Next debate......TAXES! :) - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mikemover · #1 10-24-2002, 12:43 PM

Here's some info that got me steamed even more than I usually am about taxes...what do all of you who bust your a$$ to maintain an old MB think of this?

NEW NUMBERS! WHO PAYS WHAT TAXES!

I just got a letter from someone on Tuesday of this week asking me for the source of these numbers. Her liberal friends swear it’s all just Conservative propaganda. Well, here you go. These just-released figures are for the 2000 tax year, the last year for which IRS figures are available.

Income-----------Taxable------Percent of---------------Percent of Total
Percentile------Income-------Total US Income-----Income taxes paid

Top 1%--------$313,469------20.81%-----------37.42%

Top 5%--------$128,336------35.30%-----------56.47%

Top 10%-------$92,144-------46.01%-----------67.33%

Top 25%-------$55,225-------67.15%-----------84.01%

Top 50%-------$27,682-------87.01%-----------96.09%

Now … while you’re looking at this table, let’s reconsider the Democrat’s economic plan, as articulated (if that’s the word) by Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle. They want “refundable” tax credits for “middle and lower income Americans.” Just who are the middle and lower income Americans? Surely the top 25% of income earners can’t be included in this group. The top 25% just isn’t in the middle. Middle income would be the middle 50% … from 25% to 75%. Lower income would be the lower 25%. Pretty clear, right? Well … look at the chart again. This means if your family income is $55,225 or more then you aren’t included in this group the Democrats want to give money two. You’re just not part of their phony tax rebate plan. You’re rich. Pay up.

Now … I’m going to post here a part of my "The Democrats’ Secrete Plan for America” essay.

Remove a majority of voters from responsibility for income taxes
This is the biggie – and they’ve made no attempt to hide their goals here. The Democrats have been working on this plan for decades --- with no small amount of help from the cowardly Republicans. The idea is simple. Using “refundable” tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts – and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich. Through this ploy the Democrats plan to create a defeat-proof socialist congress.

http://www.boortz.com/demsecrets.htm

And just why do these statistics make it almost impossible to pass any more real tax cuts? Because the taxes are almost all being paid by the top 25% of income earners. By definition these people only represent 25% of the vote – and most of them probably vote Republican! The Democrats want their money, not their votes. They’ll just use money to pay the bottom 75% for their votes. So, any time a tax cut is proposed for the high-achievers all the Democrat ideologues have to do is start screaming “tax cuts for the rich” and the tax cuts die.

I heard someone complaining about these statistics yesterday. This woman (big surprise) was complaining that so much income was concentrated in so few individuals. She went on to say that it was probably all inherited anyway .. so it’s really OK that they should be carrying the tax burden.

News flash. Of all the people in this country with a million dollar net worth, less than two percent inherited that wealth.

The truth is many people just don’t want to believe that these people at the top of the income scale actually earned that money. They want to believe that they inherited it or got that money by some nefarious means. They cheated, they stole, they exploited --- anything but earned. Believing this gives those in the lower income groups a sense of comfort and self-satisfaction. Once they adopt the mindset that rich people didn’t actually earn all that money, they can excuse their own lack of economic achievement by telling themselves that they were just unlucky, they were really too good to steal from someone else, and that they are one of the exploited and not one of the exploiters. Any excuse will do, just so long as you don’t have to accept personal responsibility for your own financial failures.

Are you one of those people who think that the “rich” just earn too much money? Great! Why don’t you share with me your ideas on just how this can be corrected? What measures do you want in place to restrict the amount of money these evil people can earn?

Now … for those of you who think I just make these numbers up .. for those who think it’s all propaganda .. here’s your link to the U.S. Treasury Department web page that contains all the relevant figures.
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in01rt.xls

----The text above is an excerpt from the Neal Boortz website, but the figures he quotes are IRS figures, NOT propaganda, NOT a poll, they are OFFICIAL figures! Call me a selfish bastard if you must, but I want to KEEP the money I earn, how about you?

