By Phaedrus
#320983
In determing the total distribution of income and tax burden, I think you need to consider a few other aspects.

1. The tax charts presented is for earned income. The wealthiest may have no earned income, or only a small percentage of their total income is derived from earnings. Much of their earnings may come from investment income which is taxed at a lower rate.

2. While the earned income tax system is progressive, the sales tax and social security payments are regressive in that lower income individuals pay a larger proportion of their income.

3. Higher income earners also have RSPs, healthcare payments and mortgage interest payments that are sheltered from tax. At the lower end are people without savings, healthcare or owned homes.
By coincollector
#320984
Phaedrus wrote:In determing the total distribution of income and tax burden, I think you need to consider a few other aspects.

1. The tax charts presented is for earned income. The wealthiest may have no earned income, or only a small percentage of their total income is derived from earnings. Much of their earnings may come from investment income which is taxed at a lower rate.

2. While the earned income tax system is progressive, the sales tax and social security payments are regressive in that lower income individuals pay a larger proportion of their income.

3. Higher income earners also have RSPs, healthcare payments and mortgage interest payments that are sheltered from tax. At the lower end are people without savings, healthcare or owned homes.


All interesting points. Perhaps AGI vs income tax paid is step in the right direction but not yet the best quantities to use for comparison.

What measures of income and taxation can be considered such that, if their percentage distributions align, we can say "yep, that's fair"? Gross income versus total tax paid (federal + state + local + FICA + sales + ...)? Assembling that data would be a nightmare...
#320985
coincollector wrote:
Phaedrus wrote:In determing the total distribution of income and tax burden, I think you need to consider a few other aspects.

1. The tax charts presented is for earned income. The wealthiest may have no earned income, or only a small percentage of their total income is derived from earnings. Much of their earnings may come from investment income which is taxed at a lower rate.

2. While the earned income tax system is progressive, the sales tax and social security payments are regressive in that lower income individuals pay a larger proportion of their income.

3. Higher income earners also have RSPs, healthcare payments and mortgage interest payments that are sheltered from tax. At the lower end are people without savings, healthcare or owned homes.


All interesting points. Perhaps AGI vs income tax paid is step in the right direction but not yet the best quantities to use for comparison.

What measures of income and taxation can be considered such that, if their percentage distributions align, we can say "yep, that's fair"? Gross income versus total tax paid (federal + state + local + FICA + sales + ...)? Assembling that data would be a nightmare...


You can look at this at every angle; upside down or right side up. The end result is the same. The top 25% of wage earners in this country pay about 85% of all income taxes collected. The bottom 50% only pay about 3%. The top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes collected. The numbers are what they are.

There is a very specific reason I brought this up. The specific context was to answer Jason747. His/her entire premise is flawed. In fact, a flat out lie. The premise of Jason747 is that the wealthy are getting a free tax ride in this country while the poor are getting screwed. The fact is, the wealthy are paying most of the tax bill. The poor benefit from the taxes paid by the wealthy. This demonization of the wealthy is an old social warefare tactic that has been used by Socialist/Communist/Progressives since their inception.

I have a personal aquaintance who is worth over 1 million+, local to our area. I don't know exactly how much he is worth, but I know he is well off. Good guy, self made, and successful in his business. He told me he pays $60,000/year in property taxes alone.

I am so sick and tired of hearing the same old whine about the rich not paying their fair share. The rich pay plenty! Most of the tab to be truthful! This is one of the biggest lies spread by the Progressive Left. Also, being rich is only bad if you are a Republican. John Kerry, John Edwards, Michael Moore, the Kennedys, the Clintons, Hollywood Celebrities, even now the Obamas get to have and earn as much as they want while telling the rest of us to sacrifice, and dig deeper. I'm so sick of hearing it!
By Turnpike
#320987
You can debate this until both sides are blue in the face. An important thing to remember about the wealthy, not the rich, the wealthy. They can live anywhere, and in the last 7 months some of your wealthy have left the United States, some have move to Ireland. Why, they're not heavily taxed there, and in the move they took their money with them so that it would be safe. Large some of cash transfers have helped to slowed the economy down a bit. How many poor people have any of us ever worked for? Myself, I have never worked for anyone who was poorer them myself. If anyone thinks that they can tax the wealthy/rich, you cannot. All they do is raise the price of the items they are selling on to the consumer. So who really is being taxed.
By Phaedrus
#320988
The argument is that corporate taxes get passed on to the consumer, not individual income taxes. The degree to which corporations can pass on taxes depends on the competitiveness of the industry. A company that faces international competition cannot readily pass along the tax.

Then the issue becomes whether the tax makes our industries relatively uncompetitive. Perhaps, but we can't just keep racing to the bottom on government services and worker pay. My personal feeling is that we should eliminate income taxes in favor of sales taxes with rebates to lower income workers who apply for them. The rebate would be based on proven income.
By Turnpike
#320989
That may be the argument. However, I personally know some people in the category of very rich. A CEO of a company has the prerogative to alter product line pricing to off set taxes. This is happening, and has happened. They also reduce the amount of product per package and either leaving the price the same, or slightly raising the price. This is also tax induced inflation. If anyone thinks the two are a different subject, you are sadly mistaken. One of the people I use to ride with was Malcolm Forbes, when he was alive. I met a lot of people through this connection. This used to be discussed around the lunch table.

I agree with the removal of income tax, and installing sales tax. I don't agree with a rebates for lower income. A change could include a larger tax on luxury items as is now, but it could be modified to include some of the other luxury items and services not covered.

To state again, I never worked for a lower income person/company. These people can move, take their money, open corporate head quarters, and manufacturing in a foreign country, then sell the product in the US, and not change their citizen ship, just modifying their citizenship. This has happened, and is happening.
By Phaedrus
#320990
As I said you, can only influence prices based on competition. If you can easily alter prices to suit your income, then you are in a position of market power.

Yes, you can cut corners and cheapen the product, but that is not good business. I'm sorry you were hanging out with such conniving people who cared more about their profits than either the company or the constomers.
#335653
Leginald wrote:
Jason747 wrote:Okay, schools back in kiddies.

1. There were 80,000 at the rally, not 500,000.


2. Beck is a conman. Just google him to see he is an alcoholic and divorcee who failed at everything. He hit upon telling wanna bes like you what they want to hear. There is not a true religious bone in his body, never has been. He is getting paid, good for him. He is an actor and you are fools.

3. The "left" actually has free thinkers. So yes, they are pushing Obama and not going to be blind partisans like the right. The right are all sheep who are afraid to toot if it would anger Rush.

4. Our families men, like every Mass Democrat I know, served in the military, no divorces, no arrests, no DUIs. We will vote for a Repub like Brown if he seems honest, we are not sheep to anyone like you are supporting dumbos like Beck and Palin. Honest hard working yankees who go to church and actually live the honest life....unlike every right wing wanna be who is actually an alcoholic, pill popping, in the closet fem, draft dodger like Rush and Beck and Ashcroft and Cheney and on and on.

Now once again, return to you fantasy bizarro world where the right wing would know morals and Jesus if it bit them in the arse. Enjoy.


Wow. Bravo is all I can say.


Well that is odd Leginald! According to you Sara Palin has millions of supporters. You said so yourself on GoAston the following about Sara Palin:

Really? I know you're playing dumb with this. Anyone who commands the attention (and the votes) of millions of Americans can surely be considered "in a position of power".
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=17085&start=45

Sara Palin was at the Glen Beck restoring honor rally 8/28/10. Are you saying millions of her supporters stayed home?