All that this column is missing is a few facts. Such as...

According to the IRS, tax revenue to the government increased everytime the top marginal tax rates were lowered. Not only that, but the highest income earners paid a larger share of that revenue. The reason that tax revenue increased when the rates were lowered isn't hard to explain since those who produced were willing to produce more, requiring more employees and resulting in greater tax revenue.

Second, the columnist leads one to believe that income levels are static. That is clearly not the case, as Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, et. al. demonstrate. For the time being, people in the lower tax brackets can still improve their standing through their own efforts, while "soaking the rich" only results in making class structure more permanent by not allowing for social mobility. While it is easy to say that the top x percent earned more income based solely on numbers, the studies that are cited do not take into effect the composition of that strata...the structure is too fluid to make that claim with certainty.

Third, the standard of living among those classified as "poor" is much higher than the columnist suggests. If I remember correctly, the average individual classified as poor have television sets, microwave ovens, cars, cell phones, computers, etc. The average "poor" lives in a larger living space than the average European of any class. While there are pockets of deprivation among the poor, the standard of living of those considered poor would be the envy of those who lived at least twenty years ago.

The idea that the economy grew tremendously in the 1950's is also misleading because the level of pent-up demand that immediately followed World War II, combined with the fact that our production capacity survived relatively intact compared to Europe and Japan, made our economic growth almost impossible to stop. The fact was that the economy was stagnating in the late 1950's, and we did not see another economic boomlet until President Kennedy lowered the top tax rates. Economic growth also exploded during the thirty-year period following the Carter Administration when producers could keep more of their earnings.

CONTINUED

Posted by: IrishMensa

July 24, 2011 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Let's look at some of these claims "Irish" passes along:

IR: "...tax revenue to the government increased everytime the top marginal tax rates were lowered.">>

Complete, supply side, nonsense. So silly, so discredited it's not even believed by GW Bush people anymore. Note:

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former White House economist under George W. Bush, in a 2006 Washington Post article.

Robert Carroll, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax analysis, also said that no one in the administration believes tax cuts created a surge in revenue. "As a matter of principle, we do not think tax cuts pay for themselves," Carroll said.

Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan economist who became a strong critic of the Bush administration's policies, used data from the Office of Management and Budget in a blog post last year to illustrate how "the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue rather significantly."

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/...

See also the nice debunk detailed here:

http://factcheck.org/2008/01/the-impa...

IR: "the highest income earners paid a larger share of that revenue.">>

A typical distortion by a ridiculous reference to raw dollars. Even if they paid a flat rate, this would be true (yet meaningless). In reality, the uber wealthy often pay 15% on a great portion of their wealth, a considerably smaller percentage (nearly half) that of the middle class. Nicely shown in this chart/example:

http://tinyurl.com/3sseheh

IR: "people in the lower tax brackets can still improve their standing through their own efforts,">>

This is the part where we are to believe that the income disparities so carefully laid out and referenced by Dr. Hobson, really are due to more than half of the population being lazy. We are to believe that his is what explains, for instance, the change in CEO compensation. Ludicrous.

IR: "soaking the rich" only results in making class structure more permanent by not allowing for social mobility.">>

We need to slash rates for the rich in order to assist social mobility? Who can believe such chaff?

A useful chart: http://tinyurl.com/3r2uot6

IR: "easy to say that the top x percent earned more income based solely on numbers,">>

Really. What would you suggest we use, instead of numbers, when referring such things?

IR: "the studies that are cited do not take into effect the composition of that strata...">>

What a load. Here's what I notice, while Hobson provides reference to studies, you back up nothing. I doubt that is by accident. I hope you try.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 24, 2011 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Another point to consider is that it was all these higher-and-higher-paid executives who got us into the current mess. If it were true that higher taxes are a disincentive to earning more money (and it isn't, unless you're crazy), we could have used some disincentive for these people. When money is your primary motivation...

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 24, 2011 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

On to Mr. Cat and his light philosophical statement about high-paid executives getting us into the latest mess. Actually, it was the federal government, most notably the current administration that took a faltering economy and made it far worse by any credible standard. For example, unemployment is higher during this administration than at any point during the previous two. Too many of the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whose actions drove the banking industry into the ditch found themselves rewarded with positions in this administration, and the House Banking Chair responsible for oversight (and who resisted warnings from the previous administration) is still representing Massachussetts as we speak.

The second part of the post was an interesting study in whether money should be a primary motivation. There is no question that higher rates on income is a disincentive to creating jobs. The only ones who benefit from higher taxes are the uber-wealthy who can manipulate their resources in such a way as to avoid paying the higher taxes...ie General Electric. Those who can pass the higher rates on the consumer will do so, those who can't (usually the small business) will not hire employees or attempt to expand. Whether money should be a primary motivation is a good academic and philosophical discussion that does not hold up in the real world. Money is the primary motivation for the vast majority of the population, and most certainly the motivation for the statists...because through money comes power, and they could care less about traits that we all appreciate.

One can wish that money weren't a primary motivator, and (to those who follow that faith) other qualities may become important in the future. But that's not the world we live in.

Posted by: IrishMensa

July 24, 2011 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I'm no advocate of liberterianism. As bad as government tends to be on occasion (for example, requiring banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers), the ideas presented in the Ron Paul philosophy are far more dangerous.

What I would prefer is that government adhere to its constitutional responsibilities and enforce the laws that are already on the books instead of attempting new regulations that only serve to give the bureaucrats more to do.

Posted by: IrishMensa

July 24, 2011 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

The article really speaks for itself. There are those Americans (like Art) who believe in extremely deep redistribution of wealth, and those of us who believe we have enough redistribution already. Karl Marx said "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". This article doesn't sound much different.

The tenant of the article is misleading as well. When you compare the "ratio of the average income of our richest 10 percent to that of our poorest 10 percent", you should look at the whole picture. For instance, the bottom 30% of 5- person families are eligible for many types of government assistance. This assistance must be taken into account when making this argument, as we are already redistributing wealth at an exponential rate. The poverty rate for a family of 5 in 2011 is $26,170. Most benefits are available at 125% the poverty rate or $32,712. The average family size for families in the poverty group is 5 people. The average poverty income is $12,996. A full-time no-overtime minimum wage job pays $15,080. On the $12,966 poverty income, we pay on average $8027 in food stamps, $2012 in EITC refunds above any withheld income taxes (net refund above a zero federal income tax liability), and $37,315 in medicaid costs. Medicaid costs will average $7463 per person per year in 2011 (average FAMILY costs of private insurance are $13,375, but we will leave that for another day).

So if one includes just these few examples of avearge benefits provided for those in the poverty level, that family of 5 making $12,996 is actually compensated at an effective $47,354. That effectively puts them in the median income. We haven't included subsidized section 8 housing (where the max paid is 30% of market rent costs) , energy cost supplementation, or the myriad other 100’s of programs available to those in or somewhere above the poverty level.

There is much more to this debate than just 'income'. From 2000 to 2009, welfare spending increased by 143%, while welfare recipients increased by 37%. Food stamp expenditures increased by 73% over the same time frame. This is a bigger picture than presented by Art. We have a spending problem that is not sustainable…..

Posted by: commonsense96

July 24, 2011 at 11:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

.

Somewhere in most of the unsubstantiated claims someone mentioned "housing crisis" or meltdown.
.
Here's a little video of a presentation that may clarify who's responsible:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7...
.
let me know what you think after spending about 4-5 min with it.

Posted by: cdawg

July 24, 2011 at 11:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Cdawg - shame on both their houses. Watch this little clip from the same page....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4...

Barney and Chucky kept the dogs at bay. Looks like there is blame to go around. We need common sense in Washington. Seems as though it is not so common!

Posted by: commonsense96

July 25, 2011 at 12:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

IR: "touting sources such as slate and bitter former economists whose credibitlity is suspect...">>

When you can't respond to material, you can always try whining about the source. All the right-wingers around here like to start with that one. It's a fallacy and never effective, but, oh well.

IR: "fallacy that high tax rates on income affect wealth.">>

I am so glad that high taxes on income don't effect wealth. If that's true, why all the wanking about tax rates? Bizarre.

IR: "uber-wealthy... can easily manipulate their resources in order to avoid tax rates,...">>

No need for that, they've already arranged for the low rates. That's how Buffet gets to pay half the tax rate his secretary does. When most of your income is capital gains and taxed at 15%, fancy shelters are hardly necessary.

IR: "...income tax rates affect income, not wealth.">>

Nonsense. The rich receive much of their income from their wealth. This makes the rate it is taxed at important. In addition, much of their wealth is in the form of property and real estate, which is also taxed at "rates."

IR: "unemployment is higher during this administration than at any point during the previous two.">>

Let's add context to this talking point and bring you up to speed on the jobs situation:

Bush has *the* worst job creation record in history. From the WSJ:

"Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939...
...President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records."
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/0...

Put another way, more private sector jobs were created in 12 months under Obama, then in 8 under Bush (Bush lost 4 million jobs in last year alone). Note, Bush's Great Recession lost more jobs than the previous three recessions combined.
http://tinyurl.com/3u2pmhm

Such a disaster takes a while to clean up, and employment is a lagging indicator.

http://tinyurl.com/24foqny

Then, every effort to provide more stimulus (even though most of it is tax cuts), has been fought tooth and nail by the know nothing Tea Party group.

IR: "There is no question that higher rates on income is a disincentive to creating jobs.">>

Clinton (higher tax rate) ... 24 million new jobs
Bush (lowers tax rate) ... worst job record in history.

IR: "The only ones who benefit from higher taxes are the uber-wealthy who can manipulate their resources...">>

If that were true, then why the crocodile tears over a slight increase in rates on just the highest income?

The US is very much a low tax country. This is shown nicely in these ten charts:

"Ten Charts that Prove the United States Is a Low-Tax Country"

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 25, 2011 at 2:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Newsflash FFT: Top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of federal income taxes.....

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbo...

Top 10% pay 70% of federal income taxes.

Looks like they are doing a GREAT job of avoiding taxation!

Posted by: commonsense96

July 25, 2011 at 2:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

"Common" has some kind of learning disorder, but I'll briefly answer his questions again.

COM: "gas prices nearly doubling and double digit inflation maybe had something to do with the GDP increase">>

As usual, this has been explained to you before and just shows a lack of understanding.

"Real US GDP (2000 Constant Dollars)"

http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?D...

Com: "From 2000 to 2009, welfare spending increased by 143%">>

Please define your "143%" (how does it differ from a 43% increase?). You make piles of claims, but you reference none of it. We've gone through Bush's Great Recession and welfare has only gone up 43%? If true, that's amazing.

CM: "...the bottom 50% not pay any federal income taxes...">>

You never really have recovered emotionally from the demise of this cherished talking point. It might work in your circles, but it's not going to fool any adults. Let's kick it one more time, thoroughly.