Mike

el presidente · #2 10-24-2002, 01:25 PM

Mike,

You and I are both "self-employed" for all practical purposes, and I see bi-weekly, with my tax deposits, exactly how much money in taxes are paid. Most "employees" don't have the benefit of that insight.....and many probably do not care.

"I didn't have to pay *any* taxes last year, I got money back"

I LOVE that line! Yeah, right!

I suppose it all depends on one's perspective. They should do away with the process of "witholding" and have folks write one check for the whole years taxes on April 15th! That would wake some people up.

My business has survived for over ten years....not because of anything the government has given me (except maybe the environment to conduct business without a major war, being drafted, etc.) and I worry about that day when the majority of voters fall off the tax rolls. At that point, they can "vote" themselves more government benefits whenever they want.

I am 37 and do not expect any social security "benefits" to be there for me when I retire.....they'll boost the age to 80 by that time anyway! I am planning for my own financial future and not counting on any bureaucrat's promise for any financial security.

I am wholeheartedly in favor of a significant reduction in the size and scope of government. This will result in lower taxes FOR ALL as well.

This year, I am voting Libertarian.

jcyuhn · #3 10-24-2002, 02:31 PM

These figures are no surprise to anyone who has a Wall Street Journal subscription. They occasionally write an editorial detailing where the income taxes come from. The analysis generally divides taxpayers into quartiles - top 20%, bottom 20%, and three in the middle. The bottom 20% pays no income taxes, and in fact receives more money back than they pay due to refundable credits such as the EIC. The next 20% pay essentially no income tax. The top three quartiles carry all the income tax burden, with the top 20% shouldering about three-quarters of that.

Of course, this covers only the income tax, and it is highly progressive. In contrast, the social security payroll tax is highly regressive. Low wage earners pay proportionately more than higher earners, and the great majority of Americans pay more in SS taxes than they do in income taxes.

Other taxes, such as excise taxes and tariffs also hit low income earners harder because they are tied to consumption, and low income individuals consume a greater proportion of their income than to high income earners.

So I do agree with your ranting and raving about the income tax, but also look at it in the larger picture of the overall tax burden in this country. Scary as it is, we in the U.S. have relatively modest tax burdens compared to much of the world. Of course, our economy is also the envy of the world, and there is no small connection between those two facts.

mikemover · #4 10-24-2002, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jcyuhn

Of course, this covers only the income tax, and it is highly progressive. In contrast, the social security payroll tax is highly regressive. Low wage earners pay proportionately more than higher earners, and the great majority of Americans pay more in SS taxes than they do in income taxes.

Other taxes, such as excise taxes and tariffs also hit low income earners harder because they are tied to consumption, and low income individuals consume a greater proportion of their income than to high income earners.

So I do agree with your ranting and raving about the income tax, but also look at it in the larger picture of the overall tax burden in this country. Scary as it is, we in the U.S. have relatively modest tax burdens compared to much of the world. Of course, our economy is also the envy of the world, and there is no small connection between those two facts.

The word "progressive" in your statement is the very definition of the problem!!! Taxes should NOT be based on a progressive, income-dependent scale...This system penalizes you for success and achievement, while rewarding laziness and failure with a "lower tax bracket"! A step in the right direction would be a "flat tax", where EVERYONE, regardless of income, pays the SAME PERCENTAGE, PERIOD. This is the only way to ensure fairness in an income-based tax system, and to be sure everyone "carries their own weight".

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/taxes/tax7.html

Of course the ideal would be NO income tax, and instituting a national retail sales tax.

http://www.salestax.org/

This system would eliminate unfairness, mountains of paperwork and filing expense, increase privacy, greatly increase the average person's take-home pay, greatly reduce "cheating" and "loopholes", reduce the tax and paperwork burden on small business owners, and solve countless other problems. That way, if "low income earners" want to reduce their tax burden, then they can choose to consume less. "High income earners" will inevitably consume, so there would always be adequate tax money flowing into the system...Of course that would also be dependent on our government reeling in its ridiculous spending habits. It would also not reward those who will not work, as the current system does. It only makes sense. Therefore, I will not hold my breath for it to happen.

Mike

#5 10-24-2002, 10:19 PM

Mike,

You should be a school teacher.

