Boring?
Fox News Sucks.
No Pussy.
Printable View
Boring?
Fox News Sucks.
No Pussy.
Esten, nice move with the "raise the taxes on the Rich" pitch from your poll.
Obama's recent speech pegged "Rich" as anyone making more than $250K while your own poll showed the vast majority of Americans believe "Rich" begins at $1 Million, which sets up my next point nicely.
Polls ask the general question 'Would you favor raising the taxes on the rich? ', but fail to designate what income level constitutes 'Rich', which rigs the poll from the outset, see the statement above on your cited poll.
I'm going to search for a more honest poll with these perimeters and see what the results are, but I can bet you now it won't be Obama's $250K.
Nice try though, I will give you that, but totally intellectually dishonest!
The polls clearly show reduction of government spending and services are at the top of the list to reduce the deficit.
Did you happen to see the movie "Best Little Wh*re House in Texas"? Your little faint with the "Rich" reminded me of the Governor's Dance. "Do a Little Side Step" in which every time the governor is asked a question after a long, rambling, almost unintelligible statement the only conclusion reached by those hearing the governor's response was 'it was a possible maybe'! That is you Esten to a "T"
By the way Texas is addressing its deficit and closing the gap with SPEMDING CUTS and NOT RAISING TAXES, we have to live within our means. Texas also does not have a state income tax!
By the way, still waiting on your response to;
1. Johnson's Entitlement Program called Welfare
2. Why a majority of whites believed their taxes were fair and a majority of non-whites believed their taxes were unfair.
It seems to me, that Bill Clinton, back in 1993 defined the 'Rich" as those making more than $250, 000. You'll recall that was his millionaire's tax. That is if you made $250, 000, Bill Clinton and the Democrats thought you were a millionaire and were rich and therefore you had to pay more in taxes so that they could spend more.
Now, eighteen years later, BHO is trotting out the same dead horse. Only it is worse this time and more deceitful because he is using the nominal figure that Clinton arbitrarily chose way back when, and is taking advantage of the fact that most Americans don't understand what inflation has done to the value of their dollars. $250, 000 today doesn't buy what it used to. In fact, It takes $380K today to purchase the same amount as $250K did back in 1993. Further, $250K today is equivalent to about $165K in 1993. Therefore, Obama's definition of "Rich" is 34% lower than Clinton's. I thought Clinton's definition was supposed to protect middle class (democrat terminology) Americans from the soaking intended for just the "rich." How did all the people making between $250K and $380K become rich in Obama's world, while not even reaching the measurement set by Bill Clinton in 1993?
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;416771]It seems to me, that Bill Clinton, back in 1993 defined the 'Rich" as those making more than $250,000. You'll recall that was his millionaire's tax. That is if you made $250,000, Bill Clinton and the Democrats thought you were a millionaire and were rich and therefore you had to pay more in taxes so that they could spend more.[/QUOTE]You guys are stepping all over these definitions.
A "millionaire" as someone who has a net worth of more than a million dollars, not an individual with an annual income in excess of a million dollars.
The liberal assumption (not entirely without merit) is that an individual with an income in excess of $250,000 per year most likely has a net worth in excess of one million dollars, and thus they are a millionaire.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson, while the strict definition of a Millionaire is any person who amasses assets worth a million or more of a specific monetary unit, I don't think that is truly applicable in this case. I can also assure you when the polls are asking folks about rasing the taxes on Millionaires the folks answering the question are thinking in annual income and not total asset worth.
To be a millionaire in Argentina would not mean a whole lot, hell I would be willing to bet you are millionaire using Argentine Pesos.
But since we are talking about taxing current income, I like the earning a million + per year option. Just because an individual has amassed a million in assets over a life time does not mean he / she needs to get screwed by the government on his annual income. Let me give you some excellent examples of this, family farms and family businesses.
Are these people really 'millionaires' when the bulk of the assets are neither liquid and nor easily converted? While the total of all assets maybe greater than a million (dollars since we are talking about the US) most of these folks are lucky to make 1/10th of that in income each year. This was one of the reasons the death tax limits were raised, to keep the person's inheriting the family farms and businesses from having to sell off the assets to settle the bill with the IRS and keep a viable business in business instead of killing it off for taxes.
Also asset value does not take into account the affects of appreciation or inflation. What was $500K in 2000 is well over that in 2011, see my point? Since others have brought up Clinton and his assumption $250K was Rich in 1995 please consider this: $250K in 1995 when adjusted for inflation and the decrease in the buying power of the dollar would be equal to about $380K in todays dollars, a 52% increase since 1995.
Regarding the deficit, there is no way we can tax our way out of this mess. We got here due to fettered government spending and reducing that spending is the only way we are going to get out.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 416775]You guys are stepping all over these definitions.
A "millionaire" as someone who has a net worth of more than a million dollars, not an individual with an annual income in excess of a million dollars.
The liberal assumption (not entirely without merit) is that an individual with an income in excess of $250, 000 per year most likely has a net worth in excess of one million dollars, and thus they are a millionaire.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]Jax:
I know what a millionaire is. Someone with a net worth between $1million and $999, 999, 999 (more would be a billionaire).
