News In favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy

[Physics-Learner]

Even at the city level though, things can go wrong:

to me that is like saying that because a stove is hot, why not run into a forest fire.

 

[WhoWee]

Are we still talking about tax rates?

 

[OmCheeto]

Are we still talking about tax rates?

I'm sure most people know my position.
Raise taxes on the wealthy!
Impose a wealth tax! I pay it!
Impose the speculation tax! And quadruple it! 1/4 of 1%?
Change the capital gains tax to discourage gambling, and encourage investing!

Holding times and tax rates
<1 second... 99%
<1 minute... 95%
<1 hour... 90%
<1 day... 85%
<1 week... 80%
<1 month... 75%
<1 year... 50%
>1 year... 35% minus 3% for each year held(to account for inflation)​

And getting back to "States" administering things better than the feds... All I have to say is watch out for the Texans...

http://www.lakeoswegoreview.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=129850215573478700", some history: El Paso(TEXAS)-based Mesilla Valley Transportation was awarded 752 tax credits worth $4.5 million to equip its truck fleet with the latest fuel-saving technology under Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit program.
...
But upon closer examination, Mesilla Valley Transportation’s trucks were spending less than 1 percent of their miles on Oregon’s highways.

And here’s the rest of the story: While MVT qualified for the credits, it didn’t need them because it didn’t have a tax liability in Oregon. In turn, it sold the credits to another company. MVT profited from the credits, while another company paid less in taxes. Meanwhile, there was virtually no environmental benefit in Oregon.

In short, Oregonians were fleeced out of tax revenue.

It wouldn't have hurt my feelings that much to know that my tax dollars had done some good in some other state, but the day after I became aware of the above story, I was watching TV, and they were interviewing the mayor of Austin, who was bragging about their fiscally conservative city government, and how well it worked.

I swore more than Cee Lo on speed that afternoon...

**** ***! *** **** *** ***! ... **** ***! gold digger... **** ***! *** **** *** ***!

 

[WhoWee]

...guess not?

 

[OmCheeto]

Are we still talking about tax rates?

Raise taxes on the wealthy!

...guess not?

Oh! Rates. Sorry. I thought you were trying to pull us back on topic.

My bad.

 

[Physics-Learner]

regarding off topic posts - i have been on many forums. once in awhile, a group of posters may intentionally mess up a discussion.

but most of the time, "off-topic" posts occur for a reason.

i was sorry to see the "believe" thread locked, as i thought it was interesting discussion.

this thread was started regarding a way to help our economy, by talking about tax rates.

but just how much can really be posted about it ?

i started the "off-topic" post - mainly as a way to throw some real light on our problem.

interest in off-topic posts suggest that the idea has more interest. much like regular people talking. it starts off with one idea, that eventually serves as a springboard for other ideas.

if evo or another monitor thinks we should talk just about tax rates, i will exit this thread, as i have no desire to go against any rules. nor do i have any desire to talk about which bucket to use to bail water, as i see my boat about to sink from the glut of water that is continuing to pour in.

if we want to really change our situation, we must also change the system that controls it.

in my mind, that presents 2 large and difficult tasks -

1) a complete redesign of our govt and constitution, such that its goal is really about helping its constituency.

2) a plan to get from here to there. i am not foolish enough to think that i could establish a perfect govt, and then the following day install the complete version. it would take decades to carefully dismantle the current govt, while installing a new one. in fact, i think this task would be considerably more difficult than the task of designing the new govt.

 

[WhoWee]

if we want to really change our situation, we must also change the system that controls it.

in my mind, that presents 2 large and difficult tasks -

1) a complete redesign of our govt and constitution, such that its goal is really about helping its constituency.

2) a plan to get from here to there. i am not foolish enough to think that i could establish a perfect govt, and then the following day install the complete version. it would take decades to carefully dismantle the current govt, while installing a new one. in fact, i think this task would be considerably more difficult than the task of designing the new govt.

