You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
You can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
egnorant wrote: New mind set here! I hear the rich are paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes and this is unfair so they should pay a larger percentage. Why not just lower the percentage for the poor? Sounds equal to me!! Is the goal to equalize things or just suck more money from taxpayers? Bruce
Sounds nice, but taxes are necessary.
Equal percentage across the board is the only fair answer IMHO. Either way, the rich will pay more and the poor less. Its harder to get by making 24k a year and paying 4% than it is making 500k a year and passing 4%.
SVreX wrote: That's pretty good, in spite of the reckless use of foul language which would prevent me from being able to share it with some people. As a writer, I'll bet he could do better.
You wouldn't make it through the first chapter of a Stephen King book SVreX (and if you have, congrats!) He isn't very nice to... religious folk. While the material is incredibly well written, it is always extremely detailed and specific in whatever is going on in the book. Whether that is hating on religion, or something nasty happening to one of the characters.
He doesn't actually hate religion (I don't think) but it does seem to get vilified in his books.
Anywho, that article is written how I'd expect it to be. Anything less, and it wouldn't be Mr. King.
JohnInKansas wrote:N Sperlo wrote:From here: Filing single: [annual income : tax percentage] $0-8500 : 10% | 8500-34500 : 15% | 34500-83600 : 25% | 83600-174400 : 28% | 174400-379150 : 33% | 379150-upward : 35% If those numbers are right, the "rich" ARE paying more by either percentages OR dollars. If the numbers are wrong, somebody go find the right ones and post them. I'm perfectly fine paying to live in the United States. However, as per 914driver, I'd like to see more financial responsibility from the government if they want me to pay more to live here. That's all the flounder I've got. Edit: This doesn't account whatsoever for tax breaks or taxes on investment, etc etc... just income tax. Take it for what it is.carguy123 wrote: Forget percentages and let's talk dollars because that's what the guvmnt spends. The rich pay more than you and I.Forget dollars and lets talk percentages because thats what's keeping us in a downward spiral. The rich pay less than you and I. /flounder
The tax breaks are what makes there big picture. You've just given us what taxes are supposed to be. Unfair, yes, but with all the breaks for the rich, it flips. Taxes should be equal percentage without breaks.
JohnInKansas wrote: if those numbers are right, the "rich" ARE paying more by either percentages OR dollars. If the numbers are wrong, somebody go find the right ones and post them.
This view of the tax code is too simplistic to reflect reality. Read the link I posted as it discusses taxable income vs. taxes on investments. Most rich folks earn very little from taxable income. They earn most of their income from investments. Which are taxed differently i.e. the rich are taxed less than the working class.
madmallard wrote: the problem I have with critcal rich people who make comparisons of their charitable contributions to paying taxes is that they don't see the idiocy of doing so. if you pay one million dollars in taxes and you donate a million dollars to charity, some people want you to believe that both payments have some sort of moral equivalency. yet i'm going to bet that a charity does a much better job than the government ever does of serving a particular social interest, twice on tuesday. How is paying taxes a moral equivalent to donating to charity? maybe these critical rich people are the real ones that have lost perspective. If Warren Buffet just sees taxes as another place his wealth arbitrarily disappears to, then he wouldn't see any difference between the IRS and the Shriners.
Without facts to back that up..
egnorant wrote: I hear the rich are paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes and this is unfair so they should pay a larger percentage. Why not just lower the percentage for the poor? Sounds equal to me!! Is the goal to equalize things or just suck more money from taxpayers? Bruce
Because then we're in a bigger hole than we're already in. We have GOT to find some way to pay for tax credits for private jets and oil subsidies! Private jets so politico's can bum a ride and not have to deal with the TSA like the rest of us peons. Oil subsidies so the three biggest U.S. oil companies can earn more than $80 billion in profits in 2011, with oil giant Exxon Mobil making nearly $4.7 million every hour. But GOT DAMNIT. Those politicians better not waste my money in sending kids to college or so help me....
