Big Buget, Big Taxes

[Azazello1313]

Where do you get that from Az? I am not disputing it . . . just asking for your info. Most sites I have seen list "income taxes paid in" but neglect to add now much they get REFUNDED every year.

 

Is this strictly income tax? Or are you lumping in capital gains taxes with it? Cause most poor people dont own stocks and therefore would not pay that in anyways . . .

 

I found the data here, they say their source is IRS data. what's most interesting if you look at that is that over the course of the bush era, the share paid by the top end increased while the share paid by the bottom decreased, despite all those purported "tax cuts for the rich". because while taxes were cut for the rich, they were cut MORE (as a percentage) for the poor. it's rather ironic that the "tax cuts for the rich" made the system MORE progressive.

 

as far as your other questions, I assume that is net tax liability, it would be kind of stupid to try and measure it any other way. I don't know if it includes capital gains taxes. if it doesn't, I guess the share of the burden carried by the top 1/5/10% would only icrease from the numbers I already posted. so I don't really see your point in throwing that out.

[westvirginia]

Where do you get that from Az? I am not disputing it . . . just asking for your info. Most sites I have seen list "income taxes paid in" but neglect to add now much they get REFUNDED every year.

 

Is this strictly income tax? Or are you lumping in capital gains taxes with it? Cause most poor people dont own stocks and therefore would not pay that in anyways . . .

 

That swhy i liek a flat tax. Whether you make millions (and complain about taxes) or 20k a year . . . 10% across the board covers everyone equally. Everyone pays the same rate

 

I have two links up there, one is the same one Az listed, the other is from CNN. And they are clearly just income tax verses AGI. The numbers I have also seen on .gov websites also bear this out.

 

People don't want to believe that half the country lives off the other half, but it's true. I know that a lot of those in the bottom 50% work, but when they get welfare (earned income tax credit), lower food prices (through farming subsidies paid for by the upper 50%), roads, schools and all the other services that they pay not one dime for, yes, one half of this country most definitely lives off the other half.

[Perchoutofwater]

Do you do any residential building at all? cause I keep looking for you on "Extreme Home Makeover" every week . . . but I still havent seen your company . . .

 

Funny you should mention that. One of the off camera designers for the show is from our great city. She called around asking for the "best" contractor in town from several architects not telling them what it was for, and she was given our name. She contacted us last week to see if we would work with her. We do not do residential work aside form our personal stuff (I have a hobby room and theater that is sitting half completed with no work done to them since Thanksgiving, all they lack is millwork and floors), which usually we are too busy to do. We told her we would help her anyway we could, but that we are too busy right now, and honestly that is not our area of expertise. We pointed her in the direction of some good residential contractors and some trade contractors that do residential and smaller commercial work.

 

We have built a YMCA and a Church for deliberate losses before. We donated all of our time, just charging them our material cost and the cost charged to us from trade contractors. See I'm not the greedy Third Eye Blind I pretend to be.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[yo mama]

I have two links up there, one is the same one Az listed, the other is from CNN. And they are clearly just income tax verses AGI. The numbers I have also seen on .gov websites also bear this out.

 

People don't want to believe that half the country lives off the other half, but it's true. I know that a lot of those in the bottom 50% work, but when they get welfare (earned income tax credit), lower food prices (through farming subsidies paid for by the upper 50%), roads, schools and all the other services that they pay not one dime for, yes, one half of this country most definitely lives off the other half.

For the record, I agree with you on your points above.

 

However, the top half lives off the bottom half, too. Who do you think buys all those big macs and Hannah Montana lunch pails? The rich are rich because the poor do a great job of spending money they shouldn't.

 

Just sayin'.

[Perchoutofwater]

For the record, I agree with you on your points above.

 

However, the top half lives off the bottom half, too. Who do you think buys all those big macs and Hannah Montana lunch pails? The rich are rich because the poor do a great job of spending money they shouldn't.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Based on some of the foreclosures I've been looking at, it wasn't just the poor spending money they shouldn't. Still I don't think you should penalize someone for someone else being stupid.

[westvirginia]

For the record, I agree with you on your points above.

 

However, the top half lives off the bottom half, too. Who do you think buys all those big macs and Hannah Montana lunch pails? The rich are rich because the poor do a great job of spending money they shouldn't.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Agreed, but the rich (or their companies) give value for value. The gov't doesn't always (or hardly ever).