This system of checks and balances typically works when used as designed. We do tend to have breakdowns when the compromise politicians reach satisfies only a narrow group of persons (left or right) and not the majority - IMO.

Personally, if our leaders can't work with each other inside a framework of rules - who could you possibly trust to design something different?

 

[Physics-Learner]

leaders ? you got to be kidding me !

let me repeat. the system of govt is not and has never been about helping the general population. this goes for any other govt that has ever existed on this planet.

govt is a system that is formed by the wealthy to control the population. we get brainwashed into many things, like them being our leaders.

you ask who i could trust ? most of the population. the thing is that in order to truly establish a system of govt to truly help the people, the goal has to be to establish a system of govt to truly help the people.

there are many intelligent and educated people in our country who could get the job done, if given a chance. the biggest task that lies before us is removing the wealth and greed from our govt.

if the goal of govt had really been about the betterment of its people, we simply would not be in the situation that we are in today. we can look outward at other countries, and see the terrible oppression of govt, in african countries, and muslim world.

but we don't see here in our own country. sure, it is not as extreme. and because it is so large, it is not quite as obvious. part of the reason why i want whatever govt we do have to be as localized as possible. localization equates to accountability.

i don't know what is happening in timbuktu, nor do i have any real chance of finding out. but i can see what is happening 10 miles away.

 

[Hurkyl]

were you being sarcastic, regarding the police call ? i will assume that you werent, and answer accordingly. we (within a localized area) all benefit from police protection. so we all pay for it, much like an insurance policy. everyone pays a small amount to counter the large risk that we know a few will hit.

however, insurance rates vary by area. so too our payments of police. the greater need for police, the greater the localized population pays.

this is a generalized principle. something that we attempt to apply to everything as much as possible.

Applying the principle "as much as possible" means that only the people who get hit pay for the protection.

Localization, as you describe, is diametrically opposed to the utility of notions like insurance.

 

[Sigglesworth]

I think that what upsets people the most when talking about taxation of the wealthy is the disparity between tax brackets. In the 1950's, a person in the top tax bracket payed an astounding 91%, which to me seems a bit unfair. This 91% slowly tapers off into the 60's and 70's and reaches a 30% figure in 2011. Over time, though, the number of tax brackets disappear, so that now a person who makes $20m yearly pays the same 30% as someone who makes $300,000. This leaves the people at the bottom of tax brackets paying the same rate as someone making $10k, $15k or even $20k more than them.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=543

The tax policy center has some pretty interesting information.

 

[Hurkyl]

A more detailed document can be found at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

 

[WhoWee]

leaders ? you got to be kidding me !

let me repeat. the system of govt is not and has never been about helping the general population. this goes for any other govt that has ever existed on this planet.

govt is a system that is formed by the wealthy to control the population. we get brainwashed into many things, like them being our leaders.

you ask who i could trust ? most of the population. the thing is that in order to truly establish a system of govt to truly help the people, the goal has to be to establish a system of govt to truly help the people.

there are many intelligent and educated people in our country who could get the job done, if given a chance. the biggest task that lies before us is removing the wealth and greed from our govt.

if the goal of govt had really been about the betterment of its people, we simply would not be in the situation that we are in today. we can look outward at other countries, and see the terrible oppression of govt, in african countries, and muslim world.

but we don't see here in our own country. sure, it is not as extreme. and because it is so large, it is not quite as obvious. part of the reason why i want whatever govt we do have to be as localized as possible. localization equates to accountability.

i don't know what is happening in timbuktu, nor do i have any real chance of finding out. but i can see what is happening 10 miles away.

Basically what you are saying is let the people decide - correct? We should trust election results - like the ones last Fall that swept the TEA Party candidates into the House - the people spoke and their voice should prevail? I understand now - it makes sense now - thank you.

 

[Physics-Learner]

Basically what you are saying is let the people decide - correct? We should trust election results - like the ones last Fall that swept the TEA Party candidates into the House - the people spoke and their voice should prevail? I understand now - it makes sense now - thank you.

no, you apparently do not understand at all.