Well, he did hit on the keys to having your work published in media that Media Matters won't bash.
-Hate on religion and the south
-Refer to Koch Brothers
-Chris Christie at a buffet
-Tea Party
-Global warming
-Oil companies
-"Rich getting richer", fair share, 1%ers
disclaimer: I am not rich, I am not Republican, and I am not religious. I am as independent as they come.
In reply to HiTempguy:
I didn't mean it was poorly written.
I meant as a writer Mr. King could have chosen his words more carefully to reach his potential audience.
I've read several of his books. He's a friend of the family.
N Sperlo wrote: The tax breaks are what makes there big picture. You've just given us what taxes are supposed to be. Unfair, yes, but with all the breaks for the rich, it flips. Taxes should be equal percentage without breaks.
That's only partly true.
It also does not represent the tax credits for the poor. In spite of what the tax tables say, no one in this country who makes $5000 is ineligible for benefits.
I've received the earned income tax credit several times. That means that I pay nothing, but still get something back.
That is effectually a negative rate, by your calculations.
JohnInKansas wrote:N Sperlo wrote:From here: Filing single: [annual income : tax percentage] $0-8500 : 10% | 8500-34500 : 15% | 34500-83600 : 25% | 83600-174400 : 28% | 174400-379150 : 33% | 379150-upward : 35% If those numbers are right, the "rich" ARE paying more by either percentages OR dollars. If the numbers are wrong, somebody go find the right ones and post them. I'm perfectly fine paying to live in the United States. However, as per 914driver, I'd like to see more financial responsibility from the government if they want me to pay more to live here. That's all the flounder I've got. Edit: This doesn't account whatsoever for tax breaks or taxes on investment, etc etc... just income tax. Take it for what it is.carguy123 wrote: Forget percentages and let's talk dollars because that's what the guvmnt spends. The rich pay more than you and I.Forget dollars and lets talk percentages because thats what's keeping us in a downward spiral. The rich pay less than you and I. /flounder
While that's the actual brackets, you find that the actual tax percentage flattens out at about 25% from $200k to $10M, and actually drops to 22% for people who make over $10M. You also find that a considerable amount of income comes from other forms than salaries, which, when done right, can drop your rate from 30% to 15%. (for instance, the average person reporting over $10M earns less than 1/4 of their income from wages and salary, the rest are from investments and other ways to store your money- that's pretty easy to run at 15% tax).
Not sure how one gets so many deductions when you have so much income.... Unless they are actually donating significant parts of it.
You can find a lot of interesting stuff from the IRS- http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html#_grp8
Here we go again with the Tax Code Revision cluster Berkley of opinions.
Look folks, it’s very simple, we are where we are because we got here. In other words, our existing system of governance is what produced this wildly complicated monstrosity of special interest loopholes called a tax code.
How in your right mind can you possibly not see the inevitable outcome that would result if you allow the exact same system of governance to implement “change”.
“Change” is the catalyst the politicians crave to open the door to even more rampant corruption that ultimately lines their pockets.
In terms of Stephen King, meh, he’s just pulling a Woopi Goldberg. You know, the phone stops ringing with opportunities, bills are piling up, what to do, what to do. I know, I’ll go on a big rant promoting liberal agendas…ring, ring, ring.
Spewing this type of rhetoric is like currency to Hollywood types.
I would totally hang out with him.
We should have a "luck based" tax bracket.
Athletes, Entertainers, Lottery Winners, even those in business. You want innovators? Discourage kids from wanting to become rappers. You want better workers? Discourage kids from thinking that being an artist will ever pay the bills. You want people to better spend their money? Make gambling illegal. Our economy is all based around the hope that we will all get lucky without working for it.
Because there are millions of people out there who work hard everyday for themselves or their small business, their families, their kids, their community, and will never "get lucky".
alfadriver wrote: Not sure how one gets so many deductions when you have so much income.... Unless they are actually donating significant parts of it.