Bill Clinton declared that he would only tax millionaires. As it turns out, he then increased income taxes for those making $250K or more (we'll leave out the other regressive taxes that he put on everyone). The hurdle was one year's income not net worth. Therefore, if you earned $250k, you were subject to the millionaire's tax. This was acceptable to the liberal elites not because the assumption that those affected had amassed a million or more in net worth but that the number of people earning more than $250k per year was much smaller than the number of people who earn less than $250k per year. Therefore they could use this as fodder in their hopes to fuel class warfare.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416770]Esten, nice move with the "raise the taxes on the Rich" pitch from your poll.
Obama's recent speech pegged "Rich" as anyone making more than $250K while your own poll showed the vast majority of Americans believe "Rich" begins at $1 Million, which sets up my next point nicely. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Doppelganger;416707]Esten, according to your last post 81% of Americans think $1 million is "rich" now not $200K. Perhaps you should get a grip buddy because those lunk heads who fall in the $200K to $999K bunch are small business owners and if you bother to check it is small business that produces the most jobs, far more than "big" business. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Doppelganger;416733]Esten, according to the poll you cited 81% of Americans believe $1 Million is "Rich", maybe you should give your guy Obama a clue since he is still stuck with the $250K figure as "Rich".[/QUOTE]Doppelganger,
3 times you have repeated this claim that my poll shows that Americans define "rich" as $1 Million. But the poll I posted simply stated that 81% agreed with "placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year".
The poll question does not ask what Americans consider rich, in fact the word "rich" isn't even mentioned. It also does not tell us what level of support a surtax would have for incomes < $1 million.
You make stuff up, and then accuse [i]me[/i] of being intellectually dishonest?
Get real man.
There are millionaires, and there are multi-millionaires. And then, there is me, a millionaire in my dreams.
Esten, you are an avowed redistribution guy and believe the “rich” have too much and it needs to be taken from them and spread around to the “less fortunate”. As I recall most of your posts support Obama's belief $250K in annual income as “rich”, an idea he resurrected from Clinton circa 1995, see the previous post regarding purchasing power of $250k from 1995 to 2010.
Now try to follow the train of thought here, since you are always harping on raising the taxes on the “rich” which is why you posted the poll results indicating a majority of Americans support raising taxes on individuals earning more than $1millon in annual income, the logical conclusion one could draw from your posting the poll was Americans believe $1Millon in annual income is “rich” which would tend to refute you $250k idea. Now that was not too difficult was it? Its called connect the dots.
By the way that $250k in annual income figure is for a couple filing a joint return. Got any nifty polls showing a majority of Americans believe that is “rich”. Go do the math on what it costs to send kids to a good college today and you will find out just how little $250K a year will get you.
When the top 25% of tax payers are paying 86% of the taxes but you still don’t consider that enough social engineering and want to take more. Now I consider that a bit lopsided.
Still not answering the whites belived their taxes were generally fair but non-whites generally believed their taxer were unfair question or the Johnson's Welfare question I notice.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416803]Esten, you are an avowed redistribution guy and believe the “rich” have too much and it needs to be taken from them and spread around to the “less fortunate”. As I recall most of your posts support Obama's belief $250K in annual income as “rich”, an idea he resurrected from Clinton circa 1995, see the previous post regarding purchasing power of $250k from 1995 to 2010.[/QUOTE]There are varying degrees of "rich" and everyone has their own definition. Why get hung up on the definition? The point is some people can afford to pay more taxes, and some people can afford to pay a lot more taxes. I don't support taxation for its own sake. I support it when it can address a valid purpose - such as to reduce poverty, or make housing more affordable, or fund college scholarships, or build infrastructure, or balance budgets and pay off debt, etc.
[QUOTE]Now try to follow the train of thought here, since you are always harping on raising the taxes on the “rich” which is why you posted the poll results indicating a majority of Americans support raising taxes on individuals earning more than $1millon in annual income, the logical conclusion one could draw from your posting the poll was Americans believe $1Millon in annual income is “rich” which would tend to refute you $250k idea. Now that was not too difficult was it? Its called connect the dots.[/QUOTE]It's fair to say Americans likely consider $1 Million rich. But that says nothing about whether Americans also consider 750K rich, or 500K rich, or 250K rich, etc. The poll didn't ask what was the threshold for "rich". Get it?
I never said before whether I personally think 250K income is rich. Here is my opinion:
100K - well off
250K - very well off
500K - rich
1M - very rich
Something like that. And I also think all these groups can and should pay more taxes. I do well, and I could easily afford another 1-2% in taxes. Those 250K+ could probably afford another 3-4% in taxes. Those 500K+ could probably afford another 5-6% in taxes. And maybe a little more for millionaires. So perhaps a top tax bracket of 45%. And you've got to tax capital gains at those rates too (at least for higher incomes). Rich folks paying 15% on capital gains just ain't right.
[QUOTE]By the way that $250k in annual income figure is for a couple filing a joint return. Got any nifty polls showing a majority of Americans believe that is “rich”. Go do the math on what it costs to send kids to a good college today and you will find out just how little $250K a year will get you. [/QUOTE]Somehow I don't think the wealthiest 2% are struggling.