Consider how dishonest it would be if I were to cherry pick for instance the lone category of "payroll" tax, which generates the exact same revenue for the government:

http://tinyurl.com/3gzgoby

...and then exclude all other taxes. I would never do that of course, because it would be absurd and transparently dishonest, a complete distortion. Yet this is precisely what you have no trouble engaging in continuously, even after your rudimentary slight of hand is revealed ten different ways and simplified to grade school level. That's rather telling I think.

Let's detail the ways it fails and misleads:

"Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes"

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=...

Excerpt:

1) The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.
In a more typical year, 35 percent to 40 percent of households owe no federal income tax. In 2007, the figure was 37.9 percent.

2) The 51 percent figure covers only the federal income tax and ignores the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay . As a result, it greatly overstates the share of households that do not pay any federal taxes... only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009,....

3) This percentage would be even lower if federal excise taxes on gasoline and other items were taken into account.

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 25, 2011 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT said: "Such a disaster takes a while to clean up, and employment is a lagging indicator".>>

COM responded: "Can the Republicans use that excuse through 2014 [in the unlikely event] they take control back?">>

If Obama has the worse job creation record in recorded history, loses 4 million jobs in his last year and is bleeding 800,000 jobs per month at the end of his term, *absolutely.*

But that would be so out of character for a democrat. As everyone knows, they have always had better job creation results then republicans.

D.
--------------
"No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-f...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 25, 2011 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

IrishMensa (with my apologies to the high IQ society)--

RE "Third, the standard of living among those classified as "poor" is much higher than the columnist suggests...."

How many of these alleged accoutrements of the poor-- television sets, microwave ovens, cars, cell phones, computers, etc.-- are actually owned by the poor? (Ever hear of Rent-A-Center?) In any case, having a lot of consumer goods is not wealth. Having lots of money that you don't spend is wealth.

Are these items luxuries as you suggest, or are they necessities? Coralie has already mentioned the necessity of owning a car. Owning a computer is vital these days for success in school and searching for or keeping jobs, among other things. Microwave ovens save a lot of time for busy poor people, and cut down on utility bills. Cell phones are often cheaper than land lines, and some poor people are unable to open accounts for land lines. I might give you television sets, except that some poor people can't afford to take newspapers or to go to movies, or a better way to keep their kids occupied. As for the envy of the poor of twenty years ago, who (poor or not) wouldn't have wanted a cheap cell phone or inexpensive computer twenty years ago? They didn't exist. The nature of necessities changes over time.

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine) implies here and said elsewhere that over half of American taxpayers don't contribute to society because they pay no federal income tax. You wrote the paragraph cited above. Yet you accuse liberals of demagoguery and class warfare? There's more of gall than of Gael about you.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 25, 2011 at 5:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Making home loans to low-income people is not necessarily a bad idea. Many low-income people are able to meet standard loan guidelines. In most markets, low-income homebuyers acquire marginal housing stock ("transitional" neighborhood, functionally "obsolete", or showing its age), keep it occupied and improve it; this saves entire neighborhoods. Homeowners are greatly preferable to renters in terms of maintaining the quality of older neighborhoods. The more marginal properties stay desirable in the market, and the more of them converted to owner occupancy, the better for everybody-- if it's done right.

The problem started when the banks became greedy and audacious, and made no-document loans to low- and middle-income people who shouldn't have received them, gave too much benefit of the doubt, and became sloppy in the original loan paperwork. The problem escalated when the financial market pretended that packaged loans including bad ones, and aggregations consisting largely of these loans, were a "good investment".

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 26, 2011 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

On your argument on who pays the taxes, here is some data from 2008:

The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbo...

There is plenty of data out there that we can cite and re-cite. Bottom line is we are nearly 50% of the population that pays no federal income tax.. End of story and sorry for you loss.

On EITC...My comments are not 'distortions' as you propose. I actually did my homework. This comment about those that are in/out of the EITC network is another diversionary liberal tactic...

www.taxpolicycenter.org

Trying to deflect the issue through some comments about the 'time spent receiving EITC' is bogus at best. The numbers speak for themselves. Much like your dispute over jobs created.....If there were so many jobs created under Obama and the Democratically controlled congress, then where the hell did they go? If you will take a second to check the unemployment numbers, (as i have explained to my 'learning disorder' friend multiple times) you will see we have a 9.2% unemployment rate. I don't care how many jobs you 'claim' to have created. We have nearly twice as many Americans out of work as when Obama and the Democrats took office. The smoke and mirrors are getting old...

Posted by: commonsense96

July 26, 2011 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha - you are exactly right...the problem started with Clinton opening the flood gates to lending and the subsequent 'laying-off' of that debt to the federally funded and controlled Fannie and Freddie. Now the taxpayer is stuck with the bill....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9Wlu4...

it started with Clinton, and continued through the first part of the Bush presidency. Then the Republicans started raising red flags and the democratically controlled congress did not listen.....

Posted by: commonsense96

July 26, 2011 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM: "response from an inept philosophy professor.">>

You are confused. I am not and have never been a philosophy professor.

CM: "Carter... doubling of gasoline and double digit inflation, the cost of these goods and services [caused GDP].">>

As explained to you before, this doesn't help you. Learn how this is adjusted for via nominal GDP, here (scoll down to adjustments for GDP):

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

See also this active chart here:

http://faculty.hacc.edu/jhuang/econda...

Notice the smooth line.

Under Bush gas went from $1.60 to over $4. Didn't help his GDP did it? Observe:

http://tinyurl.com/7z9knr

CM: "[My] reference on Welfare spending increases: www.governmentspending.com

Your link is bogus, and you didn't answer the question.

CM: "Federal Income Tax... You are the cherry picker, not me...">>

Nope. You pick one category of tax and ignore the rest. I considered them all (or even just the Fed category) and showed who is blatantly engaging in the fallacy of cherry picking.

CM: "We are talking revenue to the federal government">>

And you purposely and dishonestly ignore payroll taxes, I don't.

CM: "has nothing to do with local taxation">>

I don't have to consider local taxation to show that you are being plainly dishonest with federal taxes. All covered above.

CM: "let's lump payroll tax and fed income tax together and lessen the percentage.">>

Since:

a) payroll tax raises the same amount as income tax, and
b) they both go into general revenue and are spent the same

Your attempt to make this artificial distinction is exposed as being fraudulent. But I did that in April. You hold your beliefs for irrational emotional reasons, and you don't learn. Not a good combo.

CM: "you chastize me for no references.... Where is yours.">>

Already given above [CBPP].

CM: "top 1 percent of income earners paid...">>

You reference raw dollars when what matters is the percent. The absurdity of your mistake is demonstrated nicely in this simple chart:

http://tinyurl.com/3sseheh

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 27, 2011 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

A flat tax at the proper rate might be more fair than the current system, but a flat tax is not a fair tax. A flat tax assumes that all benefit equally from the operation of the country, which is simply not the case: the wealthier one is, the more access to, use of, and benefit from society one gets.

Thomas Jefferson favored a progressive tax:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", had this to say:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
http://tinyurl.com/3gwbla8

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

Again, the wealthier one is, the more access to, use of, and benefit from society one gets. For example:
I used to work in Rogers, and I had to use 540 to commute to work. My time was billed to clients at ten times what I was paid. after overhead, each of the principals each made three times what I did from my work. Their immediate benefit from my use of that one piece of infrastructure was three times what mine was. About twenty of their employees lived in Fayetteville or farther south and used 540 to commute, so the principals' benefit from 540 was about sixty times any employee's benefit (assuming the pay/billing formula was fairly consistent). My wages allowed me to buy an 870-square-foot house (real estate used to be cheap). The lead principal lived in a 3,000-square-foot house. My wages allowed me to purchase a used car. The lead principal collected antique cars. The principal had far more stuff-- and better stuff-- for the military to protect than I did. He had more time and money for vacations, which afforded him a greater ability to avail himself of the benefits of travel infrastructure, the national parks, and so on. He had a much nicer refrigerator than I did, with far more interesting things to eat. (The refrigerators of the poor are not the same as the refrigerators of the rich.) In other words, he had a much greater stake in keeping the country safe, clean and pleasant than I did.

In terms of societal amenities such as education, safe travel, and cultural resources, those who grind out a small living are not really part of the society that taxes pay for-- they are part of the machinery that makes society great for those who are not poor. There should be some recognition of that fact in the tax code.

Why would Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith think progressive taxation is fair? If you want to base ultimate value on labor, then those who labor most with little return in terms of societal benefit should get a trade-off in a lower rate of taxation.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Even if you ignored the fact that government assistance programs are based on what a person earns,what is the government's role regarding the wages one makes, besides minimum wage? Don't we all have the same right to excel? Where is the incentive to work and study harder in order to earn more money? Is it fair to automatically expect less from those whom have chosen less financially successful paths? I believe charity has it's place, but I don't believe it is the governments role. I believe we should help those whom cannot help themselves, but not the ones whom have the ability and refuse to help themselves if finacially prosperity is what they desire. There is nothing wrong with being or not being finacially wealthy, whatever what one chooses. My argument is not about greed, it is about a fair system across the board with equal contribution from all citizens of all incomes.

V/r,

Tank

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 28, 2011 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "Even if you ignored the fact that government assistance programs are based on what a person earns..."
You seem to be saying that all poor people are on government assistance. In fact, most are not. However, if the tax burden were shifted from the poor, fewer of them would be on public assistance.

I know it bothers you that a few people get something they don't "deserve". Why does it bother you only when those people are poor? Many wealthy people get more than they "deserve". You talk about earning. How many of the wealthy actually earn what they have?

RE "Is it fair to automatically expect less from those whom have chosen less financially successful paths?"
Yes, it is. Society needs people who do low-paying jobs, because society runs on low-paying jobs. We can't all be software innovators, executives in the financial sector, or doctors. Some lack the aptitude, the market wouldn't support it, and society would crumble. Some people are artists. They don't make much, but they make society better. Some people dig ditches. We need ditches. (Is your touting of individual prosperity coupled with admiration for blue-collar unions, through which workers are better able to develop the prosperity you say they should strive for?)

RE "I believe we should help those whom cannot help themselves, but not the ones whom have the ability and refuse to help themselves if finacially prosperity is what they desire."
There are other things besides financial prosperity, even if it were possible for everybody to be prosperous. Again, society benefits from the grunthood of the poor, beyond what they are paid. The poor should be compensated, and since they are not compensated by what they get from society, they must be compensated by not paying so much into it. Or can you think of something more fair?