They are. I have to find the graphic but there is one out there that basically states that if your income is $5m or better combined and you donate an average of $1m/yr your tax rate and donation combined will be less than 21%. In other words if you make $5 million and give away 20% you will pay VERY little in ACTUAL TAXES.
Of course I have nothing here right now to back this up, I have been accused of being a socialist, and I will never see a million dollars let alone a $5 million dollar annual income.
RX Reven' wrote: In terms of Stephen King, meh, he’s just pulling a Woopi Goldberg. You know, the phone stops ringing with opportunities, bills are piling up, what to do, what to do. I know, I’ll go on a big rant promoting liberal agendas…ring, ring, ring. Spewing this type of rhetoric is like currency to Hollywood types.
..Or he's actually saying something that quite a few people agree with. Namely that we need to stop catering to the rich as they won't take pity on us and throw some gold out the window to stop this recession.
They should pay at least as much as you or I do since they have benefited mightily from this great country that you and I help to run, maintain, and live in. Yes Virginia, just as much as any rich arsehole.
Xceler8x wrote:RX Reven' wrote: In terms of Stephen King, meh, he’s just pulling a Woopi Goldberg. You know, the phone stops ringing with opportunities, bills are piling up, what to do, what to do. I know, I’ll go on a big rant promoting liberal agendas…ring, ring, ring. Spewing this type of rhetoric is like currency to Hollywood types...Or he's actually saying something that quite a few people agree with. Namely that we need to stop catering to the rich as they won't take pity on us and throw some gold out the window to stop this recession. They should pay at least as much as you or I do since they have benefited mightily from this great country that you and I help to run, maintain, and live in. Yes Virginia, just as much as any rich arsehole.
Xceler8x,
Perhaps he is speaking from the heart but given that this is a classic "free unlimited BJ's for Galdiators" type of situation, any prudent mind should be highly suspicious.
I have a better idea for the RICH Vs POOR taxation issue.
We automate all billing through a single source, and we all pay a specific percentage for everything compared to our income! That way, you spent 10% on fuel, 25% on taxes, 15% on food etc.
Bwaa hahahahhhahahaaahhaha/
I just wanted to see that typed out before someone else said it.
John Brown wrote: I have a better idea for the RICH Vs POOR taxation issue. We automate all billing through a single source, and we all pay a specific percentage for everything compared to our income! That way, you spent 10% on fuel, 25% on taxes, 15% on food etc. Bwaa hahahahhhahahaaahhaha/ I just wanted to see that typed out before someone else said it.
The problem with that is that while the lower income brackets spend nearly essentially all of their income, the higher brackets would just sit on a portion of their income and not pay taxes on it.
One of the big justifications of a progressive tax is being overlooked in this discussion too. A lot of 'flat tax' and other similar schemes start with the premise that everyone who gets money earned it. It plays well with our sense of fairness, 'why should the rich pay more of what they earn?'.
This assumes that people who end up with more money in our economy got it by 'earning' it, when it is very hard to define 'earning'. Studies have shown that by far the largest factor in how much money you'll make is how much your family started with. That doesn't mean that people who make money didn't work hard and do good things to get it, it just means that two people who work equally hard during their lives could end up in very different economic classes because of the opportunities their family wealth provided.
Does that sound fair? Work just as hard, still get screwed? It's only getting worse as the income gap widens.
That is one of the big reasons why we need a progressive tax structure. Wealth accumulates wealth. If you let that pattern run it's course you'll get economic stagnation. We need to insure that work, and ideally innovation, generate wealth; and right now we have a lot of things going in our economy that prevent that.
SVreX wrote:Anti-stance wrote: Because there has to be an evil, dirty bastard to be mad at.Now you've nailed it. Especially if politicians can gain power (votes) by promoting the mindset of blaming the evil, dirty bastard.
^This...............
And in this particular election cycle, which party (and its' sycophants) is spending the most time and money identifying all those EDB's?
As much as I despise the GOP, the current version of the Democratic party (and its' sycophants) are far less "endearing".
RX Reven' wrote: ....“Change” is the catalyst the politicians crave to open the door to even more rampant corruption that ultimately lines their pockets...
Apparently Revin' would like to return to the 98% top tax bracket 
Speaking of ranting over taxes (to create a crossover to the other thread):
/rant
WHY THE HELL ARE GAMBLING LOSSES TAX DEDUCTIBLE?!?!?!?
Is gambling NOT illegal at a federal level?!? Why the HELL would they allow you to deduct losses do to an act that (in their eyes) is ILLEGAL!?!
It's like deducting the operating expenses of you Heroin distribution network!!
Tax deductions are many times used to encourage "good" behavior (e.g. deductions for contributions to charity).... so they are encouraging a behavior that is illegal?!?
/rant
First, I damn sure agree with cutting waste out along with taxes going up. That's gonna hurt; I mean how is the mohair business going to survive without subsidies? 
But to me the most telling paragraph in the whole thing was:
The Koch brothers are right-wing creepazoids, but they’re giving right-wing creepazoids. Here’s an example: 68 million fine American dollars to Deerfield Academy. Which is great for Deerfield Academy. But it won’t do squat for cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, where food fish are now showing up with black lesions. It won’t pay for stronger regulations to keep BP (or some other bunch of dipE36 M3 oil drillers) from doing it again. It won’t repair the levees surrounding New Orleans. It won’t improve education in Mississippi or Alabama. But what the hell—them li’l crackers ain’t never going to go to Deerfield Academy anyway. berkeley ’em if they can’t take a joke.
You read about this all the time, someone gives/leaves umptybazillion dollars to their alma mater which uses the money to build a combination gym, laundromat, house of ill repute and parking garage which gets the benefactors' name all over it as a giant ego stroke and doesn't do a damn thing to address the real problems facing this country.
these are "interesting times" to be alive to be sure. I wonder if we are about to turn a corner on the culture of greed we started in the early 80s?
if Stephen King- or Warren Buffett or any other rich person- wants to pay more in taxes, they are more then welcome to.. there is no law that says that you have to take any or all of the deductions you qualify for, and if you still don't think you've paid your fair share, then the government will be more than happy to take a check from you for whatever amount you feel is fair.
but i've come to the conclusion that giving the government even more money isn't the proper answer to the problems we are facing..
novaderrik wrote: but i've come to the conclusion that giving the government even more money isn't the proper answer to the problems we are facing..
I think that's my main issue. They can't even begin to think about being somewhat efficient. Why give them more money?
Dave Ramsey show did a whole show about raising taxes after the Buffet rule. Interesting to me though I agree with him on a lot of things.
http://www.daveramsey.com/radio/home/#archives-tab
April 17th.
I would also like to say that discussions like this are difficult without defining rich.
The top 10% of Americans make $112K + From Here
My understanding is a the GRM readership plays a healthy part in that demographic:
In fact 87% have an annual income over $75,000 and not all of them are shrimpers , and 31% have an annual income over $125,000! From Here
So 31% of readers fall into the top 10% of those taxed. At least 87% of readers fall into the top 25% of tax payers. (The statistic I heard was $64K a year puts you in the top 25%)
So which of us are rich?
And what about the 48% of Americans who paid no income tax? I have $10K to go before I hit the top 25% of earners and paid no income tax again last year. Personally nobody should have a negative tax rate. I've been broke. Really broke. But even then I think just shy of everybody could swing $10 to contribute to taxes.
Well, I can assure you that last year after my tax return I still paid a higher percentage of my income in Fed and state taxes than Warren Buffett or Bill Gates did. I can guaran-damn-tee you they can afford the percentage a lot easier than I can. I guess y'all can afford better tax attorneys than I can.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