 

[OmCheeto]

regarding off topic posts - i have been on many forums. once in awhile, a group of posters may intentionally mess up a discussion.

but most of the time, "off-topic" posts occur for a reason.

i was sorry to see the "believe" thread locked, as i thought it was interesting discussion.

this thread was started regarding a way to help our economy, by talking about tax rates.

but just how much can really be posted about it ?

i started the "off-topic" post - mainly as a way to throw some real light on our problem.

interest in off-topic posts suggest that the idea has more interest. much like regular people talking. it starts off with one idea, that eventually serves as a springboard for other ideas.

if evo or another monitor thinks we should talk just about tax rates, i will exit this thread, as i have no desire to go against any rules. nor do i have any desire to talk about which bucket to use to bail water, as i see my boat about to sink from the glut of water that is continuing to pour in.

I don't think it's too far off topic, if it's the Libertarian aspect you are referring to.

Although Ivan titled the thread:

In favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy

He then went on to clarify:

The real question is, what percentage of a person's income goes to all taxes paid, directly or indirectly?

(spelling correction mine)
People seem to want to ignore all taxes paid, and use "Federal Taxes" as a sound bite excuse not to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Ivan then quoted Ronald Reagan to show us how taxes affect the price of a simple commodity:

Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread–it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread.

I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, and it's true of most everything we buy, then poor people would appear to be paying way higher taxes than the rich. But many of those taxes are going to state and local governments, so you would have to sit down and analyze each commodity, from start to finish, to figure out where those dollars really go. On top of that, you'd have to follow the commodity from it's origin to one of 30,000 destination cities, as the state/local taxes vary wildly.

Here's an interesting little article that is very much in line with what we are talking about. I found it trying to find out if Reagan's "151 taxes" was true or not.

"[URL
The Unseen Taxes That You Pay Every Day[/URL]
January 19, 2011

Tobacco is one commodity that they listed Fed/State/Local taxes for:

Taxes on a pack of cigarettes:
Fed: $1.01
NY state: $4.35
NYC: $1.50
Total taxes for a NYC smoker: $6.86

Collecting the data on each commodity, for each state and local government would be a horrendous task.

So perhaps we should just try and analyze how much the states and local governments bring in.

The http://www.nasbo.org/" that shows state revenues:

Way lower than the Federal Revenues that I've seen.

But let's check out the http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1888.html":

Average homeowner property taxes: $1917
Taxes as a percent of home value: 1.04%
Taxes as a percent of income: 3.0%

As I said, there are a lot of numbers:

per wiki: "67.4% of all occupied housing units being occupied by the unit's owner"
per http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Number_of_us_homeowners" : "75.4 million people who owned their own homes at that time"
implying: ~112,000,000 residencies
yielding: $214,000,000,000 in property taxes

Still pretty low.

What am I missing?

Ah ha! Sales tax. We don't have that where I live, so I always forget it.

In some jurisdictions of the United States, there are multiple levels of government which each impose a sales tax. For example, sales tax in Chicago (Cook County), IL is 10.25%—consisting of 6.25% state, 1.25% city, 1.75% county and 1% regional transportation authority. Chicago also has the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority tax on food and beverage of 1% (which means eating out is taxed at 11.25%).

I can't find a number for sales taxes collected for the country, but ran across a http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?chart=40-total&state=US&local=" which implies that "ad-valorem" taxes collected are around 1 trillion dollars. Ad-valorem apparently includes both sales and property taxes, so we'll have to subtract the $214 billion I listed above.

But that's still a good chunk, at around $800 billion.

Now should we, or should we not, count the notatax?

This being that "it's an insurance policy" kind of thingy called the payroll tax. Which is Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare.

It accounts for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget" of the Federal budget.

So if you subtract the notatax from the Federal budget, we get a budget of around $2 trillion.

Compared to the state and county taxes...

Wait.

a hmm... I've been working on this post for about 5 hours now, so you'll have to forgive my senility.

Something doesn't add up here.

And the sun just burst through the clouds.

I have to go.

if we want to really change our situation, we must also change the system that controls it.

in my mind, that presents 2 large and difficult tasks -

1) a complete redesign of our govt and constitution, such that its goal is really about helping its constituency.

2) a plan to get from here to there. i am not foolish enough to think that i could establish a perfect govt, and then the following day install the complete version. it would take decades to carefully dismantle the current govt, while installing a new one. in fact, i think this task would be considerably more difficult than the task of designing the new govt.

 

[WhoWee]

no, you apparently do not understand at all.

Apparently not.

I'd like to return to taxation.

Earlier in the thread, I suggested the starting point for tax reform include plotting the current debt and all future spending (included unfunded liabilities - the $100+Trillion amount) over time. The timing of when the gaps will occur and how large the gap will become apparent. These gaps need to be filled either by increasing taxes, reduced spending, or more debt.

My recommendation is to increase the standard deduction (used an example of a couple with 4 kids) to the poverty level of $30,000 and establish the specific flat tax rate (on everyone) required to address the deficit gaps, address the unfunded liabilities, and retire the debt.

I also indicated the need to remove the SS cap and increase the Medicare Part A contribution - plus keep the mortgage interest deduction for everyone.

Until we know the amounts needed to solve the problem the rates can't be determined. My guess is that a 35% flat tax on all income above (the poverty chart index) $30,000 (less mortgage interest deduction) would be adequate.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i am 56. i would consider my self to be extremely foolish to think that the answer lies with how to tax the population.

this is because i have lived long enough to experience that they have been talking about this before jesus was born.

in other words, it is irrelevant.

we have to reduce govt, thereby reducing the control of the wealthy, and the crooks that they have installed in this govt.

if and when it can be seen that this stranglehold is released, good-intentioned people will want to serve in govt so that they can improve the system.

 

[Hurkyl]

we have to reduce govt, thereby reducing the control of the wealthy

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your implied premise is true, how the heck have you managed to convince yourself that power can't be gained through other means? Strip the government of power, and I find it very difficult to believe whatever fills the void will be as friendly to the general public.

 

[mheslep]

? The use of the term 'void' implies PL was taken to say eliminate the government thus embracing anarchy, rather than reduce the size of government which has grown dramatically by any historical measure. Taking reduce to mean destroy seems to be a common overstatement of a reasonable proposal, dramatized recently by the fallacious 'Tourists in Fabulous Government Free Somalia' commercial in circulation. Heck, even if the Federal government actually was dissolved and its 3 million non uniformed employees eliminated, the remaining states still have http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs042.htm" - hardly a 'void'.

 

[WhoWee]

? The use of the term 'void' implies PL was taken to he say eliminate the government thus embracing anarchy, rather than reduce the size of government which has grown dramatically by any historical measure. Taking reduce to mean destroy seems to be a common overstatement of a reasonable proposal, dramatized recently by the fallacious 'Tourists in Fabulous Government Free Somalia' commercial in circulation. Heck, even if the Federal government actually was dissolved and its 3 million non uniformed employees eliminated, the remaining states still have http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs042.htm" - hardly a 'void'.

It's hard to imagine why 19 million state and local workers can't get the job done with (perhaps) 1 million more federal employees - 20 million people attending to 350 million sounds more than reasonable - doesn't it?

 

[ThomasT]

It's hard to imagine why 19 million state and local workers can't get the job done with (perhaps) 1 million more federal employees - 20 million people attending to 350 million sounds more than reasonable - doesn't it?

It does, but with such a mobile population and dependency on interstate commerce I have to think that having a strong federal government is one of the reasons why America became such a good place to live for just about everybody in it.

Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to me that just increasing taxes on the wealthy will solve the current economic/financial problems.