RE "My argument is not about greed, it is about a fair system across the board with equal contribution from all citizens of all incomes."
That's because if your argument acknowledged greed, you wouldn't be able to maintain your position. My argument isn't about greed, either. Fairness recognizes that there is more than just money-- it recognizes that taxes pay for the underpinnings of society, and the wealthy benefit from society in geometric-- not linear-- proportion. Your argument is based on a very immature (or unstudied) notion of fairness.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE Morrill quote
First, it's not really true: we still tolerate discrimination based on rank, race and color. Second, it's irrelevant. It it were relevant, income would be among the protected classes as anti-discrimination law evolved in the last hundred-and-some years. Third, I'll take the word of numerous economists and greater thinkers over his.

(One might well wonder if land-grant colleges were a way to let the wealthy gracefully duck their traditional role in the support of higher education.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I work in an envirnoment were I have a real good idea of what fair is, based on: occupation, time served, and performance."
It's usually easy to tell whether a work environment is "fair". It's a closed system. Do you think that a work environment is really a good analogy for a whole society? If "occupation" is to be a criterion, shouldn't teachers be as well compensated by society as doctors? They make doctors possible. What does "time served" have to do with being a member of society? Should the military protect our senior citizens first and babies last? Should citizens be compensated more (taxed less) for voting, volunteering, driving safely and so on because that is good "performance" from the standpoint of society?

RE "I believe in personal responsibility"
Nobody becomes wealthy in a vacuum-- society is involved. If you believe in personal responsibility, then you should understand that as one becomes increasingly wealthy, it is with increasing assistance from society. Failing to acknowledge that increasing assistance by failing to increase one's payment for it is a dereliction of personal responsibility.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 2:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Don't Americans get to choose their own respective occupations?

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 28, 2011 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Are you suggesting that tax payers should provide cars for people or at least the opportunity to travel to be equal with everyone else that has purchased a car?

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 28, 2011 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "Are you suggesting that tax payers should provide cars for people or at least the opportunity to travel to be equal with everyone else that has purchased a car?"
No. I'm saying that since lower-income people have less access, society should bill them at a lower rate. Are you so desperate to not understand me that you have to resort to such a question?

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

You are desperately trying to cloud the issue. Progressive taxation has nothing to do with whether making money is wrong, or whether one enjoys his job; indeed, no taxation should be predicated on such concerns. It has to do with paying for what you get from society. If you believe in personal responsibility as you claim, you should understand this.

Please: think more elegantly.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

Do you want fairness, or do you want equality? You can't have both. There is nothing equal about societal benefits across income levels; why should we all pay for them at the same rate? Equality doesn't apply to taxation because at the root, neither people nor their money are equal in a practical way. A flat tax is not fair, and in terms of society-- that is, why we pay taxes and what we get for the money-- you cannot demonstrate that a flat tax is fair. Under a flat tax, the poor overpay for society, and the wealthy underpay.

I have addressed each of your questions. Having no rebuttal, you ask more questions. If I thought you were actually trying to learn something instead of trying to hold on to a bad notion, I wouldn't be bothered by your questions. However, insofar as you appear to be using them to delay or avoid recognizing the fact that progressive taxes are more fair than a flat tax rate.

Yes, everybody needs to earn their keep. That includes the people who benefit more from society: the wealthy. You keep trying to "prove" that the poor don't pull their weight. I have shown how, in fact, under a flat tax, the wealthy wouldn't pull their weight.

Do you want fairness, or do you want equality? You can't have both.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 28, 2011 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha to Tank: "You keep trying to "prove" that the poor don't pull their weight.">>

Reminds me of this point someone made:

"Over the past 30 years, according to IRS data, the richest 1 percent has TRIPLED their share of America's total income, AFTER TAXES, while the bottom 90 percent has seen their share drop over 20 percent. If this had not happened, the average middle-class family would be making $45,000 a year instead of $35,000.

The tripling of income by the wealthy is the result of money-transferring financial strategies, government deregulation, and tax cuts -- NOT because they worked three times harder than everyone else."
--Paul Buchheit, Faculty, DePaul University

As Art points out in his article above, average CEO compensation went from 40 times more than their average workers in the 1930s, to 370 times today (1,300 times greater for Wal-Mart). Would Tankersly have us believe that that is an accurate reflection of an increase in their work, or perhaps is it more likely that the game is rigged and some greed mongers at the top have captured the controls?

When 400 people have captured as much wealth as half the nation (155 million), it seems it is the latter.

D.
----------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." --John Kenneth Galbraith

Posted by: fayfreethinker

July 28, 2011 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT,

AFN plays all the major political commentors, and AFN also makes sure they advertise the fact that the station trys to give all the loud mouths equal air time. By the way, I don't listen to Limbaugh.

Alpha,

I haven't at all tried to prove the poor don't pull their weight. I am just as concerned about the rich pulling their own weight... by paying the same tax rate as those of us that don't get giant pay checks and not being allowed to hide their earnings in some loophole.

Posted by: Tankersley101

July 29, 2011 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I haven't at all tried to prove the poor don't pull their weight."

Note that I put "prove" in quotation marks, because I refer to the tone of your argument. You haven't really tried to actually prove anything, because you're clinging to an opinion.

Your contentions that the poor don't pull their weight:
"Even if you ignored the fact that government assistance programs are based on what a person earns..."
"Is it fair to automatically expect less from those whom have chosen less financially successful paths?"
"Don't Americans get to choose their own respective occupations?"
"Are you suggesting that tax payers should provide cars..."
"Everyone needs to earn their keep."
All of these, in the context of your posts, are either clear attempts to make low income the fault of the low-income taxpayer, or to characterize progressive taxation as a giveaway to the poor-- or both-- so you can justify taxing them at, effectively, a higher rate through a flat tax.

I agree that all "loopholes" should be eliminated from the tax code, and that many "legitimate" deductions should be eliminated as well.

Posted by: AlphaCat

July 29, 2011 at 1:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha - your argument concerning 'who accumulates the most wealth reaps the greater benefits' has a major flaw....57% of government spending goes to Welfare, Health, and Pensions. So most of our spending goes to provisions for those 'less fortunate'....What a bogus argument! It is clear that we have a redistribution problem in this country, and for liberals to not see that is so telling. There is no provision in the constitution telling 'from those with ability to those with need'. What a ridiculous attempt to rationalize a position!

Alpha: "You seem to be saying that all poor people are on government assistance. In fact, most are not."

Try this on for size: 27 million americans received an average of $2012 in excess of their potential tax burden in the form of EITC. In other words, they received a net pay from the government (taxpayers) of $2012 for filing a tax return and living in this country. 40 million Americans are on food stamps. 50 million Americans are on Medicaid. 95 million Americans are on welfare....Remember that we only have 300 million Americans in this country. So you propose that "in fact, most (poor Americans) are not" on government assistance? What world are you living in. The numbers (no matter how you slice them) are clear....

BTW - the economic system (based on the American dream) determines who 'deserves' what. Get up early, work hard, learn more, and you will have more....That is the American dream...If you are not as driven as the next person (three jobs and a dream), then you should not have a right to the prosperity of those who do. We need a society that gets up every day and improves their position in the society coupled with a dependence on those who take the risks and work harder or smarter. Take that away, and all we have is below average performance from our society. Sorry you don't dream.....

Posted by: commonsense96

August 1, 2011 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: "For the very wealthy, it's largely not necessary. The very wealthy receive much of their income via a dividend check which is taxed as capital gains, and thus 15%. It's been twice that amount in the past."

One Major point you leave out of this argument....the profitability of the company was taxed PRIOR to the distribution of capital gains. So in the case of US Tax law, the corporation making over $18M was taxed at the 35% level BEFORE the dividend check. Then the dividend check is taxed at an additional 15%. Looks alot like 50% taxation to me! This is the Liberal VAT (value added tax) already in motion, and yet you don't like it? The Government got 50% of this money, and that is not enough?? Humm....missed this in philosophy class?

Posted by: commonsense96

August 1, 2011 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Along comes "Com" with another parade of howlers. Over the knee he goes.

COM: "57% of government spending goes to Welfare, Health, and Pensions.">>

Why on earth would anyone with any knowledge of these issues, lump "welfare" into such a list? Com, still stuck with ancient canards and talking points reveals again he has no clue. Observe:

"If you total up the direct and non-direct spending categories which are all the programs that are meant to help the poor, you will see that the federal government only spent 191$ billion on “welfare” for the poor. That would be 5.5% of the unified budget."

http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/...

CM: "American received... in excess of their potential tax burden in the form of EITC">>

Already covered above, July 25, let's revisit Reagan's program:

"8) The majority of EITC recipients receive the credit for only one or two years at a time, such as when their incomes drop due to a temporary layoff; they pay federal income tax in other years. In fact, EITC recipients pay much more in federal income taxes over time than they receive in EITC benefits... taxpayers who claimed the EITC at least once during an 18-year period paid a net $473 billion in federal income tax over that period." -ibid

CM: "It is clear that we have a redistribution problem in this country...">>

With 400 individuals having corned as much wealth as 155 million others, I agree.

CM: "40 million Americans are on food stamps.">>

Republican policies in action. With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since then, it fell.

CM: "95 million Americans are on welfare...">>

Let's check. As of 11 months ago:

"More than 4.4 million people are on welfare"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washingt...

So you're only off by 21x. Close!

CM: "40 million... on food stamps. 50 million... Medicaid. 95 million... on welfare.... only have 300 million in the country.">>

Oops. Poor Com forgot that these overlap (can't add them together).

cont...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 1, 2011 at 11:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cs96 (wmatTP)--

RE "57% of government spending goes to Welfare, Health, and Pensions."
What? Only poor people get pensions? I know you think that poor people don't work, but one has to have had a job to get a pension. According to the CBPP, about 21% of the budget goes to Medicaid and the "safety net" http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=... partly for the elderly and disabled. Some of that amount could be eliminated if the country had a really good healthcare system. Certainly people are glad to get health care when they need it, but how many people who get health care actually enjoy it? Society has more to offer than something you hope you never need.

RE "Try this on for size..."
According to the IRS, for TY 2009, 26,511,916 taxpayers received an EITC credit averaging $2,216. http://www.eitc.irs.gov/central/eitcs... That was the average amount by which their taxes were lowered, not an amount they received beyond paying no taxes. The EITC is a tax reduction, not a substitute for taxes. You and Faux News apparently do not understand the EITC. Perhaps you're thinking of the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Yes, there are a lot of people receiving some form of government assistance. It's a shame that W wrecked the economy-- putting many of these people on the rolls-- and that the Republicans wrecked healthcare reform, which could have addressed much of the problem. But a lot of these people are not "the poor" as you complain about them-- they are people who lost good jobs, lost their homes, and so on. They are decent, hard-working people, not the parasites you usually worry about.

I have already explained why a flat tax is not fair. Taxes buy society, and society does not come to all equally. You conservatives, on the other hand, have not shown how a flat tax is fair; you just insist that "equal equals fair" be misapplied to taxes. You haven't explained how paying at an equal rate for more or fewer benefits is fair. Society has more to offer than subsistence.