[Perchoutofwater]

Agreed, but the rich (or their companies) give value for value. The gov't doesn't always (or hardly ever).

 

+1

[bpwallace49]

I found the data here, they say their source is IRS data. what's most interesting if you look at that is that over the course of the bush era, the share paid by the top end increased while the share paid by the bottom decreased, despite all those purported "tax cuts for the rich". because while taxes were cut for the rich, they were cut MORE (as a percentage) for the poor. it's rather ironic that the "tax cuts for the rich" made the system MORE progressive.

 

as far as your other questions, I assume that is net tax liability, it would be kind of stupid to try and measure it any other way. I don't know if it includes capital gains taxes. if it doesn't, I guess the share of the burden carried by the top 1/5/10% would only icrease from the numbers I already posted. so I don't really see your point in throwing that out.

 

thanks . . so ths same thing that WV posted, which is very good data. The capital gains taxes, if included, would artifically show that the upper % pays more (because of their capital gains) as opposed to straight income taxes.

 

Az, if your goal is show how we should feel sorry for the rich that pay more . . they buy things that are more expensive, so they pay more in sales taxes anyways. Greater consumerism (which I beleive is WVs goal of a consumpion tax?) is already in place to an extent .

 

That website has a noble goal . . one that I think most reasonable people would agree with.

 

That's why it is so vitally important for us to continue our pursuit of institutional change in government. Paramount among these reforms is scrapping the U.S. Tax Code for a better alternative. And it's time once again to consider adding a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to keep Congress from spending beyond our means. Also, a Tax Limitation Amendment would prevent our elected representatives from raising our taxes so that they can raise their spending.

 

Let's face it--our U.S. Tax Code is a complicated mess, far too complex for average taxpayers to understand. We need sweeping tax reform designed to make this system both fair and comprehensible for the folks who actually pay those taxes. And real reform would also mean an end to the dreaded Internal Revenue Service.

 

By reforming taxes, we can transform American politics as well. There are hundreds of lobbyists and special interests running around Washington seeking tax breaks and exemptions. Tax reform would end the game of picking winners and losers under the tax laws and break the cycle of dependence between lobbyists and politicians.

[bpwallace49]

Funny you should mention that. One of the off camera designers for the show is from our great city. She called around asking for the "best" contractor in town from several architects not telling them what it was for, and she was given our name. She contacted us last week to see if we would work with her. We do not do residential work aside form our personal stuff (I have a hobby room and theater that is sitting half completed with no work done to them since Thanksgiving, all they lack is millwork and floors), which usually we are too busy to do. We told her we would help her anyway we could, but that we are too busy right now, and honestly that is not our area of expertise. We pointed her in the direction of some good residential contractors and some trade contractors that do residential and smaller commercial work.

 

We have built a YMCA and a Church for deliberate losses before. We donated all of our time, just charging them our material cost and the cost charged to us from trade contractors. See I'm not the greedy Third Eye Blind I pretend to be.

 

That is pretty cool stuff Perch . . seriously.

[yo mama]

Based on some of the foreclosures I've been looking at, it wasn't just the poor spending money they shouldn't. Still I don't think you should penalize someone for someone else being stupid.

You know I agree with you in concept. But there are a LOT of people right now who can't makes ends meet, but it ain't because they were stupid. And some of those people are in a pickle precisely because of corporate American's unbridled short-term, selfish greed. Frankly, I wish there was an easier way to differentiate between those deserving of public assistance, and those that aren't. Just like I wish there was a way to tax the crap out of the "rich" people who screwed up our economy without blasting honest business.

 

All I was really saying earlier is that the rich wouldn't be rich without the "stupid" consumer public, which includes idiotic government spending. But I don't see corporate America returning their profits in protest.

[bpwallace49]

People don't want to believe that half the country lives off the other half, but it's true. I know that a lot of those in the bottom 50% work, but when they get welfare (earned income tax credit), lower food prices (through farming subsidies paid for by the upper 50%), roads, schools and all the other services that they pay not one dime for, yes, one half of this country most definitely lives off the other half.

 

But the poor (that work for the minimum wages and even middle class) BUY THE PRODUCTS THE RICH SELL. Therefore it is still symbiotic, and while the rich wail about how the poor dont pay enough in taxes, the rich rely on them to BUY stuff so they get rich.

