%@#%@ the unions!

[Ryan P.]

Too many generalities here. Let's put some numbers on it. Personally I would consider progressive taxes punitive if the top rate starts going north of 35%.

35% of what? And why 35% instead of, for instance, 37%? Or 30%?

Recognize that, no matter how badly Republicans want to argue otherwise, this is not really a moral question, but one of efficacy.

Here's a question for Republicans who don't want the poor, oppressed rich to have to pay anymore: who should pay more taxes? If not the people who actually have all the money? How could you possibly do it any other way?

 

[Ryan P.]

What moral reasoning draws the line at 40% vs 35%?

Your trying to say the rich have a moral responsibility to pay more in taxes... well, they do, problem solved.

Now, if your trying to argue they should pay 40% vs 35%, lets hear why. Government deficits? Thats a valid argument. But so is raising tax rates too high, slows economic growth, shrinking total government revenue, and defeating the purpose of raising taxes in the first place.

Thats a grown up argument and discussion.

Um, I think you might be a little confused. I never used any specific number, and I certainly never made any moral arguments. In my opinion, "morality" has very little place in economic policy.

So no, I didn't say the rich have a moral responsibility to pay more in taxes. I'm saying they have a mathematical responsibility to pay more in taxes.

 

[Tom Ace]

Whats the issue? Thats the way it is now...and I haven't seen anyone say it shouldn't be that way.

Have you read the whole thread? The whole progressive tax discussion started when I responded to someone who said we need a flat tax because it's fair and reasonable. I argued that a progressive tax is more fair and reasonable, and it went from there.

Your not arguing people with lots of money should pay more in taxes than people with little money, thats the way it is now... Your arguing the rich aren't paying enough, and I haven't seen a good reason why.

Thank you for explaining what I'm arguing to me. I was hoping someone would, since I can't figure it out for myself, despite being the one making the arguments. We've only been arguing about progressive tax vs. flat tax until now. If you want to know, then what should really happen is all deductions and exemptions should be gotten rid of and the rates should be lowered, along with adding a new bracket starting around $1-2 million.

What moral responsibility argument supports 40% over 35%?

It's not even so much a moral responsibility, as much as the responsibility to support a society that functions well.

 

[Tom Ace]

We do know what you are saying.

Again, if you knew what I was saying, you wouldn't be making the silly comments you are. The big problem here is that you don't understand what I'm saying, and yet you want to argue against me.

I think I am done,

I understand. I don't blame you for quitting when the argument started requiring you to actually think and use relevant facts.

your kind will not learn.

Oh, the irony. Seriously, do yourself a favor. Learn to listen, or just don't comment. Either way, you'll help yourself by not sounding so ridiculous.

 

[Tom Ace]

What moral reasoning draws the line at 40% vs 35%?

Your trying to say the rich have a moral responsibility to pay more in taxes... well, they do, problem solved.

Now, if your trying to argue they should pay 40% vs 35%, lets hear why. Government deficits? Thats a valid argument. But so is raising tax rates too high, slows economic growth, shrinking total government revenue, and defeating the purpose of raising taxes in the first place.

Thats a grown up argument and discussion.

Thank you for the good response (even though it's not to me).

I won't necessarily argue for 40% over 35% because I think there needs to be bigger change than just that. As I said above, other things need to change, but I think the best way to figure out how much each group should pay is to figure out what we need and what we can expect from each group, starting with the bottom group. I think once you figure out what amount you need to bring in, you start by asking how much people making, say $20,000, can afford to pay reasonably. Then go up from there.

 

[cjr72]

35% of what? And why 35% instead of, for instance, 37%? Or 30%?

Recognize that, no matter how badly Republicans want to argue otherwise, this is not really a moral question, but one of efficacy.

Here's a question for Republicans who don't want the poor, oppressed rich to have to pay anymore: who should pay more taxes? If not the people who actually have all the money? How could you possibly do it any other way?

I'm talking about the top marginal income tax rate... You guys are arguing among other things whether or not a progressive tax rate is punitive or not. It kind of depends doesn't it on how progressive it is. For a number of years in the US the top rate was over 90% and I would think anyone would consider that punitive. As far as the rich paying more in taxes they already do.

 

[copestag]

lets all please try to stay away from personal attacks and insults...... the mods dont let threads stay open very long if we all bicker and insult like children

as far as the discussion on who should pay more and progressive taxes being fair.... its usually just an argument between those who actually pay taxes and those who dont

a family of four earning $50K (a fairly decent income in most of the country) have zero tax liability....... that means they pay 0 in taxes

40% of americans who filed taxes last year actually received a higher refund than what they paid in...... this means they received welfare payments for filing their taxes

its very easy to see why so many people argue for the "rich" to pay more and the "poor" to pay less....when 40% make money off the deal

of course taxes have nothing to do with the topic of this thread which is UNIONS and how theyre destroying the economy

if we want to discuss taxes someone should start a new thread

 

[byteware]

This doesn't make any sense. Can you reword it?

How's this...

The fact that you think CEO's are paid to much, means that you don't think we have a right to take issue with public employees compensation?

That only makes sense if you have an issue with CEO's.

Yes, I know. You are the one who is confused. The entire point is that unions have been in the past and are now the ONLY entities able to effectively stand up to corporate interests in politics. As corporations are more powerful now than they have been in decades, so the need for unions is greater than it has been in decades.

Name one single issue where unions have stood up to corporations in politics.

In the last ten years.

Any contention to contrary is an admission of ignorance.

Just to clarify, you are right, and anyone who disagrees is ignorant?

If you want to talk about the solvency of social security, that's fine, but this isn't the place. This comment has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You brought up social security as an achievement of the unions. And I mentioned how crappy of an achievement that is... and that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

You're incoherent. I can't even tell what you're trying to say, and it's obvious you didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote, because it's absolutely correct.

This statement answers so much about why you don't get where you're mistaken.

Non-union shops have good working conditions BECAUSE unions demanded those better conditions, and then over time everyone began to take them for granted. Are you seriously suggesting that, had unions never won these reforms, that things would magically be better today? That employers would have improved conditions out the goodness of their hearts? It'll be a painful day for you when you finally wake up out of your stupor.

So, I guess you agree. Unions are no longer needed.

It's also worth noting that union shops have higher wages. You may think this is good or bad, but it directly shoots down your "unions are not doing anything good today" theory.

It only shoots down my "unions are not doing anything good today" theory, if it's good that union shops have higher wages.

Gm was brought to it's knees by these higher wages (and other issues)... yeah... let's celebrate that.

I don't know about you, but I think winning better wages for the workers it represents is pretty good. You see, there is no "trickle down" without unions. Without some organization to force them to share benefits more equitably, companies will keep as much money for themselves as they can.

Companies are evil... we get it.

Let me ask you something: how much do profits have to grow, how much money do companies have to have, before it is finally acceptable in your mind for workers to ask for a larger share of the pie?

There is no measurement. When workers provide more benefit to the company, then they get a bigger share of the pie.

When they don't. They don't.

Only what the government "can?" What does that mean? The government "can" do almost anything, not to say it should. What this boils down to is the government should do "what Libertarians think it ought to."

This is exactly why I say you should read up on what OTHERS believe.

The government should do, what only the government can... means, that the government should do, only those things that no other entity (citizens, cities, counties, or states) are capable of doing.

National Security is one of those things. A state cannot handle national security, so that is the governments responsibility.

Um, the top 1% control 50% of this country's wealth. The top 1% get paid $0.24 of every dollar that is paid out in America. How many teachers do you know that are in the top 1%? There's your proof right there.

Teachers aren't taking advantage because they aren't as rich as CEO's... well, I guess that ends the discussion right there.


I have never on this forum debated with someone so blind. I've got to bow out... there is no getting you to see reason here.

 

[byteware]

Nope. I plan to make a good bit of money over the course of my life.

Well, when you achieve that... or get a decent financial foothold in this world.. then talk to us about how much you voluntarily give because of your responsibility...

you don't have the money. You just plan on taking it from others. Nice.

 

[cipher6]

Thank you for the good response (even though it's not to me).

I won't necessarily argue for 40% over 35% because I think there needs to be bigger change than just that. As I said above, other things need to change, but I think the best way to figure out how much each group should pay is to figure out what we need and what we can expect from each group, starting with the bottom group. I think once you figure out what amount you need to bring in, you start by asking how much people making, say $20,000, can afford to pay reasonably. Then go up from there.

It is to you. you said:

f I am ever lucky enough to make $800,000 a year, I'll gladly pay 40% in taxes.

Thats where 40% came in.

I think once you figure out what amount you need to bring in, you start by asking how much people making, say $20,000, can afford to pay reasonably. Then go up from there.

Then problem solved. Thats how the tax code is written now, and to answer what the gov thinks you can afford at 20,000, its 0.

And a flat tax (which most people mean consumption tax), rich people still pay more because they spend more.

And I agree, the richer you are the more you should pay in taxes... but have you stopped to think about overall effects on economies? Tax away all the rich people's money, who's gonna give you a job?

Theres tons of data that show, a tax rate too high, will slow economic growth, and actually decrease government tax revenue, defeating the purpose.

Its a little more complex than getting a shopping list, adding up the cost, then taxing everyone until you have that much money.

 

[ElasticNinja]

you will find that taxing the rich has little to no effect on economic growth, nad taxing higher earners more, while having an effect, will still increase revenue

 

[Tom Ace]

lets all please try to stay away from personal attacks and insults...... the mods dont let threads stay open very long if we all bicker and insult like children

as far as the discussion on who should pay more and progressive taxes being fair.... its usually just an argument between those who actually pay taxes and those who dont

a family of four earning $50K (a fairly decent income in most of the country) have zero tax liability....... that means they pay 0 in taxes

It depends on the deductions they can take. A family of four making that much with no other info would have a federal tax liability on about $24,000.

40% of americans who filed taxes last year actually received a higher refund than what they paid in...... this means they received welfare payments for filing their taxes

Source?

its very easy to see why so many people argue for the "rich" to pay more and the "poor" to pay less....when 40% make money off the deal

That's an interesting and unhelpful way to look at it. The more productive way to look at it is that the top 10% of the country owns over 70% of the wealth, and that's why it's argued that the tax rates aren't where they should be.

 

[cipher6]

you will find that taxing the rich has little to no effect on economic growth, nad taxing higher earners more, while having an effect, will still increase revenue

many economists disagree.

It depends on the deductions they can take. A family of four making that much with no other info would have a federal tax liability on about $24,000.

No one files taxes and reports nothing but income. Your numbers are wrong too $50,000 falls into the 15% tax bracket in 2011. So at 50,000 reporting no deductions your tax liability would be $7,500. But in 2011 the standard deduction is $11,600. So, right off the bat, your tax liability is 0.

Then you start adding credits, and end up with free money from the government.

Have you ever filed a tax return?

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction

 

[Tom Ace]

It is to you. you said:


Thats where 40% came in.

That's fine. What I'm saying is that I don't really want to argue about whether the top bracket should be 40% or 35%. I was just throwing out an example there.

Then problem solved. Thats how the tax code is written now, and to answer what the gov thinks you can afford at 20,000, its 0.

I thought we were trying to talk about this reasonably. First, if you make $20,000 and you have no extenuating circumstances (like a child, or a disability, etc.), you pay federal taxes. You don't pay 0. Second, my point was to explain how I think the percentages should be figured out. You start at the bottom, and decide what those people can afford reasonably. Then you move on to the next group, and see what they can afford, and so on.

And a flat tax (which most people mean consumption tax), rich people still pay more because they spend more.

Yes, but the point is that paying $5,000 out of $25,000 hurts a lot more than paying $100,000 out of $500,000. The idea that the same percentage of different amounts is equally valuable is incorrect. And no, most people mean one percentage across the board when they say "flat tax".

And I agree, the richer you are the more you should pay in taxes... but have you stopped to think about overall effects on economies? Tax away all the rich people's money, who's gonna give you a job?

Let's slow down. No one is talking about taking away all the rich people's money. Yes, if you take it to wild extremes, it will be harmful, but I'm not proposing that.

Theres tons of data that show, a tax rate too high, will slow economic growth, and actually decrease government tax revenue, defeating the purpose.

The top tax rate was over 70% during this country's years of biggest economic growth since the income tax was introduced.

Its a little more complex than getting a shopping list, adding up the cost, then taxing everyone until you have that much money.

Yes, it's a little more complex. I was giving a quick, general view of how to go about it. Obviously there's a little more involved, but that basic idea is how to go about it.

 

[copestag]

It depends on the deductions they can take. A family of four making that much with no other info would have a federal tax liability on about $24,000.

at $24K their liability would be $2,769
for having 2 kids they receive 2 x $1000 child tax credits
Its Making Work Pay $ sent to them was $800

$2,769 liability - $2,800 cash + deductions = they received a refund of 100% money paid in + they received an additional $31

Source?

IRS.GOV

That's an interesting and unhelpful way to look at it. The more productive way to look at it is that the top 10% of the country owns over 70% of the wealth, and that's why it's argued that the tax rates aren't where they should be.

yes and the top 10% of the country also paid over 70% of the taxes

 

[Tom Ace]

many economists disagree.



No one files taxes and reports nothing but income. Your numbers are wrong too $50,000 falls into the 15% tax bracket in 2011. So at 50,000 reporting no deductions your tax liability would be $7,500. But in 2011 the standard deduction is $11,600. So, right off the bat, your tax liability is 0.

Then you start adding credits, and end up with free money from the government.

Have you ever filed a tax return?

Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2010 and 2011

Standard deduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you might have misread. I said you'd have a tax liability on $24,000. Let's sort this out. A family of four has a standard deduction of $11,400 and personal exemptions of $13,600. That means they only pay taxes on $24,000 of their income. What I was saying is they have a tax liability on that amount, not that they pay that much in taxes. The amount they'd pay would be $3,175. All I was saying is that a standard family of four with no special exemptions is responsible for paying some taxes. And, by the way, $50,000 is not much to support a family of four.

 

[byteware]

I think you might have misread. I said you'd have a tax liability on $24,000. Let's sort this out. A family of four has a standard deduction of $11,400 and personal exemptions of $13,600. That means they only pay taxes on $24,000 of their income. What I was saying is they have a tax liability on that amount, not that they pay that much in taxes. The amount they'd pay would be $3,175. All I was saying is that a standard family of four with no special exemptions is responsible for paying some taxes. And, by the way, $50,000 is not much to support a family of four.

I support a family of five on about that much, and let me tell you (no special exemptions) we pay nothing in income tax.

 

[Tom Ace]

at $24K their liability would be $2,769
for having 2 kids they receive 2 x $1000 child tax credits
Its Making Work Pay $ sent to them was $800

$2,769 liability - $2,800 cash + deductions = they received a refund of 100% money paid in + they received an additional $31

See above.

IRS.GOV

Thanks. Now can you actually support your claim, or is this the best I can expect?

yes and the top 10% of the country also paid over 70% of the taxes

And?

 

[Tom Ace]

I support a family of five on about that much, and let me tell you (no special exemptions) we pay nothing in income tax.

Well, then you have special exemptions, whether or not your realize it. I already explained the standard ones. Although, a family of five shouldn't be paying much, if anything, one an income of $50,000.

 

[copestag]

in most of the country $50K is quite a bit for a family of four

 

[copestag]

I have already shown you how a family of four using standard deductions and credits who earn $50K will actually receive $31 extra dollars for 2009.........

I also gave you the URL to every statistic you could want for who pays what in taxes........ IRS.GOV

I need nothing other to support the truth than the facts....... and the IRS gives them to you very clearly

I suppose I can drive to your home and hold your hand while you read it if it makes you feel any better....... but it wont change the facts 1 single bit

a family of four makes more than enough to live comfortably at $50 in most of this country...... and they paid ZERO in Federal Income Taxes.... there are no special exemptions or sneaky accounting needed........ thats the absolute standard minimum.........

now its possible with some sneaky accounting they could actually receive more than the $31....... but every family of four in America who had an income of $50K in 2009 and used STANDARD deductions received at least $31 more than they paid in on their return...... FACT

I do find it interesting though that you think $50K isnt much to live on for a family of four....... but at the same time you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes.......... if you were earning $10K a year youd believe that family making $50k WAS the "rich" and youd be whining they should be paying something in taxes

 

[cipher6]

IRS 1040.COM tax estimator:

30 year old husband working making 50,000, stay at home mom and 2 kids under 17. No other deductions or credits. And having 0 taken out of your check each month.


Adjusted gross income $50,000
Taxable income $24,000
Total tax $2,766
Estimated refund $34


Try it yourself
1040.com Federal Tax Estimator - FREE Refund Calculator - FREE E-Filing

Again, have you ever filed a tax return?

 

[UPS92008]

I can tell you that I have worked in a union environment for 5 years and all they have done is made my life more difficult. No...I am not management, I am a "scab" because I refuse to pay dues to a organization I am fundamentally opposed to.

Its pretty simple then _jestor... go get a different job. Go see how wal mart fundamentally pays well. Just saying... =]

 

[Tom Ace]

in most of the country $50K is quite a bit for a family of four

There are very few places where it's "quite a bit". In most of the country it's very little.

 

[Tom Ace]

I have already shown you how a family of four using standard deductions and credits who earn $50K will actually receive $31 extra dollars for 2009.........

I also gave you the URL to every statistic you could want for who pays what in taxes........ IRS.GOV

I need nothing other to support the truth than the facts....... and the IRS gives them to you very clearly

I suppose I can drive to your home and hold your hand while you read it if it makes you feel any better....... but it wont change the facts 1 single bit

a family of four makes more than enough to live comfortably at $50 in most of this country...... and they paid ZERO in Federal Income Taxes.... there are no special exemptions or sneaky accounting needed........ thats the absolute standard minimum.........

now its possible with some sneaky accounting they could actually receive more than the $31....... but every family of four in America who had an income of $50K in 2009 and used STANDARD deductions received at least $31 more than they paid in on their return...... FACT

I do find it interesting though that you think $50K isnt much to live on for a family of four....... but at the same time you think the "rich" should be paying more in taxes.......... if you were earning $10K a year youd believe that family making $50k WAS the "rich" and youd be whining they should be paying something in taxes

That was a lot of words to say nothing. The facts are:

A family of four making $50,000 generally owes taxes. That's not a lot to live on. And no, I would never consider $50,000 rich. That's because I have the ability to do math and use logic and reason. If you'd like to reply with something worthwhile, please do. If it's just going to be more of this same factless, misguided nonsense, please don't.