If I were king..

Citizens of this country should have be shown this chart in order to get a High School or College diploma.

The other half of this, Government spending should be limitted to what is constitutionally authorized.

Seniors should be given a choice at 65 years of age. They can collect Social Security or go tax free for the rest of their lives. If they do choose to go on Social Security their Social Security income should not be part of their taxable income.

No taxes would be with-held by employers. People would write a check to the government each month just like the rent.

#6 10-25-2002, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by el presidente
Mike,

You and I are both "self-employed" for all practical purposes

Yeah, you guys can count me in with the "self-employed" conservatives!

I agree. What would happen if everyone had to send a check each week to the Feds for their taxes?? Mass rioting?? For that matter, how 'bout the Feds sending out individual bills for things bought-- i.e. $8,000.00 shower curtains. Who would pay that bill??

I work in television. At one of our government agencies, they needed two teleprompters like the ones you see in front of speakers with little one-way mirrors on them. They cost no more than maybe $2000 to make, labor included. One of the yahoos at this particular agency needed to order one for the Secretary. He calls the place up, describes what he needs, then says, "I have a credit card authorized up to $30,000. Will that be enough?"

Any guesses how much the two prompters at this agency cost??

Meanwhile, they want to pay freelancers (self-eployeed) people like myself on an HOURLY basis rather than a daily basis, which is the industry standard. No wonder I choose not to work there that much anymore.

Thanks for letting me vent my $.02 on government waste!

BTW, I'm a life-long conservative Rebublican, but sometimes they really are weenies.

mikemover · #7 10-25-2002, 12:45 AM

OK, first, where did you get your "99% of people agree" statistic? Is that a poll, or did you take a vote on that up there in Canada? I had to reply to that figure, before I even read the rest, so I'll write more in a minute!

MIike

mikemover · #8 10-25-2002, 01:22 AM

OK, here's "reply # 2"

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes

Why? Well, the abatement of poverty and the reduction of crime benefits rich people greatly. Safety is worth lots.

You reduce crime by ENFORCING sensible laws, not by having the government play "Robin Hood", stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, just to appease them so they don't come steal from you themselves! The government steals it, or the bum down the street steals it, what's the difference?

Quote:

But, let's talk about flat taxes.

We take a flat tax rate of 15%. Wow! Sounds low to me!

But, is it fair that a single mom making $8000 a year has to pay $1,200 in taxes?

YES, it is! If she was only capable of making $8,000 a year, then she had no business having a kid in the first place! Why would it be MY responsibility to support her kid? You should have no more children than you can AFFORD! Go ahead, call me insensitive...because when it comes to forced redistribution of MY money, I AM insensitive.

Quote:

Youch! Well, we need an income excemption to allow the lowest income working poor to keep the money they have. Why? Shouldn't they pair their fair share?

Yes. But, taxing them makes little sense. That $1,200 we collect from them isn't "wasted" money in the economic sense, as most working poor spend every dime they earn. Every single penny is returned into the economy. That's a good thing.

A perfectly good reason to eliminate income tax altogether and have a national sales tax...That way EVERYONE'S money works this way!

Quote:

So, suppose we make an income excemption of $12,000. And tax everything at 15% above that. Do we have a flat tax? Nope. Take the Jones earning $30,000 a year, and the Smiths earning $50,000 a year.

The Jones' pay the 15% on a taxable income of $18,000, the amount above the cut-off. That's $2,700 or 9% of gross.

The Smiths pay the 15% on a taxable income of $38,000. Their tax bill is $5,700. That's 11.4%. Our flat tax became a progressive tax. And most think the scenario I just presented is perfectly fair, except possibly those earning in the top percentiles.

That's why there should be NO CUTOFF!

Anyway, if you're above the cutoff, you're taxed on the WHOLE amount, not just the amount above the cutoff...

Quote:

A consumption based tax, with no income taxes? Well, it does make sense on many levels. It allows savings to be excempt from taxes until they are spent, allowing people with higher incomes to defer taxes until required. One problem is it's regressive nature. It hurts the working poor. Why? It's been said here...

