused from any tax burden whatsoever and they want most if not all the burden put on the top 1%. But they talk fairness so let's be fair. Fair would be a static % of one's income. If that were to come to pass, the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be deafening. This is why the left is so resistant to the fair tax. They claim that the rich still get off easy because it's a consumption tax. But let's look at a flat tax. Say a flat tax of 15% was imposed. Keeping things simple:

Someone earning $20,000 taxed at 15% would pay $3000 a year.
Someone earning $100,000 per year would pay $15,000 a year.

But the left won't see it this way. They would wail and gnash teeth that it's unfair that someone making $100K is paying the same tax rate as someone making $20K and their lemmings lap it up even though in reality, the person making $100K is paying 5X that of the person making $20K. Hell, someone making $40K would be paying twice that of someone making $20K. This is why yoyo won't give us a number. It's because it's not what he and his ilk want. They not only want the top earners paying more, they want some of what is being confiscated to trickle down to the lower end of the spectrum. The only true fair way to taxation is with either the Fair Tax or a flat tax.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 03:54 PM
OK. I live in a 15 year old 1900 s/ft ranch. I pay 900 dollars a year in taxes because I'm over 65. The question then becomes, "Where did a person making 10/hour get the money to buy my house?"

He didn't. He can't. At 10/hour people have to rent and their rent should be not more than 400/month. They ain't paying no 1,000/year in property tax.

And you oughta just give up on this idea of creating straw victims that you can then point to as a perfect example of whatever point you are trying to make. Do some work, and find some figures that support your position.

The world is as you see it from your window isn't it? Well it isn't. Fifteen to twenty years ago you could buy a house in many parts of Florida for $25,000 to $50,000. Actually, right now you can buy them almost as cheaply. You also don't have to mortgage the entire amount if you have a chunk of cash which you inherited. Others have taken out loans on paid for properties. Lots of people make $10/hr now who made the same or more 15 years ago. I realize that these people aren't as smart as you are, or they would live in some godforsaken place in New Jersey, wouldn't they? But there are people who make $10/hr who pay $1,000 a year in property tax.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 03:54 PM
The problem is, the left doesn't want a "fair share". To be fair means everyone should be paying the same rate. What the left wants is exactly the same way that it is. They want the "poor" to be excused from any tax burden whatsoever and they want most if not all the burden put on the top 1%. But they talk fairness so let's be fair. Fair would be a static % of one's income. If that were to come to pass, the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be deafening. This is why the left is so resistant to the fair tax. They claim that the rich still get off easy because it's a consumption tax. But let's look at a flat tax. Say a flat tax of 15% was imposed. Keeping things simple:

Someone earning $20,000 taxed at 15% would pay $3000 a year.
Someone earning $100,000 per year would pay $15,000 a year.

But the left won't see it this way. They would wail and gnash teeth that it's unfair that someone making $100K is paying the same tax rate as someone making $20K and their lemmings lap it up even though in reality, the person making $100K is paying 5X that of the person making $20K. Hell, someone making $40K would be paying twice that of someone making $20K. This is why yoyo won't give us a number. It's because it's not what he and his ilk want. They not only want the top earners paying more, they want some of what is being confiscated to trickle down to the lower end of the spectrum. The only true fair way to taxation is with either the Fair Tax or a flat tax.

I would go with the flat tax on all income and eliminate payroll taxes altogether.

I think a realistic starting point is Simpson-Bowles.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 03:56 PM
You do realize you've just made an argument for The Fair Tax don't you?

And?

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 03:59 PM
And?

Just saying.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 04:01 PM
The world is as you see it from your window isn't it? Well it isn't. Fifteen to twenty years ago you could buy a house in many parts of Florida for $25,000 to $50,000. Actually, right now you can buy them almost as cheaply. You also don't have to mortgage the entire amount if you have a chunk of cash which you inherited. Others have taken out loans on paid for properties. Lots of people make $10/hr now who made the same or more 15 years ago. I realize that these people aren't as smart as you are, or they would live in some godforsaken place in New Jersey, wouldn't they? But there are people who make $10/hr who pay $1,000 a year in property tax.

Were you raped in NJ or something?

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 04:01 PM
I agree with you, I personally would like to see the property tax go the way of the dodo.

I would like get away from both property and income taxes and go to only a Consumption tax. That coupled with the proposed amendment to cap spending and blanace the budget would go a long way to straightening out the government and keeping it from spending like a drunken sailor. Consumption is easy to assess and would be able to figure out how much there is to spend every year.

Sadly it'll take some balls and people in positions that are most likely Lame ducks with a lot of political capital to push it through, or first term that would be willing to sacrifice a second term to get it done

I like the idea, but I confess that I am unaware of any major world power which has such a tax system.

I also think that sales tax is the easiest of all taxes to illegally avoid. Without an effective enforcement system and severe penalties for not charging sales tax it won't work.

Arroyo_Doble
02-21-2012, 04:03 PM
I like the idea, but I confess that I am unaware of any major world power which has such a tax system.

I also think that sales tax is the easiest of all taxes to illegally avoid. Without an effective enforcement system and severe penalties for not charging sales tax it won't work.


If it is high enough, the underground economy would take over and commerce would be conducted outside of normal business channels giving an unfair advantage to the cheats.

A so-called Fair Tax would be a disaster.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 04:19 PM
Not too sure what a "ten cent millionaire" is.:tongue:



It might mean different things in different places. Where I am from, it's someone who has made a little money and gotten above himself.

Novaheart
02-21-2012, 04:27 PM
Were you raped in NJ or something?

I had a roommate from Franklin Lakes and my uncle Clyde was from Camden. I saw a bleeding merchant chasing a shoplifter down the boardwalk in Atlantic City and a drag show where Doris Day got machine gunned and Cass Elliott choked on a ham sandwich in the middle of Dream A Little Dream. I met eithr James Coco or Dom Deluise (can't remember which) at that same nightclub. I used to get pistachio ice cream at some place on the NJ Turnpike when I was a kid. A distant cousin was governor of NJ for 14 years. I always wanted to but never got around to taking the Lewes Cape May Ferry. Now you have my entire relationship with New Jersey.

Starbuck
02-21-2012, 04:38 PM
The world is as you see it from your window isn't it? Well it isn't. Fifteen to twenty years ago you could buy a house in many parts of Florida for $25,000 to $50,000. Actually, right now you can buy them almost as cheaply. You also don't have to mortgage the entire amount if you have a chunk of cash which you inherited. Others have taken out loans on paid for properties. Lots of people make $10/hr now who made the same or more 15 years ago. I realize that these people aren't as smart as you are, or they would live in some godforsaken place in New Jersey, wouldn't they? But there are people who make $10/hr who pay $1,000 a year in property tax.

Same straw man. Only now he has inherited money, bought a house, and made no improvement in his earning capacity in 15 years. Poor straw man.:concern:

Tell you what: Since he is only a straw man, I say we give him some of Odysseus' money. That'll tide him over until he can get a job that pays 25/hour like he deserves. Happy?:smile:

OOPS! Now he has to pay the evil income tax! Damn! Straw Man just can't win.:biggrin-new:

fettpett
02-21-2012, 05:27 PM
If it is high enough, the underground economy would take over and commerce would be conducted outside of normal business channels giving an unfair advantage to the cheats.

A so-called Fair Tax would be a disaster.

no it wouldn't. the tax is already figured into the price at the cash register. It is also only on new goods. It gets rid of all "hidden" taxes, which in of it's self brings prices down, there would be a significant price change, but it would be in the downward direction.

When Russia went to their flat tax around 10-13 years ago, their black market virtually disappeared over night. the same would happen here. Used goods can be sold for any price with no taxation, nothing wrong with that.

fettpett
02-21-2012, 05:34 PM
I like the idea, but I confess that I am unaware of any major world power which has such a tax system.

I also think that sales tax is the easiest of all taxes to illegally avoid. Without an effective enforcement system and severe penalties for not charging sales tax it won't work.

actually, for most of our history we had Consumption taxes, and relied almost solely on it.

Alexander Hamilton said this on it in Federalist Papers 21:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed—that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

We made it through 120+ years without Income taxes, we can get rid of the Income tax and go back to the Consumption tax and grow even greater

Odysseus
02-21-2012, 05:36 PM
It might mean different things in different places. Where I am from, it's someone who has made a little money and gotten above himself.
I say, Muffy, he's talking about those dastardly nouveau riche arivistes who moved into the the guest house on Uncle Thurston's old estate. How declasse. We simply must move before the country club is overrun. :rolleyes:

Same straw man. Only now he has inherited money, bought a house, and made no improvement in his earning capacity in 15 years. Poor straw man.:concern:

Tell you what: Since he is only a straw man, I say we give him some of Odysseus' money. That'll tide him over until he can get a job that pays 25/hour like he deserves. Happy?:smile:

OOPS! Now he has to pay the evil income tax! Damn! Straw Man just can't win.:biggrin-new:

Hey! How come he gets some of my money? Oh, wait, Obama thinks that I'm rich, on O5 pay.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 06:31 PM
I had a roommate from Franklin Lakes and my uncle Clyde was from Camden. I saw a bleeding merchant chasing a shoplifter down the boardwalk in Atlantic City and a drag show where Doris Day got machine gunned and Cass Elliott choked on a ham sandwich in the middle of Dream A Little Dream. I met eithr James Coco or Dom Deluise (can't remember which) at that same nightclub. I used to get pistachio ice cream at some place on the NJ Turnpike when I was a kid. A distant cousin was governor of NJ for 14 years. I always wanted to but never got around to taking the Lewes Cape May Ferry. Now you have my entire relationship with New Jersey.

Then you know nothing about the state. Thanks for clearing that up.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 06:33 PM
no it wouldn't. the tax is already figured into the price at the cash register. It is also only on new goods. It gets rid of all "hidden" taxes, which in of it's self brings prices down, there would be a significant price change, but it would be in the downward direction.

When Russia went to their flat tax around 10-13 years ago, their black market virtually disappeared over night. the same would happen here. Used goods can be sold for any price with no taxation, nothing wrong with that.

And who buys the most new goods?

fettpett
02-21-2012, 07:09 PM
And who buys the most new goods?

the most? anyone with money.

Madisonian
02-21-2012, 07:50 PM
It might mean different things in different places. Where I am from, it's someone who has made a little money and gotten above himself.

We used to call them nickle millionaires but I'm sure the concept was the same.
They were the kind that would buy a house they could barely afford in a tony neighborhood then stiff the paperboy when they were three months behind in payment or write the milkman a bad check and then switch delivery companies.
They bought a bottle of top shelf 12 year old single malt scotch and then refilled it with cheap well brands, being careful to never offer it to anyone that could tell the difference.
They dined on steak at the country club, but fed the kids cheap hot dogs and hamburgers when no one was around. They did hide the wrappers in someone else's garbage can.

The Irish saying was that they would fart higher than their ass.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 09:33 PM
the most? anyone with money.

How often would anyone in the upper 25% buy a used car? My point is, even in a Fair Tax system, the wealthy will still pay more taxes.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 09:34 PM
We used to call them nickle millionaires but I'm sure the concept was the same.
They were the kind that would buy a house they could barely afford in a tony neighborhood then stiff the paperboy when they were three months behind in payment or write the milkman a bad check and then switch delivery companies.
They bought a bottle of top shelf 12 year old single malt scotch and then refilled it with cheap well brands, being careful to never offer it to anyone that could tell the difference.
They dined on steak at the country club, but fed the kids cheap hot dogs and hamburgers when no one was around. They did hide the wrappers in someone else's garbage can.

The Irish saying was that they would fart higher than their ass.

Holy shit, you just described my dad. Except he still drinks top shelf booze.

fettpett
02-21-2012, 10:55 PM
How often would anyone in the upper 25% buy a used car? My point is, even in a Fair Tax system, the wealthy will still pay more taxes.

true, but it's still more fair than any other system. the rich will get "soaked" but far less than the current system. plus it will drive prices down and make this one of the, if not they, most business friendly countries on the planet

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 11:57 PM
true, but it's still more fair than any other system. the rich will get "soaked" but far less than the current system. plus it will drive prices down and make this one of the, if not they, most business friendly countries on the planet

I agree and I'm all for the Fair Tax. My point is is that the left will still wail and gnash teeth over it.

Starbuck
02-22-2012, 01:15 AM
How often would anyone in the upper 25% buy a used car? My point is, even in a Fair Tax system, the wealthy will still pay more taxes.

We do. Bought a used CRV a couple years ago. Good car. Paid 15,000 for it.

Dave Ramsey rules!:smile:

Retread
02-22-2012, 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by Novaheart
Meanwhile, the last time I saw something on this, Exxon was getting $2.00 in tax dollar support for every gallon of gasoline they sell. ...

Evidence? Link? It's BS pure and simple.

There are $6 worth of guvmint funds built into every gallon of ethanol but the oil companies don't get a penny of it.

Janice
02-22-2012, 11:28 AM
Nearly Half of All Americans Don’t Pay Income Taxes (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/)

This year’s Index of Dependence on Government presented startling findings about the sharp increase of Americans who rely on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance.

Another eye-popping number was the percentage of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, which now accounts for nearly half of the U.S. population. Meanwhile, most of that population receives generous federal benefits.

“One of the most worrying trends in the Index is the coinciding growth in the non-taxpaying public,” wrote Heritage authors Bill Beach and Patrick Tyrrell. “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.

The rapid growth of Americans who don’t pay income taxes is particularly alarming for the fate of the American form of government, Beach and Tyrrell warned. Coupled with higher spending on government programs, it is already proving to be a major fiscal challenge.

“This trend should concern everyone who supports America’s republican form of government,” Beach and Tyrrell wrote. “If the citizens’ representatives are elected by an increasing percentage of voters who pay no income tax, how long will it be before these representatives respond more to demands for yet more entitlements and subsidies from non-payers than to the pleas of taxpayers to exercise greater spending prudence?”

---------------------------------------

Barack Hussein 0bama: King of the Moochers, Patron Saint of the Parasites and Counselor of Fraud has gotta love this. Even White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett is yucking it up saying that folks getting and spending unemployment checks is a healthy thing . . . because it stimulates the economy! I kid you not. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-people-who-receive-unemployment-check-go-out-and-spend-it-and-help-stimulate-economy_631716.html)

Will be nice when this band of America haters get their pink slips.

Novaheart
02-22-2012, 11:50 AM
How often would anyone in the upper 25% buy a used car?

I'd say that depends on whether you are talking about the top 25% of income or the top 25% of wealth. The former probably buy a fair number of used cars, in fact the friends of mine with the highest earned income never buy a new car, they always buy one year old luxury cars. They have also owned three pretty spiffy cabin cruisers since I have known them- all used. The wealthiest man I personally know has a Mercedes that he probably bought new, but it's 20 years old now. I've never known wealthy people who weren't thrifty as well.

Novaheart
02-22-2012, 11:54 AM
Evidence? Link? It's BS pure and simple.

There are $6 worth of guvmint funds built into every gallon of ethanol but the oil companies don't get a penny of it.

The subsidy to which I referred was the military cost of oil. And yes, the oil companies do benefit from it, because if gasoline were to cost $2.60 (my $2 plus your 60¢) per gallon more, demand would fall off and the price would come down. Exxon has unapologetically stated that their profit is a numerical calculation over cost; the higher the price of oil/gasoline , the more money they make.

Novaheart
02-22-2012, 12:00 PM
We used to call them nickle millionaires ....

The price went up. The implication as I understood it was that such a person wasn't expected to be around long.

Novaheart
02-22-2012, 12:08 PM
actually, for most of our history we had Consumption taxes, and relied almost solely on it.

Alexander Hamilton said this on it in Federalist Papers 21:


We made it through 120+ years without Income taxes, we can get rid of the Income tax and go back to the Consumption tax and grow even greater

Right, but we weren't a world power until after the current income tax was instituted. My point is simply that the point of sale tax , which I understand to be different from a tax on manufacturing and imports, would be difficult to enforce.

Source: Tax Foundation.
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.



Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1n7ihfa9Z

fettpett
02-22-2012, 12:44 PM
difference between those taxes and the Fair tax or other consumption taxes would be the fair tax would be on all goods not just a few specific ones. We couldn't do tarrifs or excise taxes because they would kill trade. (just look at steel a few years ago). Consumption has always gone up (with a couple years during the Great Depression).

I would argue that the change to the Income tax hampered development more than it helped. It's more dangerous to freedom than consumption taxes as it punishes success far more than Consumption does.

Odysseus
02-22-2012, 02:16 PM
Right, but we weren't a world power until after the current income tax was instituted. My point is simply that the point of sale tax , which I understand to be different from a tax on manufacturing and imports, would be difficult to enforce.
You are confusing causation with corelation. The current income tax was established in 1913, as you stated, but by every measure, America was a world power by then. The period between the Civil War and WWI saw the United States emerge as the greatest industrial nation in the world (even before WWI turned Europe's industrial output into scrap metal), the largest supplier of agricultural products and the emergence of the US as a major military power. The big wake-up call for Europe that we had arrived was when the United States defeated a European power, Spain, decisively in 1898. A few years later, Teddy Roosevelt sent the US Navy on a global cruise that established our presence as a naval power. All of this occurred without an income tax.

Janice
02-22-2012, 08:13 PM
http://i.imgur.com/FSzxG.jpg

Chris Christie thinks Warren Buffett should 'shut up' about additional taxes. (http://now.msn.com/money/0222-christie-buffett.aspx)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is known for telling it like it is and didn't bite his tongue when the topic of taxes and Warren Buffett came up on The Piers Morgan Show on Tuesday night. Christie had been talking about his budget plan when Morgan brought up Buffett. "He should just write a check and shut up," Christie said. Earlier in the interview, Christie said he's sick of hearing about Buffett and asked Morgan if he was going to ask about Buffett's secretary next.

Apache
02-22-2012, 10:36 PM
http://i.imgur.com/FSzxG.jpg

Chris Christie thinks Warren Buffett should 'shut up' about additional taxes. (http://now.msn.com/money/0222-christie-buffett.aspx)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is known for telling it like it is and didn't bite his tongue when the topic of taxes and Warren Buffett came up on The Piers Morgan Show on Tuesday night. Christie had been talking about his budget plan when Morgan brought up Buffett. "He should just write a check and shut up," Christie said. Earlier in the interview, Christie said he's sick of hearing about Buffett and asked Morgan if he was going to ask about Buffett's secretary next.

Darn tootin'! Buffet is hiding behind tax laws and he damn well knows it. If he were serious about the rate he thinks he should be paying, he would draw a salary and pay on the income scale not capital gains...

Starbuck
02-23-2012, 01:36 AM
Buffett's income & Taxes:


had adjusted gross income in 2010 of $62,855,038, taxable income of $39,814,784, and a federal income tax bill of$6,923,494. That makes his effective tax rate, as a percentage of AGI, just 11.06%, compared to an average effective rate in 2008 (the most recent year available) of 18.1% of AGI for the 400 taxpayers with the largest incomes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-buffets-effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/

If Buffett was so sincere, he would just declare his income and pay taxes on it. You know, Adjusted gross = Taxable income. No deductions. Nothing illegal about that. Should take him 10 minutes and he wouldn't have to keep all that paper work.

Starbuck
02-23-2012, 01:46 AM
Here's more info:

Income / % AGI Paid
1-25,000/ 1.76
25-50,000/ 5.32
50-100,000/ 8.41
100-200,000/ 12.59
200-500,000 / 19.50
500-1,000,000/ 23.92
1-10,000,000 / 24.47
10,000,000 + / 20.89
109,736,000+ / 18.11
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-buffets-effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/

The last category represents the highest 400 referred to in the post previous. You gotta make more than 109,736,00 to get into that category.

AmPat
02-23-2012, 12:33 PM
Hey, I'm OK with giving property owners a kick in the slats if you like. Let's stop Section 8. You want to hear pigs squeal, just listen to the noise of these ten cent millionaires with rental properties if they couldn't fill them up with subsidized tenants. Funny how that welfare money works- it all ends up in the pockets of millionaires: landlords, doctors, and grocery stores.

Funny how that ill-gotten gain has a way of going home, huh? Who do you think that free money came from in the frist place? Hint: it didn't come from O Blah Blah's secret stash.

Janice
02-26-2012, 11:29 PM
49.5% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax, Can
Obama Get that Number to 51% by November? (http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/21/49-5-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-can-obama-get-that-number-to-51-by-november/)

Under Barack Obama, the number of people not paying federal income taxes in America has officially hit 49.5%. That means almost half of America, or 151.7 million Americans, are enjoying privileges or living off benefits the other 50.5% pay for. What kind of benefits am I talking about? Almost every kind you think about.

MORE great reasons to vote democrat ... (http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/21/49-5-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-can-obama-get-that-number-to-51-by-november/)

Starbuck
02-27-2012, 12:53 AM
49.5% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax, Can
Obama Get that Number to 51% by November? (http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/21/49-5-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-can-obama-get-that-number-to-51-by-november/)

Under Barack Obama, the number of people not paying federal income taxes in America has officially hit 49.5%. That means almost half of America, or 151.7 million Americans, are enjoying privileges or living off benefits the other 50.5% pay for. What kind of benefits am I talking about? Almost every kind you think about.

MORE great reasons to vote democrat ... (http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2012/02/21/49-5-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-can-obama-get-that-number-to-51-by-november/)
Wealth transfer has arrived. All Aboard!

BadCat
02-27-2012, 10:12 AM
It is pretty straight forward; income taxes aren't the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

I really don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

How much did you pay in FEDERAL INCOME TAX for 2011, moonbat?

Is that question too difficult for your little mind to comprehend?

Zeus
02-27-2012, 12:28 PM
That wasn't bullshit; that was horseshit. Horseshit isn't manifestly false. It is subtle. Let's look at it real quick:



As they file their tax returns. Now, as everyone knows (well, most anyway ... you seem to be confused) income taxes aren't the only federal taxes assessed. You notice they do not say income taxes in that sentence, though. But they do use the word "returns." Now, you don't file a "return" for social security taxes or medicare taxes or any excise taxes so they slip that by without using the modifier "income." before they ask the question:



Well, in a reasonable conversation, all taxes would be examined to try and come to a conclusion on that question. But this isn't meant to be a reasonable examination, is it?



The transition is complete. Now, the piece goes into the income tax burden only after making sure income taxes are the only ones being discussed.

I don't really care if the numbers they use are accurate, they use weasel words like "close to," "almost," and "about," but that is a secondary issue to the real problem of the argument (propaganda, really).

All those taxes you mention are tied to income so you are still full of it.Your fantastical argument only works on folks weak in math.

AmPat
02-27-2012, 12:37 PM
All those taxes you mention are tied to income so you are still full of it.Your fantastical argument only works on folks weak in math.

He's a liberal Koolaid drinker. Taxes and still higher taxes must be defended as a true and loyal liberal drone.

Arroyo_Doble
02-27-2012, 12:57 PM
All those taxes you mention are tied to income so you are still full of it.Your fantastical argument only works on folks weak in math.

You are incorrect.

When discussing "income taxes," all other federal taxes, like Medicare and Social Security, are left out.

Odysseus
02-27-2012, 01:05 PM
You are incorrect.

When discussing "income taxes," all other federal taxes, like Medicare and Social Security, are left out.

FICA, while separate from the income tax, is still determined by income, and is reported on the 1040. The various articles state that those 47% of filers (i.e., who submitted tax forms) paid no taxes, as accounted for on the forms. One might therefore draw the conclusion that they also paid no FICA. I'll have to do some research to confirm this, but wouldn't surprise me.

Zeus
02-27-2012, 01:15 PM
but I don't know any landlord who would prefer to rent to Section 8 tenants when he can rent to people who won't destroy the property or the neighborhood.

It's not a matter of preference per se but one of 100% occupancy rates and guaranteed rent and repair payments. Section 8 housing doesn't mean you don't have control over who you rent to actually you have more control and once you have the paper tiger under control it becomes a cash cow of sorts. Sure rental rates are tighter controlled but what you might lose in rent is more than made up in occupancy rates. Rental occupancy only one of the benefits tied to Sect 8 housing.

Slumlords are slumlords by design not because of govt housing or property taxes or tenants.

Zeus
02-27-2012, 01:42 PM
You are incorrect.

When discussing "income taxes," all other federal taxes, like Medicare and Social Security, are left out.

when discussing a single subject what bearing does another have in the discussion . Medicare & social security rates are tied to Income and benefits capped by income.

Arroyo_Doble
02-27-2012, 02:09 PM
when discussing a single subject what bearing does another have in the discussion

In this instance, it renders the discussion incomplete.

When talking about the tax burden, leaving out taxes that fall more heavily on those with less income in order to make a point about how those with less income pay no taxes is dishonest, at best.


Medicare & social security rates are tied to Income and benefits capped by income.

And?

Zeus
02-27-2012, 02:13 PM
In this instance, it renders the discussion incomplete.

When talking about the tax burden, leaving out taxes that fall more heavily on those with less income in order to make a point about how those with less income pay no taxes is dishonest, at best.



And?
How can the tax burden fall more heavily on someone when everyone is taxed at the same rate ? If you are talking percent of income that's why there are caps on the taxes and benefits capped also.

Starbuck
02-27-2012, 04:08 PM
Actually, when you shift the conversation to those who are taxed unfairly at a higher rate, I nominate the small business owner and self employed individuals. That's because the small business owner pays both the employee's share of social security and the employer's share, for a total of around 15%.

After that, he gets to pay income tax just like everyone else.

Janice
02-27-2012, 05:19 PM
FICA as I understand it is not actually a tax. Though you would never guess that by hearing the 0bama regime bragging how they are cutting that 'tax' to save people $40/mo or whatever it is. FICA is actually a contribution .. to your own retirement fund! (Social Security) So by cutting this payroll 'tax' Zippy is actually weakening the already bankrupt SS system as we know it. And what did he take from Medicare/Medicaid? A billion dollars to help fund 0bamacare? Hey! Thats a twofer! Way to go King Zippy, Marvel of Moochers, Patron Saint of the Parasites and Counselor of Fraud.

Retread
02-27-2012, 11:40 PM
You'll never get a straight answer out of AD (moonbat) since it is the full purpose of his posts to try and confuse the issues. Since the opening post of the thread SPECIFFICALLY says FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, all reference to FICA, Medicare, excise, etc. has been removed from the conversation.

Really do hate to hear the 49.5 number although I fully expected it ti surpass 50% by now. The worse news though is the percentage drawing funds from me and you via kickbacks from the federales (somewhere above 30% of filers).

NJCardFan
02-28-2012, 03:52 AM
In this instance, it renders the discussion incomplete.

When talking about the tax burden, leaving out taxes that fall more heavily on those with less income in order to make a point about how those with less income pay no taxes is dishonest, at best.



And?
Name me one tax that falls on those with less income and please back it up with concrete facts, not liberal rhetoric.

BadCat
02-28-2012, 10:23 AM
Name me one tax that falls on those with less income and please back it up with concrete facts, not liberal rhetoric.

Hell, I just want him to tell us he pays federal income tax.

Bet he doesn't.

Arroyo_Doble
02-28-2012, 11:36 AM
Hell, I just want him to tell us he pays federal income tax.

Bet he doesn't.


What are the stakes in this bet?

Rockntractor
02-28-2012, 11:42 AM
What are the stakes in this bet?

What do you do for a living?

Arroyo_Doble
02-28-2012, 11:43 AM
What do you do for a living?

I am a bag boy at Albertson's

Rockntractor
02-28-2012, 11:47 AM
I am a bag boy at Albertson's

That's not possible, you couldn't post 12 hrs a day working as a bagger.

AmPat
02-28-2012, 01:51 PM
That's not possible, you couldn't post 12 hrs a day working as a bagger.
He meant Tea Bag boy.

BadCat
02-28-2012, 03:02 PM
What are the stakes in this bet?

You gonna send me a copy of your tax return as proof?

Rockntractor
02-28-2012, 03:18 PM
He meant Tea Bag boy.

I have always been impressed with Albertsons employee's, they are hard working, friendly and respectful people. There is no way Dolby could rise to their level of competence!