Tax cuts for the rich?

reefraff

Active Member
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/07/...an-bottom.html
TAX POLICY BLOG -- Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes and disproportionately benefited from the Bush tax cuts.
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1% paid 24.8% of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act (see chart above).

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1% now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58% of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
To put this in perspective, the top 1% is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10% of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.
 

renogaw

Active Member
a flat tax would only end up hurting the poor more in the long run. why would the rich give to charities? there's no tax breaks in it for them... (or anyone for that matter). no research for child cancer, no research for heart disease, no donations to schools, food banks, etc... i know i'm not giving enough for all the charities to be in exhistance.
 

jackri

Active Member
Whats all that have to do with tax breaks by instituting a flat tax?
Nothing like getting a tax refund when you do pay any taxes vs. some people in New York can have upwards of 60% of their check going to taxes... nothing like being punished for being successful
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/3099996
a flat tax would only end up hurting the poor more in the long run. why would the rich give to charities? there's no tax breaks in it for them... (or anyone for that matter). no research for child cancer, no research for heart disease, no donations to schools, food banks, etc... i know i'm not giving enough for all the charities to be in exhistance.
You could still offer very targeted deductions within a flat tax. Allow people to deduct up to 10% for charitable contributions and keep the home loan system as is.
Flat tax will never happen as long as we the people keep re electing people who have become expert at using the tax code to bribe their contributors.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by jackri
http:///forum/post/3100009
Whats all that have to do with tax breaks by instituting a flat tax?
Nothing like getting a tax refund when you do pay any taxes vs. some people in New York can have upwards of 60% of their check going to taxes... nothing like being punished for being successful


The tax code demonstrates the problem with a massive centralized government. 150K a year wont give you much of a living in new york or Chicago but you can like like royalty on that in places like Kansas. You think the tax code is complicated now try adjusting the rates based on your local cost of living. Thats why it better to provide government services from the ground up as much as possible. If you want to live on Long island you should expect to pay more for local services than someone living in Cody Wyoming. But why should that person earning 150K pay a much larger portion of things like national defense and congressional salaries for example than someone earning half that amount but because they live in Podunk where the cost of living isn't a quarter as much they have a higher standard of living?
A flat tax would help with that a little. Nothing wrong with those who make more paying more but I don't think it's fair that they also pay a higher percentage of what they do earn.
 

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3099430
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1% of taxpayers paid 40.4% of the total income taxes collected
by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1% paid 24.8%
of the income tax burden in 1987
, the year following the 1986 tax reform act (see chart above).

I am not surprised by this shift at all....
"The United States long has had the industrialized world's largest gap in pay between chief executives and blue-collar workers. CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker's wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "
and it continues!!!
 

reefraff

Active Member
God bless those CEO's who have helped create the highest standard of living in the world. Worth every cent as far as I am concerned.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3100820
God bless those CEO's who have helped create the highest standard of living in the world. Worth every cent as far as I am concerned.
Well...the highest standard of living for CEOs, certainly. I wonder how those people without health care feel about that.
 

al mc

Active Member
We do need to simplify the tax codes( Flat tax..Ok)....No government should set up a tax code where the average person can not easily figure out his/her own tax return. We have created a cottage industry of accountants and lawyers who specialize in tax law because it is so complicated.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3101048
Well...the highest standard of living for CEOs, certainly. I wonder how those people without health care feel about that.
There is a statistic out there for the number of people living in poverty that own a cell phone. I'd say that says it all about the standard of living in our country but here are some others:
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov-ernment reports:
* Forty-three percent of all poor households actu-ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are over-crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in

[hr]
, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Well, let's think about those wonderful CEO's. The ones who needed me to bail their failed companies out with MY tax dollars and after saving their worthless, er valuable a $$es with 0% loans from the government and are now posting their largest profits ever, in a recession, and giving themselves EVEN HIGHER BONUSES. Those poor CEO's, they are SOOOOO hosed. BTW, I work for the largest credit card company (by sales) and can tell you the warrants being bought back by the banks, are being bought back at market low prices. So the government is losing money on all the warrants being bought back. So, we the people are paying the outrageous salaries of those valuable CEO's salaries from our tax dollars. I feel SOOOO sorry for those poor ol' executives. They are SOOOO over-burdened by taxes.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3101048
Well...the highest standard of living for CEOs, certainly. I wonder how those people without health care feel about that.
Please stop lying. EMTALA MANDATES everyone has health care. No one in this county is totally without health care.
What happened to "equal protection under the law"?
 

mantisman51

Active Member
Ahem, Oscar, I have no healthcare, other than what I can afford to pay cash for. Which is why I haven't had surgery on a disc that has fallen apart and is putting pressure on my spine. Do you really not know that many of us don't chose not to have healthcare-we can't afford it or, like me, are turned down for coverage?
 

renogaw

Active Member
no offense, but when did YOU not being able to afford it or not able to get coverage become MY problem where my tax dollars have to help you out?
why do i have to work 50+ hours a week, so all these "poor" people can sit around on welfare, not be proper parents to their kids so the cycle continues and actually get pregnant on purpose at 15 so they can collect welfare themselves?? (not pointing at you mantis)
as for the rich ceos not getting bonuses... guess what, by that money not getting paid a few things happen: 1) income tax for state and federal programs is lessened (look at the issues CT is having right now). 2) they don't go on vacation, or buy stuff, etc. guess what, that means some "poor" person is gonna lose their job. that means emp
the rich ceo's help drive this country, NOT an idiot in office writing checks his arse can't cash.
 
Top