The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

I agree with you.

The borderline wealthy, those who are in your group but still make less than a million per year, most likely make up the bulk of direct income tax revenues.

Many of the extremely rich, those making over 5 million per year, could be said to make up for it by putting money into local economies through major business investments. They provide the cash necessary to pay for construction companies to build production and retail centers, which adds up to a boatload of payroll taxes if nothing else.

The problem is that revenues are not meeting expenses. If we canceled Medicare and Medicaid, and severely cut Social Security benefits we might do it. But it would be political suicide. If we cut every other low wage and/or unemployment relief effort it won't make any impact at all, the military spends more on coffee than what that adds up to.

 

The EITC is a welfare program paid for with revenue from the general tax revenues. It is not a refund of the FICA/Payroll tax imposed on their labor nor does it even equal the full amount of FICA/Payroll taxes collected by the federal government from their labor.

The highest earners do not pay the highest tax rates. The top 400 income households in America, all with incomes over $150 million per year, average a personal income tax rate of 17.6% which is about the same as someone earning $100,000/yr. Virtually everyone with an income of over $100,000 per year up to $150 million per year pays a higher income tax rate than the top 400 households.

Any household with $150 million or more in income should be paying the top 39.6% income tax rate but these top 400 households are paying less that one-half of that tax rate!

The deficit is the shortfall between revenue and authorized spending and the spending is the "necessary" spending of the government as determined by Congress. The only responsible way to reduce necessary spending is to reduce the necessity for the spending.

In short if we want to reduce the necessary spending for welfare assistance then we need to reduce the poverty that necessitates the spending. We could do that by raising the minimum wage because that reduces the "poverty" of those earning less than the new minimum wage.

If we want to reduce the necessity for military spending then we need to reduce the use of the US military's role that's unrelated to the actual defense of the United States. We can reduce military spending if we withdraw our military forces from foreign conflicts so that we don't require 12 carrier combat task forces.

Fiscal responsibility requires the revenue necessary to fund the necessary spending.

By way of example:

If we have a 30 year fixed $250,000 home loan at 5% interest the monthly payment amount would be $1,342.05. We must have the income to pay that amount and can't just arbitrarily decide to only pay $1,000 per month so we can work fewer hours or accept a lower paying job that would be more enjoyable.

If we want to only pay $1000 per month then we need to renegotiate the interest on the 30 year fixed mortgage down to 2.6% and then, once that's accomplished we'll only need to earn $1000/mo to pay for the mortgage. Then, and only then, can we work fewer hours or accept a lower paying job that only provides the $1000/mo in revenue.

When the necessity for the spending is reduced then the expenditure is less and less revenue is required.

You can't cut taxes unless you have surplus revenue above the authorized (necessary) expenditures because it will cause deficit spending. Deficit spending is fiscally irresponsible and it's the GOP tax cuts that have created the deficits and national debt. It's never been the necessary spending authorized by Congress.

Arbitrarily reducing spending (e.g. only paying $1,000 for a 5% interest mortgage that requires a $1,342.05 monthly payment) without reducing the necessity for the spending (e.g. reducing the mortgage interest rate from 5% to 2.6%) is fiscally irresponsible.

The GOP has proven itself to be fiscally irresponsible.​

 

Reimbursement of FICA contributions to the lower incomes is one of it's main purposes, they effective do not pay into SS but collect the benefit.
Earned income tax credit
The EITC was enacted during the Ford administration by the Tax Reduction Act of 1975. Originally, the EITC was supposed to be a temporary refundable tax credit for lower-income workers to offset the Social Security payroll tax and rising food and energy prices. The credit was made permanent by the Revenue Act of 1978. The EITC was considered both an anti-poverty program and an alternative to welfare because it incentivized work (Ventry 2000).
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib37...edit-history-purpose-goals-and-effectiveness/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-average-federal-tax-rates-all-households

Top 1% no other groups come close.

We do that by putting people back to work not with arbitrary government enforced wage standards which only raise the poverty level.

