News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[Al68]

Once again, SS is self-funded, and is not a drain on our budget.

LOL. Self-funded? The fact that it's funded from the "payroll tax" instead of the "personal income tax" makes it "self-funded"?

So if congress were to separate out taxes used to fund the military, and give them a separate name, we could call the military "self-funded"?

 

[Gokul43201]

It's possible that I misunderstand you, but that seems 'obviously' wrong.

No, I don't think you've misunderstood. In general, I hold that it is at least very hard to justify a more-or-less universal negative. An example of a universal negative is: there is no link between action A and entity B. In a system in which the elementary entities (people+wealth, in this case) interact in gazillions of different ways, it would take at least a little more than "it's obvious" to convince me of the absence of any link between different parts of the system.

The majority of the budget (51% as of 2008, you can check other years for comparison if you like) goes to social security, Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/etc. (where "etc." refers to other 'safety net' programs like unemployment payments). How would these help the present rich to have gained their fortunes? (Not exactly sure what you mean by "rich", but something in the upper 50% surely, probably in the top 1%.)

Consider a rich (pick some suitable definition - I don't think that affects the argument significantly) person who owns a company that hires several non-rich people. The earning potential of the rich person is directly tied to the performance of the company, which depends on the welfare of the non-rich workers that help run it. And the welfare of these non-rich people is directly dependent on the programs mentioned above. Ergo, <blah>.

 

[turbo]

I've tried a few times to start discussions relating to that point here, but with little or no success.

CRG, I think that we can relate. Our country and our states (to more or lesser extents) provide an environment in which we can operate with some expectation of future stability. Is this worth nothing? People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

 

[Gokul43201]

People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

The implication here, I believe, is that they don't (help pay ...). Could you explain?

 

[nismaratwork]

I just have to say, having been here from page 1, this has been one of the most surreal threads I've ever been a part of. The way in which different people are interpreting the same data, the differences in how figures such as Reagan are viewed (often the loved and hate stem from the same sources).

Above all I'm surprised that while the current trend of the discussion has been fairly open thanks to Gokul, often this degenerates into dogmatic and polarized camps.

 

[Al68]

People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security?

Again, nobody in this thread is advocating any such thing. And nobody on the planet that I'm aware of. Can you provide a source?

Goldwater wasn't a slave to monied interests. He was a pretty solid conservative with a wide libertarian streak. I don't think that McConnel or Boehner would accept him in their party today. They are neo-cons. He was not.

He was a "neo-con" according to the rest of the world, which is my point. The word neo-con is used by everyone else to describe the political philosophy epitomized by Goldwater. Or sometimes used to mean not far enough to the right to be considered a real conservative. Nobody else (as far as I can tell) uses it in a way that could describe McConnel and Boehner, but not Goldwater.

And is "slave to monied interests" a slur by forum rules? It's certainly about as "derogatory and insulting" as one can get. Regardless, such a statement has no place in honest debate, since it refers to motives.

 

[turbo]

The implication here, I believe, is that they don't (help pay ...). Could you explain?

They pay 15% on the capital gains that they can't possibly exempt from taxation. The people who are subject to withholding have no such flexibility. We just pay.

 

[mheslep]

But the rich do benefit from the federal government's primary purpose, protecting our liberty, to a far greater extent than the poor, and they should pick up the tab for that. Nobody is arguing otherwise, which was my point.

I've tried a few times to start discussions relating to that point here, but with little or no success.

I certainly agree. This doesn't mean of course that the well off or anyone else for that matter are obliged to approve of spending without limit on defense, the FBI, Justice, etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

CRG, I think that we can relate. Our country and our states (to more or lesser extents) provide an environment in which we can operate with some expectation of future stability. Is this worth nothing? People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

I don't think that any person should pay into the SS system, rich or poor.

 

[turbo]

I don't think that any person should pay into the SS system, rich or poor.

So you think that we should all just "opt out"? This could be a hazard to elderly people who are getting just enough money to stay out of poverty. Or do you think that SS checks are generous enough to keep the "welfare queens" in brand-new Cadillacs?

Forgive the tweak, please. SS was founded on the premise that the present workers would provide a modest income for present retirees. It was not considered welfare, and should not be used to paint its current recipients, either. This program can continue with only minor tweaks into perpetuity. SS cannot borrow money and cannot add to our deficit. How much repetition is required to get this accepted as a fact?

 

[Al68]

SS was founded on the premise that the present workers would provide a modest income for present retirees.

So is it safe to assume you have no problem with the term "involuntary pyramid scheme" being used to describe it then?

SS cannot borrow money and cannot add to our deficit.

That's true if considered separately from the rest of the budget, but in that case, it has its own surplus or deficit, so it's a completely semantical point. It's not a question of fact.

How much repetition is required to get this accepted as a fact?

