Here's one for you all to think about

[Gulli]

Here's one for you all to think about: this year tax cuts for the rich will cost the government about $70 billion. The top 1% pay 25% of this amount, so the rest, the "99ers" (everyone who's not a millionaire), of society pays 75%. In other words: people who are not in the top 1% will "invest" $52,5 billion in the tax cuts. For the past decades the trend has been that the rich got richer very quickly. The rich take 80% of economic growth. So every dollar the 99ers put into tax brakes has to be multiplied into 3,75 dollars just so the 99ers can break even, and it has to happen within one year, every year! In other words the tax cuts for the rich have to grow the US economy by 1,78% every year just for the 99ers to break even! The most optimistic predictions predict 3,2% economic growth for 2012 (this year economic growth has been lower than the predictions, as is often the case). This means the tax cuts for the rich have to cause 56% of total economic growth just to make them worthwile for the 99ers! For the uninitiated: such figures would represent an economic miracle, no investment yields 275% profit yearly (the congessional budget office doesn't believe the tax cuts will even put their own size back into the economy, let alone multiply by 3,75 times).

Still believe in "trickle down"?

P.S. 1) I know some of you will object that tax cuts are not true government expenditures, but that's arguing semantics: there is no mathematical difference between first having x and then spending y and first having x-y and then spending 0. My calculations will not be affected by this argument.

P.S. 2) I know politics is mostly about emotion, not facts, what a shame... Call me old fashioned but I still think one cannot truly win a debate or govern justly when one does not have the facts on one's side.

 

[Gulli]

What tax cuts are you talking about? What country? In the United States we are facing a tax increase next year in 2012, (4 months away) when the famous Bush tax cuts expire.

Contrary to all the propaganda, the Bush tax cuts were cuts in every tax bracket, not just "the rich". Anyone who works and earns a paycheck/salary are going to see their taxes increase if it expires.

The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay over 86% of the federal earned income tax burden. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html


Stop talking out of your arse again Gulli.

The $70 billion comprises the tax cuts for the rich only (which only benefit the top 3%, mostly the top 1%), but of course you knew that already... This thing is not about the top 25% but the top 1% who only pay 25% of all federal taxes, stop deflecting. Whether they'll expire or not is still being debated and depends on future elections so you can't consider it a done deal (especially since you'll probably vote for candidates who support extension) and it's no reason to sweep under the rug the fact that money is already being stolen from the middle and lower classes.

Please challenge me with relevant arguments please.

 

[Gulli]

The top 25% is not relevant? Your thought process is irrational and illogical. Have fun with yourself.

Not relevant to this discussion which is about the top 1% vs the rest. Over 22 of the top 25% do not receive the tax cut for the rich. You are deflecting the whole point of my calculation.

I can redo the calculation for the top 3% vs the rest but it will only make things look even bleaker for "the rest" than in my top 1% vs the rest calculation. They should call it "piss down" economics (or, for those more eloquent: "golden shower economics"). Stinking disease-ridden piss from Ronnie R's rotting corpse.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Why should 1% of people pay 25 times more in taxes than anyone else?
I say, raise taxes on the poor and middle class til it evens out

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Nope, Im all in
Tired of seeing these wannabe libs playin God
Whats good for 1 of us , is good for all of us, or youre a punk wannabe lib, and a bigot to boot

 

[wanamingo]

That was thought provoking.

 

[jsc]

The $70 billion comprises the tax cuts for the rich only (which only benefit the top 3%, mostly the top 1%), but of course you knew that already... This thing is not about the top 25% but the top 1% who only pay 25% of all federal taxes, stop deflecting.

And the bottom 50% pay no Federal income taxes.

We do not have a tax problem. We have a spending problem. And everyone (including S&P and Moody's) except the Lamestream Media and liberals in Washington (and a few here, apparently) realizes it.

For a different look at the matter:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thanks for that link jsc
I can now say, Im once again leaning right while always looking left, for various reasons

So, all you wannabe libs, you can now go back to playing God

 

[Gulli]

And the bottom 50% pay no Federal income taxes.

We do not have a tax problem. We have a spending problem. And everyone (including S&P and Moody's) except the Lamestream Media and liberals in Washington (and a few here, apparently) realizes it.

For a different look at the matter:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

The heritage foundation does nothing but writing propaganda for the elite rich and the military industrial complex. Bush's presidency was a wet dream come true for them and practically "prepared" the invasion of Iraq. Do not trust a word they say, they are not your friend unless you are a millionaire and/or fradulent contractor for the military.

Saying 50% of the people pay no taxes is an outright lie: once you start doublecounting expenses you'll find that the 50% poorest pay no taxes, while the entire country pays -1 billion in taxes (so the rich still get more, even when making the colossal mistake of doublecounting expenses). This has been discussed before on tomshardware and debunked, so why are we wasting time on this?

Ah hell, I'll explain it again: Everyone pays up, even the poor. People give the federal government sales taxes, "sin" taxes, social premiums (for medicare/medicaid), property taxes and federal income tax. Once you put it all together the 1% richest pay 25% of the $2.1 trillion federal pie, the rest pays the other 75%. This is not unfair to the rich: they make 25% of all the money and own 40% of all the wealth, which is their main source of income and it's barely taxed (yes, the American tax system is regressiv in practice!). These are the numbers the IRS uses and I trust them over the heritage foundation or Glenn Beck.

Some idiot came up with the "50 percent pay no taxes" idea by comparing federal income tax with everything these people get in return (on average), the net result was zero. However this glosses over the fact that these people also pay local and state taxes, in addition to sales taxes (which affect lower incomes more) social premiums (often 10-20% of low incomes), but most of all it is flawed because it neglects the fact that all tax money (except for a relatively tiny amount of foreign aid) goes back to the population in some form in every country on Earth: on average the rich pay no net taxes either, in fact the whole country pays negative taxes on average because of the deficit. So by the idiot's logic I can say the rich pay no taxes either, in fact they seem to be getting back more than they pay (if the bottom 50% pays 0 net taxes then the $1 trillion deficit must be going to the richer half).

 

[Gulli]

jaydee did you hit your head?

the poor dont have anything, so taxing them is useless. The middle class have more for sure, and pay enough already.

Here's a plan, lets all learn to live within our means and shut off the no limit creditcard?

And for God's sake, disband all public unions! Not private, but sure as hell the public unions. sheesh!

That would be nice but business as usual is highly destructive in the long term: the current system makes inflation and the cost of essential services like healthcare and education grow faster than income, except the income of the top 1% of course (they are the only ones who have gained spending power the past 30 years). Part of this is unavoidable (because of other countries getting richer, resources getting more scarce and the aging of the population), but much of it is the result of mismanagement and a system that heavily favors the rich. The unaviodable part should be a shared burden, while the other part... well, don't get me started...

 

[cadder]

the poor dont have anything, so taxing them is useless

They have enough money to buy iphones, and beer, and drugs, and baggy pants. I'm stuck in the middle, and I'm the one that has no money. I've got no paycheck and no welfare.

 

[dogman_1234]

here is what i see:

1) No one know how much each of us is paying in taxes
2) We are scared of what our taxes do
3) ???
4) No one has an idea as to what needs to be done
5) No one has considered an argument about a flat tax, or is that too socialist for everyone?
6) Everyone is pulling #'s out their asses
7) I keep writing this stuff
8) I have to stop eventually
9) Gulli and Gamer need to contact the US IRS and have REAL numbers, so that mingo, JD and I can be part of a legitimate conversation
10) Leave Georgie and Barack out of this...
11) Quit with the crap about who is ignorant, we all are...
120 This is the end...

 

[NuclearShadow]

Why should 1% of people pay 25 times more in taxes than anyone else?
I say, raise taxes on the poor and middle class til it evens out

I do hope you are not serious with this? To run a entire nation even more so of America's size and population is very costly.
Naturally someone who has more income needs to pay a higher tax than the average or low class person. If taxes were set on a exact amount
for each and every single person either the amount would be too high and the vast majority would never be able to pay it while it serves
as a tax break for the very wealthy or it will be set too low and the government will be completely out of funds and unable to provide
even the bare-bone services a government is expected to.

Or your suggestion of taxing the middle class more and the poor is just absurd. All you will do is end up downgrading the middle class to low class
and negatively effect the quality of life to Americans. This would also severely hurt our economy as people will not be able to spend their money
to keep businesses afloat. Then massive job-losses will ensue and you will just have more people who cannot pay taxes at all.

Also how do you expect to tax the poor of something they have little to nothing of? This would make just as much sense as demanding that they produce
and tribute you a Dodo bird. It's just not something they can do even if they wanted. Nor is this a situation they even wish to be in themselves.

However when regarding the mega rich the ones that logically have no reason to fear for their financial future they can be taxed more because they are capable of living above the average quality of life even if they endure more taxes. They should not be over taxed themselves to the point where it becomes a serious burden to them and
risks them failing to have a decent life.