As the Republicans have done in the past resulting in their lowering of deficits and even surpluses as opposed to the Democrats increases in spending such as their 9% in 2008 and then 18% in 2009 increasing the deficit from $161B to $1,400B in just two years.

Spare me your specious made up scenarios we have actual history instead.

​

Since when are budget surpluses and rapidly falling deficits down to a paltry $161b a sign of fiscal irresponsibility?

 

The top 1% pay between 35-40% of direct income taxes the top 20% about 80%. What is borderline wealthy although that is the wrong measure as we tax INCOME not what a person is worth.

Which is why high investment taxes reduce tax revenues.

Which if course is false but then no one is talking eliminating those programs. They need to be reformed just as Gingrich and Kaisich did in 1996 with welfare and people went back to work and started paying taxes.

 

How is saying "a wealth tax could include something other than a death tax" logical fallacy ? What fallacy have I committed ? I do not think you understand what logical fallacy is.

You have not stated how a death tax would not be feasible (which is a form of wealth tax). I have no comment on some kind of general wealth tax - an do not know whether or not that would be feasible either - it would depend on the specifics.

There is no such thing as "private ownership property" in NJ. If you pay rent on something (property tax) then you do not really own it. For this reason I am against property tax as ownership of private property is fundamental to liberty.

That you do not think wealth inequality needs to be dealt with is an opinion I do not share.

The reason I disagree with your opinion is because much of the wealth out there has been gained through illegal and/ or nefarious means.

"Properly authorized duty" is a relative term.

1) Just because Gov't is authorized to have a court system - does not authorize "unlimited funding" of such a service.
2) roads, infrastructure courts and so on is a manipulation of society through wealth redistribution.

 

The fallacy of taxing living breathing citizens on their wealth is the fallacy, why do you ONLY want to discuss estate taxes now?

Because I did not make that claim although I oppose estate taxes on their face and yes you clearly stated a general wealth tax was a possibility.

That is real property and state and local matter not a federal matter.

Obviously, why do you think it is any of your business how much someone owns and where do you get off thinking it should be taken from them simply because they own it?

Well that is a law enforcement matter but then again the Constitution protects against unreasonable seizure of your property, your wealth just becuase someone THINKS you obtained in illegally or might have obtained it illegal. There is a thing called dur process.

No it's in the Constitution.

But it is authorized on the federal level.

No it is authorized in the Constitution as a necessary function of the federal government and does not redistribute wealth.

 

I can't do this ..sorry. I might as well be talking to myself. I will make a couple of points.

1) logical fallacy - Argument consists of 2 parts 1) claim or premise 2) rational that backs up/ proves that claim.

A fallacy is then where 2) does not prove 1. For example (assumed premise). This is where there is no 2.

Abortion is wrong because a baby is killed. This is a fallacy because it assumes that the zygote is a baby. In order to claim a baby exists - (a contentious issue) one must prove this claim.

There are a whole bunch of other logical fallacies. Your example is not one of them.

2) Just because something is a necessary function of Gov't does not mean it is not a redistribution of wealth. Any tax, for any reason is wealth redistribution.

The constitution does not authorize "unlimited taxation" to fund Gov't function. This would constitute totalitarianism which is not what the founders had in mind.

Either make some attempt to understand what I am saying or we are done.

 

First I didn't say "Logical fallacy" so yes you are aguing with yourself. I said it is a fallacy we could possibly have a workable wealth tax, a practical fallacy.

And that is another fallacy.

You seem to like to make fallacious statements.

It authorizes the government to tax in order to fund the necessary functions of the government as further spelled out in Article one, the only limit placed on the amount is that place on the Congress at election time.
ad in mind.

I understand what you are saying the question is do you want to debate it or not.
For instance how would you possibly assess the value of everyone's wealth or even just the top 25% for the purpose of this wealth tax? Who would do it, what would be the mechanisms to challenge these assessments. At what point it time is the wealth valued, on April 15th, an average of the year? A persons net worth can change on a daily basis. You keep harping on the estate tax, well those assessments for valuation of the estate can takes months if not years to value for probating.

 

The argument is not about equal-distribution, which was socialist (and is no longer)

We are talking about equitable-distribution, which essentially means that America needs to reformulate the way revenue is taxed and spent. Something is wrong, very badly wrong. Too much is going to too few because effective taxation is far too weak. And with what is left, more than half of American's Discretionary Budget is being spent on just one organization, the DoD. (See that here, if you don't believe it.)

The country does not need a billionaire-class in which this happens as shown here,
It's the Inequality, Stupid - and specifically this:

Ten-percenter wannabees give heavily to the Replicant Party because it promises there will never be a change in the Taxation System of the US instituted in the 1980s by Reckless Ronnie.

Until there is a change, however, basic Income unfairness will continue to plague America ...

 

Do we need successful people at all then? If great success in a bad thing, at which point to we limit our success?
We have a large number of people who have become convinced that the only reason they don't have money is that someone else does-and they covet it. They believe that somehow they would be successful, if others had only failed... and lowered the bar to where they sit. Equal mediocrity for all. They would actually be worse off, but would feel better because everyone else is to- so by comparison, they aren't the loser they see themselves as now.

Equal opportunity for wealth does exist in America- but that is a chance to be the best you can be, not a guaranteed free ride. It's so unfair that the guy who runs the fastest wins the race. It's just not right...

 

Depends upon how you measure "greatness".

You want it to be measured in dollars and cents. I want it to be measured in how well a country takes care of its people. And for me that means a National HealthCare Service (assuring long lifespans) and Tertiary Education assuring a knowledgeable population and a skillful workforce.

We are are measuring with very different "yardsticks" ...

 

Fallacy is as I described it

2) If you are going to stand on a soapbox and cry "fallacy fallacy ... Wrong Wrong" and then not show "why" something is fallacious or wrong. Then this is no longer a debate

3) I understand your point in relation to unlimited funding ( although on a practical basis - the idea that congress is going to approve "unlimited" funding to the point of complete state ownership =100% tax is abject nonsense)

So ... if everything I post is going to be met with "Fallacy .. Fallacy" with no explanation of why, and you are going to make no attempt to understand the point I am making - to the point of abject nonsense.

What then is the point ? Why would I torture myself by continuing ?

 

Yardsticks is a comparison I use frequently as a way to illustrate how perceptions come out so differently between people. Certainly, the right yardstick would be one that measured realistically and factually- a standard; not one made of rubber to suit individual purpose. You are talking about what the nation should do, but the nation is a conglomerate of millions. One of the foundations of the nation is independence and freedom- the right for each of us to succeed or fail on your our own initiative. Hardly a just thing to say those who perform the best and succeed, and who already pay the lions share of the costs of the nation as well as the lions share for charities and environmental efforts should pay for more- to provide more things for those who pay for nothing and are already subsidized for their fare share of the national budget.

 

Not absurd. She and he proved you can rise to enormous wealth. Now how they did it, I happen to have some concise ideas. And stated them.

I have mentored many people trying to help them get rich and not very many really learned well enough to do it. So it depends entirely on the plans, goals and desires of those who allege they want wealth. Most saying they do, really do not.

 

They don't care about justice, or even any of the causes they go on and on about. Those are just soundbites over public union greed. They know full well 1) no attempt to soak the rich will affect receipts that much, and 2) that the rich already give their money away hand over fist in ways far, far smarter than government does.

What really bugs them, like any protection racket Paulie Walnuts thug, is that THEY AREN'T GETTING THEIR CUT. We could have -0- actual real poverty in the US (pretty much the case already) and they would still go on and on about the poor and the rich, would still make up hokum about tax policy. It's really all about them, their underworked, overpaid, overpensioned cushy ass gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex troughs. They want to perpetuate a gravy train that allows them to earn 4x what they are worth, retire in 25 years, and get twice the pension of a private sector worker. It's all about getting their crappy gov or related job into 6 figures, all the other stuff is window dressing. It's astounding that the average American hasn't figured this out, but thankfully the net is accelerating that process.

It's not about the rich and poor, It's about taking from US for THEM, taking from honest work in the voluntary private sector to give to thugs at the end of a gun barrel. Bill Gates' money could cure cancer and these crooks would still mewl about not getting their cut... erm... I mean about all "the poor" and "the rich not paying their fair share."

 

Well- with all the garbage you have set in concrete in there, I can see why it is impossible for you to find room in your mind for facts.
By the way, I just returned from a shareholders meeting.. along with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both of whom have pledged the bulk of their fortunes to charity.
How is it that on one hand- people like you say the rich have all the money and they took it from the poor. Did the poor used to be rich? No, they did not- and the rich didn't become rich by stealing from those who have nothing to steal. There are few men in the nation with the quality of character of Warren Buffet, and he has led vast numbers of people to wealth- but then, he's not a man with his head in a hole. He takes care of business- and it's a huge one.

It is how we think that makes us successful or failures, and most successes come honorably. Of course, you don't believe that because if you did your whole theory that relieves you of responsibility for your own situation would fall apart.

 

All debate consists of two elements, ideas and the data/info necessary to support those ideas (aka "concepts, interpretations, theories, views, understandings", etc., etc., etc.)

Ideas (or opinions) are the heart of any forum; they are thus necessary. Essential, however, is getting one's supporting data/info right, which makes for a good exchange. (All the rest is blah, blah, blah - and on this forum far too much sarcasm*.)

Sarcasm is the mentally-challenged individual's typical response in a forum by those who think that "having the last word wins an argument". Nothing could be further from the truth in debate. The real benefit of any debate is in the exchange, not "winning the game" ...

*Largely because some need to "win" all-the-time to assure themselves that they are "the best", and is a prevalent (male) delusion on many forums ...

 

THE WATTS RIOTS OF 1965

Because the evidence is there for anyone with an open-mind for the facts.

The facts of the matter:
*How many times must the Piketty research-data be shown for you to understand that proportional ownership of Wealth is lopsided and very, very heavily that of a DISTINCT MINORITY of families.
*How many times must the evidence of very low Upper-income Taxation (which produces Wealth) be shown to you graphically - as here?
*Even though higher-incomes do indeed comparatively pay higher (but not necessarily "high") income tax-rates - see here?

Economic Fairness in any country is indicated by the tax burden of higher income earners. Whyzzat?

Because they are making far more money than is needed for a wholesome and even "rich lifestyle". Moreover, they will never ever "need" that Wealth, which is subtracted from the market-economy cycle (of Supply & Demand) and kept as bank-investments until bequeathed to their offspring who never worked a day to earn it. (And, no, not all of it goes to fund high-tech Internet start-ups!)

Fourteen percent of American families live their lives below the Poverty Threshold. That's close to 42 million men, women and children. (The populations of California and Oregon combined). If you do not understand Societal Fairness then you are beyond hope - that is, the rich will get richer and poor poorer ... until something explodes!

Which it has been doing in America for quite some time. Have we all forgot the Watts Riots of 1965 or do we need another repeat but next time on a national level ... ?

 

No doubt about all you say above. But none of it recognizes the fact that central to any democracy must be a sense of "decency and fairness".

It is indecent and unfair that 13.5% of Americans should be living today below the Poverty Line - that is, btw, 43.1 million men, women and children, or the population of the states of California and Oregon combined.

Now, you explain, how that fact is both decent and acceptable in our country. Because all those individuals didn't "try hard enough"? Or is it because they are a "bunch of lazy basterds"?

Which derogation would you think applies ... ?

 

I gather that you think a on-line "forum" is a place where you say anything you want and everybody claps?

Open your eyes ... a forum is for debate, and unless a post is crudely wrong I typically reply. That's what debate is all about. It is an "exchange of opinion".

Far too many on this forum think its a sport, where (obviously) there must winners and losers.

It's not a sport, just an exchange-of-opinion (that far too often descends into sarcasm) ...

 

I've mentioned the race to the bottom. More and more we hear people say that those at the top need more so that they can be competitive and that we have to accept less and less to give them the tools they want. It's a race to the bottom, the workers here need to accept living more like Chinese workers if they want to be competitive.
Yet, the workers accept less and less, and profits rise and rise, at what point will we realize that the workers are getting shafted? Is there no limit? Do we really want to go to the bottom instead of the bottom rising to us?
Someone suggested that because I live and work in the DR Congo, as a development worker, my view is irrelevant. I'd suggest that since I've seen the top and the bottom it makes my view even more relevant rather than less. You do not want to be like the workers here, you want them to rise to your levels.
Once American workers accept the bottom then the rest of the world no longer has to worry that their workers will want to be like us. When that happens we stay at the bottom with the rest. Only revolution can change it then.
Take the great depression, it ended when the government pried money out of the hands of the hyper wealthy with taxes and put it to work building roads, bridges and other infrastructure. The money was there, it's just that those that had the money were perfectly content to let millions suffer and starve.
There's plenty of money to go around, profits show that to be true. It's greed pure and simple.

 

TRANSFORMATION

That same sentiment is felt here in Europe.

It is obvious that our transformation from the Industrial to the Information Age is going badly. But all such changes are difficult and none come without casualties. If young enough, they should go back to school and get the postsecondary qualifications are indispensable nowadays to obtain a decent job at a decent pay.

That costs, here in Europe, next to nothing. About a kilobuck a year plus room 'n board. And the kids ARE getting the necessary instruction, many having opted for Internet-based technologies just because that is where the Demand is found.

It is the older people who are in a worse position. Of course, learning Internet-programming techniques is not Mission Impossible, but most of the older-people think "it's beyond me". It isn't, but too many people believe it is.

I wish I had hopeful word for the Transformational Change as important as the present one, but I don't. It's key nonetheless that a Bernie Sanders type educational-subsidy cover any student wanting to attend a tertiary-level program. Hillary adopted that same idea in her campaign, but nobody understood its necessity.

I think they are beginning to do so now. If not, they should.

Still, unemployment levels are at their best since ages, but the employment data I like most is the Employment-to-population Ratio (from here), which looks like this:

It has a longggg way to go before it gets back to 2008 levels (when the fit-hit-the-shan with the Great Recession). But the ratio is improving because people are being attracted back into the national workforce* ...

*If ones does not register, one is not counted as part of the national workforce. Which is what many did whilst remaining on long-term unemployment or working undeclared.

 

It is true that Roosevelt, at the onset of the Great Depression, tried to cut expenditures because he was told by Wall Street that US debt would become "too high". He realized however that such a policy would not put people back to work.

So, he both read the book and talked personally with a now renowned British economist: John Maynard KEYNES. Who had argued that Stimulus Spending was necessary to kick-start the economy. He was right, in a way.

But what really stopped dead the Great Depression was spending on WW2 - it took men off the unemployment lines and put them into uniforms (whilst women took their places) and spent a fortune of war-supplies.

Seventy-five years later, after Obama has spiked an exploding unemployment rate in his first year in the White House, we stoopidly voted the HofR into Replicant control in 2010. They stopped-dead ALL stimulus-spending - preaching Austerity Budgeting.

What happened to the Employment-to-population Ratio was this:

From 2010 to 2014 job-creation was practically null. Then, all by itself, finally the US consumer started buying again and jobs were being created. Long, long before Donald Dork had declared he was running for office with his promise of job-creation ...

 

Nonsense. The statistics tell the truth.

A tiny percentage of Americans are holding most of the Net Worth. That's not "opportunity", it is a rip-off by one class of another. And it is wrong, wrong, wrong because national-policy has devised that mechanism. (And national-policy can change it!)

There is No Way on Earth to Justify Such Financial Unfairness ...

 

I would add that this is not the first time that we've heard that the American worker needed to tighten his belt. In the 70's we heard how Japan would be the death of the American industrial complex. Unions fought back and held their ground and in a few years the Japanese worker started to demand that they should be able to buy the products they were building. They rose to our level. It's only since Reagan's assault on unions that workers have started to believe the hype and accept the race to the bottom. It's as though they've forgotten that it's their children, grand children and future generations that will live there. All previous generations tried to build better for their children. There's no fight left.