You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 05:58:53 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Teabag Obama!  (Read 7853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline goalt

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2009, 10:36:20 AM »
Quote
The top 50% pay over 80, nearly 90% of all federal income taxes.
This statement feels very misleading. Income tax is based on income. Of course the top whatever percent pays a higher total of the collected money--this would be the case even if everyone had the same percent of  income tax! A man paying 9% of $1,000,000 pays more than a man paying 9% of 70,000!*


*Numbers pulled out of nowhere


Quote
During the Bush years, the Democrats were saying that dissent 'was' American. Now that they are in power, they are working to make those who do disagree with them, look small and try to  brush them off.
"Look small" and "look like traitors" are two different sentiments! But I'm not denying that both parties have hypocrites.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 10:38:43 AM by goalt »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #51 on: April 20, 2009, 10:43:00 AM »
This statement feels very misleading. Income tax is based on income. Of course the top whatever percent pays a higher total of the collected money--this would be the case even if everyone had the same percent of  income tax! A man paying 9% of $1,000,000 pays more than a man paying 9% of 70,000!*


*Numbers pulled out of nowhere

I don't believe that the rate of income tax is linear, though.  The man paying tax on $1,000,000 might be paying at a rate of 15% instead of the 9% that the man paying tax on $70,000 owes.

(Numbers likewise pulled out of nowhere.)

Offline consortium11

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #52 on: April 20, 2009, 10:51:45 AM »
I don't believe that the rate of income tax is linear, though.  The man paying tax on $1,000,000 might be paying at a rate of 15% instead of the 9% that the man paying tax on $70,000 owes.

(Numbers likewise pulled out of nowhere.)

I believe the income tax rates in the UK start out at 10% for the lowest level of taxable income and peak at 40% for those higher than 37k.

In the US I believe it's around 35% for the highest earners... and there's far more brackets between the two.

That also isn't the whole story, as most people (especially in the top brackets) won't just be paying income tax.

Offline goalt

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #53 on: April 20, 2009, 12:16:57 PM »
I don't believe that the rate of income tax is linear, though.  The man paying tax on $1,000,000 might be paying at a rate of 15% instead of the 9% that the man paying tax on $70,000 owes.

(Numbers likewise pulled out of nowhere.)
No, it may not be. However, it is still misleading to talk about how the top X% income pay the top Y% of the income taxes. To compare the percent tax on their incomes with others is valid, but to suggest that them providing more money in pure amount is some sort of problem is wrong.

EDIT: I also note I may have misread the original poster's intent--I am having a bit of a kneejerk reaction based on previous encounters with similar statements. If so, my apologies.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2009, 12:29:22 PM »
I'm thinking that one of the issues being raised (brain not functioning at peak right now) was that the top X% were complaining that their taxes were too high, and yet when Reagan was in office, those taxes were even higher.

Although the painkillers just spoke up and said - 'Why would sending someone a teabag necessarily be a protest? What if they like tea?'

Offline Zakharra

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #55 on: April 20, 2009, 01:06:07 PM »
I'm thinking that one of the issues being raised (brain not functioning at peak right now) was that the top X% were complaining that their taxes were too high, and yet when Reagan was in office, those taxes were even higher.

Although the painkillers just spoke up and said - 'Why would sending someone a teabag necessarily be a protest? What if they like tea?'

 Reagan lowered taxes from a high of about 70% to around 30% for the top marginal rate.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2009, 01:13:18 PM »
This statement feels very misleading. Income tax is based on income. Of course the top whatever percent pays a higher total of the collected money--this would be the case even if everyone had the same percent of  income tax! A man paying 9% of $1,000,000 pays more than a man paying 9% of 70,000!*


*Numbers pulled out of nowhere

 I got my numbers from the IRS for the last rated year.  The volume of money being taken in by income taxes is paid in the most part by the top 50% of wage earners. IE, people warning money. Once your money is made, it is more or less untaxed. Income taxes is on earned income.

 Now the poor and lower to middle  middle class do not pay income taxes if they get the right exemptions. Which is almost 50% of the money earners now. If it keeps up, more people will be added to the non tax players, thereby making income tax payers a minority.

 I cannot imagine that being a good thing. It would make those being taxed an unfairly taxed minority. Since they'd be the 'only' ones being taxed.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #57 on: April 20, 2009, 02:48:30 PM »
Taxes also come from sales taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc. It's important to keep in mind that the benefits are not proportional, either - the rich have more assets to have the government protect, on several levels.

The thing is, if you don't provide a means for people to climb out of the hole they dug themselves into (or got thrown into), their natural response is not going to be to starve to death. American education provides rather little on financial management, critical thinking, or self promotion. Lacking in any of these (and other) skills can be crippling and if the next economic recovery is a 'jobless' one, things are not going to improve.

Offline purpleartemis00

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2009, 02:53:42 PM »
  Possibly, but that is the average over all people old enough to pay taxes. Nearly half (About 45-49%) of Americans do not pay Federal income tax. The upper 50% is taxed at a higher rate to compensate for that and they do pay more, much more the higher you go in tax brackets, in taxes. Also the % of income tax paid is far more at the upper levels.

 The top 50% pay over 80, nearly 90% of all federal income taxes. Which is a huge chunk already and the government (Congress and White House) plan on tapping that even more, while 'helping' people who do not pay taxes, or pay very little at all. IE, the 'Tax the Rich' arguement because they obviously have more money.

 To pay for the massive spending they plan on doing, they are going to have to tax more people, not less. The rich will only be tappable for some long before they are dried out of ready funds.

I actually agree with you. I'm just a big fan of injecting facts into discourse and seeing people discuss those rather than speculations.

I'm not saying that anyone was speculating, just that having the facts about specifics makes both sides better informed and more able to formulate interesting arguments.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2009, 03:14:41 PM »
... and if the next economic recovery is a 'jobless' one, things are not going to improve.

I actually don't particularly follow the 'jobless recovery' thing. How can you possibly recover from rising unemployment without ... lowering it again?

Offline Zakharra

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2009, 05:14:04 PM »
Taxes also come from sales taxes, property taxes, tariffs, etc. It's important to keep in mind that the benefits are not proportional, either - the rich have more assets to have the government protect, on several levels.

 *nod* True. But most people think of income taxes, which are increasingly being levied disproportionately on the wealthier people. (upper 50%) That is shown by the hugely lopsided  percantage that they do pay in the income tax revenue. The wealthy also tend to pay more in sales, property taxes, tariffs and such since they have more expensive homes/properties, buy more pricey things (which employ people to make).

Offline Nessy

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #61 on: April 20, 2009, 05:25:46 PM »
*nod* True. But most people think of income taxes, which are increasingly being levied disproportionately on the wealthier people. (upper 50%) That is shown by the hugely lopsided  per cantage that they do pay in the income tax revenue. The wealthy also tend to pay more in sales, property taxes, tariffs and such since they have more expensive homes/properties, buy more pricey things (which employ people to make).

Well if you want to talk about income taxes and not just talk about the Federal Income Tax, then you need to talk about Medicare and Social Security which disproportionally help the rich and has a cap so that the wealthiest actually pay a lower amount (as a percentage of income) than the lower and middle class. Its disproportionate because those with low incomes tend to have lower lifespans due to lack of proper care and other health issues that are seen more often in their numbers than the wealthy. The whole system is actually built so that less people actually get a chance to ever draw on these benefits. That's one reason they raise the age limit, a lot more people will make it to 60 compared to those who make it o say 70. Which group do you think is loosing the most people in those ten years, the wealthy or the poor?

Edit, I forgot to mention that the capital gains tax situation most definitely benefits the wealthy more as well.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 05:27:14 PM by Nessy »

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #62 on: April 20, 2009, 06:09:59 PM »
Well if you want to talk about income taxes and not just talk about the Federal Income Tax, then you need to talk about Medicare and Social Security which disproportionally help the rich and has a cap so that the wealthiest actually pay a lower amount (as a percentage of income) than the lower and middle class. Its disproportionate because those with low incomes tend to have lower lifespans due to lack of proper care and other health issues that are seen more often in their numbers than the wealthy. The whole system is actually built so that less people actually get a chance to ever draw on these benefits. That's one reason they raise the age limit, a lot more people will make it to 60 compared to those who make it o say 70. Which group do you think is loosing the most people in those ten years, the wealthy or the poor?

Edit, I forgot to mention that the capital gains tax situation most definitely benefits the wealthy more as well.

Excellent point, and one I've always thought was extremely unfair.

And I'm speaking as one who's income is over the maximum amount for contributions (well, technically it's Mr. Torch's income), but I've never understood why the FICA contribution has remained the same even as our income has risen. Anything over 108K is basically free from FICA tax, which makes little sense. I would have no problem with paying the 6% tax on our entire income, not just the first 108K.


Offline Vekseid

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #63 on: April 20, 2009, 06:41:33 PM »
I actually don't particularly follow the 'jobless recovery' thing. How can you possibly recover from rising unemployment without ... lowering it again?

The money goes to shareholders of say, companies who heavily outsource rather than people who might be employed by these companies in the US if there were not tax incentives to actually export jobs. (I so want Carly "You have no right to a job." Fiona to run for California governor. I want to see her eat that line.)

*nod* True. But most people think of income taxes, which are increasingly being levied disproportionately on the wealthier people. (upper 50%) That is shown by the hugely lopsided  percantage that they do pay in the income tax revenue. The wealthy also tend to pay more in sales, property taxes, tariffs and such since they have more expensive homes/properties, buy more pricey things (which employ people to make).

Not always. The wealthy often import more, choose areas where they pay lower property taxes, and have better accountants to get them tax writeoffs. I have family members in this category and running my own business has been quite an eye opener in this regard. I personally find sales taxes to be the annoying ones.

As far as the rich sharing a disproportionate amount of the burden, I side firmly with the two richest men in the world. Whose roads, whose research, whose currency enables 'the rich'? I find it amusing that Forbes of all places tries to spin Warren of all people as 'not understanding' the double taxation issue... I think he's quite thoroughly aware of it.

America needs to solve its trade deficit first, of course. Until that happens the US is heading for a train wreck.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2009, 07:07:32 PM »
 
Not always. The wealthy often import more, choose areas where they pay lower property taxes, and have better accountants to get them tax writeoffs. I have family members in this category and running my own business has been quite an eye opener in this regard. I personally find sales taxes to be the annoying ones.

As far as the rich sharing a disproportionate amount of the burden, I side firmly with the two richest men in the world. Whose roads, whose research, whose currency enables 'the rich'? I find it amusing that Forbes of all places tries to spin Warren of all people as 'not understanding' the double taxation issue... I think he's quite thoroughly aware of it.

America needs to solve its trade deficit first, of course. Until that happens the US is heading for a train wreck.

  If Warren Buffet wants to give more taxes he can. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

 The wealthy do import more. Stuff made in companies in other natuions that employ people. Plus they have (often) houses with staff to tend it. Many have several homes, in the city (high tax areas) and some in the countryside (generally low tax areas). Where I live the govenor of California has(had?) a residence on an island. No doubt fairly low property taxes were paid on it. Overall, the wealthy spend moree. They have the money for it, why shouldn't they spend some of it?

 My main issue with taxes, income taxes, mostly is those who do not pay it demanding those who do (anyone wealthier than they are) pay more. I've been told by some on another board that they would not mind if the tax on wealth generated over about $200,000 was about 70-95%. Their arguements for it usually ended up in several ways. 1; they have more so they can 'afford' to be taxed higher. 2; they deswerve to be taxed more. 3; The money is better spent by the government on social programs than by the ones earning it. 4; THE MONEY THEY ARE NOT PAYING IS KILLING PEOPLE!! THEY NEED TO BE TAXED SO IT CAN GO INTO NEEDED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING!!

 Sorry about the cap lock, but that last arguement was exactly what I was told by someone who framed her arguement  that not paying more taxes was killing people and that everyone who was against raised taxed was, indirectly, a murdering bastard.

 IF you raised rates, what would yopu raise them to? Would it be just the rich (in this case, the upper 50% of income payers) who would pay or would you be willing to extend the tax back down to the 45% or so that pay no income taxes?

 
Quote
then you need to talk about Medicare and Social Security which disproportionally help the rich and has a cap so that the wealthiest actually pay a lower amount (as a percentage of income) than the lower and middle class. Its disproportionate because those with low incomes tend to have lower lifespans due to lack of proper care and other health issues that are seen more often in their numbers than the wealthy. The whole system is actually built so that less people actually get a chance to ever draw on these benefits. That's one reason they raise the age limit, a lot more people will make it to 60 compared to those who make it o say 70. Which group do you think is loosing the most people in those ten years, the wealthy or the poor?

 Edit, I forgot to mention that the capital gains tax situation most definitely benefits the wealthy more as well.

 As far as I know, the wealthy do not use Medicare/cade. They can pay for better health care, get the better more expensive treatments.

 Capoital gains affects those who own stock, right? If so that is a good many elderly and pensioners that are taxed too. Not just the rich business owners.

Offline Nessy

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2009, 09:01:11 PM »
   
 As far as I know, the wealthy do not use Medicare/cade. They can pay for better health care, get the better more expensive treatments.

 Capoital gains affects those who own stock, right? If so that is a good many elderly and pensioners that are taxed too. Not just the rich business owners.

Medicare is an entitlement program, so is social security. Bob Hope was famous for taking his first check despite the fact he didn't need it. It has nothing to do with how much you make you are entitled to the benefit and many of them take it. Medicaid, however, is not an entitlement program and you have to meet certain financial criteria to get it. You can be on Medicare and Medicaid at the same time, but they are two very different programs. The wealthy certainly use Medicare and then supplement that insurance with an insurance of their own or they just pay cash.

Social Security, another entitlement program and someone like Bob Hope pulled out a lot more money than he ever put into it because he lived so long and because Social Security is a regressive tax and has a cap so the rich don't pay after a certain amount.

Capital gains is a lot more complex than just what you earn on stocks, but it can apply to gains on stock. The point is if you had earned $100,000 dollars because of a trust fund you were given by your grandmother and someone else earned $100,000 through wages, the person with wages is going to pay a lot, a lot more in taxes. Capital gains is heavily tilted in favor of the wealthy. As for elderly, the number of poor making it to the status of elder is dwarfed by the wealthy, and the middle class is going to have a lot of their money tied up in things like mortgages. I don't think the 50 (just a number) bucks a month they might put in their 401ks is going to make up for the amount of money the wealthy has in stocks.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #66 on: April 20, 2009, 10:13:06 PM »

  If Warren Buffet wants to give more taxes he can. It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

 The wealthy do import more. Stuff made in companies in other natuions that employ people.

But not employ people in the United States. Thus my jobless recovery comment - there seems to be this assumption that parents will just let their children starve if we killed food stamps.

Quote
Plus they have (often) houses with staff to tend it. Many have several homes, in the city (high tax areas) and some in the countryside (generally low tax areas). Where I live the govenor of California has(had?) a residence on an island. No doubt fairly low property taxes were paid on it. Overall, the wealthy spend moree. They have the money for it, why shouldn't they spend some of it?

If the money stays in the US - either via bank or purchases such as those - or taxes - then there is really no issue. It is really hard to actually 'remove' wealth from the global economy unless someone is wealthy enough and chooses to contribute no productive value to society (me, hate pensions? >_>).

If wealth goes out of the country, however, that can become a problem - America is home to an obscene amount of wealth, of course, but only so much can leave before it becomes an economic burden. Every fifty thousand dollars worth of imports is one person's job for a year.

On small scales, this is easily coped with. For 2007 and 2008, however, the trade deficit was eight hundred billion dollars.