Unless you have a plan that can be expressed with amazing details here that will completely shock and awe everyone, I have to say until then your plan is simply foolish. If you think you are capable of such genius then please, be my guest.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But yes, I am being facetious
I think jsc's link shows how things have worked, when taxes choke the economy

 

[Gulli]

But yes, I am being facetious
I think jsc's link shows how things have worked, when taxes choke the economy

Taxes are pretty much at an all time low (well, since the 19th century anyway). Economic growth was much stronger when there were higher taxes. However I don't think there is a causal relation between taxes and (average) economic growth, not at first order anyway. It's more of an international competition: if the United States had by far the highest corporate taxes in the developed world then that would the American economy (unless of course these taxes are invested in an amazing infrastructure). This is not the case however: when all taxes and social premiums are factored in America is a cheap place to do business, unfortunately its infrastructure reflects this. As long as corporations keep showering the upper management with $10 million bonuses (which are then filed as "operating costs") they have plenty of money so cutting back on workers is a decision based on greed, not on need.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Taxes are pretty much at an all time low (well, since the 19th century anyway). Economic growth was much stronger when there were higher taxes. However I don't think there is a causal relation between taxes and (average) economic growth, not at first order anyway. It's more of an international competition: if the United States had by far the highest corporate taxes in the developed world then that would the American economy (unless of course these taxes are invested in an amazing infrastructure). This is not the case however: when all taxes and social premiums are factored in America is a cheap place to do business, unfortunately its infrastructure reflects this. As long as corporations keep showering the upper management with $10 million bonuses (which are then filed as "operating costs") they have plenty of money so cutting back on workers is a decision based on greed, not on need.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Read it

 

[Gulli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world
Read it

Do you know how much corporations have to pay (by law) on social premiums in Europe? In my country corporations have to pay 8% "vacation money" on top of any salary, in addition to some 20 paid days off (on top of regular holidays and vacations, weeks more than in the US), they also have to pay social premiums that go towards healthcare and a pension fund. Then they have to deal with stricter environmental and labor regulations. Last but not least there is a higher income tax in all tax brackets and capital gains tax is twice the American rate. Business is really expensive in Europe, unless you have employees and no assets. According to Republican rhetoric we should have chased away all businesses a long time ago but we're actually attracting foreign investment and have only 60% of GDP national debt, against America's 100% as well as a lower poverty rate. If you thought business was expensive in the United States you should try running a business here. So why do businesses keep coming? Because of a highly developed infrastructure (roads and internet connections, just to mention a few) and despite all their threats to leave Western countries they still need highly educated/skilled Western employees more than they like to admit.

I'm not saying America should copy our model, just that America should be able to look over its borders and learn from it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. Why are the German and Japanese car industries doing better than America's? Aren't the German and Canadian healthcare systems worth looking into (another Western federalized countries with corporations running healthcare, but under strict regulation, and with the option to go fully private, for any citizen who can afford it)? Isn't the Dutch business taxing/premium system worth looking into either (highly attractive to businesses, but still ensuring they pay their share)?

 

[Gulli]

Here's one:

How do you get "the rich" like the Kennedy's to pay more in taxes? Their wealth is protected in a trust fund and they pay very little taxes on their weatlh.

This the problem with raising taxes on "the rich" that politicians love to spew. What happens more often than not is that taxes are raised on people who actually work and earn an income and the independently wealthy go untouched.

If you can come up with a plan to get around this ^^ "loophole" I'll give you a cookie.

Trustfunds enjoy major loopholes, and this is systematically abused by the very rich, no arguing there. This is a weakness in the tax code that must be tackled, but it won't be easy because of all the lobbying in Washington. Don't be surprised when the republicans will claim beneficiaries of trustfunds are really just average "middle class", hard working, god-fearing job-creators or some other BS.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Its still not 47%
As youve said, since there so low, show me one lower on that list

 

[Gulli]

Its still not 47%
As youve said, since there so low, show me one lower on that list

What country has a 47% corporate tax rate? Surely not the US, look at your own link.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What country has a 47% corporate tax rate? Surely not the US, look at your own link.

Actually its 48%
Thats from 2005
You forget, we have states which get their cuts too

 

[dogman_1234]

Isn't that for 'small business'?

 

[dogman_1234]

Between 1-50 employees making standard taxable salaries.

 

[dogman_1234]

Last time I checked at least.

 

[Gulli]

Actually its 48%
Thats from 2005
You forget, we have states which get their cuts too

We have municipalities that do the same thing...

P.S. Remember that all net profit (which is the taxable part) ends up with shareholders who have to pay capital gains tax, that's 30% over here, while it's only 15% in the US. This alone takes a huge chunk out of the income of a shareholder.

Quick example for a large shareholder of a large corporation (only counting federal tax, because local taxes vary too much in both our countries, and without taking into account any differences in loopholes and social premiums and labor laws which will surely make business more expensive in the Netherlands):

in the US a shareholder gets to keep 85% of 65%, in the Netherlands a shareholder gets to keep 70% of 75%. So the American gets to keep 55,25%, the Dutchman gets to keep 52,50%.