RE "I am working 12-16 hour days 6-7 days a week to better the future for my family."
I know it's all about you, but don't assume that most poor people are not doing the same thing-- if they can get one of the jobs made available by "job creators" in return for low taxes.

RE "We are working too hard and giving too much already."
First, if you live in Arkansas, you're getting a discount on society, because you get somewhat more than a dollar in federal spending per dollar you paid in federal taxes. Second, taxes have been at sixty-year lows for ten years. Will nothing stop your constant whining? I suppose you just want the country to cost you nothing-- which, by your logic, makes you just like those lazy poor people.

RE "You will see the resurgence of the job creators in the next election."
"When you sit on mountains of old newspapers and a few dead cats they call you a hoarder. When you sit on mountains of cash and a few dead bodies they call you a job creator."

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 1, 2011 at 11:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT,

I didn't run from anything.

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 4, 2011 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

Ah-- you've returned. I thought we'd lost you.

RE the first of your latter two posts:
If you exclude the absolutely unable (whatever that would end up meaning), you wouldn't have a flat tax-- nor would you have the justification for one. If it is fair to exempt some citizens from paying any taxes, how is it then fair to tax the rest at the same rate? By exempting some, you've introduced relative burden to the equation, and it applies to the whole scale, not just to the bottom end.

Not that relative burden is the only, or even best, consideration. Taxation is part of a transaction between the government and the citizen for the sale and purchase of society. Better to set out to have everybody pay something for the product they receive, and acknowledge that they receive more or less value from the product, than to give the product to some, then further cheapen it by pretending that it is the same for everybody.

RE "I didn't run from anything."
You haven't answered fft's question, either. You made the original assertion; fft refuted it. It's up to you to defend it.

RE "In the opinions of some, the working folks of this country should pay the way for everyone."
That assertion is not supported by any posts on this web site that I am aware of. For one thing, it has been pointed out (and documented) numerous times, the disagreement of cs96 (wmatTP) notwithstanding, that the poor pull their weight, by working and by paying a disproportionate amount of their incomes in taxes. In other words, most of the poor are, or have been, among "the working folks of this country". cs96 (wmatTP) has even claimed that the poor don't contribute anything to this country. Do you actually agree with that?

RE "I'de like to know when the tax system has been equitable for EVERYONE."
It was more equitable in the 1950s and 60s, when the wealthy actually paid for the structure od society that fostered growth and kept making them rich. Things really went downhill (in terms of tax equitability and economic growth) with Reagan and subsequent Republican presidents. However, that's sort of a trick question: the tax system has long been too convoluted and easy to game (for the wealthy) to be truly equitable for everyone.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 4, 2011 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

It isn't.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 4, 2011 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

You just now asked me my own question, ""If it is fair to exempt some citizens from paying any taxes, how is it then fair to tax the rest at the same rate?" That is, you asked me how a flat tax (for those who are taxed) is fair. I answered the question: it isn't.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 4, 2011 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "So some should pay the way of others that are capable of paying their own way?"
I never said that. We already have that system anyway-- in the other direction: the poor and middle class subsidize the wealthy.

A couple of analogies:

Olive Garden sells entrees with "unlimited salad and breadsticks", as well as "unlimited salad and breadsticks" as a separate item. Everybody pays the same price. Is it fair that the patrons who don't eat as much salad or bread subsidize the patrons who gorge themselves? "Equal" is not always "fair".

I run the only restaurant in town-- a salad bar, for which I charge, say, seventy-five cents an ounce. I have the whole array of fixings-- one price. A three-year-old toddles up to the bar, but he can reach only the iceberg lettuce. A seven-year-old makes a salad with iceberg lettuce, shredded cheddar cheese and some thousand island dressing because that is what he can reach. An adult makes a salad with arugula, red and green leaf lettuce, fresh spinach, feta cheese, kalamata olives, chopped hard-boiled eggs, crumbled bacon, chopped prosciutto, extra virgin olive oil and balsamic vinegar. Each patron gets a different amount of salad, and each salad costs more or less depending on its size. But each patron also pays the same rate for different ingredients, even though some ingredients are far more expensive than others. Is the flat charge fair? "Equal" is not always "fair".

In the second scenario, the waiter brings a booster seat for the three-year-old. The adult complains, saying, "Hey! The price of my salad subsidizes that lazy kid's booster seat! Why can't he sit up like a decent, hard-working adult?"

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 4, 2011 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Absurd."

Explain.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 4, 2011 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Additionally, are you saying that the finacially poor are equal to helpless toddlers?

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 4, 2011 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha,

In your opinion, should restaraunt menu prices be based on income?

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 6, 2011 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Why questions are just as relevant as yours, alpha.

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 6, 2011 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

So, some should continue to pay more for others? Let's not confuse tything for taxes either. I am proposing a NEW "system" where everyone pays the same percentage without exceptions or loopholes.

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 6, 2011 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Somebody should tell the right-wingers that Ronald Reagan, after cutting taxes and hiking up military spending, ran record deficits throughout his presidency. After his famous 1981 tax cut, federal revenue fell from 19.2% to 17.5% of GDP. Meanwhile, federal spending reached a record high 23.5% in FY 1983, for a deficit of 6% GDP.

Reagan then raised taxes ten times during the remainder of his presidency. Revenue slowly crept up to 18.5%. In his last year, the deficit still was almost 3% GDP.

http://arkansasmediawatch.wordpress.c...
http://arkansasmediawatch.wordpress.c...

Posted by: ImUnarmed

August 7, 2011 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "I am proposing a NEW 'system' where everyone pays the same percentage without exceptions or loopholes."
So what? Why should anybody care about your proposal when you cannot or will not attempt to justify its underlying structure? What happened to your earlier proposal (August 4, 2011 at 3:17 p.m.)? Doesn't it bother you that your as-yet-unjustified "system" goes against the majority of modern economists, the "Father of Modern Economics" himself, and one of the founding fathers?

RE "NEW 'system'"
Isn't that how sales taxes work?

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 7, 2011 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "How about 'fairness'??"
How about fairness, indeed. Explain how a flat tax is fair. Before you try, though, note that I have already shown above, in general and specific analogies, not only that "equal" is not necessarily "fair", but also that "equal" is not fair when applied specifically to income taxes. (I hope you are more capable of understanding them than Tankersley101 is, assuming his questions are an indication of his comprehension.)

RE "But some how it is 'fair' if 50% of the taxpayers pay no federal income tax, and many cases receive a welfare benefit of a net gain in tax refunds through our current taxation system."
Sounds like a reference to some of the oil companies and other large corporations that, in addition to having zero tax liability, get subsidies from the government. It's lovely of you to fret about our corporate welfare system.

Oh, by the way: RE "Reagan himself talked of doing only 2 movies per year at $400K per movie. After that, he would have to pay taxes at 90%. So he just lounged around and waited for the next year to start."
The average annual household income throughout the 1950s was $7,000 or less, so with each film, Reagan was already making over 57 times the average household income. (The maximum marginal tax rate, however, was only 4.15 times the lowest, after 1953. See http://tinyurl.com/3c4x7y ) Further, making income in large increments like that is not how most people make money; in Reagan's case, each paycheck is more a windfall than a wage or salary, which creates an artificial delineation in earnings as taxes are considered. And of course, citing a source as biased as Ronald Reagan is hypocritical for one such as yourself, who dismisses every source fft or I use as biased. For more perspective on Ronald Reagan's patriotic stand on taxes, see http://tinyurl.com/3ohhsfd

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 8, 2011 at 2:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cs96 (wmatTP)--

What do you know about this welfare you refer to-- this largesse of the productive in favor of the undeserving? What about the good old days of prosperity-- the 1950s and 60s-- when we were all producing madly, going to the moon, preparing to annihilate the Red pinko Commonists multiple times, and leading the world in technology, health, education, convenience, and not being too mean to Negroes?

According to the Tax Foundation:
"During 2007, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 46.6 million tax returns faced a zero or negative tax liability. These are the so-called non-payers, people whose exemptions, deductions and credits wiped out any tax that would have been due. As a result, every dollar that was withheld from their paychecks during the year was refunded. In about half the cases, substantial additional money was "refunded" to the tax filer, although that portion is classified as a government expenditure since it is actually welfare spending, not a tax refund.

"Almost a third of all tax returns, 32.6 percent of 143 million federal tax returns filed, were nonpaying in 2007, the most recent year for which IRS data is final. The percentage for 2007 is the second highest, a slight tick down from the all-time highest in 2006, when 33.0 percent of tax filers paid nothing." See http://tinyurl.com/3o4hjqg

This means that about 16.3% of taxpayers received a subsidy beyond the refund of the amount they had paid in withholding.

But guess what? That "welfare" didn't appear recently, after things got bad for most of us-- it's been around for a long time. And guess what else? Nonpayers were common in the good old days as well. Throughout the 1950s, all nonpayers accounted for between 21.2 and 28.0 percent of tax returns (average 23.1%). In the 1960s, they accounted for 16.0 (lowest point, 1969) to 21.5 percent (average 19.4%); 1970s-- 19.2 to 25.7 percent (average 22.2%); 1980s-- 17.9 to 21.3 percent (average 19.4%); 1990s-- 21.0 to 25.6 percent (average 24.9%); 2000-2007-- 25.2 to 33 percent (average 30.6%). See http://tinyurl.com/3w6nt4c
2008-- >36% http://tinyurl.com/ybzltbo
2009-- 47%, 2010-- 45% (calculated by the Tax Policy Center; see http://tinyurl.com/3llc6ew )

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 9, 2011 at 6:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM: "Federal income tax is nearly 1/2 of the federal income from taxation">>

This is COM admitting that he is shamelessly committing the fallacy of cherry picking:

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_p...)

Remember, the claim he made (again) above was: "50% of the US population pays no taxes...". Now COM admits that in the federal category alone, he was only off by half. Every time he tries this "1/2 not paying [whatever] Fed tax," he is committing this fallacy. Every time he tries to make this point, it is unconscionably misleading. Any honest consideration of taxes, without the cherry picking and ignoring of categories shows the poor and middle class paying a disproportionately higher percentage.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

NYT's quote: "The 47 percent number is not wrong.">>

I never said it was, but I have pointed out that you have to also fallaciously cherry pick a particular year to get near that. The cherries are beginning to pile up. Best to avoid logical fallacies when making your points. Why not just be honest, and consider the whole tax picture rather than play these transparently dishonest games to hold on to an entirely misleading canard? My guess is that COM can't dare give this one up because then he would also have to admit that his right-wing sources that regularly peddle this whopper are all a bunch of liars who are being dishonest each and every time they repeat it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 10, 2011 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

RE "Alpha and FFT: Here is a quote from your beloved New York Times: "The 47 percent number is not wrong.... This comment is based on 2009 numbers...."
My immediately previous post includes that number; I've never denied its validity. As for my "beloved New York Times", I subscribe to their online puzzles because I enjoy them, but I don't really love the whole paper. I certainly can't afford to subscribe to the whole thing, and I don't know anybody who has time to read the whole thing.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 10, 2011 at 11:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

This 2005 bullet background paper lists several reasons why a flat tax would be good for all.

http://www.heritage.org/research/repo...