There's a lot of waste that can be cut from the federal budget. For example, a significant portion of SS retirement funds are paid to people who don't really need those payments. So if SS is revamped accordingly, and the $106K cap is removed, and the SS payroll tax is increased by a couple of points, then that should solve the SS problem (and give the government a significant amount of money to spend on other things such as reducing the debt) without having to increase the retirement age (because it looks to me like we're going to need people to leave the active workforce at increasingly younger, not older, ages).

 

[ThomasT]

we have to reduce govt, thereby reducing the control of the wealthy ...

I don't think that reducing the federal government would necessarily reduce the control of the wealthy. Isn't it in part because of the wealthy's exploitation of the poor that government was increased in the first place?

I also don't agree that increasing taxes on the wealthy would necessarily be irrelevant. I agree that by itself it won't solve the problem. But it might be part of the solution if other measures (like reducing SS, etc.) are taken as well.

 

[WhoWee]

I want to go on the record with a prediction.

WhoWee's prediction 8/8/2011: if the DJI drops below 8,500 - our "leaders" will clamor for hefty increases to capital gains rates and the media will sing in praise of their initiative.

 

[mheslep]

I think PL's correct, reducing government size and scope would lessen the influence of the wealthy and connected over society. I'll go further and say its a necessary, if not sufficient condition to accomplish this.

 

[mheslep]

I want to go on the record with a prediction.

WhoWee's prediction 8/8/2011: if the DJI drops below 8,500 - our "leaders" will clamor for hefty increases to capital gains rates and the media will sing in praise of their initiative.

This, along with other such predictions by many is just a bet on 'Red 11' and then spinning the wheel, signifying nothing, without a good rationale.

 

[WhoWee]

This, along with other such predictions by many is just a bet on 'Red 11' and then spinning the wheel, signifying nothing, without a good rationale.

The rationale is that it wouldn't raise revenues, it wouldn't cause a sell-off and they could claim they did something.

 

[EWH]

Perhaps some data would help?

About a year ago, I tried to figure out what the distribution of income was from IRS figures. Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) has some quirks and pitfalls, the data is for households with varying numbers of earners, the SS and Medicare taxes complicate the situation, and even figuring out the State tax correction is a huge snarl of figures. That said, this should be pretty close in general outlines to the actual distribution. Nearly all the data came from the IRS public data, the estimates for SS, medicare and State taxes came from Wikipedia. The figures only run through 2008 projected numbers - the newer numbers are always delayed by about two years.

Sorry that it's a bit sloppy and it only has the basic source data and the resulting numbers - the cell formulas and the extra data from the IRS would not fit within the 100K attachment size limit. Some formatting errors may have crept in in converting to .xls from .ods (Open Office). PM me if you would like an email of the whole thing in either format.

The most interesting calculations are probably the one in the lower left of the sheet, "Share of total income / percentage of population" and the one in the lower right: "Share of total income, net of taxes/ percentage of population"

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps some data would help?

About a year ago, I tried to figure out what the distribution of income was from IRS figures...

If it was me making $20K/year, I'd care about how much I made last year, and how much I was likely to make the next, and the year after, etc. The heck with how much Bill Gates is making as if I was entitled to some of his take, as long as my family and neighbors have an opportunity to improve.

 

[ThomasT]

I think PL's correct, reducing government size and scope would lessen the influence of the wealthy and connected over society. I'll go further and say its a necessary, if not sufficient condition to accomplish this.

I doubt this. For example, wasn't it, at least in part, a relaxation of governmental oversight that allowed the proliferation of toxic investment and over-leveraging that led to the financial meltdown?

How would reducing governmental control lessen the influence of the wealthy?

 

[WhoWee]

I doubt this. For example, wasn't it, at least in part, a relaxation of governmental oversight that allowed the proliferation of toxic investment and over-leveraging that led to the financial meltdown?

How would reducing governmental control lessen the influence of the wealthy?

If you relax the rules of lending and the wholesale re-financing of that debt on one hand - then mandate who to loan funds to - is that really a reduction of Government control (aka de-regulation)?

