sd'sker Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 So many generalities in one short post: 1) My point is that it is not regressive as you keep claiming. 2) In your book, the "absolute least" is nearly half? 3) Do you know what the income level is of the top of that 47%? 1.what is it then, we keep explaining how in effect it is regressive, and you just reply with a simple 'no it is not'. then what is it? 2.13% is nearly half? 3. your 47% is a convenient, yet tired, talking point. maybe you should do some research. CHART OF THE DAY: The ‘47 Percent’ Pay Their Fair Share Conservatives are continuing their counter-protest against the so-called “47 percent.” Specifically, that’s the share of recession-era households that pay no federal income taxes. Most of them pay payroll taxes and other federal taxes (not to mention state taxes), but Republicans have chosen to depict them as the free-riding half of the country. The rest has come from corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and various other taxes. To a surprising extent, the story of the last six decades is one of a shrinking burden on big business, and a growing burden on workers — the bulk of the “47 percent”. Since 1950, regressive payroll taxes have grown to comprise over one-third of federal revenues — they used to comprise about one-tenth. For corporate income taxes, it’s just the opposite — what used to provide the Treasury over a quarter of its revenue now provides just over 10 percent. 2 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 I don't recall every saying that was the only data you could use. Any data you can find would be fine with me. Just prove your argument. Top 1% - 36.7% Top 5% - 58.7% Top 10% - 70.5% Bottom 50% - 2.25% How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be? "how can that possibly be considered regressive." That's the data I've been talking about this whole time because it's specifically what you asked about. Why would you give useless data and then expect someone to go hunting after your answer? I never claimed to have an argument on whether they're regressive, which is something I've already stated in previous posts. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Did you just quote Rachel Maddow facts & figures? Here we go.... Looks like it's Steve Benen's graph. The link is Maddow. You've unleashed hell now. Don't blame me . . . I was just helping out sd'sker with the graph. I wouldn't dare do anything that controversial. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 why should you not have to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy? the stock market is a scam. it is not based on the value of a company or its production. it is based on speculation and artificial forces. when oil companies do operate at a loss, they get to write that off. that is the incentive. you either profit or write-off your loses. are most hospitals not public or non-profit? and if it is private, usually it is insanely profitable. Just a little note of clarification about "writing off" losses. I am guessing that many of you have heard this term numerous times but have never had the opportunity to "write off" a loss. Let me tell you how that works, because unfortunately I know something about it, my business has experienced losses (no profits) both of the last 2 years. There is no "write off". There is no benefit whatsoever that I can see. The losses in my business come directly out of my business and/or personal monies (savings, retirement, whereever I can find to pull money from to keep the company operating. Sure, I didn't get taxed on the non-existant profit but that is not a benefit anyone else does not enjoy. Think of it like your $75K per year job all of sudden pays you $0 per year. That is the same way it works with my business. There is no "write off" or hidden benefit. It is simply less or no income. The mystical "write off" is just that, it doesn't exist. And, anyone who thinks that situation does not get passed on in the form of fewer jobs for others is fooling themselves. When we are losing money or not profiting, everything gets tightened up. We do not hire (in fact we cut back hours and possibly lay people off) and we cut back on all expenses that we can. Those things take money out of the economy. You aren't thinking too hard if you really think higher income people, who are in control of companies, do not create jobs or grease the wheels of the economy with extra money they have that is not being taxed. The goal for rich people is to make themselves richer. You don't get richer by burying money in the backyard. You have to invest it and get it working for you to make more. It is disengenious and flat out wrong to say that rich people do not use their spare money in a way that benefits the economy. What helps more; 20 low income persons buying a couple hundred dollars more of groceries or a higher income person investing in a $1M dollar building and hiring 20 more workers? ar addressed your second part pretty well. as for your first, that was my point though. you are only taxed on what you earn. if you have enough money, you can get big deductions for losses, but still make a lot of money. You really don't know how this works do you? He explained it very well and then you come back and say the same thing. For the record, there are a very large number of small to medium sized companies that aren't owned by extremely wealthy people. They can't just have a loss and it's no big deal. The poster you quoted talks about this how those losses come right out of his own pocket. Sure...if you don't make money, you don't pay taxes. Hey...everyone...all these unemployeed people are getting huge tax breaks. They aren't earning money and so they aren't paying taxes. please, tell me. what do i not understand? i have not been talking about small businesses, i have been talking about romney and those in his bracket. i thought that is what we were all talking about. but since you put your comment on the record, it is duly noted. I don't care what business you are in, you need to make money. You act like losing money for these guys is no big deal because they can just right it off. I personally know a guy who is worth over a billion dollars. Yes, that isn't a typo. He lives in Seattle (no, not that guy) and owns a business in my industry. His business that I compete with has never made money. I know for a fact he is extremely frustrated about it and is trying to do everything he can to fix it or it will be shut down. He isn't going to sit there and lose money every year even though he can write it off. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 I don't care what business you are in, you need to make money. You act like losing money for these guys is no big deal because they can just right it off. I personally know a guy who is worth over a billion dollars. Yes, that isn't a typo. He lives in Seattle (no, not that guy) and owns a business in my industry. His business that I compete with has never made money. I know for a fact he is extremely frustrated about it and is trying to do everything he can to fix it or it will be shut down. He isn't going to sit there and lose money every year even though he can write it off. i think we are at an impasse. i will take at least half of the responsibility. Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 i think we are at an impasse. HuskerBoard rules prohibit the use of iochane powder to resolve impasses. FYI. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 i think we are at an impasse. HuskerBoard rules prohibit the use of iochane powder to resolve impasses. FYI. but i have finally developed an immunity. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 One of my all-time favorite movies. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 One of my all-time favorite movies. Inconceivable! 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Stop that rhyming now, I mean it! Anybody want a peanut? I was probably 8-12 the first time I watched it and I thought that line was so funny I used to rewind to hear it over and over again. Link to comment
lo country Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Here is a quick question for everyone. If you could lawfully pay less taxes would you do it? If you made enough money that you could live on the interest alone would you? If you made enough money on stocks and dividends would you not take a salary so that your taxes would be say 15% vs 35% or more. I would do it in a heart beat. So is everyone bent because he won't release his taxes or because he is rich enough to lawfully avoid them. Ironically, it it the same tax laws and exemptions that allow approx 50% of Americans to pay no taxes. You want to get serious, take away all the exemptions that help lower income, married couples, elderly, those with children etc... Everyone always wants to make "the other guy Pay", but don't mess with my gravy train. An enlightening read from a non-conservative that really explains why folks pay no Fed tax. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-do-half-of-all-americans-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/2011/07/11/gIQA8olBuI_blog.html Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 If the wealthy bribed, cajoled, bought or otherwise influenced lawmakers so that they changed the law to say it's legal for them to sleep with your wife once a month, would you have a problem with that? That's what's going on here. What they're doing is legal, but it shouldn't be. The fact that some lawmakers have made some really poor choices (choices that benefit them very, very much, by the way) shouldn't be OK with the American people. Link to comment
lo country Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 If the wealthy bribed, cajoled, bought or otherwise influenced lawmakers so that they changed the law to say it's legal for them to sleep with your wife once a month, would you have a problem with that? That's what's going on here. What they're doing is legal, but it shouldn't be. The fact that some lawmakers have made some really poor choices (choices that benefit them very, very much, by the way) shouldn't be OK with the American people. The problem is, everyone wants bash the Republicans as the party of the rich, but I haven't seen Dems jumping in to solve the tax issues or fraud with medicade/medicare/SS fraud etc.....They are no better, but folks put one group on a pedestal and see the other as having no wrong. The idea of "redistributing the wealth" is a socialist idea. It is straight up BS. Call it like it is, but it is Socialism plain and simple. Cut fraud, cut frigging spending, but quit trying to lay the blame of the economy at the foot of the wealthy. Nor should people who pay no taxes get "earned" income credits. That is the problem. You can't cherry pick the crap that you feel is "wrong". The whole tax code is jacked up. people only want to deal with the parts that do not effect them. I have kids, I do not want to give up the child tax credit. Would it mean more money for the govt, absolutely. Do I want that money for me because I "deserve" it. Absolutely. Same with farmers, the drought has killed the crops and they get tax breaks. Or here, breaks to not plant tobacco. Anyone want to give that back? Of course not. I am not wanting to pay more if the idiots in DC continue to spend more. I do not want to continue to pay into SS if there is no guarantee to get it back. Link to comment
carlfense Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Ironically, it it the same tax laws and exemptions that allow approx 50% of Americans to pay no taxes. You want to get serious, take away all the exemptions that help lower income, married couples, elderly, those with children etc... Uhhhh . . . lo country? Romney gets the same tax rates as those lower income people on each comparative dollar. Same goes for marriage, children, etc. The difference is that in the end he pays an effective rate roughly half that of my family. The misinformation out there about taxes is staggering. 2 Link to comment
lo country Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Ironically, it it the same tax laws and exemptions that allow approx 50% of Americans to pay no taxes. You want to get serious, take away all the exemptions that help lower income, married couples, elderly, those with children etc... Uhhhh . . . lo country? Romney gets the same tax rates as those lower income people on each comparative dollar. Same goes for marriage, children, etc. The difference is that in the end he pays an effective rate roughly half that of my family. The misinformation out there about taxes is staggering. Here is another link that shows the taxes broken down by each economic group, % of taxes paid and % of income. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf Perhaps I am reading the above chart wrong, but it shows that wealthy do pay a larger % of their income for taxes (16% total for the lowest earners and 30% total for the top). Again, is he paying taxes on his salary or on his capital gains? Does he even have a salary. Funny Dems paint him as the evil tax evader, but Obama's own Buffet pays the same and Dems appear to give 2 craps about that. Hell Obama has almost run a re-election campaign on the Buffet Rule. Also if you could lawfully avoid taxes, pay less and keep more would you? Link to comment
Recommended Posts