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 11, 2011 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha,

Do you want some thing better or not Alpha. I am looking for something better for everyone, no matter what each person's individual income. Also, government and society are not synonymous, despite the wishes of those that want the government to control everything.

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 11, 2011 at 12:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "Do you want some thing better or not Alpha."
I want something better for everybody, which is why I want a vastly simplified progressive federal income tax. I have shown by analogy that "equal" is not always "fair", and that a flat income tax particularly is not fair. You have not yet justified a flat tax in terms of fairness.

RE "I am looking for something better for everyone,..."
Then you need to look at a progressive tax.

RE "Also, government and society are not synonymous,..."
I never said that they are. I have, however, pointed out that the underpinning of a safe, productive society is the product that the government provides in return for our taxes. Our relationship with the government is, in that respect, a business relationship.

RE "...despite the wishes of those that want the government to control everything."
I do not wish for the government to control everything. You need to stop reading and posting emotionally-- it hinders your ability to argue.

RE "I need no lecture about patriotism. Thanks."
If you actually believe that fair payment for benefits received is a penalty, then yes, you do need a lecture on patriotism. Taxation is constitutional, and the thinkers of the time had progressive taxation in mind.

You still haven't answered the questions.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 11, 2011 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "You want some to pay the way of everyone else and simultaneously you label all the more finacially successful as greedy."
That statement shows that you do not understand anything I have said. I do not want some to pay the way of others; I want people to pay for what they get. Nor have I labeled the wealthy as greedy; they use the tax system they are given. You, on the other hand, have accused the poor en masse of not pulling their own weight, as outlined above (my post of July 29, 2011 at 1:09 p.m.); in order to do so, you have to ignore all that the working poor contribute-- and all that the retired poor have contributed.

RE "Again, I am not the one who needs a lecture on patriotism; I'm sure my DD214 would settle that."
Although I appreciate your military service, it doesn't mean that you can say just anything and it will automatically be patriotic. Are the people who join the military solely because they can't get any other job automatically patriotic? Even if they end up on the dole or homeless later? What about the veterans who claim that they fought for my right to express my opinion, then turn right around and tell me to shut my liberal trap? Is that patriotic?

You endlessly repeat emotional appeals that reveal a simplistic, money-centered notion of fairness. You haven't yet shown that a flat tax is fair. Just saying it is doesn't make it so.

You still haven't answered the questions.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 11, 2011 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "According to Alpha, the government is responsible for making us all have the exact same..."
I've certainly never said that, but the fact that you mention it gives me a glimmer of hope that you realize that paying taxes "all the same" is a bad idea. Again, you show a complete lack of understanding of anything I've said; what I have said is that people should pay for what they get. On the other hand, you keep insisting, without explanation or justification, that the government is responsible for making us all give the exact same, regardless of how much or how little they get. I have shown that to be a bad idea.

RE "...and all of those of us that disagree are greedy right wing radicals."
I've never said that, either. How am I supposed to know anything about conservatives when they can't or won't defend or justify their opinions?

RE "According to the Left, hard working Americans are out get to you!"
I don't know any liberal who has said that. I do know a lot of conservatives who say that the government is out to get you-- which, considering the fact that WE are the government, is even more ridiculous.

RE "Sounds like Marixist bull to me."
Tell me what you know about Marxist philosophy. Do you actually know anything beyond throwing the word "Marxist" around?

Your emotional appeals are turning into emotional attacks, which are even more irrelevant and useless to you. Address the issues. You still haven't answered the questions.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 11, 2011 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

An appeal to Marxist ideology is the best the left has. HA! FDR would be sick!

Posted by: Tankersley101

August 11, 2011 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Tankersley101--

RE "An appeal to Marxist ideology is the best the left has."

Really? Tell me where I have appealed to Marxist ideology.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 11, 2011 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: "COM: "You are incapable of debating the issue.">>

I am pleased to leave it to readers to decide that question."

So that proves the point....you are incapable of debating the issue. So deflect and chastise....Nice tactic that the 'reader' will clearly see through...

Posted by: commonsense96

August 11, 2011 at 9:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha Cat (http://www.vetinfo.com/alpha-cat-synd... " I do not want some to pay the way of others; I want people to pay for what they get. Nor have I labeled the wealthy as greedy; they use the tax system they are given.".

We are truly making headway! If you truly want people to pay for what they get, then why do 1/2 of Americans pay no federal income tax? If everyone should pay for what they get, then how do you reconcile our current taxation system? When 1/2 of the population has no skin in the game, then why do they care about how the money is spent.....Answer: They don't.... That is the essence of the problem. You can still have your beloved progressive taxation system, but when 1/2 of the population pays no federal income tax, and many of those actually receive a welfare payment in excess of contributions through our taxation system, then they have no incentive to care about the deficit or how the money is spent. That is the root problem with our taxation system today.

Posted by: commonsense96

August 11, 2011 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

cs96 (wmatTP)--

RE "That is the root problem with our taxation system today."
The root problem with our system of taxation is that it is far too complex; the second problem is that the complexity allows the wealthy to game the system. The Heritage Foundation article that Tankersley101 cited above misuses that complexity as an excuse to advocate a flat tax. The complexity of the code is a separate issue from the basic structure of taxes. A simple flat tax just replaces one injustice with another; a progressive tax could be just as simple, and would be more fair.

You should note that I have never advocated a free ride for anybody. I would like to see an income tax system in which every tax payer pays in at least a little, because, as you say, every taxpayer needs to have a sense of ownership in society. As for what actually comes from partial ownership of society, a progressive tax is a fair way to acknowledge the difference.

You are welcome, of course, to try to show how a flat tax is fair. Tankersley101 clearly isn't up to the task. (Hint: saying so doesn't make it so.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 11, 2011 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

“The question will arise, and arise in your day though perhaps not fully in mine: 'Which shall rule--wealth or man? Which shall lead--money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations--educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?”

~ Edward G. Ryan, WI Chief Justice, 1873

And 135 years later, what is the answer?

Posted by: Coralie

August 13, 2011 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: Just so you don't lie about my posting as you have in the past.... I said "NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES". You intentionally left out the word "FEDERAL' in your disputes at least 4 times in this blog history. What a bunch of BS. Since you cannot defend it, you dispute it. Let me spell it out for you again....FEDERAL INCOME TAX...Can you dispute it now?? You also deliberately left out the 'phase of the moon' tax, as well as all other irrelevant taxes you are sure to bring up. We ALL pay sales tax. ALL property owners pay property tax. ALL vehicle owners pay vehicle license taxes. ALL paid employees pay payroll tax. Payroll tax from employees only contributes approximately 7% to federal income, with businesses matching that 7% out of their pocket.....So stop with the damn "the poor pay more taxes as a percent of income" BS. Since ALL pay all of these taxes, then explain to the general public why it is 'fair" (to use the liberal terminology) that only 50% of the population pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Yes, I said FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Don't change it to income tax like you have during your last 4 replies. You accused me of 'cherry picking'....You are the damn cherry picker! And yes, if you would like some tea bags delivered, please provide your address.........

Posted by: commonsense96

August 13, 2011 at 11:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "I am not willing to continue to pay for those who are capable but have no drive..."
Don't you suppose that at least a few million of these nonpayers are living primarily or solely on Social Security? In other words, they paid their dues by working for years. How many of them are living on disability as a result of an injury acquired while they were decent, gainfully-employed folk?

RE "As i have shown time and again, the less you make, the more government (let's replace that with me and other taxpaying citizens) subsidizes your existence."
You haven't shown any such thing; you just keep saying it. And you keep lumping together everybody in the bottom 50% of taxpayers when you say it.

RE "I have no problem with helping those who cannot help themselves, but i'll be damned if you can convince me that 50% of the population is in that camp!!"
I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm trying to explain to you that these people are not all shiftless, lazy, good-for-nothing, unmotivated, useless, thieving, conniving, no-drive, nonworking, they-owe-me scum. Yet you continue to portray everybody in the bottom 50% of taxpayers as such.

RE "Get a grip on your liberal philosophy!!!"
Get a grip on your conservative rhetoric. And get off the "!" key.

RE "Don't give me that liberal "they can't help it" BS."
I've never said that.

RE "We are tired of carrying the 'can but won't" on our backs."
Yes, we are. Damned corporations and their not paying taxes despite record profits. Damned wealthy and their unpatriotic attitudes. (I'd also like to simplify the tax code and tighten up various benefit programs to eliminate fraud at the low end.)

RE "i sure as hell don't have a vested interest in those making $40K per year and paying no FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.................."
It is certainly possible for people with relatively high incomes to pay no federal income tax. See "Record Numbers of People Paying No Income Tax; Over 50 Million 'Nonpayers' Include Families Making over $50,000" http://tinyurl.com/3trtobz but you surely don't mean to include people making that much among "those who are capable but have no drive" "those who will not help themselves", the "non-working", "can but won't",... -- even though you keep doing so. See also "Surge of 'Nonpayers' Will Be Part of Bush Tax Legacy" http://tinyurl.com/3o26nh2

RE "I have kids and their future i am working for..."
Maybe you shouldn't have had so many kids, if all you can do is complain about it. Do you whine like this in front of them?

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 14, 2011 at 1:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT" I 'admitted' no such tact as federal income tax reigning in the same revenue as payroll tax. Quit pulling that BS. I clearly quoted and stated the data. You are truly a liberal idiot at heart! (yes, that was an ! Alpha). The data is clear Mr. 'show me the numbers'. Federal income tax trumps any other income to the federal govt

.http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

45% revenue from FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Same data i referenced before. You are an idiot and trying to mislead the readers!

How does the 'middle class pay a greater percentage of their income' when we have your holy grail of progressive taxation? If FEDERAL INCOME TAX is progressive in percentage, then how in the hell does a lower income pay a higher percentage. You are so off base it is impossible to have an intelligent debate. Again, you lump the payroll tax into the argument = slow learner! EVERYONE pays payroll taxes.....only 50% pay Federal income tax. Face the music philosophy professor.

Missed the point on payroll tax on purpose as usual. Federal revenue is 36% payroll tax (see above DATA), but HALF of that is paid by the damn employer!! That makes payroll tax from employees only 18%. You should really go back to 7th grade math class so you can actually argue this. You truly can't fathom that your precious 'payroll tax' only provides 18% of Federal revenue after all of your ranting and raving....Not only are employers (which you are NOT and have NO idea what that means in terms of costs) are paying 18% of federal revenue in MATCHING payroll taxes, as well as paying your progressive tax on income. And you, Alpha, and your Messiah Obama can't figure out why our economy is no growing. If you had to pay these taxes as part of a business and still work to meet payroll weekly, maybe you could see the light. Pretty easy to arm-chair quarterback when you have no dog in the fight.

Meanwhile, 1/2 of our population pays no federal income tax. Yet they reap precious benefits from the federal government and the messiah.... And you defend this?

So here is the real question for you characters....We (taxpayers) provide the same K-12 education to our children. We provide ridiculous grants and subsidies to everyone except white males for college education. We have an open and free (minus liberal constraints) market society. So why is everyone not successful? Provide some philosphy on that one FFT....

Posted by: commonsense96

August 14, 2011 at 4:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense says "The Average income in the US is $47,500."
Alpha cat points out: "Tax Foundation data shows that in 2007 (most recent data they have) the cutoff income for the bottom 50% of taxpayers is $33,048."
AVERAGE and MEDIAN are two different things. The average can greatly overestimate income. If 9 people earn $10,000 a year and the tenth earns $1 million, the average is about $100,000.

Posted by: Coralie

August 14, 2011 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM: "...only 50% pay Federal income tax.">>

A more useful way to state this point is:

"only about 14 percent of households paid neither federal income tax nor payroll tax in 2009,..."

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

See point #2. This means, 86% of households paid Federal tax, based upon their income (via working).

Course, with 40% of the population being under 20 and over 65, this remainder 14% of the population can easily refer to the elderly, handicapped and profoundly destitute. I think reasonable can see that it makes sense to not hit this tiny 14% with a Federal tax.

COM: "Federal revenue is 36% payroll tax">>

Any reference to revenue is an equivocation and is irrelevant to your claim. They claim your are trying to defend is based upon a cherry pick and does not refer to revenue at all.

COM: "HALF paid by... employer!">>

I asked you twice to attempt to show relevance. You didn't even try (because you can't). Dividing payroll into employer/employee categories doesn't help your claim. I thought this was so obvious I didn't bother to point it out.

COM: "payroll tax from employees only 18%.">>

Only two main problems:

1) It's irrelevant
2) It's wrong (you forgot the 25% that are self employed again, etc)

When trying to support a claim, try to make points that are both relevant, and accurate. This one is neither.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 14, 2011 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "So explain why a family of 4 making $48,372 would get an EITC benefit of $5666?"
It wouldn't. The $5,666 benefit (3+ children, MFJ) begins to fall off at $21,460 and disappears at $48,362. See http://tinyurl.com/3bvty2w Zero tax liability for better-off taxpayers is largely because of the Bush tax cuts. Again, see http://tinyurl.com/3o26nh2 Are you sure you don't want to repeal them?

RE "50 million Americans were on Medicaid in 2010. That is 16% of Americans. The average cost? $7463 per person per year. That is $89,556 per year for a family of four."
Again, you are trying to combine non-tax-code benefits with those arising from the tax code, which is the topic here. Stay on task. But, to address your error, the average cost doesn't mean that a family of four gets that amount of money. The percentage of senior citizens in the population has grown (more on Medicare) and so the number of high-cost individuals has grown (lowers the average cost for the rest). Most families of four have at least a couple of children, who do not cost as much as you cite.

RE "And you contest the fact that we are providing 2-3 times income to low income earners?"
I contest your assertion that as many people as you claim are making out like the bandits you assert at the incomes you allege.

Now: you do the damn math.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 14, 2011 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

fayfreethinker--

As footballfan has pointed out in another thread, liberals have no business sense whatsoever. That probably explains it.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 15, 2011 at 1:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Alpha: "Every time you have mentioned the bottom 50% of taxpayers, you have used one or more of the epithets I quoted or suggested in the mention. You have never clarified by excluding people on Social Security or disability from "those who are capable but have no drive" "those who will not help themselves", the "non-working", "can but won't",... -- nor did you acknowledge them the first time I called you on this aspect of your rhetoric. That's not to mention the time you said that they don't contribute to society."

SO your contention is that 1/2 of the population is either on SS or disability, and that we should just jump over this fact of 1/2 of the population paying no federal income tax? Hell, let's take it to 2/3 or 3/4 of the population....At what point do you understand that we have a revenue problem?? Let's take it to 7/8 of the population not paying federal income taxes.... Where does that leave us MR liberal?? Can you not understand that when 1/2 of our population has no dog in the fight, then then don't really care about how our money is spent? Socialism 101 is to get the majority of the people on the government take, then control their lives forever.....We are there, and you and your liberal cronies are jumping for joy!

Control the masses and control the country....You are close, but the tea party stands in your way. Damn 'Teabaggers"!!!!

Posted by: commonsense96

August 16, 2011 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "SO your contention is that 1/2 of the population is either on SS or disability, and that we should just jump over this fact of 1/2 of the population paying no federal income tax?"
Not at all. My contention is that most of the bottom 50% of taxpayers are not among "those who are capable but have no drive" "those who will not help themselves", the "non-working", "can but won't", and that they work (or have worked) and contribute to society in other ways. You might be better able to keep things straight if you will separate your class warfare from your fiscal expertise.

RE "Control the masses and control the country....You are close, but the tea party stands in your way."
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! You all are as the myrmica to me! To the schemarium! Oh-- wait. You aren't really giving me all the credit for this scheme, are you?

RE "You Average income/taxes/"entitlement spending/etc when it helps make your case, but don't dare average the cost of Medicaid per person???"
In your post of August 14, 2011 at 4:52 a.m., you presented an error-filled list of benefits, apparently in order to show that low-income taxpayers receive 2 to 3 times their income in benefits, as if a family of four gets those benefits. You misused the average cost of Medicare per recipient by applying that average cost to each member of a family of four, then claiming that it is a benefit received by that family. Medicare benefits accrue only when they are claimed, and it is somewhat-- even highly-- unlikely that a family of four would receive that much in Medicare benefits. (I can explain why, if that will help.) Perhaps you should have claimed that it is possible for a taxpayer to receive 2 to 3 times his income in benefits (which I would not have disagreed with-- it's possible to receive considerably more than that), instead of making the above claim in a way that implies that this is common or pandemic.

Averages don't work for every purpose. Do point out where I have used an average ineptly or dishonestly, as it appears you did in this case.

RE "The truth is Medicaid costs are 2x+ times higher than insurance costs."
Now you've changed the subject. If you keep doing that each time your posts are refuted, this thread will last forever. You need to organize your thoughts and proofread before you post. Playing along: sez who?

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 17, 2011 at 2:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I'm encouraged to see that the newpapers are finally starting to print the facts (and the truth) about the current inequities in our tax structure. I'm also very encouraged that many of the letters from readers indicate that the sleepers are awakening...even members of the GOP, which I have come to refer to as the "Greedy Old Party." People are beginning to realize that they've been sold a pig in a poke, the idea that "the job creators" cannot be taxed or we'll be out of jobs. We're out 'uv 'em already, and yet, I read daily about the huge amounts of cash that the "job creators" are holding on to because THEY are nervous about the world economy. That would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. They think *they* have problems. Reminds me of the joke about it being "lonely at the top."

People don't hate the wealthy. They hate greed, and they hate inequity, and they hate being robbed and cheated and lied to. They hate unethical business behavior and they hate being powerless to stop it...until the time they realize that maybe they aren't powerless.

These days I'm remembering what I've read about the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Robin Hood story, and wondering who else is remembering it, too. You know what they say about the swinging pendulum.

Posted by: SPA

August 18, 2011 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

@ fayfreethinker -

Thanks much for the link to the Warren Buffet op-ed in the NY Times, "Stop Coddling the Super Rich."

WOW is an understatement! Have the rest of you here read this article? If you haven't, you should. Buffet's words pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of Wacky Womack and the rest of the blubbering Repugnant-ones.

This from his op-ed is classic: "These [huge tax breaks] and other blessings are showered upon us [the super rich] by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species."

Followed by "People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."

I'm going to email this link to all 3 of my congressional reps and to The White House itself. We need leadership to get us out of this mess, and THIS is Leadership with a capital "L." The emperor has no clothes on and only Buffet is willing to say so.

Posted by: SPA

August 18, 2011 at 10:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM: "you argue that i am "cherry picking' federal income tax,">>

Correct. Every time you purposely select the Fed income tax category while purposely leaving out the other Fed tax categories, especially payroll taxes, you are committing the fallacy of cherry picking, and being dishonest.

COM: "then you turn around and disregard payroll tax data that you have touted all along.">>

I don't disregard it. Payroll tax is very significant. That's why I consistently have always included it with any consideration of taxation. Any honest person would. Since even you can see how dishonest it is to not include it, you now try to attempt to show that it is insignificant by referring to revenue generated rather than number of people paying.

COM: "less than 7% of federal income is paid in the form of INDIVIDUAL payroll tax contributions,">>

Even if that was true (and it isn't), it wouldn't support your assertion which refers to the number of people paying in.

Unlike you, I reference my claims. Observe the chart here at the extremely conservative Heritage Foundation, which provides Federal revenue by source:

http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbo...

40% from Payroll taxes

41.6% from individual income taxes

So as I said earlier, they are pretty close, again underlining how dishonest it is to cherry pick one while ignoring the other.

DOM: "50% of Americans pay no federal income tax.">>

Poor Com, a one trick pony, and his one trick doesn't work anymore since it has been exposed as a dishonest cherry pick, which he tries to defend now with an equivocation. How unfortunate.

A more thorough debunk of his claim has been posted here, since April:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 19, 2011 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Senator Boozman insults half his constituents by falsely claiming that "they don't pay any federal taxes"

arkansasmediawatch.wordpress. com/2011/08/20/senator-boozman-insults-half-his-constituents/

And: Jon Stewart's The World of Class Warfare!

Posted by: ImUnarmed

August 22, 2011 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Your link had a space in it "ImUnarmed" so it won't work well for people. This Jon Stewart clip referenced at that article is too important for people to miss, (and it directly addresses this taxing the poor issue), so here is the essential second one:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu...

The first clip is good too:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu...

And here is a fixed version of your link:

http://arkansasmediawatch.wordpress.c...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 22, 2011 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

SPA: I'll be glad to stop the 'name calling' as soon as FFT adopts the same policy. Obviously you have not been monitoring these blogs carefully. He continually berates opposite points of view with demeaning commentary. I'll be glad to have an intelligent conversation with you about the issues. FFT, on the other hand, unfortunately does not have that ability. If you don't agree with him, then he demeans. Just troll the previous blogs and the proof is in the pudding. I will not roll over and play dead over such an insulting and condesending bunch of BS. He has to be challenged and confronted, else others will think he actually has the upper hand....

Posted by: commonsense96

August 23, 2011 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

Your tax figures are from FY 2008, when the percentage of nonpaying tax returns was a bit over 36%; fft's figures were from 2010-- a more relevant year-- when the percentage of nonpaying tax returns was 45%. You might note that-- regardless of who pays payroll taxes (and what savvy employer doesn't calculate payroll taxes in determining wages and salaries? In other words, the employee pays all of them), the ratio of payroll taxes went up in relation to income taxes, which indicates how, on the whole, the poor drones who don't make enough to have any income exempted from the payroll tax requirement keep paying into the system even as their incomes drop enough to exempt them from paying income tax. These two sets of numbers only help to make the point that the less-well-off contribute at a greater rate than you give them credit for. And remember-- it was the Bush tax cuts that pushed income tax nonpayment into the middle incomes.

RE "Well, you get the picture. Federal payroll taxes are paid by ALL wage earners....And that only amounts to 18% of federal income. Now press the point that ALL wage earners pay payroll taxes, and you have less than 9% of federal income from payroll taxes."
I take it you meant to say "...less than 9% of federal income from payroll taxes paid by the bottom 50%", but your characteristic lack of care came into play. Anyway, that would be closer to true if the top 50% paid payroll taxes on their whole incomes. They don't. But note that even that 9% of total revenue is about four times the amount of revenue from income tax paid by the bottom 50% (2.59%), which again demonstrates the disproportionality of taxes on the bottom 50%. But you forget that employees pay the employer's half of witholding as well, through lower pay. Further, your figuring ignore not only the self-employed, but the retired and disabled as well-- which shifts some of the burden to the working stiffs in the bottom 50%, who, to hear you go on about this, don't really work, or don't work hard enough, or something.

RE "Looks like your cherry picking argument is bogus as usual. The bottom-line is that the top 50% of wage earners are carrying the bottom 50%"
They're not doing a very good job of it-- see my first paragraph. Payroll taxes, which the bottom 50% pay, went up; income taxes, paid by the top 50%, went down. Also, remember that in general, it's the bottom 50% that makes the top 50% rich enough to pay taxes at all.

RE "He has to be challenged and confronted, else others will think he actually has the upper hand...."
There's that conservative victim mentality again. Mean old liberal bullies. Challenging and confronting others with your faulty arguments, unsupported opinions and logical fallacies is hardly going to change any minds about the handedness of the discussion. If you really care what people think, don't show up half-equipped at a battle of the wits.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 24, 2011 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

I really don't know where to start...Alpha agrees that the bottom 50% pay virtually no federal income tax. He also states that payroll taxes went up? Have you heard your President tout the payroll tax reduction over the last two years?

From: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/169...

"While the cut is just 2 percentage points – from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent – it represents a real payroll tax reduction of 32 percent. For instance, a worker currently earning $100,000 should have paid $6,200 in payroll taxes for 2010 wages, but will pay only $4,200 for earnings this year."

So your argument is that payroll tax has increased, and yet is has decreased by 32 percent. You are right that we need more recent numbers so we can see how much less employees (and the self-employed) are paying in payroll tax.

As for the 'they are paying in reduced wages' comment....What type of logic is this? Since the employer is having to match payroll taxes the employee is 'paying federal payroll tax' in the form of reduced wages...You should really nail your feet to the ground!

As for FFT and his insistent argument that i MUST include payroll taxes when making the argument that 50% of Americans pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX - you are an idiot. You cannot debate or reason why it is fair that 50% of the potential taxpaying public does not pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAX, and yet they reap more benefits from the federal government than those that do. In fact, many receive welfare benefits through our FEDERAL INCOME TAX SYSTEM in the form of EITC. Those actually pay a NEGATIVE INCOME TAX. In fact, last year we PAID $59 BILLION in EITC.

So, since you cannot defend this program in the light of day, you must bring in other taxation as a diversionary tactic (classic leftist maneuver) .

My reference to the small percentage of payroll tax vs. the total US govt income was to was to show the reading public that your argument is bogus. Now they truly see. You are incapable of arguing the point on it's merits, so you must sling mud and accuse me of "Cherry Picking". Well, that is BS. You can't argue the case...plain and simple. It makes no sense to the 50% who actually pay Federal Income Tax, and they are tired of the rhetoric. If you can't argue the point, then just agree that it is fact ( i have shown you countless references for this point throughout this blog...slow learner....).

Else, you continue to show the reader how shallow your debating skills are..... You really should discuss with your own therapist your inability to argue without clouding the issue. Maybe we should include tobacco tax and fuel tax in the equation as well.....Anything to confuse the reader is your "Canard"........

Posted by: commonsense96

August 24, 2011 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

FFT: As i have stated time and again, you are an idiot.....

You cannot defend the fact that nearly 50% of Americans pay no federal income taxes, and that many of them actually receive a federal welfare subsidy in the form of EITC. End of discussion. Federal income tax is the MAIN revenue source for the federal government. When 50% don't contribute to that revenue stream, we have an EXTREME disconnect and problem. You can keep your damn "Canard" about other taxation. I started this debate around FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION and will end it the same way. If you are a federal income tax paying citizen (which i doubt), then you are telling me you are perfectly willing to have 50% of your neighbors pay no FIT, and in fact are willing to write a check to 20% of them for not paying taxes. If that is the case, then you have stated your point. I am not willing to subsidize our country to that level. That is where we differ, and where your 'cherry picking' argument blows up.

Of course, if you are not a Federal Income Taxpayer, then i see where your argument has it's roots. You don't want to pay any in the future, and may even want to keep your EITC payments. If that is the case, i am not willing to pay you for not paying federal income taxes.

Either way, thanks for showing your true colors. Now go out and tell 50% of your neighbors that you are happy they are paying no federal income tax.....

Posted by: commonsense96

August 24, 2011 at 10:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "He also states that payroll taxes went up?"
Yes. I pointed out that in two sets of federal tax figures previously cited, as a percentage of federal revenue, the ratio of payroll tax in relation to income tax went up. Here are the figures:
2008 -- Individual income tax, 45%; payroll tax, 36% http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefi...
2010 -- Individual income tax, 41.6%; payroll tax, 40% http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbo...
You don't do this very well, do you?

RE "Since the employer is having to match payroll taxes the employee is 'paying federal payroll tax' in the form of reduced wages..."
Correct. An employer would have to be an idiot to not consider the employer payroll tax match when determining wages and salaries for his employees. Oh, wait-- let me guess: you forgot to take this into consideration when you created all of those jobs.

RE "You cannot debate or reason why it is fair that 50% of the potential taxpaying public does not pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAX"
Damned Bush and his tax cuts.

RE "You cannot debate or reason why it is fair that 50% of the potential taxpaying public does not pay any FEDERAL INCOME TAX, and yet they reap more benefits from the federal government than those that do."
You haven't explained why it is unfair-- you just keep repeating the claim. Did Faux News forget to tell you why it is unfair? You also haven't yet explained how the bottom 50% of taxpayers is getting the same benefits as the top 50%.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 24, 2011 at 11:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Oh..As a percent of some number. You 'conveniently' left that fact out."
No, I didn't.
fft, earlier:
"Observe the chart here at the extremely conservative Heritage Foundation, which provides Federal revenue by source:
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbo...
40% from Payroll taxes
41.6% from individual income taxes"
You, earlier:
"FFT: Here is your so anticipated rebutal... Payroll taxes in 2008 were 36% of federal revenue.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefi... (note "% of federal revenue")
My reference:
"Your tax figures are from FY 2008...; fft's figures were from 2010.... You might note that...the ratio of payroll taxes went up in relation to income taxes..."
It was clear to me, but it is likely that I gave you too much credit for paying attention. I shall undertake to avoid doing that in the future.

RE "Employers (like myself) look at what is the prevailing wage for a job..."
Which, you would think, would have come about in consideration of the employer's share of payroll taxes. Or are you saying that every employer is an idiot?

RE "$10 per hour vs. $12 per hour is what employees look at....plain and simple."
It doesn't matter what an employee looks at. The full cost of payroll taxes is built into the wage and salary system. From fairtax.org: "Most economists agree that the employer payroll tax is actually borne by employees in the form of lower wages. Looked at this way, this couple is paying $11,743 (23.5 percent) in taxes today, which doesn’t even include the hidden taxes they pay every time they make a purchase." See also http://tinyurl.com/3rrma46

RE "If you are ok with 50% of your neighbors not paying federal income tax and receiving the same or better benefits than you, then you must be in the bottom 50% and not paying any federal income taxes...."
You guess wrong, on three counts in one sentence. As I've said before, I'm not okay with having 50% of taxpayers not paying taxes (Bush tax cuts and other considerations). Most of the poor are not receiving better benefits than I am, as I have enumerated elsewhere. As a humane society appeals to me, I like the idea of having a social safety net. And I do pay taxes-- patriotically though, not seeing it as a burden, or as fodder for class warfare. I guess I'm just a nice, happy cat.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 25, 2011 at 1:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Payroll taxes as a percent of income taxes is an irrelevant argument..."
Indeed it is. That's not my argument; I was talking about payroll taxes and individual income taxes as percentages of total federal revenue-- not of each other. The percentage of individual income tax in total revenue went down between 2008 and 2010; the percentage of payroll taxes went up.

This might help you. Adding dollar amounts and corporate income taxes (which you could have checked yourself if you weren't so averse to "liberal" links):
2008 -- Individual income tax, 45% ($1,125B); payroll tax, 36% ($900B); corporate income tax 12% ($300B); total revenue, $2.5 trillion
2010 -- Individual income tax, 41.6% ($898.5B); payroll tax, 40% ($864.8B); corporate income tax 8.9% ($191.4B)
Now, from that information, we see that between 2008 and 2010:
individual income tax dropped 7.6% as a revenue source, or 20.1% in dollars;
corporate income taxes dropped 25.83% as a source, or 36.2% in dollars;
payroll tax went up 11% as a source, and dropped 3.9% in dollars.

In other words, payroll taxes not only failed to drop in dollars as fast as individual (2 times as great a drop) or corporate (over 6 times) income taxes in this period, they actually went up as a revenue source. This shifted the revenue burden to the bottom 50% of taxpayers, as every one of them pays payroll taxes on their entire incomes, while incomes above $106,800 are not assessed payroll tax.

RE "This dance of comparing moving numbers...."
These figures are not "moving numbers"-- they are reported from collected data. They are not likely to change; if they do, they will show the same thing more accurately. Perhaps you should look at some "moving numbers" yourself-- the "fuzzy math" you use doesn't work well for you.

RE "You should really divorce yourself from FFT's tactics."
What? Why should I stop posting accurate information? Posting from the glands certainly isn't working well for you. I'll stick with basing my arguments on facts-- a highly regarded approach, and not fft's invention.