 

Cant look it uup now, but wasnt it Henry Ford that advocated paying his workers a lot of money because he wanted them all to BUY the cars they were makeing?

 

End of the day WV, who do you think lives off the other half? Capitalism in the US is just a more advanced theory of feudalism, where the poor always stay poor, but the rich get richer. How much has average income increased over the last 5 years in those % breakdowns? So how much has the income of that top 1% increased versus the income of the bottom %?

 

I will try and get these later, but isnt there a lot of data on how top CEO compensation has risen by 400% in the loast 10 years when average worker pay has only gone up 5%?

[Perchoutofwater]

Cant look it uup now, but wasnt it Henry Ford that advocated paying his workers a lot of money because he wanted them all to BUY the cars they were makeing?

 

Ford was smart. I question if he really believed his workers would buy his car, but that if he paid them well he would have the choice of the top employees in the field. It's a lot like us. We pay our people at least 20% more than our closest competitor in our market. Now if you ask any architect around here which firm has the best superintendents and project managers, the unanimous answer is us. We feel we pay a little extra for the cream of the crop, but that we make up for it in production, lack of mistakes, and quality. As a result we don't bid work, but negotiate it. We have demonstratively shown owners that while they will pay a higher fee to go with us, and that the general conditions cost will also be higher the overall project will be cheaper due to quicker schedules, less screw ups, and better relationships with trade contractors. On a recent school program we built 5 of 7 schools for a district. The buildings were all identical (with the exception of possibly being mirrored). While our fee was 1.25% higher and our general conditions cost was $87,000 higher the projects we did were 5% less expensive than the ones our competitors did and completed a full month ahead of theirs. We attribute it to having better employees and getting preferential pricing from trade contractors because they know we treat them fairly and have are crap together and aren't going to waste their time getting them out there before it is ready for them. Point being Ford was not a social crusader, but a shrewd businessman that provided value for value.

[Deathpig]

Capitalism in the US is just a more advanced theory of feudalism, where the poor always stay poor, but the rich get richer.

 

This statement is so full of wrong it's just depressing. Feudalism and capitalism are not even remotely close.

 

I also tired of the 'poor stay poor and the rich get richer' arguments. In this country a penniless immigrant can become a business mogul (and if not him, his son or his son's son). This isn't ever true for the serfs in feudalism or even people in currently existing governments. HINT: That's why people want to come to this country. The depressing thing to me is so many citizens of this country refuse to believe that with hard work and a break they can leverage their talents to make money. A billion people around the world that don't speak English can understand the opportunity this country represents, but sections of our own citizens are blind to it.

 

And it's not just the poor that can become rich...the rich can become poor, too. Most lottery winners end up broke a handful of years after winning the jackpot. If your motto was true, they should just keep on getting richer, right? The place where things break down is the basic costs of goods don't change based on income, so if you are collecting 4% return on $10,000 and I'm collecting 4% return on $1,000,000 dollars... even though the percent is the same, the real-world applicable use of the return is vastly different ($40 buys you and your wife dinner, $40,000 is a decent salary). Of course it's easier to amass money when you're already rich, because your returns can easily outpace your expenses. That's not the fault of the country or the system, that's just basic math. On the other hand, having a lot of money can give you expensive tastes, and that can eat up everything very quickly-- just ask lottery winners, sports players, entertainers, etc.

 

If anything, we should worry about teaching people how to access the opportunities already afforded to them and teach them how to deal with money (especially credit). It doesn't take intelligence to build up capital, it takes willpower. Too many people are focused on buying things they can't afford, and this can apply to rich people as well as poor people.

 

 

NOTE: I am not in the upper class, nor a CEO. I do not make more than $250,000 dollars a year. I would very much like to, so if you know someone paying that have them call me. Thanks.

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

If anything, we should worry about teaching people how to access the opportunities already afforded to them and teach them how to deal with money (especially credit).

 

 

There were many of these programs ,then they were all cut around 2003 and 2004....

[Ursa Majoris]

I found the data here, they say their source is IRS data. what's most interesting if you look at that is that over the course of the bush era, the share paid by the top end increased while the share paid by the bottom decreased, despite all those purported "tax cuts for the rich". because while taxes were cut for the rich, they were cut MORE (as a percentage) for the poor. it's rather ironic that the "tax cuts for the rich" made the system MORE progressive.

30% of $1,000,000 = $300,000 with $700,000 left over

 

10% of $10,000 = $1,000 with $9,000 left over

 

So, which one would you like, Az? The 30% or the 10% rate?

[gbpfan1231]

30% of $1,000,000 = $300,000 with $700,000 left over

 

10% of $10,000 = $1,000 with $9,000 left over

 

So, which one would you like, Az? The 30% or the 10% rate?

I am pretty sre both of those people would rather have the 10% rate. Stupid scenario.

[Ursa Majoris]

the top 1% of earners pay 40% of all income tax. the top 5% pay 61%, the top 25% pay 87%. apparently, some of them missed the memo about loopholes and shelters, because they are funding the government.

The only thing that's really telling me is that more of the national wealth is being concentrated in fewer hands. That's also why only half the country is a net taxpayer - more people are falling below the tax threshold.

 

It's got nothing to do with bling, rims and fecklessness and everything to do with outsourcing, a nice pool of unemployed to help keep wages low and jobs at McDonald's replacing jobs at IBM.

[Ursa Majoris]

I am pretty sre both of those people would rather have the 10% rate. Stupid scenario.

Why is it stupid? It's real, is it not? I get paid very well, BTW, but I've always said you've got to earn it to pay it - it beats the crap out of rich people in Mercedes whining about how hard done by they are in comparison with the freeloading janitor paying net zero because he can barely afford the f'n rent.

 

Bah. Total BS argument. Show me one guy - just one - who turned down a raise or a bonus because of the taxes.

[millerx]

Again, wrong. The flat tax can still be manipulated by fedgov for social ends. Who would disagree that the rich spend more on a house, car, etc.? Who would disagree that the illegals need to pay into the system they're abusing? And the way my favorite plan - the Fair Tax, is set up, everyone gets a prebate monthly for the amount of the estimated goods/services needed by folks at the poverty level. So the whiners can't even complain that it's regressive.

The main problem with a consumption tax is that it would take the power out of the politicians hands. We all agree that regardless of the party, politicians like to wield power. They like to play games with taxes, whether it's the repubs wanting buy their vote by telling its constituents they will get to keep more or the Dems telling them they will get the 'rich' to pay their share... instead of looking at actual remedies that have the potential to pull us out of this mess, all we will continue to get is a side show of promises designed to distract from what the real agenda is... Political power.

 

But the poor (that work for the minimum wages and even middle class) BUY THE PRODUCTS THE RICH SELL. Therefore it is still symbiotic, and while the rich wail about how the poor dont pay enough in taxes, the rich rely on them to BUY stuff so they get rich.

 

Cant look it uup now, but wasnt it Henry Ford that advocated paying his workers a lot of money because he wanted them all to BUY the cars they were makeing?

 

End of the day WV, who do you think lives off the other half? Capitalism in the US is just a more advanced theory of feudalism, where the poor always stay poor, but the rich get richer. How much has average income increased over the last 5 years in those % breakdowns? So how much has the income of that top 1% increased versus the income of the bottom %?

 

I will try and get these later, but isnt there a lot of data on how top CEO compensation has risen by 400% in the loast 10 years when average worker pay has only gone up 5%?

What is on the top of the list for this administration now? The obvious answer is JOBS!

What would happen to this country if we removed concern over taxation by simplifying it to the most basic element of consumption? I would like to argue that we would be come somewhat of a tax haven in the world. Those companies that have taken their business overseas because of our punitive taxation laws would surely like to bring the offices back to the states... as well as foreign companies wanting to relocate to our country simply because it would be good business to not have to deal with others taxation laws... In essence, by eliminating the need for the I.R.S., we could bring about job creation as well. But again, then what would the politicians have to hang over our heads and play partisan politics with?

[driveby]

Who needs a laugh this morning?

[westvirginia]

But the poor (that work for the minimum wages and even middle class) BUY THE PRODUCTS THE RICH SELL. Therefore it is still symbiotic, and while the rich wail about how the poor dont pay enough in taxes, the rich rely on them to BUY stuff so they get rich.

 

Cant look it uup now, but wasnt it Henry Ford that advocated paying his workers a lot of money because he wanted them all to BUY the cars they were makeing?

 

End of the day WV, who do you think lives off the other half? Capitalism in the US is just a more advanced theory of feudalism, where the poor always stay poor, but the rich get richer. How much has average income increased over the last 5 years in those % breakdowns? So how much has the income of that top 1% increased versus the income of the bottom %?

 

I will try and get these later, but isnt there a lot of data on how top CEO compensation has risen by 400% in the loast 10 years when average worker pay has only gone up 5%?

 

This is a specious argument. Whatever the rich are selling, they are giving value for it. They get no more value from the government for their tax dollars than the poor. It's called equal protection under the law. Your next argument is they get greater value because they have more to protect. They only have more to protect because of their ingenuity, it has NOTHING to do with any extra incentives or protections from government. Again, equal protection under the law = equal opportunities.

[Perchoutofwater]

Why is it stupid? It's real, is it not? I get paid very well, BTW, but I've always said you've got to earn it to pay it - it beats the crap out of rich people in Mercedes whining about how hard done by they are in comparison with the freeloading janitor paying net zero because he can barely afford the f'n rent.

 

Bah. Total BS argument. Show me one guy - just one - who turned down a raise or a bonus because of the taxes.

 

There comes a point where it just isn't worth it anymore between the taxation and regulation. At that point people decide to retire and get out of business, whether they be highly skilled professionals or business owners. I know I've got two superintendents on the payroll that when you take in their wife's salaries (one is a nurse, the other a college prof.) they make over $250,000 a year combined. Does that sound rich to you? A guy that average 60 hours a week in the elements only getting vacations when the job allows? It doesn't sound rich to me, it sounds like a hard worker. The same type of hard worker that these punitive taxes that Obama has suggested will discourage.

 

I've said in the past if OSHA, TNRCC (Texas version of the EPA), and the IRS don't back off I may just take my money and run. Close up and take a part time job like teaching, so I can have my summers free to sail and take my kids on vacations. It is infuriating knowing you are working harder than someone else so they can rely upon your coerced charity. The current system does nothing but promote mediocrity and resentment. Particularly when it comes to business owners, with all the regulation and taxation, the risk is quickly approaching the same level as the reward, and when it does, you are going to find me and a lot of people like me being bums on boats in the Caribbean.

 

And I've got a better less socialistic motto for you. Rather than your "You've got to earn it to pay it" how about "you have to earn it to receive it."

[driveby]

Who needs a laugh this morning?

How about another one?

 

"What I reject is the same old grandstanding when the cameras are on, and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off," the president said. "It's time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again."

[driveby]

One more.

 

"We're not going to save our way out of this recession," the majority whip added. "We've got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that."

[Ursa Majoris]

There comes a point where it just isn't worth it anymore between the taxation and regulation. At that point people decide to retire and get out of business, whether they be highly skilled professionals or business owners. I know I've got two superintendents on the payroll that when you take in their wife's salaries (one is a nurse, the other a college prof.) they make over $250,000 a year combined. Does that sound rich to you? A guy that average 60 hours a week in the elements only getting vacations when the job allows? It doesn't sound rich to me, it sounds like a hard worker. The same type of hard worker that these punitive taxes that Obama has suggested will discourage.

 

I've said in the past if OSHA, TNRCC (Texas version of the EPA), and the IRS don't back off I may just take my money and run. Close up and take a part time job like teaching, so I can have my summers free to sail and take my kids on vacations. It is infuriating knowing you are working harder than someone else so they can rely upon your coerced charity. The current system does nothing but promote mediocrity and resentment. Particularly when it comes to business owners, with all the regulation and taxation, the risk is quickly approaching the same level as the reward, and when it does, you are going to find me and a lot of people like me being bums on boats in the Caribbean.

 

And I've got a better less socialistic motto for you. Rather than your "You've got to earn it to pay it" how about "you have to earn it to receive it."

If you take the money and run, other businesses will fill the void. Demand will not change one iota. Neither will employment or unemployment - it's all about demand.

 

As for your supe, sure he's rich relative to the rest of the nation. That's simple. Sure he works hard - if he's any good, so do the people under him earning half that. The "hardness of the work" is not in question. The only real reason your supe would decide it isn't worth it any more is nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with having enough amassed to pack it in. Offer him a $50,000 pay raise that you both know will be taxed at ~35% and see if he takes it or if the loss of $17,500 - $20,000 in taxes depresses him enough to turn it down.

 

"You've got to earn it to receive it" is quite true but no more so than mine - you have to earn it to pay it. Like I said in my other (unanswered) post, I'll take 70% of $120k over 100% of $20k every time.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Ursa Majoris