Information has to be very incorrect. (New Cat's Eye)
quote:
Is this information not correct:
quote: The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income over $138,031, pay about 70.6 percent of federal income taxes.
The bottom 50 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted gross income of $39,275 or less, pay 2.83 percent of federal income taxes. sauce
That has to be incorrect.
Tax cuts for lower income people (at both the federal and state level) tend to be very expensive.
The federal income tax revenue is somewhere between $1.5 and $2 trillion per year, and that would mean the bottom 50% pay no more than $50 billion a year nationally.
The cost for doubling the standard deduction from $6000 to $12000 would be $70 billion a year.
The top 1% got their Bush Tax Cuts repealed (the cut from 39.6% down to 35%) and it was only about $660 billion taken off from the $4.8 trillion cost over 10 years from 2014-2023.
The biggest problem is that INCOME tax increases on just the wealthy don't amount to very much in terms of revenue.
EDIT: Even if the total 39.6 is the actual percentage paid by the wealthy (and we know that it is far lower but lets ignore that fact) then (40 divided by 5 would = 8) 8 times $70 billion (the yearly cost of the 4.6%) would be $560 billion. That would be less than 39% right there.
I consider myself fairly left in Canada, which would be left of left in the US. But I don't believe in taxing the rich. I believe in paying the poor enough that they can afford to pay the taxes.
I'm pretty much on the left of the Conservative Party in the "frozen wasteland" (although not nearly so frozen here as where you are ) and I have a hunch that there is one policy that we could agree on. I have always favoured a "Guaranteed Annual Income" that would replace the majority of our social welfare programs.
It wouldn't be perfect but it would be far more effective than the myriad collection of existing programs. It would more accurately target those in need and and give help on a more timely basis. It would also be designed to not discourage people from getting a job. In many cases under our current plans people have less money in their jeans after they get a job and come off social assistance. The problem is of course that it is far more simple and would require fewer bureaucrats to run it than what we have currently. That alone will ensure that the idea will never see the light of day.
Did you read the other day how our wonderful government spent 220,000.00 to design the cover for the latest financial statement. What would have pleased me is a plain white cover with the word "Financial Statement" written on it. I would have given them that design for nothing.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Sadly, the Democrats can't articulate this to save their life. That is one of the most baffling things I have seen is that many of the Democrat policies are viewed in a favorable light by the majority populace. However, the Dems really need to learn how to do better marketing. The Republicans are very adept at spin and effective communication.
Agreed. Even after Bernie Sanders demonstrated their popularity and appeal, the DNC is doing their best to ostracize, demonize and purge the party of Berniecrats.
I think the main issue is Republicans like to beat the drum of 'trickle down economics' and constantly use that phrase to persuade the general populace that if higher taxes for the rich are enacted, it will mean job losses for the middle class. The extremely simple Dem response to this should be: rich people don't use their own incomes to pay salaries. Salaries are paid through corporations and LLCs. Raising taxes on some rich asshole will do NOTHING to the salaries or jobs of working class middle income Americans. Jobs and salaries are driven by supply/demand for goods and services and the profit from those transactions are what pays salaries.
The dems need to articulate that what happens in every economy is that income trickles up, and that this was most evident in the mortgage failure fiasco, when failure at the bottom toppled all the way to the top; and wherever minimum wages were raised that the local economy grew, significantly, and that unemployement went down (because more people with money to spend generate demand that generates jobs).
We've tried the "trickle down" fiasco to varying degrees since Reagan, and yet jobs and wages (especially wages) have remained virtually static. That it doesn't work should be blindingly obvious: the mortgages failed at the bottom of the economic levels because "trickle down" never got there.
If someone on the Dem side could, once and for all, articulate the above in a manner that the people can understand, it will go a long way towards being able to enact more reasonable services and decrease the massive wealth divide in our country.
It won't be the DNC. It has to come from the left wing of the party, the progressives and social democrats.
It wouldn't be perfect but it would be far more effective than the myriad collection of existing programs.
I think the myriad collection of programs is one of our biggest problems. Our money is taxed coming in and going out and there are separate bureaucracies for each, in Ottawa and in the provinces. I'd like to see people taxed once on their income and all the other taxes scrapped. But then it would be so simple that we could actually see whether our taxes were going up or down.
What taxes are you talking about? Federal income taxes?
And state taxes that are based on the federal return numbers.
Is this information not correct:
That information confuses the total amounts paid by the groups with what the individuals actually pay, what their tax rates are .
The top 1 percent of income earners, those having an adjusted annual gross income of $480,930 or higher, pay about 39 percent of federal income taxes.