[QUOTE]When the top 25% of tax payers are paying 86% of the taxes but you still don’t consider that enough social engineering and want to take more. Now I consider that a bit lopsided.[/QUOTE]The taxes may appear lopsided because the INCOME IS LOPSIDED.
[QUOTE]Still not answering the whites belived their taxes were generally fair but non-whites generally believed their taxer were unfair question or the Johnson's Welfare question I notice.[/QUOTE]Maybe later, I'm more interested in discussing how you feel you shouldn't have to pay more taxes. But a quick comment, I gather your point here is that tax revenue isn't spent wisely - it is "handed out" to people who are lazy or otherwise don't need or deserve it. If so, then make your case. How much money is the federal government spending to help people that don't need or deserve it? Data please.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416733]I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home but believe me I am damn sure not 'rich'.[/QUOTE]Doppelganger is a member of the "Top 2%", and his argument for not raising his taxes is as follows.
He wants the definition of "rich" to be $1 Million. And then, only the "rich" should have their taxes increased.
Clever huh?
Since when is $250K in the top 2% ?
Now you consider $500K in annual income "rich"
If tax payments are lopsided because income distribution is lopsided isn't this what you want to correct all the "earnings injustice" or is it you want more? You want more, I know.
I guess you are back to the "social compact" which requires the individual to surrender all or most of his rights to the state for safety and welfare - my friend it's called socialism and it always fails.
I guess the next thing I will hear from you is "Mother Earth" should be afforded the same civil rights as a natural person, you and Evo Morales must be having coca together every morning.
Still not answering the questions regarding race and taxes nor about Welfare.
If you want a waste of money by the federal government, EPA, IRS, Welfare, the list goes on.
From the IRS:
The top 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of all income tax collected.
The top 5% of taxpayers pay 58. 7% of all income tax collected.
The top 10% of taxpayers pay 69. 9% of all income tax collected.
The top 25% of taxpayers pay 86% of all income tax collected.
The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2% of all income tax collected.
In my opinion, federal government activity and spending should be as follows:
-The federal government should do only those things that the private sector can't (national defense, etc) , which includes supplementing private, charities so that as a just and moral society we can take care of those who truly can't fend for themselves (whether temporary or long-term). That's it.
I estimate that this should be about $1. 7T for FY 2011 (before we really start cutting and winding down long-term programs). That would leave an annual surplus of $500B which could be used to pay down the national debt. If we did that for 15 years in a row (and interest rates remained steady) we could pay off the national debt. So, if we cut the budget in half, we could payoff our accumulated debt in 15 years. That is f*cking staggering.
If we go with liberal tax & spend policies, we can continue spending and just tax the rich some more. In 2010, the IRS collected $899B in income taxes (contributed by only slightly more than 50% of Americans). If we use a rough thumbnail of estimate of 30% for the average federal tax, actually paid by taxpayers, that means that the productive half of America made approximately $3T in 2010. If we doubled the marginal tax rate to 60, the federal tax coffers would only increase by $899B or a little more than half of the annual deficit. Therefore, we are continuing to add to the national debt. If we took 100% of the income earned by productive Americans, we would theoretically increase the receipts by approximately $2T which would get us into a surplus of $300B, in fantasy land. Everyone would quit and become a ward of the state. Instead of 50 million people on food stamps it would be 300 million.
We also know that it is pure fantasy to think that Congress won't spend more next year. Every year federal spending grows faster than GDP and personal wealth. How will we ever catch the moving target?
The left is always shrieking about 'sustainability' when the put more regulation on businesses and unnecessarily drive up the cost of living and restrict our choice. Where is the left in pointing out that this simply isn't sustainable.
There are far too many instances where the government is doing something unnecessary. Every instance has a related cost.
Why is it 'fair' that any Americans pay for someone else's share of necessary federal spending let alone unnecessary federal spending?
[QUOTE=Esten on 12-11-10;414458][i]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. [/i][/QUOTE]There's your answer.
[QUOTE=Esten]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Jackson;416842]There's your answer.[/QUOTE]This fits perfectly with Esten's world view: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.". Karl Marx.
But, remember, Esten is not a communist, and he certainly is not a socialist. He can't be. If he accepted that label, it would mean that his whole world view has been a demonstrable failure.
So, we can call him a "redistributionist" or a "liberal" or a "taxocrat" or even a spade. But don't call him a socialist. It shatters his fragile self-image. And, do we really want to see Emperor Esten with no clothes?
While Esten proposes the top 10% of income earners pay 100% of the taxes, the question is how much is 100%.
For liberals there is no limit to what government should provide therefore the amount needed pay that 100% from those top 10% of income earners outstrips their entire income so I guess Esten will have to expand that percentage.
As I pointed out in an earlier post if you took all the income of the "rich" in tax it would not even cover the addition to the deficit in Obama's 2011 budget much less cover the entire budget for 2011!
Esten reminds me of Capt."Red Legs" Terrel in the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wells", when Terrel declared "there aint no end to do'in right". For the liberal there is no end to what the government should provide.
Predictable, one conservative posts something out of context, and his pals jump on with erroneous conclusions.
