Biden's America

[BigRedBuster]

36 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

That would suck having to deal with what you’re going through, and certainly appreciate your frustration.  
 

In terms of the KNOWN folks that haven’t filed a return, (that are millionaires according to the report) I still can’t find a single reason for them to not be contacted or referred for tax evasion prosecution.   

Lack of staff and funds.  Those same people are probably people who can afford very good lawyers.  So, the IRS has to have good lawyers and accountants too.

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Lots of reports from Various sources including the IRS, say there is a gap of revenue in what’s collected and what should be collected.   79% of this number is people not paying the total amount they should.   The only reason CBS gave was cash payments.  This leads me to believe it’s the largest by far reason.    
 

Cash payments tend to be certain types of business (bars entry fee’s, handyman type services, house cleaning services, etc) and individuals paying others for goods (drugs, gambling, garage sales, used product sales).   If Biden isn’t going to push some of the increased enforcement of people making under $400,000 how will the IRS capture this tax income?  Or the drug dealers and criminal elements.   
 

When the money for enhanced IRS was announced, the claim was going after the billionaires, yet that is by far the smallest pot of money the IRS says isn’t being collected.   Everyone should pay what they legally owe, but how does this increased funding make a dent in the pot of money that would make a difference.  

Well, I'm sure the administration said that because it's the easiest to say politically.  That doesn't mean they should have said that.  But, that's why.  I agree with your last sentence, everyone should.  But, I remember Republicans coming out scaring everyone saying 87,000 new agents are coming after YOU.

 

So....pardon me if I support a group that says they want to fund the IRS to catch tax cheats and make it more efficient....compared to a group that tries to scare everyone saying the big bad IRS is coming after YOU....when, the only ones that should be scared are the people not paying their taxes.

[teachercd]

23 minutes ago, ZRod said:

And do you have just a W2 and a 1099C? Or do you have your own business? Because taxes for self employment and businesses get a lot more complex, and there are a lot more loopholes ways to write off money that the IRS would have to review. Just doing my wife's 1099NEC for contract work is quite a bit different than what I would do for my regular W2 and 1099C.

 

Yes those and then a weird one for some "non-profit" teaching I did for low income kids over the summer.  I can't even remember which form that was!  It was a totally different.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Not really.  If we’re being honest. 
 

I specifically asked what percentage of the intake Government gets do you want to come from “the people who need to pay their fair share” or as you now finally said are in the 37% tax bracket (I assume you are not talking about the 35% bracket by your word choice).  
 

So I’ll ask again, what percentage of the tax revenue the government receives from the overall population do you want the 37%ers to pay, for them to be considered paying their fair share?  Because certainly you understand that a tax rate is just an arbitrary number with loopholes galore (thanks Congress).  Let’s figure out what percentage of the tax revenue you want coming from to top 1% (their fair share) then you can figure out how to get to that point.  
 

Am I ok about what?  I mean the Royals still need starting pitching so I’m not ok about that.   The Chiefs need to sign a number 2 receiver, so not ok about that.   I haven’t hit the lottery numbers and I’m definitely not ok about that.   I’m still walking on this side of the grass so I am certainly ok about that.   Kinda depends on what you’re asking about when saying “you okay?”

 

I don't know, Professor Goalposts. I don't think either of us are under the burden of solving fair taxation on Husker Bulletin Board. 

 

You made one of your odd sidesteps into a different proposition: figure out an arbitrary percentage of the American economy that the wealthiest should be responsible for and then.....what? Turn that into a dollar figure and divide by the number of people in the Top 1%, whose own wealth might vary by billions? Weird. 

 

If we're talking "fair share" -- which we are -- it makes more sense to consider the percentage of  household income, right?  The super wealthy can afford to pay a little more, maybe 40%, the over $400K class might fit that 37% number I threw out, bump a $200 - $400k bracket up a tick to 33%, keep the healthy middle class at the 24% they're at, and get that broad working middle of $50-$150K down a tick to 20%. 

 

As mentioned, this is not a slide into Tax the Rich class warfare, but actually a lower rate than the wealthy paid during several decades of American Greatness.

 

The reason we're talking "fair share" in the first place is that regardless of the tax rate, high wealth individuals and corporations are often revealed to pay next to nothing in taxes, a "share" that does not seem "fair" to many hard-working Americans. 

 

And just because you insist you're okay doesn't mean I'm not worried about you.

[Scarlet]

Once again MAGA publicly praises the accomplishments of the Biden administration all the while lying to their constituents.  I guess if they ever pass any worthwhile legislation they could skip the lying part.

 

 

 

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Lack of staff and funds.  Those same people are probably people who can afford very good lawyers.  So, the IRS has to have good lawyers and accountants too.

They do...I mean tax lawyers are probably the most informed about their area out of any lawyer.  Tax code is sick.

 

Sometimes you just sort of have to say "you need to work more" It happens.

 

I hate when I have classes over 30 kids but sometimes it happens and I do it even though it is more work.  I bet you get swamped at your job and you push through and get it done.

 

I know it is unpopular to say (not meaning you at all) but sometimes you just have to get the f#&% to work and work.

 

I wonder how many IRS agents "work from home", just looked and it seems to be about 50%.  There, I solved another problem.  Get your a$$ back to the office where you will actually work all day long.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

You made one of your odd sidesteps into a different proposition: figure out an arbitrary percentage of the American economy that the wealthiest should be responsible for and then.....what? Turn that into a dollar figure and divide by the number of people in the Top 1%, whose own wealth might vary by billions? Weird.

I made a very relevant question as my original proposition as you very well know.  The very relevant easy question you didn’t answer, which was odd

 

The top 1% of earners $680,000 and above income pay 46% of all income tax.   2021 data.   What percentage would you like that to be for you to say they are now paying their fair share.  Quite a simple question.  
 

And just an FYI even though by your wording, ,I assume you know wealth has no bearing on this.  It’s an income tax not a wealth tax.  

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I don't know, Professor Goalposts. I don't think either of us are under the burden of solving fair taxation on Husker Bulletin Board. 

 

You made one of your odd sidesteps into a different proposition: figure out an arbitrary percentage of the American economy that the wealthiest should be responsible for and then.....what? Turn that into a dollar figure and divide by the number of people in the Top 1%, whose own wealth might vary by billions? Weird. 

 

If we're talking "fair share" -- which we are -- it makes more sense to consider the percentage of  household income, right?  The super wealthy can afford to pay a little more, maybe 40%, the over $400K class might fit that 37% number I threw out, bump a $200 - $400k bracket up a tick to 33%, keep the healthy middle class at the 24% they're at, and get that broad working middle of $50-$150K down a tick to 20%. 

 

As mentioned, this is not a slide into Tax the Rich class warfare, but actually a lower rate than the wealthy paid during several decades of American Greatness.

 

The reason we're talking "fair share" in the first place is that regardless of the tax rate, high wealth individuals and corporations are often revealed to pay next to nothing in taxes, a "share" that does not seem "fair" to many hard-working Americans. 

 

And just because you insist you're okay doesn't mean I'm not worried about you.

Back when we had American Greatness under Bill Clinton and his balanced budget with Newt.  The top 1% paid roughly 34.8% of the total income tax.   Back in that great American timeframe, it seemed 34.8% of the tot income was their fair share and allowed for a balanced budget.   
 

Now they pay 46% and we add trillions in debt every year.  Let’s say we add 3% to the top rate and make it 40% tax rate.   Will that extra 3% make much of a dent in the yearly deficit in and of itself.   If Congress wants to do that, fine.  I certainly won’t complain, but it won’t really touch what needs to be done for fiscal sanity.   
 

I’m of the opinion these folks do pay their fair share, but if we want them to pay more then say that.  Quit with the verbiage of “paying their fair share” and just say we need them to pay more at this point in time.   Then let’s cut spending and dig into this debt debacle that will eventually cripple the country.  
 

Notice how I did that without calling names? 

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

The reason we're talking "fair share" in the first place is that regardless of the tax rate, high wealth individuals and corporations are often revealed to pay next to nothing in taxes, a "share" that does not seem "fair" to many hard-working Americans

Well again, we have an income tax not a wealth tax.  Hopefully those hard working Americans, many who don’t even pay income tax understand.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Back when we had American Greatness under Bill Clinton and his balanced budget with Newt.  The top 1% paid roughly 34.8% of the total income tax.   Back in that great American timeframe, it seemed 34.8% of the tot income was their fair share and allowed for a balanced budget.   
 

Now they pay 46% and we add trillions in debt every year.  Let’s say we add 3% to the top rate and make it 40% tax rate.   Will that extra 3% make much of a dent in the yearly deficit in and of itself.   If Congress wants to do that, fine.  I certainly won’t complain, but it won’t really touch what needs to be done for fiscal sanity.   
 

I’m of the opinion these folks do pay their fair share, but if we want them to pay more then say that.  Quit with the verbiage of “paying their fair share” and just say we need them to pay more at this point in time.   Then let’s cut spending and dig into this debt debacle that will eventually cripple the country.  
 

Notice how I did that without calling names? 

So, your argument is that the wealthy are paying too much of the total government income. Correct?

 

If so, what’s your solution?

[ZRod]

30 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, your argument is that the wealthy are paying too much of the total government income. Correct?

 

If so, what’s your solution?

 

 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, your argument is that the wealthy are paying too much of the total government income. Correct?

 

If so, what’s your solution?

That would not be my argument.  I’m pointing out that the 1% paying 34.8% of the taxes was sufficient to have a balanced budget.   Now they pay 46% and we add trillions to the debt every year.   
 

As you recall, this is all in relation to two points….what is/or should be this groups fair share of the total tax burden and that Victor person saying our debt is only a revenue problem and we just need to tax rich people more.   
 

I’ve said my solution a day or two ago.   At this point I’m good with raising the rates of those households making $1 million a year in income or more.  Only as long as cuts to the budget happen to where the budget would be at a linear point to where it would have been if no Covid spending took place or 2021/2022 Biden give aways took place if that makes sense.  
 