What is their tax rate?
Under Eisenhower the top tax rate was 70% AND they had fewer loop holes. Is the current top rate more or less than 70%? More or Less (in fact it is about 1/2 the 1960 rates).
This shows changes for 1960 to 2004:
People in the middle 60% pay more, people in the top 10% pay less so tax burden has been shifted from the top to the middle (that's most of us).
The people in the bottom 40% pay about the same until 1994 and then that drops, but this doesn't show the effect of cut social services that impact the poorest the most.
That information confuses the total amounts paid by the groups with what the individuals actually pay, what their tax rates are.
But the rate doesn't tell you how much is paid.
The context was who was paying for it and you replied that there has been a massive shift in taxes from the rich to the middle class and poor.
It looks like the rich are still paying for most of it even if their rates have gone down.
People in the middle 60% pay more, people in the top 10% pay less so tax burden has been shifted from the top to the middle (that's most of us).
And still, the top ten percent are paying 70% of the federal income taxes and the bottom fifty percent are paying 3% of them.
So when you say a "massive shift" you are not talking about how much is being paid.
Now, you're talking about the "burden" of the taxes in the context of the percentage of income that is taxed and how those rates have changed - and calling that the massive shift.
But the changes in the rates doesn't tell you how much is actually being paid.
So the question of who is paying for it isn't answered - and calling the change in rates a massive shift from one to the other is spin.
Updated 12:39 PM ET, Tue September 27, 2016 Trump: I'm 'smart' for paying no taxes
Now Playing Trump: I'm 'smart' for...
Trump: I'm 'smart' for paying no taxes 00:51 Story highlights
Trump said avoidance of paying taxes shows he's a successful businessman Though he hasn't released his tax returns
Washington (CNN)When Hillary Clinton said that her Republican rival Donald Trump had paid no federal income tax in some years, Trump didn't deny it. In fact, he said: "That makes me smart." After the debate, he told CNN's Jim Acosta: "Of course I've paid federal taxes."
Clinton was pressing Trump for not releasing his tax returns for public scrutiny. Trump has said he won't release his tax returns until a routine audit is complete, though every major party presidential candidate over the past 40 years have released tax returns. "There is something he is hiding," Clinton said of Trump during the debate. "Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax," she said. "That makes me smart," Trump said.
So kiddos just know our Cheeto and Chief does not think the rich should pay taxes because ya know they are smart.
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
So effin what? -- that wasn't my argument. Tax plans whether they cut some taxes or increase some taxes are what affects individuals, not large amorphous poorly-defined groups
The context was who was paying for it and you replied that there has been a massive shift in taxes from the rich to the middle class and poor.
Precisely: "in taxes" -- not in amounts paid as a group.
And there has been. The tax rates show what the taxes a taxable income level pays, and to be accurate we would have to include all the tax loopholes that make taxable significantly less for rich people than their actual income, plus some income is taxed at a different rate on things like dividend and capital gains/losses -- things that generally do not apply to poor people. Plus off-shore tax havens, etc etc etc ... analysis of which shows that rich people are paying significantly less taxes than they should.
Then on the poor side we would have to include all income supplements from welfare to housing assistance to medicaid, etc to see their total benefits. As those assistance levels are cut that effectively taxes the poor more to replace those costs.
You would really need to quantify "take-home" income to compare apples and oranges.
So when you say a "massive shift" you are not talking about how much is being paid.
Irrelevant. You are lumping people into large amorphous poorly-defined groups rather than looking at the impact on the individuals.
But the changes in the rates doesn't tell you how much is actually being paid.
Irrelevant. The tax rate DOES tell you how it impacts the individuals. That is the point at hand.
So the question of who is paying for it isn't answered - and calling the change in rates a massive shift from one to the other is spin.
No, it is telling you the impact on the individuals: poor and middle income people are paying more and getting less while the rich are paying less and getting more.
It looks like the rich are still paying for most of it even if their rates have gone down.
In a progressive tax system that is the purpose, to shift the tax burden to those that most benefit from the economy.
This trickle-down hoax has done nothing to improve the economy or create jobs. It's a fraud designed to shift wealth from the poor to the rich, and it has been successful at doing that.
Everywhere a minimum wage has been increased the unemployment goes down and the local economy improves.
In addition saying that "group A" pays more than "group B" says nothing about whether or not the taxes have been shifted from the rich to the poor -- it is a non-sequitur argument, a red-herring, a dodge.
When I read your argument in context, it looked like you were saying that the amount of taxes being paid was shifted from the rich to the middle class and poor.
It turns out that isn't true, and that isn't what you were attempting to say. Instead, you were talking about the changes in the percentage of income that is tax, but that doesn't address the question of who is paying for it.
Precisely: "in taxes" -- not in amounts paid as a group.
And there has been. The tax rates show what the taxes a taxable income level pays, and to be accurate we would have to include all the tax loopholes that make taxable significantly less for rich people than their actual income, plus some income is taxed at a different rate on things like dividend and capital gains/losses -- things that generally do not apply to poor people. Plus off-shore tax havens, etc etc etc ... analysis of which shows that rich people are paying significantly less taxes than they should.
Then on the poor side we would have to include all income supplements from welfare to housing assistance to medicaid, etc to see their total benefits. As those assistance levels are cut that effectively taxes the poor more to replace those costs.
You would really need to quantify "take-home" income to compare apples and oranges.
And yet, the rich pay 70% to the others' 3%.
No, it is telling you the impact on the individuals: poor and middle income people are paying more and getting less while the rich are paying less and getting more.
And yet, in you look at federal income taxes the rich are still footing the bill.
This "massive shift" hasn't changed that.
When you look at which group is doing the paying, there hasn't been a shift that can be called massive.
When I read your argument in context, it looked like you were saying that the amount of taxes being paid was shifted from the rich to the middle class and poor.
It turns out that isn't true, and that isn't what you were attempting to say. Instead, you were talking about the changes in the percentage of income that is tax, but that doesn't address the question of who is paying for it.
What groups are paying what total amount is talking about totals, I'm talking about deltas.
The rich are paying substantially less than previously -- that deficit means someone else takes up the slack, in higher taxed, in lost benefits and in a larger national debt -- and that means the poor and middle class pay more while the rich pay less.
"More" and "Less" are terms signifying deltas
And yet, the rich pay 70% to the others' 3%.
So effin what? What is the DELTA between now and, say 1960?
This "massive shift" hasn't changed that.
So effin what? Are they paying More Less now than before?
When you look at which group is doing the paying, there hasn't been a shift that can be called massive.
You massive shift takes too much spin to see.
The rich are now paying half what they paid before, that in my book qualifies with spades as a MASSIVE shift.
If you want to talk about how much each group should be paying as a whole, that is a totally different argument. One designed to hide or dodge the FACT that the rich are now paying about 1/2 what they paid in 1960 and that means an increase in our taxes.
What groups are paying what total amount is talking about totals, I'm talking about deltas.
Okay, I'm talking about totals.
The rich are now paying half what they paid before, that in my book qualifies with spades as a MASSIVE shift.
Well, it depends. Hypothetically, the rate can decrease while the total amount increases if the income increases enough.
You be talking about the rate going down when the result was that they paid more in total.
It doesn't really matter to me how much the rate has changed since 1960. That the top 10% are paying 70% of the federal income taxes doesn't look like a problem of the poor and middle class having those taxes shifted to them. Especially when the bottom 50% are only paying 3% of the federal income taxes.
If the rich are paying the vast majority of a tax, then it doesn't make sense to say that the tax has been shifted to another group.
Sure, the rates have changed, but how much are people actually paying?
Turns out, if you look at federal income taxes, the rich are paying the bulk of them. They have not been shifted to the poor and middle class.
It doesn't really matter to me how much the rate has changed since 1960. That the top 10% are paying 70% of the federal income taxes doesn't look like a problem of the poor and middle class having those taxes shifted to them. Especially when the bottom 50% are only paying 3% of the federal income taxes.
I think there is something to be said for looking at the larger picture and not just at tax rates. The amount of inequality is getting pretty bad where the top 10% has 76% of the wealth, and that number is expected to get even worse as time moves on.
At the same time, things that used to be covered by taxes are not covered in the same way. In 1960, a middle class family could easily could afford a degree from a state university. Now? It is much more common for a kid from a middle class family to leave school with $25,000 or more of debt, if they are lucky. Health care? That has skyrocketed, and benefits continue to decline. What tax cuts have done is push more of an economic burden onto the middle class, at least in my poorly informed economic opinion.
quote:
If the rich are paying the vast majority of a tax, then it doesn't make sense to say that the tax has been shifted to another group.
Try looking at it from a different angle - one more important to individuals - the proportion of income taken in tax. Maybe you will see the problem then.
) and I have a hunch that there is one policy that we could agree on. I have always favoured a "Guaranteed Annual Income" that would replace the majority of our social welfare programs.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