[QUOTE=Esten]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Jackson;416842]There's your answer.[/QUOTE]You conveniently omitted my followup comment on 12-13-10:
[QUOTE=Esten; 414504]My response to Jackson was focused on his question of what would be a fair proportion. I [b]do not[/b] Advocate the top 10% paying all taxes. But not because it would be unfair. Not at all. They are already paying 70% of all taxes and still that only amounts to an 18. 71% rate. With a small rate hike, they could with little pain cover the other 30. That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they already receive. Such a change would help reduce the extreme income inequality we have, but just a bit. The top 10% would still be earning far more than everyone else.
However there is something to be said for having some skin in the game. To Sysco's good point, people value something more when they have a stake in it. [/QUOTE]My proposal for what income taxes should be is along the lines of what I posted yesterday April 18. Not far off from the current system, but with incremental increases on those above 100K, which includes myself (broader than Obama's proposal). In fact I could be persuaded for increases on incomes <100K as well, but very slight.
Doppel, see Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
2005 US Census Bureau data:
15.73% earn 100K or more (down to 6.24% in 2008)
1.50% earn 250K or more (2008 unavailable but probably lower %)
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]If you want a waste of money by the federal government, EPA, IRS, Welfare, the list goes on. [/QUOTE]Blah blah blah. This isn't even an argument, just complaining. Be specific on how much gets cut or scaled back, and how much money we save.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416733]I currently provide healthcare benefits for my employees, three weeks paid leave, paid continuing education allowance, and a 401 (k) which includes Safe Harbor contributions of 3% with an additional minimum of 3% and maximum of 9% in Profit Sharing depending on the profitability of the business year.
Well when Obama hits me with higher personal taxes here is what goes at a minimum: one week of paid leave, continuing education allowance [/QUOTE]Let me get this straight. When your personal income taxes are raised a few percent, to preserve your wealth, you are going to shift the burden onto others, is that it?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416844]Esten reminds me of Capt."Red Legs" Terrel in the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wells", when Terrel declared "there aint no end to do'in right". For the liberal there is no end to what the government should provide.[/QUOTE]What a great movie! More one liners than any other movie.
However, the title is "[i]The Outlaw Josey Wales[/i]".
Thanks,
Jackson
Good article on how much tax cheats cost you, me and America. According to the article, wealthy Americans "disproportionately cheat" on their taxes. I say we need a stronger IRS to chase down these criminals.
[i]Tax evasion has cost the USA government $3 trillion over the past decade, Callahan says, citing IRS data."It is a major contributor to budget deficits and the accumulation of national debt since 2001."
Furthermore, every individual tax filer will have to pay an extra $2200 in 2010 tax to "subsidize" the tax cheats, according to Callahan. [/i]
[i]In estimating the tax gap, the IRS found that the largest share of tax evasion—over 50 percent—was by individuals with business income," Callahan writes at OurFiscalSecurity. Org."A more detailed breakdown of losses in 2008 by the scholar John Slemrod and IRS analyst Andrew Johns found that the single biggest source of lost revenue was from proprietors of businesses who don't report the full amount of their income. Other big cheaters include professionals whose income comes through S corporations, partnerships, and real estate.[/i]
Full article:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tax-cheats-cost-uncle-sam-3-trillion-cost-173224779.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Esten; 416849]Predictable, one conservative posts something out of context, and his pals jump on with erroneous conclusions.
You conveniently omitted my followup comment on 12-13-10:
[QUOTE=Esten]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Esten,
I didn't post your statement out of context, it stands by itself, and...
I am [u]NOT[/u] A Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] A conservative.
- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
Thanks,
Jackson
Yes Esten, ogre that I am as my income diminishes I will reduce the BENEFITS I VOLUNARILY provide to my employees. They receive three weeks paid leave. 12 paid holidays, generous contributions to their 401 (k) and healthcare.
When I have employment openings they are filled quickly since I pay much better than my competitors in addition to the excellent benefits. Guess I'm not such an ogre after all. By the way, all my senior staff are in your defined 'well off' category.
Did I mention my state unemployment taxes tripled last year? I ate that one but there is a limit to how many cuts to my income I am willing to absorb. While we are talking about taxes, Federal income taxes are just part of the picture, there is employers matching Social Security & Medicare, state and federal unemployment tax, state sales tax, state property tax (no income tax in Texas) , state franchise tax and the list goes on. When you add them all up you have reduced your net income to about 50% or less of your gross!
By the way since it is my company, I founded it, I paid for it, all my assets are at risk in it and I will run it the way I see fit, which thank God I am permitted to do in this great country. I don't have to put up with the Esten's of the world telling me what to pay my employees, what to cut, what benefits to provide and what I should make when it's all said and done. Last time I checked, I have the American Dream. Seems you got a problem with that.
I f you feel motivated to build a company and give your profits away, please feel free but don't tell me how to run mine nor denigrate me for making a living.
Even Standard & Poors agrees we have a SPENDING problem! Get a grip and get real Esten!
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416855]Even Standard & Poors agrees we have a SPENDING problem! Get a grip and get real Esten![/QUOTE]In truth, S&P didn't say we have to cut spending problem to fix the problem. That would be too political for a ratings agency. They just said we need a solution. It is obvious the problem is spending, just as it was obvious in Greece and Portugal. But, the ratings agencies won't prescribe a cure; they just report that the patient is sick.
Nevertheless, the S&P shift to a negative stance [b]is[/b] The elephant in the room. If there is a downgrade over the next couple of years, all hell will break loose. This is a much bigger deal than all the blather you hear about the debt ceiling. If we get a significant rise in the interest we have to pay on all the debt this administration has floated, which is what happens when the bond vigilantes ride in and the ratings agencies take action, then we are in serious shit.
Thanks to all the debt the Obama administration has larded on the public, there will be no easy fix for this. Through its misguided policies and prodigious spending, we have both a record deficit and a recovery that's going nowhere. Unfortunately, even voting this menace out of office won't fix things. The scales have been tilted for years to come. And, if interest rates rise significantly over the course of the next few year as most investors are betting, then even the Ryan and deficit commission plans won't be satisfactory.
It is against this backdrop that Obama's continued failure to show any semblance of leadership is particularly appalling. I understand he's between a rock and a hard place. His constituency are hard core tax and spend liberals who will not countenance a reduction in the dependency state. But, that's what leadership is: The ability to defy these nincompoops and make the right decisions. Clinton had it. Obama clearly does not. And, we'll all pay the price for it down the road.
Stan you are on target as usual.
You are correct the S&P did not specifically state we had to cut spending but it's one of those "it's as plain as the nose on your face" sort of things. You are also correct in pointing out this is the first step in a possible increase in interest rates on our debt, which if it occurred would really put the country in a tail spin trying to just service the debt much less pay it down.
It is galling to listen to Obama talking about "cuts" and then he follows up with all the "investments", ie spending, he intends to do on everything under the sun. Even more disappointing was the failure of the Republicans to really cut spending in the 2011 budget deal. This is no time for 'compromise' it is a time for bold action and I doubt either party has the intestinal fortitude to meet the problem head on.
Liberal's just don't seem to understand this house of cards called entitlements could easily collapse and then people would starve for real. Liberals have watched the European countries curtail their social spending (which has caused plenty of problems in their 'nanny states') but they came to the realization they had to live within their means as there is no one left to pick up the tab.
One of the best plans I have heard coming out of Washington was not to raise the debt ceiling, prioritize spending so the debt is serviced, federal employees are paid, essential services are continued and start cutting the BS out of the remainder. EPA and its attempt to regulate 'global warming' would be a great place to start followed by a flat tax, no deductions and the near elimination of the IRS, followed by major cut backs in Health and Human Services –
Now Esten you can start your rave about how I want to kill Mother Earth and all her inhabitants
I do agree with Esten about one thing: Tax cheats should be caught and punished. I could tell some stories from personal experience that would make you sick. They vividly demonstrate how absolutely, utterly incompetent the IRS is. And, no, the stories do not involve me not paying taxes.
But, the stats Esten posted probably don't back up his point. The article states: ""In estimating the tax gap, the IRS found that the largest share of tax evasion—over 50 percent—was by individuals with business income,"
Later, the article states (with no support) that "In sum, wealthy Americans "disproportionately cheat" on their taxes, he says."[They] have many ways to defer income, hide it in trusts and all sorts of fancy things the rest of us can't do.""
Lost in the article is whether those with "business income" are automatically deemed "wealthy" or what definition of "wealthy" they're using. It's typical trash journalism.
It states that tax cheats cost "everyone" $2, 200 in 2010. In reality, if this was a valid number, it means that tax cheats cost the 50% of folks who actually pay taxes $2, 200, and that the rich disproportionately pay for this, since they pay far, far more in taxes.
But, as I said, the article is bunk journalism. It's based on a Callahan survey. The underlying survey, which is linked in the article, notes that the IRS hasn't updated this data since 2005, when it used [b]2001 data[/b]. Callahan just assumes that the data on tax cheats is likely about the same as it was 10 years ago. Then, the Yahoo article Esten links relies on this unsupported assumption for its statement that tax cheats cost everyone $2, 200 in 2010. Pure crap journalism.
And, the article arrives at exactly the wrong conclusion, as you might expect when the author is that sloppy. The author infers that it makes sense to spend more money on the boobs at the IRS, so they can go after the tax cheats they heretofore have failed to catch.
Huh? The better solution by far is not to unleash the IRS on tax cheats. As demonstrated above, the IRS thinks it has known who the tax cheats are since 2001, but they are too incompetent, slow, inept and foolish to find them.
The better solution is to remove 90% of the IRS's budget and move to a simplified, flat tax structure. Lost in all of the above discussion is this issue: [i]How much does it cost us to have the incompetent, bureaucratic, inept IRS and the overly complex tax structure in the first place? [/i]
Here's the answer: About $430 billion a year. That doesn't even include the tax cheats Esten is talking about.
[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576262761032853554.html[/url]
Move to a flat tax system. Streamline the IRS so that if focuses only on ensuring that everyone files a tax return. Voila! You could seriously increase GDP, and thus taxes, while making everyone's life easier and reducing some of the bloat in our bureaucracy.
Kill Mother Earth and all her inhabitants? Seriously Doppel, where do you get this stuff.
As far as the American Dream, remember it was under Clinton's higher tax rates that record numbers of Americans prospered. And that following conservative-inspired tax cuts and free-market deregulation, that dream became a nightmare for millions of Americans. How soon we forget.
You may be surprised to hear that Dems / Liberals think small businesses are extremely important. If we have an issue with business it is usually Big Business / Wall Street.
Your hard work and success and concern for your employees is to be commended. You are correct it isn't my business how you run your business.
However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement. You've built a business and created jobs, paid good wages and benefits, and become very well off in the process. All fine and good. But now you say, that's enough. You shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, or take a hit to your wealth, because of all you've already done. In other words, you're special. With our current economic situation, record debt and unemployment, where higher revenue and spending cuts can both address our issues, you shouldn't be asked to chip in because you've done enough. Successful businessmen should be exempted from the shared sacrifice.
Congratulations Doppel, here's your Free Pass. You've earned it.
Esten, the only thing I see 'special' about your post is it must have come from a 'special ed' think tank. You continue to miss the point, I am most certainly NOT 'special'. The fact is I am just like nearly every other small business owner I know. Do I feel 'entitled' to keep what I EARNED, your DAMN RIGHT I do!
As far as Democrats / Liberals liking small business, the only thing they like about small business is figuring out how they can get their hands on more of small business profits and miring them in more red tape reporting. They love big business because without it there would be neither big unions nor a boogieman to scare folks with.
Let me give you another economics lesson. In 2008 I had 30 employees but now I have 22. Why, because the clients began cutting back on the services they received from my firm due to the economic down turn. Under your theory I should have kept all 30 and reduced everyone's salary to cover the reduction in income, everyone could do less well so others could work. Of course then I would no longer be paying my staff competitive salaries and they would seek employment elsewhere. You can't legislate self interest out of human beings, but liberals seem to think you can.
Regarding the way you cherry pick numbers, such as using 2005 for your figures in an earlier post, the same applies to your reference to Clinton. The only reason things got better was due to the reform of entitlements (ie reduced spending / give a ways) and not the increase in taxes. Don't you remember welfare reform which was forced on Clinton by the Republicans? If you want a return to prosperity then cut the spending!
Esten can now move to the mount and continue to preach his gospel, magically making the fishes and loaves appear from nowhere to feed his dutiful followers, of course without the evil rich, big business and small business he could not produce the loaves and fishes. No way will Esten teach them to fish so they may feed themselves and become independent.
Note: Please forgive the Bibical and other comon sense references used to make my point in my closing.
[QUOTE=Esten;416864]However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement.[/QUOTE]Imagine that! The man has a "[I]sense of entitlement[/I]" towards the business that he build for himself.
Esten, the person here with the "[I]sense of entitlement[/I]" is [U]YOU[/U], who believe that [U]YOU[/U] are entitled to take from Doppelganger whatever [U]YOU[/U] feel is correct in order to fund [U]YOUR[/U] "social justice" agenda.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416867]You can't legislate self interest out of human beings, but liberals seem to think you can.[/QUOTE][b][i]"Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior."[/i][/b]
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Esten;416864]However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement. You've built a business and created jobs, paid good wages and benefits, and become very well off in the process. All fine and good. But now you say, that's enough. You shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, or take a hit to your wealth, because of all you've already done.[/QUOTE]This is another vivid demonstration of how deluded this guy is. He simply doesn't understand how things work, which is obvious from his statements quoted above.
Esten, he [b][u]is[/u] paying more[/b] That's how our tax system works. Are you really this stupid?
If he made $50,000 before he became successful, and $150,000 after he became successful, he's paying [b]three times more in taxes[/b]!
But, that's only half of it. The tax system is progressive. So, as Doppel goes up the income ladder, his percentage increases along with it.
For example, at $50,000 a year he'd likely pay very little, perhaps 10% or $5, 000 after the standard deduction, if that.
At $150,000, he probably pays a blended rate of 20% to the feds, or $30,000 a year. That's $25,000 more, or 500% more. The deck gets stacked further against him as he makes more.
[QUOTE=Esten; 416864]In other words, you're special. With our current economic situation, record debt and unemployment, where higher revenue and spending cuts can both address our issues, you shouldn't be asked to chip in because you've done enough. Successful businessmen should be exempted from the shared sacrifice.
Congratulations Doppel, here's your Free Pass. You've earned it. [/QUOTE]"Special" "Free Pass" Huh? You can't really be this facile? Well, come to think of it, you can.
Sure, he's special. He's what pays your retirement and all the other freebies you're sure to load up on if you seriously believe any of the crap you spew here.
Instead of arguing with him, you ought to be kissing his ass. Without folks like that, you'd be living in squalor.
Thanks Stan, but I would have to put on some really thick plastic underpants for Esten to kiss my ass, after all I practice safe sex and would not like to catch anything!
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 416871]Esten, he [b][u]is[/u] Paying more[/b] That's how our tax system works. Are you really this stupid?
If he made $50, 000 before he became successful, and $150, 000 after he became successful, he's paying [b]three times more in taxes[/b]! [/QUOTE]Guys, this is more liberalspeak, similar to the "income vs net wealth" definition of who is a millionaire.
When liberals talk about "the rich need to pay more", they don't mean that the rich should pay a greater dollar amount that those with lesser income, which they already do. What liberals mean is that "the rich" should be paying a [U]greater percentage[/U] of their income, which of course they also do, but that's lost in the class warfare rhetoric.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416855]Did I mention my state unemployment taxes tripled last year? I ate that one but there is a limit to how many cuts to my income I am willing to absorb. While we are talking about taxes, Federal income taxes are just part of the picture, there is employers matching Social Security & Medicare, state and federal unemployment tax, state sales tax, state property tax (no income tax in Texas) , state franchise tax and the list goes on. When you add them all up you have reduced your net income to about 50% or less of your gross!
[/QUOTE]Doppelganger, you ingrate.
Here's an example that's not atypical, where taxes add up to more than the business' earnings before state and federal income tax. It wouldn't surprise me if American business on the whole pays more in tax than it makes in net profit.
Federal Income Tax = 35% of income before state & federal income tax.
State Income Tax = 7% of income before state & federal income tax.
Employment Taxes (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) = 45% of income before state and federal income tax (1)
Property Tax = 10% of income before state and federal income tax (2)
Sales Tax = 10% of income before state and federal income tax (3)
Miscellaneous Tax (unemployment tax, etc.) = 3% of income before state and federal income tax (4)
Total Taxes Paid: 110% of income before state and federal income tax.
(1) Assumes employee wages are 30% of sales; employer's share of employment taxes is 15% of gross wages; profit margin before income tax is 10%
(2) Assumes Fixed Assets = 50% of sales; Property tax = 2% of fixed assets; profit margin before income tax is 10%
(3) Assumes total Sales Tax paid on purchases is equivalent to 1% of company's gross sales; profit margin before income tax is 10.
(4) Wild guess
I knew this was going to be a rich discussion when Doppel started talking about his business. But the comedic content from businessmen defending and praising themselves is priceless.
The award for the biggest laugh goes to Stan for his tutorial on our tax system. Stan thank you so much. I never understood how it worked until you explained it so well.
As you may have heard, we have a significant federal deficit and debt issue. This is due to both a loss of revenue and an increase in spending. And it could be addressed by raising revenue and cutting spending. Spending cuts will impact the poor and middle class the most, while raising taxes will impact the rich / well-off the most.
Going forward, it is clear sacrifices have to be made somewhere. But some folks like Doppel don't want any part of that sacrifice. He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts. And if faced with a tax increase, he'll pass it on to others. His justification? He's done enough as a successful small business owner. In his mind, that makes him entitled to an exemption from the sacrifice. That is the entitlement I referred to.
Let others do with less, but don't ask Doppel to.
Esten, the answer is less (spending) not more (taxes). I love the liberal's guilt trip they try to load on every one of "shared sacrifice'. Where was the 'shared sacrifice' in 50 years of Welfare and every other government give a way program beyond fleecing the productive citizens of our country to support the lazy and unproductive?
Esten is right, it is time for sacrifice, but not the type he has in mind. Its time for the sacrifice of the liberal democrat's sacred cow programs from which they harvest votes for reelection every year. It is time for bad joke departments to be sacrificed, Department of Energy (abolish) , Environmental Protection Agency (reduce or abolish) , Department of Health and Human Services (reduce or abolish) , Department of the Treasury (severely reduce) and the list goes on much further than this website has room to allow.
Time for term limits in the House and the Senate (if it's good enough for the president it's good enough for them) to two 4 year term with 1/4 turned over every 2 years and an absolute prohibition of any of them becoming lobbyist. The near eradication of the upper level bureaucrats who remain from one term to the next and exert undue control over our country even though they are never elected.
Time to rid ourselves of the leeches on the body politic and let the bleeding heart liberals fund their give a way projects with THEIR MONEY via PRIVATE projects an no longer be permitted to use government for their social engineering projects.
Esten, it's time for some 'Tough Love' and "Sacrifice"! Are you up to it buddy?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416887]Esten, the answer is less (spending) not more (taxes). I love the liberal's guilt trip they try to load on every one of "shared sacrifice'. Where was the 'shared sacrifice' in 50 years of Welfare and every other government give a way program beyond fleecing the productive citizens of our country to support the lazy and unproductive?
Esten is right, it is time for sacrifice, but not the type he has in mind. Its time for the sacrifice of the liberal democrat's sacred cow programs from which they harvest votes for reelection every year. It is time for bad joke departments to be sacrificed, Department of Energy (abolish) , Environmental Protection Agency (reduce or abolish) , Department of Health and Human Services (reduce or abolish) , Department of the Treasury (severely reduce) and the list goes on much further than this website has room to allow.
Time for term limits in the House and the Senate (if it's good enough for the president it's good enough for them) to two 4 year term with 1/4 turned over every 2 years and an absolute prohibition of any of them becoming lobbyist. The near eradication of the upper level bureaucrats who remain from one term to the next and exert undue control over our country even though they are never elected.
Time to rid ourselves of the leeches on the body politic and let the bleeding heart liberals fund their give a way projects with THEIR MONEY via PRIVATE projects an no longer be permitted to use government for their social engineering projects.
Esten, it's time for some 'Tough Love' and "Sacrifice"! Are you up to it buddy? [/QUOTE]In regards to government reforms, I endorsed your recommendations. But when it comes to entitlements and benefits that government provides, then everybody has to pay more into the programs, not just the rich. A recent article points to the fact that most medicare receipients collects FAR more from the program than they pay into in their lifetime. A flat tax seems to be best answer.
When we refer to conservative values, I think of individuals who accept their circustances as they are, and rather than moaning about it or depending on winning the lottery, they then go about solving their problems with determination and hard honest work. But these people could also use a boost in terms of govenment programs. It is a far more complex urban enviroment that we live in today. As we know, the American culture with the breakdown of the family unit and extended family, cannot provide temporary relief that many other countries and cultures can. Even the large number of street dogs in Bangkok are well-fed, their only worry that their adventures do not include getting hit by a car, I am very familiar with their large numbers as they often have choir practices in the middle of the night.
Ever since life evolve, the rich and powerful will always to try maintain their status, by whatever means. That is never going to end, whether it is in Omaha or Pattaya.
Black Shirt, Thanks for another thought provoking post. About government programs, my big problem is that they're inefficient in the USA Take health care. Singapore spends 2. 6% of GDP. That's for all public and private expenditures on healthcare. We spend almost double that just on Medicare and Medicaid.
With regard to remaking the urban environment, I don't know what the solution is, but what we've done over the last 50 years hasn't been successful. I suspect that throwing additional money at the problem isn't going to help. There needs to be some fundamental rethinking. Improving the educational system would be a good start. While I don't agree that the rich and powerful maintaining their status is a problem in the USA, again, better education is what's needed to give everyone a fair start. Like health care though, we spend about as much as anyone on education, and the outcomes are poor at the pre-university level.
By the way, a little off the subject, thanks also for your post a couple of weeks ago on Singapore. It got me to thinking about some of my fundamental beliefs, about the appropriate role of government in business.
[QUOTE=Esten;416886]Going forward, it is clear sacrifices have to be made somewhere. But some folks like Doppel don't want any part of that sacrifice. He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts. And if faced with a tax increase, he'll pass it on to others. His justification? He's done enough as a successful small business owner. In his mind, that makes him entitled to an exemption from the sacrifice. That is the entitlement I referred to.[/QUOTE]Esten, He will indeed pass it onto his customers. He has no choice. Take a look at my post below, and also realize that American business reinvests the majority of net profits. The amount that business pays to federal, state and local governments in taxes is far, far greater than the amount that goes into the pockets of the owners, in the form of dividends or whatever.
Your way of thinking plays into the hands of politicians who raise taxes on business. This is ideal from the politician's perspective. Corporations don't vote. The higher taxes are passed on in the form of higher prices. The consumer blames business for "price gouging" instead of the politicians. I guess depending on what the company is selling and who the owners are, this sort of taxation may be regressive. It certainly would be for a company like McDonalds or ExxonMobil, although not for, say, Tiffany.
This is a big, big problem in the USA We have among the highest income tax rates anywhere in the world on business, and we're becoming less competitive as a result.
[QUOTE=Esten;416886]He wants the burden to be all on the poor and middle class via spending cuts.[/QUOTE]First, when liberals talk about "the poor and middle class", they are in fact talking only about "the poor", because the middle class pay taxes, thus they are generally net contributors to the government's budget, and thus their interests are not the same as "the poor" who are beneficiaries of the government's largess.
Second, when liberals talk about "the burden" of spending cuts falling "all on the poor", or balancing the budget on the backs of "the poor", they make it sound like the poor are going to be asked to somehow pay more, as in shouldering an additional burden.
In fact, what it really means is that the taxpayers are not going to be able to [B][U]give[/U][/B] "the poor" as much [U][B]free[/B][/U] [U][B]money[/B][/U] as before.
Thanks,
Jackson
Mongers-
This has nothing to do with Obama or the current drivel being heaved around in this thread, but here is an interesting article about Mohammed El Baradei (2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner and former head of the IAEA) calling for opening up an investigation as to whether George W. Bush and his minions committed War Crimes in the lead up to and operation of the 2003 Iraq Invasion. I have been saying for years (the war started when I was still a student of International Relations) that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Richard Pearle should be charged as War Criminals. Naturally, as the US refusing the recognize universal jurisdiction of the ICC, nothing is likely to come of this.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_us/us_elbaradei_memoir[/url]
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Some scholars analyze that the unilateralist attitude of the USA in question is a partial cause of her trade deficit. Many people in the world conciously or subconciously avoid buying products from a country with bad image.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 416896]Naturally, as the US refusing the recognize universal jurisdiction of the ICC, nothing is likely to come of this.
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110422/ap_on_re_us/us_elbaradei_memoir[/url]
Suerte,
Rock Harders[/QUOTE]