Basically the 2025 budget should follow this pattern of….2021 budget is original 2020 plus a 2% increase, then 2022 is a 2021 budget plus 2% which makes 2023 budget a combined 2022 plus 2% etc…grow government budget less than inflation increase while adding revenues.  Go to regular budget appropriations bills, and get rid of the end of year use it or lose it budgets.  Instead reward those cost centers that come in under budget.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I made a very relevant question as my original proposition as you very well know.  The very relevant easy question you didn’t answer, which was odd

 

The top 1% of earners $680,000 and above income pay 46% of all income tax.   2021 data.   What percentage would you like that to be for you to say they are now paying their fair share.  Quite a simple question.  
 

And just an FYI even though by your wording, ,I assume you know wealth has no bearing on this.  It’s an income tax not a wealth tax.  

 

Well you basically reverse engineered a non-question into a point you were keen to make. 

 

But 46% sounds pretty good to me. I'd still recommend closing the biggest loopholes and pursuing the most egregious dodgers. Maybe bump a couple of those thresholds. Remember, "fair share" comes from percentage of income and ability to pay, not lump sum. That's the only way it really works. 

 

The reason the "fair share" argument gets so much play despite our progressive tax rates is the fact that the wealthiest 400 families in America -- all billionaires -- paid an average individual tax rate of just 8.2%, while the folks genuinely struggling paid around 14%. Huge corporations dodge a s#!t ton of taxes that small businesses can't. 

 

It's less galling to think of the 1% shouldering that 46% tax burden when you realize they hold 90% of the wealth in the U.S. That top 0.1% holds 20% all by themselves. And while that's wealth, not income, it's hardly like the two aren't related. Extreme wealth has paid for the perception that 46% is the number you should be watching, and that higher tax rates hurt business. There are decades of evidence suggesting otherwise. 

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

The reason the "fair share" argument gets so much play despite our progressive tax rates is the fact that the wealthiest 400 families in America -- all billionaires -- paid an average individual tax rate of just 8.2%, while the folks genuinely struggling paid around 14%. Huge corporations dodge a s#!t ton of taxes that small businesses can't

This 8% nonsense isnt  true at all, been debunked over and over, so it’s interesting you bring it up.  If Biden wants a flat tax rate floor for Billionaires income at 25% then knock himself out.  Let’s do it.   Along with the corresponding budget decreases I’ve outlined previously. 

 

44 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

It's less galling to think of the 1% shouldering that 46% tax burden when you realize they hold 90% of the wealth in the U.S. That top 0.1% holds 20% all by themselves. And while that's wealth, not income, it's hardly like the two aren't related. Extreme wealth has paid for the perception that 46% is the number you should be watching, and that higher tax rates hurt business. There are decades of evidence suggesting otherwise. 

Again, we tax income not wealth.   The relation doesn’t matter.  
 

So where do you get your 90% number? And the 20% number.  
 

The key figures here are not only the average wealth per household but also the share held by each, especially at the top. For example, the top 1 percent of households hold 30.6 percent of the total wealth, according to the Federal Reserve. But just the top 0.1 percent own 14 percent of the total wealth, giving them a stunning average of more than $1.52 billion per household.

 

https://www.bankrate.com/investing/income-wealth-top-1-percent/#:~:text=The key figures here are,according to the Federal Reserve.

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

This 8% nonsense isnt  true at all, been debunked over and over, so it’s interesting you bring it up.  If Biden wants a flat tax rate floor for Billionaires income at 25% then knock himself out.  Let’s do it.   Along with the corresponding budget decreases I’ve outlined previously. 

 

Again, we tax income not wealth.   The relation doesn’t matter.  
 

So where do you get your 90% number? And the 20% number.  
 

The key figures here are not only the average wealth per household but also the share held by each, especially at the top. For example, the top 1 percent of households hold 30.6 percent of the total wealth, according to the Federal Reserve. But just the top 0.1 percent own 14 percent of the total wealth, giving them a stunning average of more than $1.52 billion per household.

 

https://www.bankrate.com/investing/income-wealth-top-1-percent/#:~:text=The key figures here are,according to the Federal Reserve.

 

Yeah, I paraphrased this wrong. The Top 1% hold as much wealth as the bottom 90%, which doesn't exactly undermine the larger point. The 20% figure has been bandied around, but this same Princeton report says 15.7% is more accurate. I have a feeling the 8% claim will always have a whiff of urban myth, but when Warren Buffett says he has a lower tax rate than his secretary, I believe him. 

 

https://economics.princeton.edu/working-papers/top-wealth-in-america-new-estimates-under-heterogenous-returns/

 

Your suggestion for a more aggressive tax on billionaires is intriguing. Less government spending is good as long as it's smarter and considers the unintended consequences -- which it usually doesn't. We need to take a less partisan and contentious look at how government spending on everything from mental health services to education to social safety nets to health care affects the private sector. While one party likes to assume anything government funded takes away from our for-profit free enterprise, many of these programs directly and indirectly help U.S. companies do business.