| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/7 |
| 2005/4/15-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:37203 Activity:insanely high |
4/15 So does anyone object to the so-called (love those names) "fair tax"?
Replacing all federal tax with a 23% sales tax?
\_ Poll, Yes: ........
no:
\_ Worst. Idea^H^H^H^HTroll. Ever.
\_ If you're rich, you love it.
\_ No seriously, why would you believe this?
\_ Uh, because they could accumulate wealth unhindered by
ANY taxation. How much does any one person need to spend
in a year, even to live (VERY) well? a few hundred thousand?
so you pay the tax on that amount of consumption, and the rest
is gravy.
\_ So what?
\_ So, because you're wealthy you get to enjoy the freedoms
and protection of this country while paying less into
this country than everyone around you. That sounds fair?
\_ Are you seriously suggesting that the rich, under
either a sales tax or under the current system,
somehow pay "less into this country" than the poor?
40% of Americans pay NO income tax at all, and the
top 20% pay over 80%.
\_ Yes. Under a sales tax, the rich would pay less
than they currently do, and far less proportionally
to the rest of the people. That 40%, under a flat
tax, would pay pretty much 23% in your sales tax.
A person in the top 20% can afford to save and
invest. They would be hard pressed to spend their
entire $250k or so on sales-taxable goods. They
would pay a far lower percentage of their income
in this tax. Are you intentionally being daft?
\_ Don't change the subject. You didn't say
"paying a lower percentage of their income
into this country". You said "paying less into
this country". That's very different.
\_ And you're an obtuse little bitch. In
a discussion like this, the "fairness"
point pretty much always refers to
proportions. DUMBFUCK troll.
\_ consider that roughly 25% of the population is
below the age of 15 (2000 census numbers). Are
you including all those newborns and kids who
can barely get a work permit (at least in CA)?
\_ He is talking about top 20% of taxpayers,
not about kids and unemployed. --dim
\_ You are just making up numbers now. No way does
the top 20% pay over 80% of all taxes.
\_ http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm
Top 20% pays 81.4% of federal income
taxes. Top 1% pays 38.8% alone. If you
include payroll taxes, the share of the
top 20% drops to 60.8%. However, you can
see following the chart that the least
wealthy 60% also only have 5% of the
wealth. --dim
\_ Compare the pre-tax income shares versus
the federal tax share. It's very slightly
progressive. Note that this was in 2000.
Now that comparison is basically flat. For
all intents and purposes, W has given y'all
the flat tax y'all wanted. We'll see how
long until it all crumbles..
\_ wtf? You didn't know that?
You better be some bored undergrad.
\_ Since the rich don't pay less than less wealthy,
you're full of shit. Since "wealthy" is undefinable,
you're just arguing that THEY SHOULD GIVE MORE,
WAHHH! Shut the fuck up you retard.
\_ This is about as incoherent as you could get.
We're talking about proportions, not absolute
values, you twat.
\_ Here's a nice game to play with your friends. Go
ask them "do you think the rich should pay more in
taxes". Then ask them "what percentage of all taxes
should the top 20% of taxpayers pay?" Then have
some fun asking them to reconcile their answers
to these two questions.
\_ We don't all have stupid friends.
The larger issue here is that it will be very
dangerous for us as a country when a substantial
fraction of the electorate pays no taxes (40% now)
and thus realizes they can vote in any government
program (say, prescription drug benefit) without
having to pay a dime for it.
\_ Yeah, it would be much better to tax them into
the debtors' prisons. We could have so much cheap
labor if we could bring those back. Those people
who you see as freeloading are the ones who make
the economy happen. They spend their paychecks
like good consumers. They produce the goods that
they turn around and buy. Without generous
exemptions on a sales tax for the lower end, our
economy would grind to a halt.
\_ Don't put up the strawman of debtor's prisons.
My point is that I feel it is bad public
policy to have a substantial fraction of the
population pay no income tax.
\_ you're right. So what are you doing to
increase their income? -tom
\_ Because the amount of money you spend on taxable items
becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of your income
the more money you make. A person making $1 million might
have a $100K car, whereas a person making $50K might have
a $25K car, for instance.
\_ So what?
\_ So that's why a sales tax is a regressive tax.
\_ Are you insane? A $50K/yr schlub can't affort a $25K car.
\_ Well, actually -- if you have a decent credit rating,
you can buy a $25k honda with only a $3-4k down. The
payments might be rough, but financing over 48-60mos
makes this very reasonably affordable. Welcome to the
real world, son.
\_ Wow, you're a DUMBFUCK. Are you the same DUMBFUCK
from yesterday?
\_ $25K barely buys a Honda Civic EX these days.
Plenty of people making that kind of salary drive
$25K cars whether or not you think they can afford
to. Let's change it to $90K salary and $40K car
then (real numbers from BMW). Same difference.
\_ With that logic who the fuck can buy a house. It's
called LOANS.
\_ "Reagan's 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act is recognized as the most
significant tax policy change in modern history. The bill
significantly reduced the marginal income tax by roughly 25
percent over a three-year period, lowering the top rate from 70
percent to 50 percent, the bottom from 14 percent to 11 percent."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/issues/issue_taxes.html
Proportionally, Reagan still beats Bush. Why aren't you guys
bitching at him instead of Bush? I know why. Because Reagan is
good looking and charming and irresistable ON TV.
\_ And, uhm, not the current president for almost 20 years.
\_ The fact that he's no longer President never seems to
stop the Republicans from blaming everything bad on Clinton.
\_ Oh that's easy. Clinton is an unperson. Reagan is our
Glorious Hero. Get it straight, Comrade.
\_ Reagan was a cold warrior; shouldn't
that be 'Citizen'?
\_ I'm in favor. I think our current tax code is broken and far too
cumbersome. For an income tax, I'm against flat income tax.
\_ Since the poor currently pay a fairly small percentage of their
income in taxes, how would you reconcile that with the new
system? Either you just accept you're giving the poor a massive
tax hike, or you need some system of exemptions, deductions or
refunds and you're right back to everyone having to file taxes
again.
\_ One way is to tax more heavily on luxury items and waive
tax on essentially items.
\_ The plan is for an automatic rebate to cover the taxes up to
a floor level of consumption. Such a rebate is nothing like
the current income tax situation.
the current income tax situation. And it means that it's
possible that the rebate ends up being more than some people
actually pay in taxes. Also, wealthy people do consume more;
they don't just sit on their cash and live like a poor sap.
It's not a massive tax hike when you consider the massive
overall benefits to the economy.
\_ The wealthy consume more, but on different things and
in a different way. As a percentage of income and net
worth they consume far less. Most wealthy people I
know bought a lot of property, which contributes to
property taxes but not to the IRS. Lots of money also
does get 'sat on' in the form of investments.
\_ What happens when you buy a $500k house? Pay $115k tax?
\_ But there's nothing wrong with that. We should only
"tax the rich" to support the poor to a minimum extent.
Rich people make investments, fine... they help create
jobs and eventually money gets used on end products and
services. They hire contractors, buy fancy stuff for
their houses, etc. The level of consumption in the
country is fairly stable and the proposed numbers
provide for a scenario where both poor and rich are less
taxed, and are better able to manage their own savings
by being frugal. Personally, I'm not "poor" at 90k
salary but I've had really low consumption all my
working days so I'd be way better off. A consumption tax
would encourage savings which economists say is sorely
needed in this country.
\_ What happens when you buy a $500k house? Pay
$115k tax?
\_ There is no sales tax on real estate and there is no tax levied
by the Feds. I assume this would remain unchanged.
\_ "Fair tax" is stupid. If you don't like progressive
tax and want "fairness", let's just not pay any tax at all.
That would make it fair. |
| 4/7 |
|
| www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm In Minnesota how does the rate of taxation paid by people making over $700,000 compare with the rate of taxation paid by those making les s than $30,000 per year? Have federal tax burdens for the average family of four gone up or down during the last 40 years? Most households now face a lower average tax burden than in any year fro m 1979 to the present. This was true even before the most recently enac ted federal income tax cuts. The chart below reflects total federal tax burdens -- including income taxes as well as payroll and excise taxes -- for the middle fifth of families. Source: Congressional Budge Office and CBPP calculations If one looks at just income taxes, the historical data indicate that a m edian family of four now pay a smaller share of its income in federal i ncome taxes than in any year since 1957. A progressive tax is a tax based on the "ability to pay." In a progressi ve tax structure, the rate of taxation increases as one's income and we alth increase. For example, in a progressive tax system, a family with $200,000 in income might pay 25% of their income in taxes while a famil y with $50,000 in income might pay 20% of their income in taxes. In a regressive t ax system, those with lower incomes pay taxes at a higher rate. A proportional tax is one in which everyone pays the same rate of taxati on, regardless of wealth or income. Are taxes in the United States progressive or regressive? However, payroll taxes are very regressive, and most st ate and local taxes are also regressive. The following table shows the effective tax rates for selected taxes in 2000. Effective tax rates, 2000 Personal Income Tax Social Ins. What fraction of Americans pays more in payroll taxes than in income taxes? Almost 80 percent of Americans now pay more in payroll taxes than they d o in income taxes. How does the Social Security tax rate change as ones income rises? The effective Social Security tax rate drops as income rises. This is du e to the fact that only the first $87,000 in earned income is taxed. Th e tax rate on earned income up to that amount is 62%. How do federal tax burdens vary among different income groups? Distribution of Income and Taxes by Income Groups, 2000 Income group Average Household Income Share of pre-tax income Share of fed. What percentage of federal taxes are paid by the least wealthy 60% o f Americans? The least wealthy 60 percent of Americans have less than 5 percent of th e wealth in the US but pay more than 14 percent of federal taxes. What percentage of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 5% of Americans ? By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes. During the last 40 years, how has the rate of taxation for the top t ax bracket changed? The rate of taxation for the top income tax bracket decreased dramatical ly during the last 40 years. How does the change in tax burdens on the top 1% compare to the chan ge for middle income families? As the following chart indicates, the middle 20% of Americans are paying more taxes today than in 1977, while the top 1% are paying much less. Who benefited most from the federal tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003 ? The benefits of these tax cuts were skewed heavily toward the wealthy, e specially those at the very top. Average increase in after-tax income in 2003 from tax cuts Percent Dollars Millionaires 54% $112,925 Top 1% 46% 26,335 Middle fifth 26% 676 Bottom fifth 02% 3 Source: Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute The long-term effects of these tax cuts is even more significant. As the following table illustrates, by the end of the decade the tax burdens of the richest one percent of Americans will fall by 17%. For the remai ning 99 percent the average tax reduction will be 5 percent. How much would it cost the federal budget if the estate tax wer e repealed? At present, the estate tax raises $30 billion a year for the federal gov ernment. Thats about 9% of the non-military discretionary budget. By 20 11, the cost of the repeal will reach $60 billion a year. Total cost of full repeal would be $662 billion over first 10 years. Sta tes would lose $9 billion a year at a time of tight budgets. It's also estimated that hospitals, universities and other charities cou ld lose $6 billion a year in charitable donations. In Minnesota how does the rate of taxation paid by people making ove r $845,000 compare with the rate of taxation paid by those making less t han $27,000 per year? That's an effective ra te nearly one and a half times higher than the top end. |
| www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/issues/issue_taxes.html President George W Bush President George W Bush President George W Bush has long supported tax cuts as the best policy t o invigorate the economy and provide financial relief for American famil ies. The preside nt credits his tax cuts for helping the nation recover from the economic recession, corporate scandals and the Sept. If elected for a second term, Mr Bush says he would work to make these tax cuts perman ent. Even before becoming the 43rd US president, tax cuts played a central r ole in Mr Bush's fiscal policy agenda. As governor of Texas (1995 - 200 0), Mr Bush passed two of the largest tax cuts in Texas history. Though Texas is one of the few states without an income tax, then-Governor Bus h managed to push through nearly $3 billion in tax reductions in 1997 an d 1999. During his 2000 campaign for the White House, Mr Bush made tax relief a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, calling for sweeping cuts in income tax rates, a tax break for married couples and an increase in the child credit. Once in office, the president set to work to fulfill that campaign promis e In February 2001, he warned of "troubling" economic signs as he urged Congress to approve his tax cut plan intended to jump-start the ailing economy. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 reduced incom e tax rates, the "marriage penalty" tax on two-income couples, the estat e or "death" tax, and expanded the child tax credit. In early March 2002, the president enacted his second tax relief package, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. Though a relatively minor tax cut, the bill aimed to provide certain measures of relief for businesses and individuals, notably those affected by the Sept. The president's third major tax bill, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reco nciliation Act, signed on May 28, 2003, served as an elaboration and acc eleration of the 2001 tax cut. The 2003 bill immediately moved "several million working Americans" into the lower 10 percent tax bracket, "allowing them to keep more of their i ncome," and increased the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 for quali fying middle- and lower-income families, according to the Bush campaign. The package, worth about $350 billion in tax cuts over ten years, also sl ashed taxes on dividends, which lowered tax rates on dividend income fro m nearly 40 percent to 15 percent for the roughly 35 million American ho useholds with stock investments, President Bush has said. Additionally, President Bush persuaded Congress to reduce the capital gai ns income tax rate from 20 percent to 15 percent, a rate scheduled to ex pire in 2007, and to raise expense limits for small businesses from $25, 000 to $100,000. Together, these measures act to help companies grow and encourage job-creating investment, the Bush campaign says. Over the summer of 2004, President Bush urged Congress to extend his tax relief initiatives. Indeed, just six weeks before Election Day, Congress approved an extension of tax cuts targeting middle-income Americans, du e to expire at the end of 2004. The $146 billion tax cut -- the president's fourth in as many years -- ex tends the increased $1,000 child tax credit through 2009, the expanded 1 0 percent income bracket through 2010, and tax relief for married couple s through 2008. The legislation, called the Working Families Tax Relief Act, also extended 23 business tax credits for another year. In fact, th e largest portion of the package, roughly $13 billion, will go to busine sses to help fund research and development projects. President Bush vows to make all tax cuts permanent so that "America's fam ilies can make plans for the future, without worrying these plans could be jeopardized by higher tax expenses in the future" and "to ensure sust ained growth and job creation." The president has also suggested he would seek to overhaul and simplify t he tax code if elected for a second term. In his 2004 re-nomination acce ptance speech at the Republican National Convention, President Bush call ed for a transformation of the tax system into a straightforward and fai rer code that would provide new incentives for people to save money. "The American people deserve and our economic future demands a simpler, f airer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code," the president said. For his tax reform, Mr Bush proposes to: -- make permanent the income tax rate relief with the new lower 10 percen t bracket and the reduced "marriage penalty" taxes; Senator Kerry has also vowed to repeal President Bush's income tax cuts f or the top 2 percent of income earners -- individuals earning more than $200,000 -- and use those funds for health and education programs. The Democratic presidential candidate says he would act as a champion to the middle class by enacting a tax reform plan that would benefit those who needed it, rather than the wealthier class, with his planned $419 bi llion in new tax cuts aimed at the middle class. "I will roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. However , I don't believe that we should be raising taxes on the middle class. S pecifically, I want to protect the increases in the child tax credit, th e reduced marriage penalty, and the new 10 percent tax bracket that help s people save $350 on their first level of income," Kerry said in a Jan. If elected as the next president, Senator Kerry says he would raise the c hild and dependent care tax credit to cover up to $5,000 in expenses, up from the current $3,000 maximum. The senator says he would pay for his tax relief program by rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers and closing certain corporate tax "loopholes," also called "corporate welfare" by its critics. The Democratic presidential nominee says that current tax laws enable US . companies to avoid paying domestic taxes through certain evasive pract ices by, for example, incorporating a business in overseas "tax havens," such as Bermuda, and moving jobs to low-tax havens. Senator Kerry has said he would end "tax benefits that encourage outsourc ing and actually reward American companies for moving jobs overseas." His international tax reform also includes a plan to reduce the gap betwe en US corporate tax rates and foreign corporate rates, which are much lower than national rates and therefore more attractive to US business es. Under Senator Kerry's proposal, companies would be taxed on their fo reign subsidiaries' profits as much as they are on domestic profits. Eliminating such tax shelters would give the US government an average o f $12 billion annually, which would then be used to "cut corporate taxes by 5 percent," according to the candidate's tax reform proposal. "I will close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs o verseas. Instead, we're going to use that revenue to reward companies th at create and keep good jobs here in the United States of America. Under my plan, we'll cut the corporate tax rate by 5 percent, giving 99 perce nt of businesses a tax break," Senator Kerry said in a speech before the Detroit Economic Club. Additionally, the senator plans to offer companies a one-year tax holiday of 10 percent on any profits they repatriate to the US economy. "The tax holiday would result in an immediate revenue gain which would pay fo r the New Jobs Tax Credit -- another boost to job growth in America," ac cording to Senator Kerry's campaign Web site. Furthermore, the Democratic candidate supports a corporate rate reduction for manufacturers who continue to produce goods in the United States. A long those lines, Senator Kerry has proposed a new tax credit to encoura ge manufacturers to expand their payrolls in the United States rather th an "offshore" jobs to foreign nations. "Let me be clear: Under my plan, 99 percent of American businesses and 98 percent of Americans will get a tax cut," Senator Kerry said in an Apri l 7 speech. If elected president, Senator Kerry plans to: -- maintain tax cuts for middle- and lower-income taxpayers; President George W Bush The president's four th tax cut -- signed by Mr Bush on Oct. Moderate R... |