RE "When you divide by the phase of the moon, you can get different answers every couple of days....."
When you repeat the same isolated fact ad nauseam, you get the same wrong answer every time.

RE "Look cowboy..I am paying attention more than you know...."
Well, why in the world are you keeping it such a secret by posting such inane stuff? Afraid you might be labeled "elite"?

If I am a cowboy, you are my cow. Consider yourself branded, and thanks for the metaphor.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 26, 2011 at 12:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

If you really want to make a point based on one of many taxes, here's one that's just as important as yours:

In 2008, the top 10% of taxpayers, with 45.77% of total AGI and a cutoff income of $113,799, paid NO payroll tax. Since the cutoff income is higher than the limit on income subject to payroll taxes, more than 10% of taxpayers are not carrying their weight, and letting almost 90% of taxpayers pay for the outrageous benefits they receive from the system.

I hope to see you up in arms over this gross inequity.

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 26, 2011 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Above I said I would put together a very thorough response to this "50% don't pay" tax canard. Tonight I did it. Several charts and carefully referenced, it's posted online here:

"Refuting the "50% don't pay taxes" Canard"

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Do let me know if it has any boo boo's eh?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 28, 2011 at 12:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Well FFT, you have truly outdone yourself. Here is a link from YOUR dissertation:"
You're a day late and a dollar short. I linked to this very article in my post of August 14, 2011 at 1:34 a.m. http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/ju... above. Where were you?

RE "As a result, every dollar that was withheld from their paychecks during the year was refunded."
Notice that the data being discussed in this article is identified in the chart that follows your quote: Federal Individual Income Tax Returns. The tax withheld and fully refunded was individual income tax, not payroll tax. Regardless of zero liability for income tax, or any additional money received, all workers pay payroll tax (both halves of it, according to most economists), which is not refunded.

RE "So...from your own reference, we see that tax data (including payroll tax data) does not include these two clear facts:...."
I specifically brought up your second clear fact in my post of August 14, 2011 at 10:59 p.m. http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/ju... above. You probably ought to reread that pair of posts anyway.

RE "Simply what i have been saying all along."
Actually, you have been saying that about half of all taxpayers pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX. You've been ignoring payroll taxes all along.

It appears that you are confused because of the "Almost a third of all tax returns, 32.6 percent..." because that doesn't match the "half" you have always cited, and you apparently assume that the difference is because of refunded payroll tax. That is not correct. The figures in this article are for 2007; the figures for later years (sources cited above somewhere) are:
2007-- 32.6%
2008-- >36%
2009-- 47%
2010-- 45%
2011-- 46%
There's your "half of all taxpayers"-- well, almost half.

Continued...

Posted by: AlphaCat

August 31, 2011 at 1:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM: "(1) We have 1/3 of the population paying no federal income OR federal payroll taxes based on your reference...">>

Nope. My reference clearly has only 18.1% in that category.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtop...

I've melted down the long and detailed version to a simple sentence for you. Let me know if any part of this sentence gives you difficulty:

81.9% of the population pays federal taxes based upon income or payroll, and of the remaining 18.1% that don't, 95% of those are elderly or very poor.

References and charts here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

August 31, 2011 at 2:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine, who, by spinning in his grave, qualifies as an alternative energy source)--

RE "You cannot dispute the fact, so you conveniently throw in the payroll tax..."
Why would we dispute the fact that almost half of taxpayers paying no income tax? It's true, though on its own it has little significance unless you are trying desperately to prove, as you have claimed before, that half of Americans "don't contribute to society" or "pull their weight". You say paying taxes constitutes contributing society and pulling one's weight. The payroll tax, as a source of 40% of federal revenue, is almost as significant as individual income tax at 41.6% (2010 figures). Clearly it is dishonest to talk about one without talking about the other.

RE "...you conveniently leave out the payback part of the program."
I brought up that very issue in my posts of August 9, 2011 at 6:50 p.m. http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/ju... where I said, "...about 16.3% of taxpayers received a subsidy beyond the refund of the amount they had paid in withholding." Again, I brought it up in my posts of August 14, 2011 at 1:33 a.m. http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/ju... where I said "Only about half of nonpayers receive subsidies beyond zero tax liability" and August 14, 2011 at 10:59 p.m. http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/ju... where I said "Not all of the bottom 50% of taxpayers are nonpayers, and only about half of nonpayers receive a tax subsidy beyond zero tax liability."

In other words, I not only didn't "conveniently leave out the payback part of the program", I mentioned it three times, and you missed it every time.

RE "the WELFARE part of our taxation system is not included in the data."
That's because, according to the source fft and I have both cited, and which you gleefully jumped upon, "In about half the cases, substantial additional money was "refunded" to the tax filer, although that portion is classified as a government expenditure since it is actually welfare spending, not a tax refund."
Welfare is outside the tax system. This thread is about taxes, not about welfare and the other things you've tried to include. Clearly you have plenty of trouble with taxes alone; you really founder when you add welfare and other extraneous elements. But at least you are talented enough to be wrong about multiple subjects simultaneously.

Continued....

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 1, 2011 at 12:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Subtracting the insults, name calling and foot stomping we are left with this fair question:

COM: "why do you continue to engage in the discussion?">>

A couple reasons:

1) When people post false and misleading information in a public forum that allows dissent, I consider it a public service/duty to help out and offer gentle corrections, as time allows. It was the fellow who wrote "Common Sense" who once put it this way:

“It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error. But nature has not given to everyone a talent for the purpose; and among those to whom such a talent is given there is often a want of disposition or of courage to do it.”
--Thomas Paine, preface to Age of Reason, part 3

Having the disposition, courage and perhaps a bit of a knack at doing it, I try to help out when I can.

2) I use these interactions as a stimulus for learning. Unfortunately, I haven't learned much if anything from you, but I have learned quite a bit while investigating your dubious claims. For instance, having examined so many of the different angles and ways your favorite tax canard fails, I have learned quite a bit about the subject. And the article I wrote about it:

"Refuting the "50% don't pay taxes" Canard"
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

was picked up by some popular blogs (see the spicy headline bartcop.com gave it) causing it to receive nearly 1,400 views in the last few days. Probably our busiest post ever. So that went well and informed a lot of people I think.

D.
------------
"Gov. Rick Perry,... said he was dismayed at the “injustice” that nearly half of Americans do not pay income tax...

Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, and several senators have made similar arguments, variations of the idea expressed earlier by Senator Dan Coats of Indiana that “everyone needs to have some skin in the game.”

This is factually wrong, economically wrong and morally wrong. First, the facts: a vast majority of Americans have skin in the tax game. Even if they earn too little to qualify for the income tax, they pay payroll taxes (which Republicans want to raise), gasoline excise taxes and state and local taxes. Only 14 percent of households pay neither income nor payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution. The poorest fifth paid an average of 16.3 percent of income in taxes in 2010."
--New York Times, yesterday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opi...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 1, 2011 at 12:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

COM reposts my citation from the New York Times and mistakenly attributes it to me and calls me a liar. Yet COM quoted the NYT's earlier in this thread. I guess it's okay when he does it.

And as usual, he said nothing to refute or address what the article actually said anyway. Boring.

D.
-------------
Hint: read the article at the link, it provides references backing up it's claims.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

September 3, 2011 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "In addition, many of those 'non-payers' receive a net 'REFUND" or "WELFARE" payment as a REWARD for filing a federal income tax form."
Not just "many": about half of them. Remember in my post of September 1, 2011 at 12:25 a.m. when I pointed out that I first posted this fact on 9 August? http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/ju... And you missed it the three times I had posted it, and claimed that I "conveniently leave out the payback part of the program"? (In that post I also affirmed the truth of the fact that almost fifty percent of taxpayers pay no federal income tax.) Are you illiterate, or what?

RE "Rick Perry's statements were not 'factually wrong' as you state."
Yes, they were. This is what Rick Perry said: “We're dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don't even pay any income tax.” That isn't true: they don't pay FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Remember how you put that in capital letters for fft's benefit? Apparently it didn't help you remember the difference. Are you illiterate, or what?

RE "Since you cannot defend the federal income tax welfare system, you continue to provide LIES to the reading public."
Every bit of data fft and I have posted is true. Remember: it comes from the Tax Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, the CBPP, the IRS-- you know: the same people that also say that about half of taxpayers pay no federal income tax. Are you illiterate, or what?

"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." --Mark Twain

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 3, 2011 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Hair splitting again i see...."
I have split no hairs-- I have agreed that you have stated a fact.

RE "One half of our population is opted-out of the greatest source of income to our federal government, and yet maintains the ability to access 100% of the benefits provided by same."
In 2010, it was only the greatest federal revenue source by 1.6%-- 41.6% to 40%. How many times has this already been pointed out? Payroll taxes provide 96.2% as much revenue as individual income taxes, if that helps.

RE "Not Illiterate, just commonsensical."
I hardly see how failing to read my posts before attempting to engage in a debate is commonsensical; perhaps you can explain how that can be. To have failed to read my multiple posts of points that you consider important smacks far more of illiteracy than common sense-- especially since your failure to read those multiple posts led you to call me a liar, and to accuse me of "conveniently" omitting information: such antics are hardly a commonsense approach to intelligent discussion. By the way-- if you are not going to apologize to me for your uncalled-for behavior, at least have the decency to apologize to Thomas Paine for the damage you continually do to the concept of "Common Sense".

RE "You really need to pick a side in this debate, then we can make some headway...."
I have picked a side. You say I have defended the number of nonpaying taxpayers; in fact, I have merely pointed out that your repeated citation of the fact that almost half of taxpayers pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAX is not a good point to argue for the following reasons:
-- It gives an incomplete and therefore useless picture of our tax structure. It is even less relevant that my citation of the fact that in 2008, the top 10% of taxpayers, with 45.77% of total AGI and income of $113,799 and up, paid NO PAYROLL TAX on their income above $108,600. Payroll taxes account for almost as much revenue as individual income taxes (40% and 41.6%, respectively, in 2010); that change has shifted more of the revenue burden to the bottom 50% of taxpayers, as I explained above.
-- Your selected piece of trivia ignores the fact that many of those nonpayers are elderly, disabled, living only on Social Security, or some combination of those factors.
-- You have claimed that those who pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAXES do not contribute to society-- a claim so outrageous that it gainsays any other point you might try to make by repeating it.

So tell me again: why is this one, single, isolated, selected, unelaborated point so important that you choose to ignore the rest of the tax system?

Now, you pick a side: Will you join me in supporting the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, which significantly raised the number of taxpayers who pay no FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, or will you continue to equivocate by supporting the Bush tax cuts and whining about their results?

Posted by: AlphaCat

September 10, 2011 at 1:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )