• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?

Is This Statement True Of Federal Income Taxes?


  • Total voters
    28
Look at the question, guy - if a question does not include all the pertinent information, then you really need to learn how to make sure that all the pertinent information is included before you answer it - otherwise your answer is based upon assumption.

And if you'd taken care to read the REST of my answer, then you would have seen how my answer would have applied to America in any case even when the top 10% is paying 70% of the taxes. And FYI, my answer's not based on envy at all - if you understood my life in the least, you'd know that. You really need to learn to stop making assumptions about what other people must be like, when all you're doing is basing your assumptions on the fact that they don't agree with you politically or socially.

opinion noted and rejected based on my review of your other posts
 
Why do you never see anyone on the Left talking about the spending side of the budget?

Except for wars, corporate welfare, tax breaks for shipping our jobs overseas....

Would you like for us on the Left to agree to make big cuts in welfare and food stamps? It's really very easy - all that has to be done is to make sure that entry-level workers are paid a living wage...because if they're NOT paid a living wage, then they have to depend upon the government to give them support with things like food stamps so that their money will stretch far enough to provide food, shelter, and clothing. But until that day that entry level workers are paid a living wage, your government WILL continue to effectively subsidize those mega-corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald's because they can't allow themselves to pay their own workers enough to live on.

Think about it, guy - you pay ANYWAY. You pay higher prices for goods at a store which pays its employees more...OR you pay higher taxes to subsidize the wages of employees at stores which refuse to pay a living wage. But either way, you pay ANYWAY.

So that's your choice - higher prices, or higher taxes. Wanna cut taxes? Wanna cut the social safety net? I'm with you on that one, as long as even entry-level workers are paid enough to afford food, shelter, and clothing.
 
You mean their fair share of the overspending and waste of the federal government? I mean that's what we're talking about here. Why do you never see anyone on the Left talking about the spending side of the budget?

Exactly. Wonder why that is? It's always a revenue issue. If only the rich weren't exercising unfair influence and paying more, we wouldn't have to worry so much about what we are being given. There would be more money to spend on us if only all these loopholes were closed.

The biggest problem, as California proved many years ago, the rich don't always stay rich. Their income gyrates wildly from year to year due to the nature of the income. Yet, it's easy to buy a constituency with promises of money from people they have been trained to see as the enemy.
 
The top quintile (because I can't find statistics for the top 10%) earned 52.5% of the country's total income in 2012, and paid 68.3% of the country's total federal taxes. The top quintile also holds 88.9% of the country's total net worth, and 95.6% of the country's financial wealth (not including the value of people's homes).

So I would say that the wealthy are paying a little more than their fair share, but not as much more as some people make it out to be.

But how much of the nation's taxes go towards paying for what the rich require in order to run their businesses? For instance, Joe Everyman doesn't always have to depend on having a good roads and orderly traffic in order to get to work...but his boss at, say, UPS sure as heck does need good roads and orderly traffic in order to make his business work.

Come to think of it, maybe a better way to ask that 70% question above is...were all the tax breaks and subsidies that were given to Corporate America - and, by extension, to the rich - included in that 70%? Probably not...so that's what we're not seeing in that question.
 
Except for wars, corporate welfare, tax breaks for shipping our jobs overseas....

Would you like for us on the Left to agree to make big cuts in welfare and food stamps? It's really very easy - all that has to be done is to make sure that entry-level workers are paid a living wage...because if they're NOT paid a living wage, then they have to depend upon the government to give them support with things like food stamps so that their money will stretch far enough to provide food, shelter, and clothing. But until that day that entry level workers are paid a living wage, your government WILL continue to effectively subsidize those mega-corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald's because they can't allow themselves to pay their own workers enough to live on.

Think about it, guy - you pay ANYWAY. You pay higher prices for goods at a store which pays its employees more...OR you pay higher taxes to subsidize the wages of employees at stores which refuse to pay a living wage. But either way, you pay ANYWAY.

So that's your choice - higher prices, or higher taxes. Wanna cut taxes? Wanna cut the social safety net? I'm with you on that one, as long as even entry-level workers are paid enough to afford food, shelter, and clothing.

Do you really think that increasing the minimum wage, now earned by less than 3% of the US workforce, would reduce the need for taxpayer support of "the poor" which is now 15% of the US population? Since you admit that higher prices (cost of living) would result from this gov't mandated pay raise then it follows that gov't costs, based on COLA, would rise accordingly.
 
the rich don't always stay rich.

But if you'd take the time to look at the current American economic mobility statistics, they DO stay rich a heck of a lot more often than lower- or middle-income people become rich.

131209100348-economic-mobility-620xa.jpg

And now from the CNN Money article, information which you cannot allow yourself to accept:

Among the major developed countries, only in Italy and the United Kingdom is there less economic mobility {than in America}, according to Corak.
The research measures "intergenerational earnings elasticity" -- a type of economic mobility that measures the correlation between what your parents make and what you make one generation later -- in a number of different countries around the world.
Most Americans born into the lower class stay in the lower class.
Economists aren't certain exactly why some countries have a greater degree of mobility than others, but they do point to certain similarities.

Greater current inequality: The more unequal a society is currently, the greater the chance that the children will be stuck in the same sphere. This is because wealthy families are able to provide things like tutors and extracurricular activities -- and the time to pursue them -- that poorer families often cannot.
Also, education matters a lot more now than it did 100 years ago in terms of getting a good job.
"The rich can pump a lot more money into their kids' future," said Corak.
This helps explain why countries like China, India and many South American nations also exhibit relatively little economic mobility.
Families: Having a stable home life is also associated with the ability to climb the economic ladder, said Corak. The United States tends to have higher rates of divorce, single-parent homes, and teenage pregnancy than many other industrialized countries.
Social policies: Countries that redistribute wealth -- through, say, higher taxes on the rich and more spending on the poor -- tend to have greater social mobility, said Francisco Ferreira, an economist at the World Bank.


Think back, guy - when was America's economic mobility the world standard? Back in the days of the unions and higher taxes on the rich. But of course you cannot allow yourself to possibly draw any connections there, can you?
 
Except for wars, corporate welfare, tax breaks for shipping our jobs overseas....

Would you like for us on the Left to agree to make big cuts in welfare and food stamps? It's really very easy - all that has to be done is to make sure that entry-level workers are paid a living wage...because if they're NOT paid a living wage, then they have to depend upon the government to give them support with things like food stamps so that their money will stretch far enough to provide food, shelter, and clothing. But until that day that entry level workers are paid a living wage, your government WILL continue to effectively subsidize those mega-corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald's because they can't allow themselves to pay their own workers enough to live on.

Think about it, guy - you pay ANYWAY. You pay higher prices for goods at a store which pays its employees more...OR you pay higher taxes to subsidize the wages of employees at stores which refuse to pay a living wage. But either way, you pay ANYWAY.

So that's your choice - higher prices, or higher taxes. Wanna cut taxes? Wanna cut the social safety net? I'm with you on that one, as long as even entry-level workers are paid enough to afford food, shelter, and clothing.

Welfare isn't about working, it's about taking money from one person and giving it to another person for doing nothing.
 
Do you really think that increasing the minimum wage, now earned by less than 3% of the US workforce, would reduce the need for taxpayer support of "the poor" which is now 15% of the US population? Since you admit that higher prices (cost of living) would result from this gov't mandated pay raise then it follows that gov't costs, based on COLA, would rise accordingly.

1. The minimum wage might be what only 3% of the US workforce is getting, but what you're not remembering is that a whole heck of a lot of the US workforce gets paid just a little more than the minimum wage (so the owners can say, "See - we don't just pay minimum wage!"), but MUCH less than what a living wage would require. But I'm sure you knew that already.

2. If all those who are paid less than a living wage suddenly earn a living wage - including the VAST majority of Wal-Mart workers - then the social safety net can be slashed significantly. Food stamps, welfare, you name it. Sure, you'll pay a little bit more at Wal-Mart (but not nearly as much as you seem to think), but you'll pay less in taxes.

FYI, here's how much prices would rise at Wal-Mart if they raised their entry-level wage to $12.50:

Wal-Mart said last week that it would halt plans to open stores in D.C. because of a minimum-wage hike that would mandate a minimum hourly pay of $12.50.
Executives said the pay increase would drive up prices for consumers.

So how much would a higher minimum wage cost shoppers at Walmart?

About 46 cents per trip, reports Caroline Fairchild at The Huffington Post.

That figure is based on a 2011 study by CUNY's Stephanie Luce and University of California Berkeley's Ken Jacobs and Dave Graham-Squire.

"Even if Wal-Mart decided to pass 100 percent of the cost on to customers, store prices would still only increase by 1.1%," Fairchild writes.


In Right Wing world, though, that would result in massive unemployment, another recession, cats and dogs living together, and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man stalking the streets of Manhattan.

Stay-puft-marshmallow-man-200x200.jpg
 
I wish there could be a rule: any thread dealing with economics, when someone uses the word "fair", they get shocked with 50,000 volts of stupid-curbing electricity. It'd make the board more realistic and scientific and less emotional and idiotic.
 
I wish there could be a rule: any thread dealing with economics, when someone uses the word "fair", they get shocked with 50,000 volts of stupid-curbing electricity. It'd make the board more realistic and scientific and less emotional and idiotic.

I agree. I believe such discussions should also avoid prepositions and pronouns.
 
1. The minimum wage might be what only 3% of the US workforce is getting, but what you're not remembering is that a whole heck of a lot of the US workforce gets paid just a little more than the minimum wage (so the owners can say, "See - we don't just pay minimum wage!"), but MUCH less than what a living wage would require. But I'm sure you knew that already.

2. If all those who are paid less than a living wage suddenly earn a living wage - including the VAST majority of Wal-Mart workers - then the social safety net can be slashed significantly. Food stamps, welfare, you name it. Sure, you'll pay a little bit more at Wal-Mart (but not nearly as much as you seem to think), but you'll pay less in taxes.

FYI, here's how much prices would rise at Wal-Mart if they raised their entry-level wage to $12.50:

Wal-Mart said last week that it would halt plans to open stores in D.C. because of a minimum-wage hike that would mandate a minimum hourly pay of $12.50.
Executives said the pay increase would drive up prices for consumers.

So how much would a higher minimum wage cost shoppers at Walmart?

About 46 cents per trip, reports Caroline Fairchild at The Huffington Post.

That figure is based on a 2011 study by CUNY's Stephanie Luce and University of California Berkeley's Ken Jacobs and Dave Graham-Squire.

"Even if Wal-Mart decided to pass 100 percent of the cost on to customers, store prices would still only increase by 1.1%," Fairchild writes.


In Right Wing world, though, that would result in massive unemployment, another recession, cats and dogs living together, and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man stalking the streets of Manhattan.

View attachment 67165202

Walmart's annual sales volume is about $300 billion. Adding about $5K/year, for 2 million workers, is $10 billion which is about 3X more than that quoted 1.1% price increase to compensate by passing on 100% of that increased labor cost.
 
Walmart's annual sales volume is about $300 billion. Adding about $5K/year, for 2 million workers, is $10 billion which is about 3X more than that quoted 1.1% price increase to compensate by passing on 100% of that increased labor cost.

Here's a link to the study itself - educate yourself as to whether they're making up stuff or not.

Specifically, look at Table 3 on page 5, which shows how you significantly overestimated how much extra the workers would get. The majority of the workers get between $9-$12 per hour...and they would both get less than $3K extra per year...part time workers in that group would get an extra $1.6K per year. So before you go blowing stuff off, try looking at the hard data first, please.
 
Here's a link to the study itself - educate yourself as to whether they're making up stuff or not.

Specifically, look at Table 3 on page 5, which shows how you significantly overestimated how much extra the workers would get. The majority of the workers get between $9-$12 per hour...and they would both get less than $3K extra per year...part time workers in that group would get an extra $1.6K per year. So before you go blowing stuff off, try looking at the hard data first, please.

Nonsense. That assumes that only those workers now making less than the new MW would see any pay increase. Reality dictates that those now making MW + X would likely continue to do so. It is unrealistic to expect that a manager, who now makes $13/hour, would accept that as fair pay when they used to get at least $5/hour more than their lowest paid co-workers.
 
Nonsense. That assumes that only those workers now making less than the new MW would see any pay increase. Reality dictates that those now making MW + X would likely continue to do so. It is unrealistic to expect that a manager, who now makes $13/hour, would accept that as fair pay when they used to get at least $5/hour more than their lowest paid co-workers.

And if you run a business, you know that the amount you pay your managers is not that great a concern - that's only one person's salary compared to what, twenty, thirty, forty other lower-level workers? In the big picture, the cost of raising the manager's pay is peanuts compared to the cost of raising the wages of the lower-level workers.
 
And if you run a business, you know that the amount you pay your managers is not that great a concern - that's only one person's salary compared to what, twenty, thirty, forty other lower-level workers? In the big picture, the cost of raising the manager's pay is peanuts compared to the cost of raising the wages of the lower-level workers.

Fair enough but not only managers at Walmart now make $12/hour or more. My point is that raising the pay of only those at the bottom is unrealistic. The likely impact of a much higher MW is the further reduction in schedualed hours for part-timers and concentrating staff only during peak sales periods. Not only retail sales are affected by MW increases and many businesses (e.g. landscaping and janitorial services) have much higher labor costs to total sales ratios.
 
Thanks for making anything else you said irrelevant - ignored.

Well, first off, you're a dick.

Second, even if every single American worked literally as hard as they could, THERE WOULD STILL BE PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE FAIRLY POOR, EVEN BY TODAY'S STANDARDS. That is because, inevitably, not everyone can "Get the promotion". The further up you go, the fewer positions there are. Not everyone can be rich, obviously, and not everyone can even be "middle class", EVEN IF the so called "failures" did everything the "right way". It is just inherent in the system itself. Now, obviously, very poor people often don't exercise the highest degree of logic when it comes to pulling themselves out of poverty, but there are most often a wide number of factors that help keep them poor, even things as simple as they way they are brought up and raised (or not raised) by their parents.

To help correct for this automatic imbalance, a system should exist with a mechanism to account for that inherent inequality, as even if everyone worked equally hard, some would STILL be poor. So yes, throw them (at the very least) a freakin bone, or two.
 
So you think there CAN be a claim that they do not pay at least their fair share?
Without knowing the percentages one pays you can not make that determination if they do or don't pay their fair share.Because on the surface if someone who earns a billion a year paid 10 million in taxes it looks like a lot but it is really 1% of their income.While someone who makes 30,000 a year pays 4,500 in taxes doesn't look like much but it is 15% of that person's income.
 
Neither. "Fair Share" is a poor and arbitrary notion that shouldn't factor into income tax levels. "Fairness" is not a good measurement for law as it's a completely subjective notion that has no definitive answer. Additionally, to often action that could be viewed as "unfair" can be attempted to "recitfy" something entirely seperate that they deem to also be "unfair".

IE...it's "unfair" that certain people have so much money, so we'll "unfairly" take a substantially amount away from them.

Fairness isn't the basis for which our tax code should be decided.
Thank you. The statement was made by a DPer who is on the right side of the political spectrum. I didn't identify who it was because I didn't want to get points for calling the DPer out. The statement was made as an argument for not raising the taxes on the rich. Similar statements are made by others for the same reason. When you first hear read it, it sounds like a reasonable statement, but let me assure you its not. The idea that a group (10% or other) is not relevant unless they pool there money together and pay their taxes as a group. Everyone pays their taxes as individuals.
 
Thank you. The statement was made by a DPer who is on the right side of the political spectrum. I didn't identify who it was because I didn't want to get points for calling the DPer out. The statement was made as an argument for not raising the taxes on the rich. Similar statements are made by others for the same reason. When you first hear read it, it sounds like a reasonable statement, but let me assure you its not. The idea that a group (10% or other) is not relevant unless they pool there money together and pay their taxes as a group. Everyone pays their taxes as individuals.

So you agree that "fairness" is useless in discussion of taxes? Or are you only having issue when people who disagree with you use "fairness" or use it in a way you don't agree is "unfair"?
 
So you agree that "fairness" is useless in discussion of taxes? Or are you only having issue when people who disagree with you use "fairness" or use it in a way you don't agree is "unfair"?

While you're at it, can you get an answer to what it means when he constantly says "everyone pays taxes as individuals"? I don't get together with everyone in the subdivision and mail off one check.
 
But if you'd take the time to look at the current American economic mobility statistics, they DO stay rich a heck of a lot more often than lower- or middle-income people become rich.

View attachment 67165200

And now from the CNN Money article, information which you cannot allow yourself to accept:

Among the major developed countries, only in Italy and the United Kingdom is there less economic mobility {than in America}, according to Corak.
The research measures "intergenerational earnings elasticity" -- a type of economic mobility that measures the correlation between what your parents make and what you make one generation later -- in a number of different countries around the world.
Most Americans born into the lower class stay in the lower class.
Economists aren't certain exactly why some countries have a greater degree of mobility than others, but they do point to certain similarities.

Greater current inequality: The more unequal a society is currently, the greater the chance that the children will be stuck in the same sphere. This is because wealthy families are able to provide things like tutors and extracurricular activities -- and the time to pursue them -- that poorer families often cannot.
Also, education matters a lot more now than it did 100 years ago in terms of getting a good job.
"The rich can pump a lot more money into their kids' future," said Corak.
This helps explain why countries like China, India and many South American nations also exhibit relatively little economic mobility.
Families: Having a stable home life is also associated with the ability to climb the economic ladder, said Corak. The United States tends to have higher rates of divorce, single-parent homes, and teenage pregnancy than many other industrialized countries.
Social policies: Countries that redistribute wealth -- through, say, higher taxes on the rich and more spending on the poor -- tend to have greater social mobility, said Francisco Ferreira, an economist at the World Bank.


Think back, guy - when was America's economic mobility the world standard? Back in the days of the unions and higher taxes on the rich. But of course you cannot allow yourself to possibly draw any connections there, can you?

However, if you review the revenue stream generated by the rich, you'll discover, as they have in California, governments can't count on the same levels of tax income each year to cover their commitments. Consider California at one time had a $42 billion deficit, representing over 60% of the nations state budget deficits, and this was in 2004, long before the recession in 2007-08.

This is why the Progressive plan to soak the rich will fail every time. Tax revenue must be generated across a broad footprint, not just from the rich.
 
So you agree that "fairness" is useless in discussion of taxes? Or are you only having issue when people who disagree with you use "fairness" or use it in a way you don't agree is "unfair"?
I certainly believe fairness is important when discussing taxes, however the term fairness has a different meaning depending on who is defining it. I don't believe in soaking the rich as so many people on the right like to fame it, but as I understand it, Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 believed in what we call today as a progressive tax or the more affluent pays at a higher rate than those at the lower end of the income scale. Also, many people on the right like to frame the argument that those at the lower end use more of the government services than the more affluent. IMHO, that is pure bunk. Where would Jeff Bezos be today, if the infrastructure provided by the Federal, state did not exist.
 
However, if you review the revenue stream generated by the rich, you'll discover, as they have in California, governments can't count on the same levels of tax income each year to cover their commitments. Consider California at one time had a $42 billion deficit, representing over 60% of the nations state budget deficits, and this was in 2004, long before the recession in 2007-08.

This is why the Progressive plan to soak the rich will fail every time. Tax revenue must be generated across a broad footprint, not just from the rich.

:agree: With so many businesses leaving California and taking their "richness" with them, who is going to pay the bills for those that count on other people to keep them alive? Sanctuary cities need constant funding in order to take care of those who can't or won't do so on their own, so we seem to be reaching some sort of tipping point, IMO. *shudders*

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom