Buffett rule

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

So, how much more "tax progressivity" do you want, Noone? And how much is enough. Sounds like we're alredy pretty damn progressive as it is.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/amer...all-taxes-2010

"...those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden. In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent."

"Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent."

"Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers. In other words, only 85 million actually paid (federal income) taxes."

"But Tax Foundation data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS."

Now, I betcha I could get this same outcome with 20% or less of the IRS's current staff, and about 90% of the verbiage of our current tax code, and a tax form that's one or two pages long.

Once again, you cite statistics that do not take into account the extremely regressive tax that all working people pay - social security and medicare. If the folks in DC are going to count that as part of the federal budget, then by golly, we need to count it as part of the tax burden for working people.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Once again, you cite statistics that do not take into account the extremely regressive tax that all working people pay - social security and medicare. If the folks in DC are going to count that as part of the federal budget, then by golly, we need to count it as part of the tax burden for working people.

Regards,

D-Ray

That's right, because we're not talking about those taxes. The discussion is on Federal Income Taxes, not taxes for Social Security or Medicare. You wanna talk about those, its a big topic that might need its own thread. We'd also need to talk about the IOU's in the trust fund and the underfunding of Medicare while we're at it.

[painter]

Originally Posted by finnbow

the buffett rule is nothing other than putting lipstick on a pig (our tax code). Though a slim majority may favor it, a vast majority favor a complete overhaul of our convoluted and corrupt tax code.

Yes.... Indeed!!

[Charles]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Once again, you cite statistics that do not take into account the extremely regressive tax that all working people pay - social security and medicare. If the folks in DC are going to count that as part of the federal budget, then by golly, we need to count it as part of the tax burden for working people.

Regards,

D-Ray

Not to make light of Whell's argument, but you do have a point.

Whenever you figure FICA and matching funds you're looking at app 18% right off of the top. And that's a tax.

If it were truly a retirement fund, you could pass it along to your heirs.

Whenever the politicians make a bunch of noise about the withholding tax, it's all smoke and mirrors for the rubes.

They're gonna get it from you...one way or another.

Chas

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by noonereal

This is a whole lot of wrong.

Thanks for the info however as I had forgotten that they poor received back some monies.

I still have no position either way on this as of now. (not smart enough yet!)
Bur I am concerned the wealthy could buy things elsewhere or simply like a Buffet choose to buy nothing to pay nothing. A loophole the poor or middle class do not have.

Even if the rich do spend, they may well spend a much lower % of their income than the middle can can hence once again paying less than their fair share.

I know I am currently compelled to spend 100 plus% (savings also) of my income so then everything is taxed for me and a rich dude could be paying tax on say 5% of his income.

Thoughts?

What do you see as wrong?

I would urge everyone to take a good look at the web site with an open mind. I don't think this plan is as well understood as it deserves to be. That being said I agree with Charles and (I think) Finn that it stands little chance of passage because it removes the ability of Congress to buy votes through tax breaks.

As far as the rich paying a smaller percentage of their income I would say that they also spend a lot more than the not so rich on housing, transportation, entertaining, clothing, etc. Therefore they would be paying more tax than the not so rich would, not as a percentage, but in total.

Another aspect is the fact that there would be no deductions from your paycheck (by the Federal government). You would take home more to do with as you please... not someone in DC.

Again all this is explained on the site. Take a little time and read through it. I personally think it would "fundamentally change" this country.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by JJIII

What do you see as wrong?

Not knowing enough about this as I said it does strike me that the wealthy can pay a much much much lower tax as a percent of their income than the struggling middle class could.

I would urge everyone to take a good look at the web site with an open mind.

I have an open mind on this, I simply have little trust in anyone or thing.


.

As far as the rich paying a smaller percentage of their income I would say that they also spend a lot more than the not so rich on housing, transportation, entertaining, clothing, etc. Therefore they would be paying more tax than the not so rich would, not as a percentage, but in total.

Not in my experience. The wealthiest people I know have their wealth through inheritance. Not nearly the housing costs as you and me.
Also transportation and entertaining is generally covered by the business. Most folks doing well I know spend relatively less for these things.

Things in this country from top to bottom are stacked for the haves. This is just a fact.

Another aspect is the fact that there would be no deductions from your paycheck (by the Federal government). You would take home more to do with as you please... not someone in DC.

Not really. Are you going to stop eating? wearing cloth? Driving? I think this only changes how it is collected and not much else. That said I can understand the allure to the psyche in thinking you are deciding something that really you are not.

Again all this is explained on the site. Take a little time and read through it. I personally think it would "fundamentally change" this country.

I read a little and it was quickly obvious that the info was so slanted that I lost interest.

Too bad there is no truly objective site for any info that touches on politics.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by JJIII

I would urge everyone to take a good look at the web site with an open mind. I don't think this plan is as well understood as it deserves to be. That being said I agree with Charles and (I think) Finn that it stands little chance of passage because it removes the ability of Congress to buy votes through tax breaks.

Indeed. Fundamental tax reform may be the only issue with strong support across the partisan divide. Given that, you might think that Congress would do something about it.

However, they realize two things:

The industries who benefit from the big deductions (real estate, charities, health care) would demagogue to death the cutting of deductions that benefit them.

Your point. Congress would lose the ability to buy votes and financial support from those upon whom they bestow tax breaks/credits.

[noonereal]

JJ, how hard would it be to buy a house with this tax?


How easy would it be to inherit one?

See.


Seems this tax would make it very hard for one to better themselves if born poor.

If you inherit even a moderate home you have even a bigger advantage than you do now.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Indeed. Fundamental tax reform may be the only issue with strong support across the partisan divide. Given that, you might think that Congress would do something about it.

However, they realize two things:

The industries who benefit from the big deductions (real estate, charities, health care) would demagogue to death the cutting of deductions that benefit them.

Your point. Congress would lose the ability to buy votes and financial support from those upon whom they bestow tax breaks/credits.

This cannot be done in modern america just like healthcare could not, you are correct.

Too many making too much with too much power to be able to change.

[JJIII]

One thing is certain. If nobody contacts their Congressman about it, it absolutely will not get done. They don't like to listen but if nobody is speaking they do whatever the hell they want without a thought about the voters. We have got to let them know we aren't happy with the present situation and want something done, be it Fair Tax, flat tax, or whatever.