Anyone who wants a forecast of how Obama may be remembered may want to look at this graph.

It's rather soon to say, but if imports continue to fall and exports continue to rise, Obama will have to actually try to fail. Heaven help the Republicans if the US has a trade surplus month during his first year in office.

Quote
My main issue with taxes, income taxes, mostly is those who do not pay it demanding those who do (anyone wealthier than they are) pay more. I've been told by some on another board that they would not mind if the tax on wealth generated over about $200,000 was about 70-95%. Their arguements for it usually ended up in several ways. 1; they have more so they can 'afford' to be taxed higher. 2; they deswerve to be taxed more. 3; The money is better spent by the government on social programs than by the ones earning it. 4; THE MONEY THEY ARE NOT PAYING IS KILLING PEOPLE!! THEY NEED TO BE TAXED SO IT CAN GO INTO NEEDED PROGRAMS AND SERVICES THAT WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING!!

I don't think anyone here is advocating such taxes on such a low bracket. Even Eisenhower's 90% bracket, adjusted for inflation, comes out to ~50 million a year or something like that.

More to the point, however, look at #4 for a bit. A more appropriate example is say, Ecuador or Peru and their water crisis, but that does not mean the same situation does not apply in the United States.

The premise is simple.
1: If you refuse to provide
2: If you refuse to educate
3: People will attempt to provide for themselves and their families via those means that they understand.

Who pays for the jails?
Who pays for the extermination squad, if you prefer to kill them?
Who pays for their children? Or do you seriously believe this nation has the political will to eliminate millions of starving children?

Quote
Sorry about the cap lock, but that last arguement was exactly what I was told by someone who framed her arguement  that not paying more taxes was killing people and that everyone who was against raised taxed was, indirectly, a murdering bastard.

I would not call them murderers. I would call them shortsighted.

Quote
IF you raised rates, what would yopu raise them to? Would it be just the rich (in this case, the upper 50% of income payers) who would pay or would you be willing to extend the tax back down to the 45% or so that pay no income taxes?

Pay with what money?

Oh, sure. If you're willing to educate and provide proper support and regulation, this all becomes unnecessary. Ideally most people would pull in relatively egalitarian incomes, give or take. That all goes out the window when people lobby for their special exemptions, government contracts, and deregulation "You don't need to know what we put in your food, really!" People die. Nations fail.

Quote
Capoital gains affects those who own stock, right? If so that is a good many elderly and pensioners that are taxed too. Not just the rich business owners.

Yes, although it's taxed as income. Pensions are another anchor that chains the American economy. Fortunately we won't be saddled with them forever, but still, right now, they hurt.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #67 on: April 21, 2009, 03:33:21 AM »
The fiscal situation of the United States is hopeless.  There is far more debt at every level than is practical or even possible to pay back.  About the wisest course of action would be to write it all off, issue a new currency, and pass a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget.

Offline Ket

  • Electroslut Extraordinaire
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: You'll find me under the gun of a tattoo artist...
  • Gender: Female
  • The Onion Queen - crispy fried goodness
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 5
Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #68 on: April 21, 2009, 07:58:59 AM »
Good luck with that, Ty.  People will still make the same mistakes.  Not only that, but US currency is global.  Wiping our own slate totally clean would affect the rest of the world.  Besides, what debt do you choose to cut out?  Just government debt, or do you wipe away credit cards, mortgages, IRS debt, vehicle loans?  Who figures out what a new dollar would be worth?

We only screwed ourselves.  We (speaking in terms of the entire country) allowed big business to outsource overseas for cheaper labor, while the prices of said products and services remained the same or rose.  We took on loans that we could not afford to pay back, not really thinking what would happen when that interest rate rose, only concerned about having the nicest house at the moment.  We forgot how to plan for the future. 

As for the tax issue.  Seriously enough, my biggest pet peeve with income taxes comes during tax season.  I used to prepare taxes for extra income to pad my savings account with.  And I kid you not, the amount of people I saw receiving earned income credit, and the amount of such credit these people were receiving boggled my mind.  As one woman so eloquently put it.  "I have my two kids, and I only work just enough to make a certain amount a year so that I'm guaranteed to get back all of my taxes plus the maximum child tax credit and earned income credit."  This woman worked the system, was making a wage underneath poverty level, yet received a return of over $7,000.  And she did this every year.  That pisses me off!

Here I am, working my butt off for my $50 grand a year that sometimes doesn't even cover everything I need, trying my damnedest to put money in savings for my future, to be lucky to receive a couple of hundred back when I do my return.  Personally, it's not about the money, as long as I break even with the IRS I'm fine.  But to just watch that money I do pay in taxes being handed to someone who purposefully works the system for it?  Who I know will not put it towards her own education, or her children, or making a better life for herself and her family.  EFF THAT! 

I don't mind paying my 15% a year.  Sure part of that is because it comes right back to me in the form of my paycheck and benefits, but even if it didn't, I wouldn't mind.  What bothers me is people who pay nothing, and receive everything.  Free rides need to be over.   

Offline Zakharra

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #69 on: April 21, 2009, 08:47:39 AM »
But not employ people in the United States. Thus my jobless recovery comment - there seems to be this assumption that parents will just let their children starve if we killed food stamps.

 ?? Where did that assumption come from?

 
If the money stays in the US - either via bank or purchases such as those - or taxes - then there is really no issue. It is really hard to actually 'remove' wealth from the global economy unless someone is wealthy enough and chooses to contribute no productive value to society (me, hate pensions? >_>).

If wealth goes out of the country, however, that can become a problem - America is home to an obscene amount of wealth, of course, but only so much can leave before it becomes an economic burden. Every fifty thousand dollars worth of imports is one person's job for a year.

On small scales, this is easily coped with. For 2007 and 2008, however, the trade deficit was eight hundred billion dollars.

Anyone who wants a forecast of how Obama may be remembered may want to look at this graph.

It's rather soon to say, but if imports continue to fall and exports continue to rise, Obama will have to actually try to fail. Heaven help the Republicans if the US has a trade surplus month during his first year in office.

 Then they need to make it profitable for companies to stay IN the US. One of the main reasons they leave is because operating costs are too high to make a profit.  Money can flow both ways. The person that looses a job to outsourcing is free to look for another(hopefully better paying one). Jobs come and go.

 Obama will be remembered for his full term. We'll see how it ends first. Remember Bush's first year in office had him at a very high approval level. His first year was very well set.  If Obama has a healthy trade surpluss, and a lower deficit, then we'll see something, but if he ends his first term with higher taxes (which he will have to do to fund the massive spending he and the Demos are planning on doing) then he could end up quite hated.

 
I don't think anyone here is advocating such taxes on such a low bracket. Even Eisenhower's 90% bracket, adjusted for inflation, comes out to ~50 million a year or something like that.

More to the point, however, look at #4 for a bit. A more appropriate example is say, Ecuador or Peru and their water crisis, but that does not mean the same situation does not apply in the United States.

The premise is simple.
1: If you refuse to provide
2: If you refuse to educate
3: People will attempt to provide for themselves and their families via those means that they understand.

Who pays for the jails?
Who pays for the extermination squad, if you prefer to kill them?
Who pays for their children? Or do you seriously believe this nation has the political will to eliminate millions of starving children?

  70-90% is a low bracket? Who pays for those things? Tax payers. Now there are more taxes than just the income taxes, but a huge volume of wealth comes in via income taxes, which pays for a lot. If the income tax burden is increasingly laid on the wealthy, while the lower and middle class skate out from under it, the burdoe will be paid in an unfair amount. ie, a minority supporting the majority. Hardly fair or sustainable.


 
I would not call them murderers. I would call them shortsighted.

 Shortsided for not wanting to pay more taxes than they do now? For not wanting to pay an increasing amount of the tax burden? How has not paying taxes been linked to people dying?

 
Pay with what money?

Oh, sure. If you're willing to educate and provide proper support and regulation, this all becomes unnecessary. Ideally most people would pull in relatively egalitarian incomes, give or take. That all goes out the window when people lobby for their special exemptions, government contracts, and deregulation "You don't need to know what we put in your food, really!" People die. Nations fail.

 The wealthy tend to be better educated and trained in the area they work in. Most people have no real idea of the stress and work that is involved in building and/or running a multi million/billion $ company. They also have the support system to work at that level too. The regulation is mostly governments responsibility and bad or over made regulations can lead to a bad situation as well as too little regulation.

 People lobby for their interests all the time. The wealthy and poor, groups of people and businesses all have lobbyists.

 
Yes, although it's taxed as income. Pensions are another anchor that chains the American economy. Fortunately we won't be saddled with them forever, but still, right now, they hurt.

 Can you explain that further?

Offline Zakharra

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #70 on: April 21, 2009, 08:55:27 AM »
I don't mind paying my 15% a year.  Sure part of that is because it comes right back to me in the form of my paycheck and benefits, but even if it didn't, I wouldn't mind.  What bothers me is people who pay nothing, and receive everything.  Free rides need to be over.

 That's it exactly! Those who do not pay income taxes, especially at the low end of the income levels are getting more than they sometimes make and are regularly promised (mostly by Democrats) more in the way of benefits. that mentality is one of expecting, demanding even, such benefits. As if they are owed them or it's a right for them to get it.

 They are getting something for nothing since they don't pay into the system.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #71 on: April 21, 2009, 09:35:17 AM »
?? Where did that assumption come from?

You said so yourself - imports employ people in other countries.

Quote
Then they need to make it profitable for companies to stay IN the US. One of the main reasons they leave is because operating costs are too high to make a profit.  Money can flow both ways. The person that looses a job to outsourcing is free to look for another(hopefully better paying one). Jobs come and go.

The reasons are manifold. Tax incentives for outsourcing jobs, a horrible mess of import/export regulations, but we also have environmental and health regulations. Tainted milk, poison toy paint, bad dog food - that isn't supposed to fly in the US, but I imagine mandating safety regulations for imports may put a damper on some things.

That things need to be fixed is a given, but having safety nets promotes stability. No food stamp program would make for riots, at this point.

Quote
Obama will be remembered for his full term. We'll see how it ends first. Remember Bush's first year in office had him at a very high approval level. His first year was very well set.  If Obama has a healthy trade surpluss, and a lower deficit, then we'll see something, but if he ends his first term with higher taxes (which he will have to do to fund the massive spending he and the Demos are planning on doing) then he could end up quite hated.

Massive spending? What was the Iraq war then?

The fact of the matter is, quite a few rich are prepared and willing to pay higher taxes to help get us out of this mess. Those that aren't make up a fraction of the population and are divided against themselves - libertarians, corporatists, and the religious right.
 
Quote
70-90% is a low bracket? Who pays for those things? Tax payers. Now there are more taxes than just the income taxes, but a huge volume of wealth comes in via income taxes, which pays for a lot. If the income tax burden is increasingly laid on the wealthy, while the lower and middle class skate out from under it, the burdoe will be paid in an unfair amount. ie, a minority supporting the majority. Hardly fair or sustainable.

It may not be fair.

It sustained America for fifty years, coming out of the biggest depression of the century and the second biggest in American history.

ONLY when the regulations and high-tax brackets were repealed did America's economy begin to falter.

America's economy was never stronger on the global scale of things than when the top tax bracket was at its highest.

Guess where the top tax bracket resides at the two points in modern history when the American economy is at its weakest?
 
Quote
Shortsided for not wanting to pay more taxes than they do now? For not wanting to pay an increasing amount of the tax burden? How has not paying taxes been linked to people dying?

You didn't bother to try to understand my post, did you?

How does providing food stamps not save lives? How does providing public healthcare not save lives? How does providing for public safety not save lives? How does providing for national defense not save lives? How does the CDC not save lives? How does the National Weather Service not save lives? How does tsunami preparedness not save lives? How does hurricane preparedness not save lives? How does volcano monitoring not save lives?

Some of those can be 'safely' defunded. It takes quite the idiot, however, to tell twenty million parents that their children don't deserve to eat.

Because their response is not going to be 'roll over and die'.

Quote
The wealthy tend to be better educated and trained in the area they work in. Most people have no real idea of the stress and work that is involved in building and/or running a multi million/billion $ company. They also have the support system to work at that level too. The regulation is mostly governments responsibility and bad or over made regulations can lead to a bad situation as well as too little regulation.

What overregulation has been responsible for making a complete wreck of the global economy three times? I'm referring to the current crisis, the Great Depression and the credit freeze of the 1870's.

Quote
People lobby for their interests all the time. The wealthy and poor, groups of people and businesses all have lobbyists.

Yeah, whose are better funded?

Though this seems to be a bit of an eye opener for a lot of people.

Quote
Can you explain that further?

Pensions - granting resources to non-productive individuals. 'Free rides'. Does not matter how you spin it, an economy can only handle so much of that. It is part of the reason for the current crisis on two levels - one being the concentration of wealth, but a major factor is also pensions.

Social Security needs a rethink but it's a surprisingly well thought out program. Pensions are rarely so.

Offline Will

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #72 on: April 21, 2009, 09:44:35 AM »
I won't deny that there are people who work the system, but I have to believe they're in the minority.  I agree that they should be dealt with in any way possible, as long as it doesn't involve denying people that deserve those credits.

I've never not gotten a return on my income taxes, and I receive the earned income credit.  Even with that it's a struggle to meet needs sometimes.  So yeah, we can talk about fairness all we want, but all I know is that I really can't afford to pay much more.  That's the bottom line.  And I'm not in massive self-inflicted debt, either.

And you want to talk about wealthy people spending more?  Maybe not as a percentage.  I save nothing.  I spend 100% of my income; I have no choice.  Now I know that it's still not that much as a solid dollar amount, but there are a massive number of people in my position.  It adds up.

Finally, as has been said before and not really responded to, wealthy people have enough money to hire experts to find them loopholes.  They can afford to live wherever they pay the least property taxes regardless of where their employment is based.  There are many ways that they can actively reduce their tax burden.  So, simply saying that their tax rate is too high is a little misleading.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 09:47:24 AM by Will1984 »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #73 on: April 21, 2009, 09:51:12 AM »
I might then suggest taxing everyone something even if they earned $1 in a given year. And I would eliminate the earned income credit. Of course I would advocate chopping government down to size and make taxes as low as possible say 1-10% of ones income. So that the working poor might only have a light tax burden of 1 or 2% and the people earning $1,000,000 or more 10%. I'm not overly religious but if God is happy with a tithe so should any mortal government. I would rather use my money to aid charities I liked and help that way over the Federal government doing that. Local and state governments at least have fair cause to tax since the Constitution of the United States left many powers to the states.

As for paying off the national debt its likely going to be hard we will need to bring in maybe 10% more income than the government spends and pay them down for a long time. But its better than doing nothing at least by running the government to that point of efficiency would mean to me a great deal.

And I don't buy the people will starve without the almighty Federal government the Great Depression showed special care may be needed for a time for people. But who often took care of parents before that point their children if the parents needed a place to live or were sick or had little money. And I have yet to see real numbers as to how many children were really starving in 1900 in the US. I would argue the Great Depression did demand a short term government response only not these large systemic changes such as social security. If the government had a light hand in regulations, interference in states duties and when the did fund a program had to also find a way to pay for it we would be fine now. Low taxes, more personal responsibility and likely a better economy since the government wouldn't regulate it to death.


Offline Will

Re: Teabag Obama!
« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2009, 09:56:59 AM »
No, I don't think people would starve without federal assistance either.  I may easily be mistaken, but I think that's more or less what Vekseid meant.  People will get what they need, one way or another.  It just might not be pretty.

So, if they earn a dollar, what then?  They get taxed a dime?  It costs the government a lot more than a dime to process each person's taxes every year.  Not exactly calling for smaller government, that.