Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

PirateMk1 · Jun 4, 2012

PirateMk1 said:
I guess nobody wants to answer so I will post anyhow. If you are offended, too bad. :2razz: First of all I asked the question how many of you own a business or run one because I wanted to know if any of you have any true idea of the tax code is and why it is so convoluted, to use a mild term. If you are employed you are being taxed the highest, by PAYING your taxes FIRST then SPENDING what is left over SECOND. Businesses on the other hand SPEND their money FIRST, then PAY taxes on the leftovers SECOND. Most people who are in congress are fairly wealthy, and they wish to keep it. Most congressmen did NOT make their money being EMPLOYED. They did it though investing, or owning a buisness, or inherintence. Hence the laws are going to be such that they will be able to keep and make more wealth. If you are employed you will most likely NEVER gain any appreaciable wealth. To gain wealth requires calculated risk by investment, in youself, or others. Thats just the way things are rigged in this country. I am the owner of a corporation, I pay as little tax as I possibly can leagaly. Most of my money that I spend is BEFORE it is taxed. This gives me a huge advantage over someone who is just employed as I reduce my gross income down to a fraction of that of the employed person, with that spending. The courts say I have absolutely no obligation to pay more. I will not. I would rather spend my money on assets or with other people, then spend it on the goverment. I consider my self taxed too much because I have to spend so much time considering the Tax ramifications of anything I do. I have to employ accountants and lawers to make help me take advantage of every tax loophole or exculsion I can. This is money I can use otherwise to upgrade equipment, employ people and sponser more charities. This is time and effort that could be used to be more productive and take advantage of more opportunities.

If I am going to be miserable, I d rather be wealthy. I dont know anyone who does not want to be wealthy. Wealth is FREEDOM. The goal of every American ought to be Finacially independent and then free. Wealth allows you the freendom to stand up for yourself, your priciples.

Taxes in my opinion should be no more then 10% total all inclusive on your SPENDING. That includes state and local taxes. If its good enough for god, its good enough for goverment. The locals would collect it and keep 40% and pass the rest to the state. The state would then keep 50% and give 50% to the feds. The totals would break down this way Locals get 40%, state and feds get 30% each, for a total of 100%. The tax would be on all NEW goods and on services. No exemptions. No other tax or fee or other goverment revenue collection would be allowed. The locals would have their state by the short and curlies, and the states would have the feds by the short and curlys as well. This would apply to everyone and every business. Sweet and simple, and equitable.

Thats my take. Cheers.

MoSurveyor said:
No, not really. You've made your opinion all too clear.

The problem is the same as it's always been. The rich want one standard for themselves and another for everyone else. Nothing new to see here ...

MoSurveyor said:
(emphasis added)

Read: "If you don't want to pay taxes then don't buy anything!"

Exactly what I said earlier, discourage people from buying.

A long-ass paragraph with pretty graphics (gee, did the wife 'pic' those for you?) to say exactly the same thing over, and over, and over. Are you going to do it again?!?!? I'll paste and copy my response next time. :yawn:

If you charge em 50% then hell yea nobody would buy anything. I would buy under the table myself. If you charge outragous tax expect it to be avoided. Look at new york with their cigerate tax they have a huge problem with bootlegging. Why cause they are greedy.
Wall street has a saying."Bulls make money, bears make money, and pigs get slaughtered." As true a saying as there ever was. The most total tax anyone should have to pay is 10%. Anything other is BS. You would have gotten that if you actually bothered to read the post. I am going to presume you are in a foul mood today and not call you out. That is subject to change depending on my mood and your further posts. By the way my mom picked the pics not my wife.

VanceMack · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
I wonder what percentage of the discretionary income those people receive? If we take away the income necessary to just buy the basics. Subtract what it costs to buy enough simple food to live on, a cheap apartment, basic clothes, care for your kids (if you have them), transportation to and from work from everyone's salary and call the rest discretionary income. I wonder what percentage the top one percent would receive then?

Define 'receive'. Is there some magic gifting program from the federal money fairy that is 'giving' the 1% their income? Or the top 7%? Cuz...funny...I thought we EARNED it.

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

PirateMk1 said:
:soap
My bad I did not make my point well enough. Those people are NOT for the most part going to be Janitors ect. for the REST of their lives unless they actively choose to. Most people with any common sense move up and beyond simply because they have increased their salable skills themselves or found another opportunity. To be honest with you anybody that is a janitor after 20 years and not own there own company, is either A. a goverment employee, B. unmotivated C. a speacial needs case. In either case it not my responability or the responsibility of government to cater to them.(cases A and B.) Case C speacial needs is just that. Thats why we have charitable orginizations. Those menial jobs you keep talking about are not ment as careers they are stepping stones. If they are looked at as other well I cant help stupid, and I aint about to try. I used to do janitorial work, and made pizzas and did a lot of menial manual labor when I was younger, I dont anymore. As do MOST of my contemporaies. I still do a bit of manual labor on occasion, but I get triple digit hourly pay for it. (I hate doing it and I try to discorage it by charging utterly ridiculus amounts to do it, but some people have more money than sense. ) If you are 40 and have only made minimum wage for your life and have a familiy to boot, then I can say with absolute surity you are a unmotivated fool. To be honest I cant think of too many jobs where someone with the least amount of motivation cannot move up in position responsibility and pay. I am acually finding it hard now that I really think about it. In my opinion the whole notion of the working poor is complete and utter BS now that I really think about it. If you lose your job and got to work at Mcdonalds or else where I really doubt you are going to be stuck doing that for the rest of your life with out at least attempting to do something about it. This is really starting to T me off.:censored

I'm not saying everyone will be stuck doing menial labor for ****ty money their whole lives. I'm saying that over time, the number of people doing menial labor for ****ty money will remain roughly constant. As people get older and advance into more lucrative positions, new young people will take their places. And since (as far as I know) it's not legal to defer your taxes for 20 years until you make a decent salary, some consideration needs to be given for the people in menial jobs making crappy money, even though later in life they might be better off. Which is really the point I'm trying to make.

When determining tax rates, it doesn't really matter if a family that's only making $25,000 a year is going to be making $50,000 a year in 10 years. They're making $25,000 a year now, and taxes need to take that into consideration.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 4, 2012

VanceMack said:
Define 'receive'. Is there some magic gifting program from the federal money fairy that is 'giving' the 1% their income? Or the top 7%? Cuz...funny...I thought we EARNED it.

That is not "fair", we all know that "investment" income is not real and should be taxed at a super high rate so that the gov't can redistribute it "farily" to the "needy". Only those "rich" that work really, really hard like entertainers or sports stars should get taxed at lower rates. ;-)

PirateMk1 · Jun 4, 2012

PrometheusBound said:
So we have to sacrifice our personal lives and personalities to become workoholic zombies, or else we deserve to be dissatisfied economically? The grind creates greedhead monsters, who become a danger to society, their neglected heirs, and themselves. In order to win a rat race, you have to become a rat. Why become road kill for these racing rodents, who think of themselves as high achievers as they go faster and faster when their obsessive greed grows larger and larger and can never satisfy them? They and the economies they run ragged finally crack up and drain an exhausted national spirit.

Great thing about this country is YOU get to pick your poison. If dont like the rat race dont be in it. Just expect not to get very far. Lifes a bitch then you die. Its not fair. You want money you have to earn it. I have a goal and I need money to achieve it. So I work my butt off to get what I want. There are many ways to achieve what you want, unfortunately for you and me they mostly involve work of some kind.:duel

clownboy · Jun 4, 2012

PrometheusBound said:
So we have to sacrifice our personal lives and personalities to become workoholic zombies, or else we deserve to be dissatisfied economically? The grind creates greedhead monsters, who become a danger to society, their neglected heirs, and themselves. In order to win a rat race, you have to become a rat. Why become road kill for these racing rodents, who think of themselves as high achievers as they go faster and faster when their obsessive greed grows larger and larger and can never satisfy them? They and the economies they run ragged finally crack up and drain an exhausted national spirit.

That's the name of the game. The most excellent part is that you don't have to play the game. It's all about your personal desires. If you just have to have all the latest flotsam of "modern life", and buy the adverts hammered into you, then you have to play the game. You won't die without a television, or a cable/satellite subscription. Straight internet connections and computers can be found on the cheap, the deluxe package and speed aren't really necessary. Find a career you love, that doesn't require your absolute bondage, you'll make enough to live a joyous life, free from the constraints of the rat race.

It's your choice.

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

PirateMk1 said:
You get taxed 10%, I get taxed 10%.

And what about the guy who can't afford to be taxed 10%? What's he to do?

PirateMk1 said:
Thats what I want.

What you want is unrealistic.

PirateMk1 said:
I prefer the sales tax simply because it affords people the freedom to not pay those taxes if they desire.

People shouldn't be allowed to simply choose not to pay their taxes, which is why I don't like the idea of a sales tax. Taxes are a necessary evil, and should be collected from as many people as possible. The only thing that's going to happen if we switch to a sales tax is that consumer spending will go down, as people stop buying things they don't really need to avoid the tax, and then in order to make the same amount of total revenue, the tax rate would need to be raised, which would cause spending to go down further, requiring the tax rate to go up again, etc.

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

PirateMk1 said:
The most total tax anyone should have to pay is 10%.

You're delusional if you think that local, state, and federal governments put together can get by on a combined tax rate of 10%.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
I'm not saying everyone will be stuck doing menial labor for ****ty money their whole lives. I'm saying that over time, the number of people doing menial labor for ****ty money will remain roughly constant. As people get older and advance into more lucrative positions, new young people will take their places. And since (as far as I know) it's not legal to defer your taxes for 20 years until you make a decent salary, some consideration needs to be given for the people in menial jobs making crappy money, even though later in life they might be better off. Which is really the point I'm trying to make.

When determining tax rates, it doesn't really matter if a family that's only making $25,000 a year is going to be making $50,000 a year in 10 years. They're making $25,000 a year now, and taxes need to take that into consideration.

The simple and effective way to deal with that "income disparity" is by using the "standard" deduction; by exempting the first $10K from FIT and applying a single rate of 20% taxation to all income above that point you get a "fair" yet "progressive" basis for taxation. Consider the following example: Citizen A makes $20K/year, while citizen B makes $100K/year; Citizen A pays $2K in taxes or 10% of their gross income, while citizen B pays $18K in taxes or 18% of their gross income. Wasn't that easy and "fair"? A FIT code with only two numbers, won't the lobbyists be mad?

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

VanceMack said:
Define 'receive'. Is there some magic gifting program from the federal money fairy that is 'giving' the 1% their income? Or the top 7%? Cuz...funny...I thought we EARNED it.

re·ceive [ri-seev] Show IPA verb, re·ceived, re·ceiv·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to take into one's possession (something offered or delivered).

When one receives income, one takes it into one's possession. There is nothing inherent in the word receive that suggests that it was given and not earned. One can receive a paycheck as easily as a gift.

Now did you have an actual point to make related to the subject at hand, or do you just want to nitpick over word choice? Because I have no interest in doing the latter.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
And what about the guy who can't afford to be taxed 10%? What's he to do?

What you want is unrealistic.

People shouldn't be allowed to simply choose not to pay their taxes, which is why I don't like the idea of a sales tax. Taxes are a necessary evil, and should be collected from as many people as possible. The only thing that's going to happen if we switch to a sales tax is that consumer spending will go down, as people stop buying things they don't really need to avoid the tax, and then in order to make the same amount of total revenue, the tax rate would need to be raised, which would cause spending to go down further, requiring the tax rate to go up again, etc.

Nonsense, Texas has property, school and sales taxes, yet no income tax. Sales are quite brisk here in the lone star state, with an over 8% sales tax on all non-food items.

PirateMk1 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
I'm not saying everyone will be stuck doing menial labor for ****ty money their whole lives. I'm saying that over time, the number of people doing menial labor for ****ty money will remain roughly constant. As people get older and advance into more lucrative positions, new young people will take their places. And since (as far as I know) it's not legal to defer your taxes for 20 years until you make a decent salary, some consideration needs to be given for the people in menial jobs making crappy money, even though later in life they might be better off. Which is really the point I'm trying to make.

When determining tax rates, it doesn't really matter if a family that's only making $25,000 a year is going to be making $50,000 a year in 10 years. They're making $25,000 a year now, and taxes need to take that into consideration.

Wow :slapme: I was way off on my understanding of what you trying to get at. Thanks for clearing it up. You know I see your point, and it would apply with tax rates at their current levels. My personal opinion on the matter is simply lower the rates to 10% tax total or less and exempt food and medicine. Keep the total bite 10% or less and those making less will be able to gather the resources necessary to move quicker into finacial independence. I think that if you talk to anyone they want finacial indepence. To be able to not worry about were their going get the money to do x y or z. The problem with our current tax code is it hinders people in achieving that independence. It sucks up money that would otherwise used elsewhere. Think about the national debt for a moment. That is money that otherwise be invested elsewhere. If just half that money was flowing in our economy think of were we would be now.

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
The simple and effective way to deal with that "income disparity" is by using the "standard" deduction; by exempting the first $10K from FIT and applying a single rate of 20% taxation to all income

I've considered that solution many times actually. I love the simplicity of it, but I'm of the opinion that it's one of those ideas that is too simple to work in reality. If the point is for the deduction to take into account the cost of basic necessities, that's difficult to do with a standard deduction, because the cost of basic necessities isn't standard. Basic necessities for a family of four cost more than basic necessities for a family of two. Basic necessities in large cities cost more than basic necessities in rural areas. You could handle that with a standard deduction, but it would mean setting the standard deduction relatively high, otherwise families with a lot of kids, or who live in areas with a high cost of living would still get screwed over. And then you have the situation that we have now, where a lot of people who could afford to pay some taxes, even if it isn't a lot, aren't paying everything. That's why I think the deduction for cost of living needs to be based at minimum on family size (though there should probably be an upper limit). Basing it on geographic area could be useful too, but that's considerably more complicated, and probably has less of an effect on cost of living than family size does, so it could probably be left out without causing much problem.

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

PirateMk1 said:
Wow :slapme: I was way off on my understanding of what you trying to get at. Thanks for clearing it up. You know I see your point, and it would apply with tax rates at their current levels. My personal opinion on the matter is simply lower the rates to 10% tax total or less and exempt food and medicine. Keep the total bite 10% or less and those making less will be able to gather the resources necessary to move quicker into finacial independence. I think that if you talk to anyone they want finacial indepence. To be able to not worry about were their going get the money to do x y or z. The problem with our current tax code is it hinders people in achieving that independence. It sucks up money that would otherwise used elsewhere. Think about the national debt for a moment. That is money that otherwise be invested elsewhere. If just half that money was flowing in our economy think of were we would be now.

It would be fantastic if we could have a total combined tax rate of 10%. I simply don't think that's anywhere near realistic. Even if you believe in small government, and going back to the very basics that were explicitly allowed of the federal government in the constitution, I don't think a combined tax rate of 10% would be enough to support local, state, and federal governments combined.

PirateMk1 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
You're delusional if you think that local, state, and federal governments put together can get by on a combined tax rate of 10%.

