Good News for McCain

[Dr.Who]

Abomination- So why don't you tell us how much the rich pay in taxes. Not the per centage then pay of the taxes but how much they pay out of their earnings. That is if you are feeling so sorry for them.

Let's say for a start that the average CEO makes 200 times what his lowest paid worker makes and let's say that his lowest paid worker makes $30,000. So the CEO is making $600,000, and let's say he is paying about 20% in taxes because he gets lots of loopholes and tax dodges so he can keep the rest. He still keeps $480,000. So how many guys making $30,000 are going to have to pay 20% of their income which will reduce them to a paltry $24,000 so they will equal what the CEO paid in taxes?

That's real easy to figure out and it doesn't require any math, just in case you brain is already full. Now how fair is that?

The guy earning 600,000 will pay;

15% on the amount up to $42,350, or $6,352 plus
28% on the amount up to $102,300, or $28,644 plus
31 % on the amount up to $155,950 or $48,344 plus
and 39.6 % on the amount above $278,450 or $127,333

for a total of about $210,673.

http://www.wwwebtax.com/tables/tax_rate_schedules98.htm

Working backwards to find out what the average percentage is he pays about 35%

Does he get a bunch of loopholes?

Not really the alternative minimum tax eliminated most of those. There is one loophole that most rich people still take advantage of. That is the one that states that investment income is only taxed at 15%. In this example you stated that the income was earned so that is irrelevant. This loophole is actually one of the parts of the tax system that is fair because the low wager earner pays the same 15% on investment income as the high wage earner (think about your 401K or pension or whatever).

The guy earning $30,000 however pays 15% of anything over $0 ($4,500) plus 28% of anything over 42,350 (nothing) for a total of $4,500. He does not pay the alternative minimum tax so he gets to deduct his mortgage interest, a bunch per kid, his wife and himself as dependents. The amount he actually pays - about nothing.

It is not so easy to figure out, it does require math and it is not fair at all.

There is no way that the one guy who did nothing illegal or immoral should be punished by paying 35% of his income while the other guy who also did nothing wrong or immoral is punished less (or not at all) by paying nothing.

The laws are not being applied to these two individuals the same way.

 

[UShadItComing]

The guy earning 600,000 will pay;

15% on the amount up to $42,350, or $6,352 plus
28% on the amount up to $102,300, or $28,644 plus
31 % on the amount up to $155,950 or $48,344 plus
and 39.6 % on the amount above $278,450 or $127,333

for a total of about $210,673.

http://www.wwwebtax.com/tables/tax_rate_schedules98.htm

Working backwards to find out what the average percentage is he pays about 35%

Does he get a bunch of loopholes?

Not really the alternative minimum tax eliminated most of those. There is one loophole that most rich people still take advantage of. That is the one that states that investment income is only taxed at 15%. In this example you stated that the income was earned so that is irrelevant. This loophole is actually one of the parts of the tax system that is fair because the low wager earner pays the same 15% on investment income as the high wage earner (think about your 401K or pension or whatever).

The guy earning $30,000 however pays 15% of anything over $0 ($4,500) plus 28% of anything over 42,350 (nothing) for a total of $4,500. He does not pay the alternative minimum tax so he gets to deduct his mortgage interest, a bunch per kid, his wife and himself as dependents. The amount he actually pays - about nothing.

It is not so easy to figure out, it does require math and it is not fair at all.

There is no way that the one guy who did nothing illegal or immoral should be punished by paying 35% of his income while the other guy who also did nothing wrong or immoral is punished less (or not at all) by paying nothing.

The laws are not being applied to these two individuals the same way.

I know the equality of taxation argument Doctor but you're still full of sh-t. the flat tax idea is pie in the sky that would bandrupt your poor and middle class and lead into a revolution. Forget it! Even the very rabid right knows they would be cutting their own throats.

But what really bugs me is that you're probably a dumb American making a little over the minimum wage and you're proud as hell with your new widescreen t.v. set. It's the American way ain't it!

 

[Dr.Who]

I know the equality of taxation argument Doctor but you're still full of sh-t. the flat tax idea is pie in the sky that would bandrupt your poor and middle class and lead into a revolution. Forget it! Even the very rabid right knows they would be cutting their own throats.

Let's look at those numbers. 10% on everyone and everyone gets the same deduction of $2000.

A person earning 25K a year would pay $2,500 in taxes or about $208 per month. Subtract the deduction and they now only owe $500 or $41 per month. No problem. And this person is not bankrupted. Now they get to be a fully invested productive member of society contributing their fair share and they can know that honor and pride that goes along with that. And it costs them less than they are presently wasting on fast food to get all that.

A person earning $50k per year would pay $5000 in taxes or about $416 per month. Subtract the deduction and they now only owe $3000 or $250 per month. No problem. This person is not bankrupted either. And this middle class person is even paying less than they are under the present system.

A person earning $100k per year would pay $10,000 in taxes or about $833 per month. Subtract the standard deduction and they now owe $8000 or $666 per month. No problem.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Let's look at those numbers. 10% on everyone and everyone gets the same deduction of $2000.

A person earning 25K a year would pay $2,500 in taxes or about $208 per month. Subtract the deduction and they now only owe $500 or $41 per month. No problem. And this person is not bankrupted. Now they get to be a fully invested productive member of society contributing their fair share and they can know that honor and pride that goes along with that. And it costs them less than they are presently wasting on fast food to get all that.

A person earning $50k per year would pay $5000 in taxes or about $416 per month. Subtract the deduction and they now only owe $3000 or $250 per month. No problem. This person is not bankrupted either. And this middle class person is even paying less than they are under the present system.

A person earning $100k per year would pay $10,000 in taxes or about $833 per month. Subtract the standard deduction and they now owe $8000 or $666 per month. No problem.

The very rich also use and gain alot more from the serivices provided by the goverment so should they not pay a higher percent as well?

Personaly I like a system that has levals, but is short on deductions...but also is scaled, so you only pay the higher percent in taxes on money made over that set value. So if it went from 10% to 15% at 75,000...you pay 10% for that 75,000...and if you made 100,000 you only pay 15% for the last 25,000% this in effect would make the taxes paid by the person with 100,000 meaning there real tax rate would still be like 13% not realy 15%.
This gets rid of any reason to not want to make money to hit the next tax braket, though I admit would be harder for many to figure out there taxes on there own.

 

[GenSeneca]

And the righties like you cry and complain because people at the poverty liine don't pay enough taxes. You Americans are whacked right out of your everloving capitalist minds.

But what gets me is the little guy who doesn't have a pot to piss in gets right up there and screams and hollers about the poor people not paying enough tax too. Small brains are so easy to program.

Are you capable of replying to someone with a different opinion from the one you hold without being rude to that person? Because if you are, I have yet to see it.

 

[Dr.Who]

The very rich also use and gain alot more from the serivices provided by the goverment so should they not pay a higher percent as well?

They get the same amount of protection from foreign invaders. They obey and benefit from the same laws. etc.

They do get more fire protection on that bigger house, and a better education in that better school district, etc. but since they pay higher property taxes that is commensurate.

So the question is what services do they get that are better but are not paid for with property taxes or sales taxes?

And if they are get better services for the same percentage (but a higher overall amount) does that higher overall amount justify that or maybe we should change the situation where they are getting better services.

It would help to know what better gov service you are talking about. What are the better gov services that the rich get that are paid for through income taxes?

Certainly not Social security they get screwed with that. Not welfare either. not every progressive program on the books that redistributes wealth from richer to poorer.

 

[Dr.Who]

Personaly I like a system that has levals, but is short on deductions...but also is scaled, so you only pay the higher percent in taxes on money made over that set value. So if it went from 10% to 15% at 75,000...you pay 10% for that 75,000...and if you made 100,000 you only pay 15% for the last 25,000% this in effect would make the taxes paid by the person with 100,000 meaning there real tax rate would still be like 13% not realy 15%.
This gets rid of any reason to not want to make money to hit the next tax braket, though I admit would be harder for many to figure out there taxes on there own.

This is the present system:


15% on the amount up to $42,350, or $6,352 plus
28% on the amount up to $102,300, or $28,644 plus
31 % on the amount up to $155,950 or $48,344 plus
and 39.6 % on the amount above $278,450 or $127,333

IT has levels and it is short on deductions and it has brackets like you described. The difference is that while in this system the percentages get higher as one moves up the brackets in yours they get smaller. Yours does make more sense as it punishes increases less.

The link to the tax site I got that from is in a post above if you need it. But I am curious, would you take the table from that link and alter it to be what you have described so we can see it?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is the present system:


15% on the amount up to $42,350, or $6,352 plus
28% on the amount up to $102,300, or $28,644 plus
31 % on the amount up to $155,950 or $48,344 plus
and 39.6 % on the amount above $278,450 or $127,333

IT has levels and it is short on deductions and it has brackets like you described. The difference is that while in this system the percentages get higher as one moves up the brackets in yours they get smaller. Yours does make more sense as it punishes increases less.

The link to the tax site I got that from is in a post above if you need it. But I am curious, would you take the table from that link and alter it to be what you have described so we can see it?

I would possibly raise 31% to more like 33% but I think more needs to be done to just close loopholes and cut taxes on things that encourage savings. Fact is we are huge debt, and spening like Crazy and money have to come from someplace.

 

[GenSeneca]

Fact is we are huge debt, and spening like Crazy and money have to come from someplace.

Wouldn't Government Waste be a great place to start?

 

[Dr.Who]

I would possibly raise 31% to more like 33% but I think more needs to be done to just close loopholes and cut taxes on things that encourage savings. Fact is we are huge debt, and spening like Crazy and money have to come from someplace.

Lets stop spending like crazy. We could start be eliminating every government program that is not established in the constitution as originally written. There is no reason that our gov could not function in a much smaller capacity on 10% of all the individual and corporate income plus the various sales taxes and real estate taxes and duties etc.

Gen: I don't think our government is capable of reducing waste.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen: I don't think our government is capable of reducing waste.

Earmarks would save us what we spend on Iraq and we could eliminate those TOMORROW if Congress had the political will.

 

[Dr.Who]

Lets stop spending like crazy. We could start be eliminating every government program that is not established in the constitution as originally written. There is no reason that our gov could not function in a much smaller capacity on 10% of all the individual and corporate income plus the various sales taxes and real estate taxes and duties etc.
.

Ok I wanted to do something with the numbers. The numbers I wanted were harder to find than I hoped:

Total income of individuals in the US is about 8 trillion.
Total income of corporations in the US is about 100 billion.
Total collections from any source of the fed gov is about 2568 billion.

10% of the 8 trillion is 800,000,000,000
10 % of the 100 billion is 10,000,000,000
add these to get 810,000,000,000

The budget of the US written out with all the zeros is 2,568,000,000,000

which means that the US budget would need to be cut by about 1,758,000,000,000

In other words for the government to function on 10% of all income it would need to be about 68% of its present size (but could be a little larger considering the various other taxes. Presently about 80% of fed gov is funded by individual income taxes).

And coincidentally enough this is exactly how much I think the government should be cut to ensure that they are not overstepping their duties.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Ok I wanted to do something with the numbers. The numbers I wanted were harder to find than I hoped:

Total income of individuals in the US is about 8 trillion.
Total income of corporations in the US is about 100 billion.
Total collections from any source of the fed gov is about 2568 billion.

10% of the 8 trillion is 800,000,000,000
10 % of the 100 billion is 10,000,000,000
add these to get 810,000,000,000

The budget of the US written out with all the zeros is 2,568,000,000,000

which means that the US budget would need to be cut by about 1,758,000,000,000

In other words for the government to function on 10% of all income it would need to be about 68% of its present size (but could be a little larger considering the various other taxes. Presently about 80% of fed gov is funded by individual income taxes).

And coincidentally enough this is exactly how much I think the government should be cut to ensure that they are not overstepping their duties.

to bad that is such a compleatly unrealistic goal as it would throw the nation into a giant whiplash to have it cut that much.

 

[GenSeneca]

to bad that is such a compleatly unrealistic goal as it would throw the nation into a giant whiplash to have it cut that much.

Is it any different from "weening" ourselves off Oil? Its something we "have to do".

If we never set the goal to limit government, it will never happen. Accepting to simply balance the budget is also not enough, we need to pay down the debt.

Clinton did do a fine job of paying down the debt, but he also took Military spending to new lows in order to do it. We cannot do that atm but there are plenty of "alternatives" available to cut spending. We need only to "explore" the options and "drill" it into our representatives heads that we want "Change" in policy.

 

[Dr.Who]

to bad that is such a compleatly unrealistic goal as it would throw the nation into a giant whiplash to have it cut that much.

Whiplash huh? Did I say we should do it overnight? There would need to be a transition plan.