What's with this "working poor" term that you keep using, anyway? Is that to imply that "wealthy people" do not work for what they have? That's a favorite little catch-phrase among the "tax-the-rich, they can afford it" crowd, isn't it!

Quote:

Well, working poor people have no choice but to spend close to 100% of their income on goods and services. Under these models, generally the poor pay MORE tax based on a percentage of their income, and only a few people see that as fair at all. Most low income people cannot choose to consume less, as just existing takes all of what they make.

I tend to have that problem myself, and I see it as great incentive to find a way to make MORE money! NOT to look for a "break" or a "handout"!

Quote:

Mike, do you know many working poor?

Yes. Me. And I'm WORKING to change that! NOT BEGGING!

Quote:

I know hundreds of working poor families, and very few are "lazy." Many are recent immigrants and have barriers to "earning a higher income" that extend far beyond "just work harder." It will take a few generations for them to raise their incomes through better education for their children, etc. They need things like affordable post-secondary schooling and access to health care in order to raise themselves up. Not punishments for being poor.

Educating oneself to be able to work SMARTER, not HARDER, is the key.

Quote:

Low income people are not failures. This comment really pisses me off.

I consider it QUITE a failure on my part when I don't make enough money...and I seek a solution within MYSELF and MY ABILITIES, not from someone else.

Quote:

Some of the hardest working, most honourable people I know make little money.

I know that to be 100% true...But does that mean someone else who works JUST AS HARD, or harder, or smarter, should be forced to give up money that they earned? Why the double standard?

Quote:

Tax reform, in favour of putting more money into the pockets of high income earners, is almost always presented as finally making low income families "pull their weight, get off their asses and work for a living, and stop sponging off the rest of us."

Yes, actually! And who do you think provides the JOBS to the "working class" that politicians love to dangle the "tax-break" carrot in front of? High income earners do! Poor people certainly aren't' going to hire anyone! When high income people keep more of their money, they invest it in business ventures, expansion, stocks, etc....all of which creates MORE jobs! If all the wealth were redistributed and there were no rich people, who do you think would be able to afford to employ ANYONE?

Education solves poverty--Robin Hood tactics do not. If you redistributed ALL of the money in every capitalist country in the world, so that EVERYONE had EXACTLY the same amount of money, within 10 years or so, the situation would return to almost exacty the way it was before you did so. Almost all of those who are rich now, would be so again. Almost all of those who are poor now, would be so again. Some people are willing educate themselves and work to make a successful life for themselves and their family, some are not.

Quote:

Okay, there are people that take advantage of social programs. It's going to happen, no doubt. Just like corporate CEO's that steal from shareholders and pension funds. Playing the system is not unique to poor people.

True, very true...So why do we send the CEOs to jail, while we keep giving the poor handouts, giving them little incentive to STOP abusing the system?!

Quote:

There needs to be balance. A progressive system that builds in fairness, while allowing some incentive is what we need in our capitalist-based society.

A "progressive" tax system and "fairness" are oxymorons.

Quote:

And I agree with consumption taxes, but exclude the requirements of life, including things like food, children's clothing, books, home utility payments, etc. But wait!! By doing that, we just made our flat consumption tax progressive...

No...NO exemptions to a consumtion-based tax!!...If you start giving exemptions, then it will end up right back where we are now, with MOUNTAINS of red tape and rules and deductions and allowances and loopholes and hundreds of thousands of pages of undecipherable tax code.

Quote:

...and around we go!

...to be continued....

:p
Mike

Trelinski · #9 10-25-2002, 10:55 AM

"But, is it fair that a single mom making $8000 a year has to pay $1,200 in taxes?"

Maybe she should have thought about that before having a kid and dropping out of school.

Anyway, I think flat tax is definately the way to go. People need incentive to work harder, paying more taxes is certainly not an incentive.

That being said, the rich usually find loopholes to avoid taxes. ie setting up corporations and writing things off as expenses etc. I think most of the burden ends up on the middle, upper-middle class.

davecancu · #10 10-25-2002, 12:21 PM

http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionTax.htm
Sign the Petition after you read.