 

[ThomasT]

If you relax the rules of lending and the wholesale re-financing of that debt on one hand - then mandate who to loan funds to - is that really a reduction of Government control (aka de-regulation)?

No. But I was asking about the reassignment of hundreds of people away from oversight on the financial sector during the latter part of the Bush administration. If this didn't actually happen, then what I read was a lie.

And the question remains: how might reducing governmental control lessen the influence of the wealthy. Because it seems to me that it would increase it.

 

[WhoWee]

No. But I was asking about the reassignment of hundreds of people away from oversight on the financial sector during the latter part of the Bush administration. If this didn't actually happen, then what I read was a lie.

And the question remains: how might reducing governmental control lessen the influence of the wealthy. Because it seems to me that it would increase it.

Government regulations over business activities are similar to taxes in one respect - they don't typically effect the activities of the poor - unless the specific regulation or tax policy is giving something to the poor person.

 

[Physics-Learner]

govts are established by the wealthy.

look at the beginning of ours. it was thought that the commoner wasnt smart enough to have any ideas, so they were to rely on their representatives.

just look at history. go back to the roman empire. they continued to conquer and grow, until they got to big to handle it all. just who do you think was doing this, and benefiting from it ? the common folk ? of course not. it was the wealthy.

why do you think there is a drive towards a one world economy ?

the wealthy want to control as much as possible. the bigger the govt, the more dependent the population, the more control the govt gets.

it is very simple. it has been done this way for the past 2000 years.

it just takes some years of living to see the bigger picture.

 

[WhoWee]

govts are established by the wealthy.

look at the beginning of ours. it was thought that the commoner wasnt smart enough to have any ideas, so they were to rely on their representatives.

just look at history. go back to the roman empire. they continued to conquer and grow, until they got to big to handle it all. just who do you think was doing this, and benefiting from it ? the common folk ? of course not. it was the wealthy.

why do you think there is a drive towards a one world economy ?

the wealthy want to control as much as possible. the bigger the govt, the more dependent the population, the more control the govt gets.
it is very simple. it has been done this way for the past 2000 years.

it just takes some years of living to see the bigger picture.

my bold
I'll try to consider the bigger picture as you've described.

First, given your logic, a tax increase on the poor will maintain or increase the size of Government and thus secure the control of the wealthy.

The flip side would then be - if we don't increase taxes and instead cut the size of Government the wealthy will have less control?

 

[Physics-Learner]

the wealthy does not always increase taxes on the majority. they need to keep them happy to some extent.

but certainly reducing govt will give them less control.

 

[mheslep]

I doubt this. For example, wasn't it, at least in part, a relaxation of governmental oversight that allowed the proliferation of toxic investment and over-leveraging that led to the financial meltdown?

I submit that it was the government creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that allowed the admittedly inevitable market bubbles to become catastrophic in this case.

How would reducing governmental control lessen the influence of the wealthy?

Take Microsoft. Before the government's lawsuit against them MS spent essentially nothing on lobbying for two decades. Now, I read MS's lobbying budget is $100M/year. The point being that many years ago most corporations did not bother to have any 'government relations' department - it was a waste of money to bother with a small, far away federal government. Now, all of the Fortune 500 do, and not to eliminate regulation but in many cases to increase it. Why? Because the the threat to big business shareholders is not so much government but competition from new business, as it has always been. Hence the reason why one will see a monster company like GE enter every heavily regulated industry one can imagine - energy, finance, healthcare, yet it has no presence in the free for all industries like the dot com internet.

 

[WhoWee]

Hence the reason why one will see a monster company like GE enter every heavily regulated industry one can imagine - energy, finance, healthcare, yet it has no presence in the free for all industries like the dot com internet.

The same can be said for the high capital requirements (or the minority/special interest criteria) to compete for Government contracts. It's certainly not a level playing field for competition - which is troubling when you consider the expansion and scope of Government creep into private industry.