They cant get by with what we give em now. We could give em everything we have and those twits couldnt get by. I really dont feel an ounce of sympathy for the government twits. They can cut spending like the real world does.:cuckoo:

ttwtt78640 · Jun 4, 2012

clownboy said:
That's the name of the game. The most excellent part is that you don't have to play the game. It's all about your personal desires. If you just have to have all the latest flotsam of "modern life", and buy the adverts hammered into you, then you have to play the game. You won't die without a television, or a cable/satellite subscription. Straight internet connections and computers can be found on the cheap, the deluxe package and speed aren't really necessary. Find a career you love, that doesn't require your absolute bondage, you'll make enough to live a joyous life, free from the constraints of the rat race.

It's your choice.

Exactly. People often do not believe that we pay $300/month rent for a single wide mobile home on about 1/4 acre, $125/month electric, $40/month water and no sewer as we are on septic. The trick is to spend less on the basics and then you have more for toys and fun. ;-)

PirateMk1 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
It would be fantastic if we could have a total combined tax rate of 10%. I simply don't think that's anywhere near realistic. Even if you believe in small government, and going back to the very basics that were explicitly allowed of the federal government in the constitution, I don't think a combined tax rate of 10% would be enough to support local, state, and federal governments combined.

They used to do it on less then 1%

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense, Texas has property, school and sales taxes, yet no income tax. Sales are quite brisk here in the lone star state, with an over 8% sales tax on all non-food items.

8% is a lot different than the amount that would be necessary to support the federal government, even if we cut back on government spending significantly. Things would be different if we switched completely from an income tax to a sales tax. There would be a lot of upheaval in the country for awhile if that happened, but I think spending would get hurt, at least for awhile, when things suddenly started costing 20% more than they used to.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
I've considered that solution many times actually. I love the simplicity of it, but I'm of the opinion that it's one of those ideas that is too simple to work in reality. If the point is for the deduction to take into account the cost of basic necessities, that's difficult to do with a standard deduction, because the cost of basic necessities isn't standard. Basic necessities for a family of four cost more than basic necessities for a family of two. Basic necessities in large cities cost more than basic necessities in rural areas. You could handle that with a standard deduction, but it would mean setting the standard deduction relatively high, otherwise families with a lot of kids, or who live in areas with a high cost of living would still get screwed over. And then you have the situation that we have now, where a lot of people who could afford to pay some taxes, even if it isn't a lot, aren't paying everything. That's why I think the deduction for cost of living needs to be based at minimum on family size (though there should probably be an upper limit). Basing it on geographic area could be useful too, but that's considerably more complicated, and probably has less of an effect on cost of living than family size does, so it could probably be left out without causing much problem.

WRONG. These things, even the number of dependents, are financial choices and personal life decisions. I consider it GROSSLY unfair to tax two workers, making the same wage, laboring side by side, at different rates OR amounts. What they CHOOSE to do with their after tax earnings is their personal, private business and the decisions of one should not shift the tax burden to (or from) the other. Tax law is about raising revenue not social engineering or social justice. If you REALLY want a gov't payment to each "family" for each child they choose to have, then legislate it separately so that all may see its true cost/benefit, don't clog up the tax code with other unrealted nonsense. That is why we have zillions of pages of "tax" law now.

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

PirateMk1 said:
They used to do it on less then 1%

Do you have a source for this? I have trouble believing that local, state, and federal governments put together ever got by on a combined 1% tax rate.

molten_dragon · Jun 4, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
WRONG. These things, even the number of dependents, are financial choices and personal life decisions.

So? That doesn't mean they don't need to be accounted for. A family of 4 can't live on $10,000 a year just because it was a choice for the parents to have kids. And as I pointed out earlier, what if the family was getting by just fine, and had been since they chose to have kids, but then one parent loses their job. Are they just supposed to put the kids up for adoption because they can no longer afford them?

ttwtt78640 said:
I consider it GROSSLY unfair to tax two workers, making the same wage, laboring side by side, at different rates OR amounts. What they CHOOSE to do with their after tax earnings is their personal, private business and the decisions of one should not shift the tax burden to (or from) the other.

This is why I think the concept of fairness is pointless in discussing taxation. I personally don't think it's fair that a guy working to support 3 kids at home has to pay the same amount of taxes as a bachelor whose living expenses are much lower. It doesn't really matter though. The cost of basic necessities for a family of 4 are higher than the cost of basic necessities for one person. That is a fact. And the tax code needs to account for that fact, because people can't pay taxes with money they don't have. Now you could have a standard deduction, but $10,000 isn't going to cut it. It would probably need to be more like $30,000 or $40,000 to account for large families that live in high cost of living areas. And in a lot of parts of the country, and for smaller families, they could certainly pay some taxes on $30,000 or $40,000 a year.

VanceMack · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
re·ceive [ri-seev] Show IPA verb, re·ceived, re·ceiv·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to take into one's possession (something offered or delivered).

When one receives income, one takes it into one's possession. There is nothing inherent in the word receive that suggests that it was given and not earned. One can receive a paycheck as easily as a gift. Now did you have an actual point to make related to the subject at hand, or do you just want to nitpick over word choice? Because I have no interest in doing the latter.

One EARNS a paycheck. No one gifts it. As such, no one is entitled to what you have EARNED. It may seem nitpicky to YOU...but I promise you, the difference is very real to people actually EARNING their way in life, especially when so many people insist that it isnt FAIR that people that EARN their income dont have more of it involuntarily taken from them and GIVEN to the pathetic perpetual handout crowd. "Fair share" indeed.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
8% is a lot different than the amount that would be necessary to support the federal government, even if we cut back on government spending significantly. Things would be different if we switched completely from an income tax to a sales tax. There would be a lot of upheaval in the country for awhile if that happened, but I think spending would get hurt, at least for awhile, when things suddenly started costing 20% more than they used to.

Most of that "upheaval" is simply because so few pay a "fair" share of FIT now, so yes, for them it would be a shock to pay any (more) taxes. I do not propose a national sales tax, I propose a VERY simple FIT with a single standard deduction and a single taxation rate for all income above that.

PirateMk1 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
Do you have a source for this? I have trouble believing that local, state, and federal governments put together ever got by on a combined 1% tax rate.

How do you think they passed the 16th amendment? They promissed not to go over 1% on the income tax.

ttwtt78640 · Jun 4, 2012

molten_dragon said:
So? That doesn't mean they don't need to be accounted for. A family of 4 can't live on $10,000 a year just because it was a choice for the parents to have kids. And as I pointed out earlier, what if the family was getting by just fine, and had been since they chose to have kids, but then one parent loses their job. Are they just supposed to put the kids up for adoption because they can no longer afford them?

This is why I think the concept of fairness is pointless in discussing taxation. I personally don't think it's fair that a guy working to support 3 kids at home has to pay the same amount of taxes as a bachelor whose living expenses are much lower. It doesn't really matter though. The cost of basic necessities for a family of 4 are higher than the cost of basic necessities for one person. That is a fact. And the tax code needs to account for that fact, because people can't pay taxes with money they don't have. Now you could have a standard deduction, but $10,000 isn't going to cut it. It would probably need to be more like $30,000 or $40,000 to account for large families that live in high cost of living areas. And in a lot of parts of the country, and for smaller families, they could certainly pay some taxes on $30,000 or $40,000 a year.

You make it sound like if you simply CHOOSE to make only enough to sustain yourself (and as big a family as you desire) then you have no tax obligation at all. That is INSANE. You then convert income tax into basically a luxury tax. The simple answer is that if you can not afford to raise a child that you wait until you can to have that child, not that you trade raising a child for paying your income taxes. If you can not afford a big house then you live in a smaller one or share one. As it is now, I pay for the education of the children for those that pay no taxes at all, plus the money to feed and house those ADULTS that chose to have them, that is insane.

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes in the United States?

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

Yes

No

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Anti-Hypocrite

Sometimes wrong

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Sometimes wrong

Anti-Hypocrite

Sometimes wrong

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Sometimes wrong

Anti-Hypocrite

Sometimes wrong

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong