Conquer Club

The White House and congressional Republicans have come together on a tentative plan to extend all expiring tax cuts and to restore a tax on estates for the next two years.

Why are people so pissed of the rich arekeeping their tax cut? (just like everyone else)

How much tax is enough?

What do people mean when they say corporations pay no taxes?

Phatscotty wrote:
Why are people so pissed of the rich are getting a tax cut?

Because they already have more than enough money

I think an entirely progressive taxing scheme is what would be best, where your % income taxes=% of total personal income tax revenue. This would only work in a hypothetical world though. I think there needs to be distinguished between wealth being gained, and wealth passing through peoples hands. A friend of mine was telling me a small business owner he knew often had millions of dollars passing through his hands, but the large majority of it went to his employees, or to sustain the business. In the end he pocketed a much smaller sum than what the government may actually see through the documentation.

maasman wrote:I think an entirely progressive taxing scheme is what would be best, where your % income taxes=% of total personal income tax revenue. This would only work in a hypothetical world though. I think there needs to be distinguished between wealth being gained, and wealth passing through peoples hands. A friend of mine was telling me a small business owner he knew often had millions of dollars passing through his hands, but the large majority of it went to his employees, or to sustain the business. In the end he pocketed a much smaller sum than what the government may actually see through the documentation.

Shouldn't he be taxed only on the annual profit?

Some taxation is necessary to maintain a civilized society, however I tend to think the majority of taxation is just theft. Ultimately although I think the rich would pay too much in taxes under it a flat tax system would be the fairest we could implement. If every person paid the same amount of taxes we would see an end to a lot of frivolous government spending, but that will not happen since we have the evils of class warfare being perpetrated constantly by the left.

rockfist wrote:Some taxation is necessary to maintain a civilized society, however I tend to think the majority of taxation is just theft. Ultimately although I think the rich would pay too much in taxes under it a flat tax system would be the fairest we could implement. If every person paid the same amount of taxes we would see an end to a lot of frivolous government spending, but that will not happen since we have the evils of class warfare being perpetrated constantly by the left.

If everybody paid the same amount of tax, how would it be that the rich would be the ones to have paid too much?

Raised in a family dedicated to commerce, I hate taxes. I think nobody should pay more than 15%, and that's a lot to me.

One pays taxes on everything, employees? profit, capital gain, sales tax, selling a house? taxes, buying a house? taxes. Cigarettes and other stuff too. You can imagine my face when I go to the Municipal Palace and see all those parasites who go from office from office sucking up and spending my money.

In all honesty, I heard the story months ago, and the fine details escape me, so if/when I talk to him again, I'll see if I can get some more answers.

radiojake wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Why are people so pissed of the rich are getting a tax cut?

Because they already have more than enough money

yes but they already pay the highest rate and more than everyone else.

At least this way, everyone gets treated the same, even though the premise is completely messed up. The richest 10% in this country account for over 50% of the revenues, and even more when you count all the taxes/benefits those who create/sustain jobs.

maasman wrote:I think an entirely progressive taxing scheme is what would be best, where your % income taxes=% of total personal income tax revenue. This would only work in a hypothetical world though. I think there needs to be distinguished between wealth being gained, and wealth passing through peoples hands. A friend of mine was telling me a small business owner he knew often had millions of dollars passing through his hands, but the large majority of it went to his employees, or to sustain the business. In the end he pocketed a much smaller sum than what the government may actually see through the documentation.

We do have a progressive tax rate. This was the plan


- The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

It all depends on how much you make. The more you make, the more they take (overtime too!)

Also, many people do not notice, under the democrats plans, % wise, the lowest earners would receive the largest tax increase (5%).

I was speaking of an even more progressive rate. I know that what we have now is considered progressive, but I want to take it a step farther. In reality, it would never work because of the bureaucracy behind it all, but in theory it makes sense, at least to me.

% income(in relation to total private income of the U.S.) = % of total tax revenue

This would allow congress to set an amount of money to be raised, rather than increasing/decreasing taxes and hoping for some kind of substantial change. In theory it could work well; however, I realize some of the pitfalls could be immense.

Phatscotty wrote:

radiojake wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Why are people so pissed of the rich are getting a tax cut?

Because they already have more than enough money

yes but they already pay the highest rate and more than everyone else.

At least this way, everyone gets treated the same, even though the premise is completely messed up. The richest 10% in this country account for over 50% of the revenues, and even more when you count all the taxes/benefits those who create/sustain jobs.

The rich pay the majority of taxes, but they also earn the majority of the wealth. The 20/80 thing works both ways.

InkL0sed wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

radiojake wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
Why are people so pissed of the rich are getting a tax cut?

Because they already have more than enough money

yes but they already pay the highest rate and more than everyone else.

At least this way, everyone gets treated the same, even though the premise is completely messed up. The richest 10% in this country account for over 50% of the revenues, and even more when you count all the taxes/benefits those who create/sustain jobs.

The rich pay the majority of taxes, but they also earn the majority of the wealth. The 20/80 thing works both ways.

They actually control a much higher portion of the wealth than they pay in taxes to the government. However that goes into the top 1% owning 80% of the wealth type deal.

Looking up some numbers, the highest wealth brackets pay more than than their fair share of taxes.

"When including social security insurance taxes: In 2001 the top 1% earned 14.8% of all income and paid 22.7% of all federal taxes. The next 4% earned 12.7% and paid 15.8%. The next 5% earned 10.1% and paid 11.5%. The next 10% earned 14.8% and paid 15.3%, completing the highest quintile for a total of 65.3%. The fourth quintile earned 20.7% of all income and paid 18.5%. The third quintile earned 14.2% and paid 10%. The second quintile earned 9.2% and paid 4.9%. The lowest quintile earned 4.2% and paid 1% of all federal taxes.[19] Whether this breakdown is "fair" is a matter of some debate."-Wikipedia

I don't consider that very fair at all, of course that doesn't mean wealth, just income. If anything, its the lower ends not picking up the slack by these numbers. On another note, I ran my hypothesis through the numbers for the year 2008, and a person making the median income of about $50,000, based on an income revenue of 945 billion dollars (or 45% of the 2.1 trillion the government took in), would need to pay $7,500 in income taxes, or a flat 15% for every income earner in the U.S. Assuming my numbers or math aren't terrible, that doesn't sound too bad.

Maybe I screwed up my whole progressive vs. flat tax thing. My bad guys, I needed to see exactly what what was going on in my proposal to recognize it.

Here's what a person living in New York City (let's say she is a stock broker) and making over $200,000 per year pays in personal income taxes (based on tax rates).

- Income = $200,000
- US federal - Your tax is $41,754 + 33% of the amount over $171,550 ($9,389) = $51,143
- New York state personal income tax - Your tax is $13,303 plus 7.85% of the excess over $200,000 = $13,303
- New York city personal income tax - Your tax is $3,071 plus 3.648% of the excess of $90,000 ($4,013) = $7,084
- Social security tax - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $6,622
- Medicare tax - 1.45% on an employee's wages = $2,900

- Total tax = $81,052

thegreekdog wrote:Here's what a person living in New York City (let's say she is a stock broker) and making over $200,000 per year pays in personal income taxes (based on tax rates).

- Income = $200,000
- US federal - Your tax is $41,754 + 33% of the amount over $171,550 ($9,389) = $51,143
- New York state personal income tax - Your tax is $13,303 plus 7.85% of the excess over $200,000 = $13,303
- New York city personal income tax - Your tax is $3,071 plus 3.648% of the excess of $90,000 ($4,013) = $7,084
- Social security tax - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $6,622
- Medicare tax - 1.45% on an employee's wages = $2,900

- Total tax = $81,052

I would call that person stupid for not finding deductions, and/or other loopholes. Hell, with $120k of take-home pay, I'm sure she could afford to hire someone like you to help her cut that amount (tax, not take-home) drastically.

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Here's what a person living in New York City (let's say she is a stock broker) and making over $200,000 per year pays in personal income taxes (based on tax rates).

- Income = $200,000
- US federal - Your tax is $41,754 + 33% of the amount over $171,550 ($9,389) = $51,143
- New York state personal income tax - Your tax is $13,303 plus 7.85% of the excess over $200,000 = $13,303
- New York city personal income tax - Your tax is $3,071 plus 3.648% of the excess of $90,000 ($4,013) = $7,084
- Social security tax - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $6,622
- Medicare tax - 1.45% on an employee's wages = $2,900

- Total tax = $81,052

I would call that person stupid for not finding deductions, and/or other loopholes. Hell, with $120k of take-home pay, I'm sure she could afford to hire someone like you to help her cut that amount (tax, not take-home) drastically.

Not really, no. Tax attorneys cost an exorbitant amount of money.

And once you make $200K, there are less deductions available.

And I'm not commenting as to whether it's right or not. In fact, I would venture a guess that someone who makes four times as much as our stock broker woman pays less personal income taxes because that person can afford a personal tax attorney/accountant and can shelter income in other places. This is kind of my stance (for lack of a better word) on this stuff - the federal and state governments punish people like the stock broker and reward people like the CEOs and the members of the boards of directors based on the tax laws. I'm all for higher taxes on the really rich (the aforementioned CEOs). I'm against increased taxes on those people making $200K who can't afford a tax advisor, especially when someone making $100K probably has nearly as much take-home pay and has a greater chance at the non-phased-out deductions.

But, again, I'm arguing from the point of view of someone with a vested interest.

Perspective, I guess.

I pay about 30% on about 30K, so I have trouble feeling sorry for someone paying only 10% more on 7 times as much.

This isn't a subject that I know particularly well, but that doesn't stop anyone else from chiming in, so..

I think a lot of people feel that many of these rich guys didn't accumulate their wealth because of a fair capitalist system. They work in corporations that buy politicians so that those politicians will pass laws that will restrict competition in their areas of business.

People say that if we tax the rich more, that that will impede the economy as they will be unable to hire more.

If I work for a corporation, the money I earn isn't used to hire employees. The corporation does the hiring.

Liberals tend to find it easy to criticize the rich, because it fits in with the dubious distrusting paranoid 'corporations are teh evil' common view liberals are inclined to have. While Conservatives find it easy to criticize government because that fits the paranoid mindset they're inclined to have.

Kinda like, conservatives blame the hooker, and liberals blame the johns.

(I preemptively concede that this post is weak, don't troll me dawg)

Timminz wrote:Perspective, I guess.

I pay about 30% on about 30K, so I have trouble feeling sorry for someone paying only 10% more on 7 times as much.

Should you move to the US? You're paying $9,000 in Canada. Let's say you made $30K and lived in New York City:

- Federal income tax - $4,086 tax (according to the tax bracket, which is about 14%)
- Social security - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $1,860
- Medicare - 1.45% on your wages = $435
- New York state personal income tax - $973 plus 6.85% of excess over $20,000 ($685) = $1,658
- New York city personal income tax - $628 plus 3.591% of excess over $21,600 ($302) = $630

- Total tax = $8,669 (or 28.9%).

And if you lived somewhere other than New York City, you'd pay less. You also would have access to more deductions than someone who makes $200K, for whatever that's worth.

Aradhus wrote:This isn't a subject that I know particularly well, but that doesn't stop anyone else from chiming in, so..

I think a lot of people feel that many of these rich guys didn't accumulate their wealth because of a fair capitalist system. They work in corporations that buy politicians so that those politicians will pass laws that will restrict competition in their areas of business.

People say that if we tax the rich more, that that will impede the economy as they will be unable to hire more.

If I work for a corporation, the money I earn isn't used to hire employees. The corporation does the hiring.

Liberals tend to find it easy to criticize the rich, because it fits in with the dubious distrusting paranoid 'corporations are teh evil' common view liberals are inclined to have. While Conservatives find it easy to criticize government because that fits the paranoid mindset they're inclined to have.

Kinda like, conservatives blame the hooker, and liberals blame the johns.

(I preemptively concede that this post is weak, don't troll me dawg)

I agree with everything you typed. Except that I'd point out that Congressional Democrats pay lip service to the idea that the rich are evil. Consider that President Obama is rich and most people that donate to Democrats are rich. It's not like Microsoft isn't giving money to Democrats.

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:Perspective, I guess.

I pay about 30% on about 30K, so I have trouble feeling sorry for someone paying only 10% more on 7 times as much.

Should you move to the US? You're paying $9,000 in Canada. Let's say you made $30K and lived in New York City:

- Federal income tax - $4,086 tax (according to the tax bracket, which is about 14%)
- Social security - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $1,860
- Medicare - 1.45% on your wages = $435
- New York state personal income tax - $973 plus 6.85% of excess over $20,000 ($685) = $1,658
- New York city personal income tax - $628 plus 3.591% of excess over $21,600 ($302) = $630

- Total tax = $8,669 (or 28.9%).

And if you lived somewhere other than New York City, you'd pay less. You also would have access to more deductions than someone who makes $200K, for whatever that's worth.

Cool. How's the public education, and healthcare I don't suspect $300/year would go very far towards those things.

Timminz wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Timminz wrote:Perspective, I guess.

I pay about 30% on about 30K, so I have trouble feeling sorry for someone paying only 10% more on 7 times as much.

Should you move to the US? You're paying $9,000 in Canada. Let's say you made $30K and lived in New York City:

- Federal income tax - $4,086 tax (according to the tax bracket, which is about 14%)
- Social security - 6.2% on the first $106,800 of taxable earnings = $1,860
- Medicare - 1.45% on your wages = $435
- New York state personal income tax - $973 plus 6.85% of excess over $20,000 ($685) = $1,658
- New York city personal income tax - $628 plus 3.591% of excess over $21,600 ($302) = $630

- Total tax = $8,669 (or 28.9%).

And if you lived somewhere other than New York City, you'd pay less. You also would have access to more deductions than someone who makes $200K, for whatever that's worth.

Cool. How's the public education, and healthcare I don't suspect $300/year would go very far towards those things.

I was publicly educated and I did okay. You seem like a smart guy, so I'm sure you would be okay as well.

Healthcare? I'm not sure whether your employer would provide healthcare or not (depends on the employer) or whether you'd get access to Medicaid.

once again the republicans save the rich..........they should pay more...

Even bill gates and warren buffet say they dont pay enough taxes

karel wrote:once again the republicans save the rich..........they should pay more...

Even bill gates and warren buffet say they dont pay enough taxes

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could pay more if they choose to. Just a point of clarification. There is no requirement that Bill Gates only has to pay the taxes that are shown on his tax return.