The FR's bill is past due to the American people.

davecancu · #11 10-25-2002, 12:32 PM

http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/SignPetitions.htm

"If you care about America, and all that she can be..."

Never in the history of America, have the People been forced to engage the government by using the unalienable Right to Petition for Redress -- as both a shield and a sword.

Until now

el presidente · #12 10-25-2002, 01:37 PM

I don't lack compassion for my fellow man.

But, I am a FIRM believer in the individual (both rights as well as responsibilities)....and the resiliency of us humans.

We (as a society) don't demand enough from our own citizens. Maybe if we could all just "raise the bar" a few degrees, I could live with that, for now.

The problem lies when people quit trying, quit learning or quit striving and become complacent. Whatever one's circumstances, DO NOT quit trying to improve them. That is the effort I'm seeking from our elected officials and those content on being a drain on society. If we demand more, people WILL respond.

.....stepping down off the soapbox now.

Kuan · #13 10-25-2002, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mikemover
This means if your family income is $55,225 or more then you aren’t included in this group

Mike, that's if your taxable income is $55,225, not gross adjusted. But that's not the point here is it? The point is that everyone hates paying taxes, and every other person's method is unfair except for our own!

Before I start, I just want to mention something about low income women having kids. In China, you're allowed to have one kid. Yep, one. In Singapore, it's two before you incur penalties. Any other countries? In America, we can have as many as we want. Count this as one of our freedoms. While it may not be sensible to have children if you cannot afford to look after them, it's not in the spirit of our country to enact birthrate legislation nor should it be in our nature to spurn people who have them... no matter what their income level. Send us your poor, your huddled masses... anyone remember THAT?

In my opinion, the flat tax debate is not about who will be affected or fairness. It's a debate about how much money the nation needs in order to function effectively. Yes, a flat tax is possible. In principle, you look at what it costs to run the country and then figure out what percentage to take out of every paycheck. The problem is, just how MUCH money does it take to run the country?

I can tell you right now that it takes too much money to run the nation for a flat tax to work. In 1998, 59 million filers paid about 768 billion in income taxes. That averages to about 13,000 each. According to Mike's numbers, the upper 50 percentile of the taxpayers account for 95% of taxes gathered by the IRS. If that is true, then by my estimates, the flat tax would need to be around 25%. That works out to a $50,000/yr tax burden for those whose taxable income is $200,000/yr. For those making around $100,000 the tax rate doesn't change much, but for those families which only make around $30,000/yr, 25% constitutes a significant increase in tax liability. A 60% increase, or around $3,000! And this doesn't even include social security and other taxes!

Some advocates of the flat tax want a 15% rate for everyone. This is definitely more reasonable that the alternative 25% that I've estimated. But the caveat is we need to cut spending by 40% for the 15% flat tax rate to work. Even at 20%, significant cuts will have to be made. The first to go will be charitable programs and non essential services. Public radio, libraries, welfare, student aid, public education and research, health programs, rural transportation, farm subsidies, sesame street, national forests and parks, space program, environmental research grants, business loans, watershed planning, stuff like that. Then come the bigger cuts. Defense, pension plans, social security, and transportation. If these mean nothing to you then by all means, you are free to support the 15% flat tax. For me, I'd like to keep education, public radio, and my libraries. I'll gladly support a 25% flat tax.

Kuan

davecancu · #14 10-25-2002, 03:11 PM

Income tax does not go to the Government for services rendered.

Do so some research! Who is the Federal Reserve? Who created the IRS?

This government by all accounting takes 17T to run but if you look at this govenments CAFR it takes in 61T so where's the extra money going? Year after year .. that goes for local governments too. Look at any CAFR in you county City or State and they all have investments with a large surplus but as always ask for more.
Enough is enough.

Freedomseeker American

Kuan · #15 10-25-2002, 03:18 PM

Did you not get your rebate? I got mine. Accumulating large surpluses does not make sense. In time, that surplus will get large enough to affect the economy. We'll just end up like Japan where half the money is stored in a mattress going to waste while the economy is tanking. It would seem that state and local governments should know better.

Kuan