What "fact" do you want accepted? That if you consider the SS system separately from the rest of the budget, its surplus or deficit is also separate from the rest of the budget. I think we got it the first time.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What "fact" do you want accepted?

I think that the "'fact'" is that (when considered apart from the rest of the budget) SS cannot run a deficit, only a surplus. I haven't checked that; I simply assume that turbo-1 is correct in his assertion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

SS cannot borrow money and cannot add to our deficit. How much repetition is required to get this accepted as a fact?

That may be financially true, but it is economically false. At present the Social Security system holds a large number of US bonds and future obligations which will require more than 100% of expected contributions and all of the bonds. (Admittedly, the middle scenario [which I see as slightly optimistic] does not exceed 100% greatly.)

The US government is running a hefty deficit at the moment. In the future we will need to pay higher interest (presently about 10% of US government spending) because of this debt. Further, in addition to not being able to borrow from SS as we have in the past, we will need to repay the SS fund from last decade's borrowing.

Where will this money come from? Of course we won't have the money and it will be borrowed, adding to the debt.

 

[Al68]

I think that the "'fact'" is that (when considered apart from the rest of the budget) SS cannot run a deficit, only a surplus. I haven't checked that; I simply assume that turbo-1 is correct in his assertion.

No, it's not true that SS cannot run a deficit, and turbo-1 didn't imply that at all, it's just true that it doesn't run a deficit (yet) and therefore as a system, its revenues cover the cost of its expenditures. In fact, since SS runs a surplus that is used to buy treasury securities, it actually acts to reduce the general budget deficit in that regard.

And turbo-1 is correct that SS could continue indefinitely with "tweaking", and nobody disputes that that I'm aware of. Of course there is plenty of disagreement between and within each party about not only how to tweak it, but whether to make major changes, but a discussion of that would need a separate thread.

Further, in addition to not being able to borrow from SS as we have in the past, we will need to repay the SS fund from last decade's borrowing.

Where will this money come from? Of course we won't have the money and it will be borrowed, adding to the debt.

That last part isn't technically true, only because the funds owed to SS by the treasury are already included in the current national debt figure. It added to the debt in the past tense, since the money has already been spent, and the obligation to repay it is current federal debt.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - SS was intended to serve as a retirement trust - a safety net to supplement retirement savings. It has evolved into an unfunded entitlement program. I think the program needs to be reorganized with the retirement program managed separate and made a non-negotiable funding priority. The disability program is expanding out of control, often inconjunction with Medicaid, and needs to be managed as part of the budget - and subject to cuts and restrictions. The problem is further complicated as Medicaid is only partially funded by the FEDERAL Govt and the rest paid by individual states. The management of both disability and Medicaid might even be managed better in state hands with a percentage billed to Washington - keep national politics out of the decision making process - again, IMO.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just have to say, having been here from page 1, this has been one of the most surreal threads I've ever been a part of. The way in which different people are interpreting the same data, the differences in how figures such as Reagan are viewed (often the loved and hate stem from the same sources).

Above all I'm surprised that while the current trend of the discussion has been fairly open thanks to Gokul, often this degenerates into dogmatic and polarized camps.

Polarized? In the Politics forum?

I too have been here since page one. And it would require a book sized post to argue for or against most of assertions. It's been 25 hours since my last post("Notabunchofliars") and already there are 3 new pages. This is more chatty than chat.

But anyways, my point seems to have been appropriately expanded upon by others, so I'll throw something new out, which is derived from the http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml" provided earlier. And I do this because the numbers jumped out at me in one of those "OMG" kind of ways.


2005 Post Tax Wages (assuming a 2000 hour work year)

______________________yearly_____monthly___hourly
Lowest Quintile _____$15,300 _____$1,275 ______$7.65
Second Quintile _____$33,700 _____$2,808 _____$16.85
Middle Quintile _____$50,200 _____$4,183 _____$25.10
Fourth Quintile _____$70,300 _____$5,858 _____$35.15
Highest Quintile ___$172,200 ____$14,350 _____$86.10

All Quintiles _______$67,400 _____$5,617 _____$33.70

Top 10% ____________$246,300 ____$20,525 ____$123.15
Top 5% _____________$369,800 ____$30,817 ____$184.90
Top 1% ___________$1,071,500 ____$89,292 ____$535.75


Three questions:
1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?
2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home?
3. Does asking the above two questions confirm that I'm a Marxist?

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Just needs a bit of tweaking in my opinion. Maybe a 1/3 of 1% annual increase over the next 10 years. To balance the budget of course.

Lowest Quintile _______4%
Second Quintile ______11%
Middle Quintile ______17%
Fourth Quintile ______21%
Highest Quintile _____34%

All Quintiles ________26%

Top 10% ______________38%
Top 5% _______________41%
Top 1% _______________45%

 

[turbo]

Stop talking sense, Om. You'll get banned from P&WA

 

[CRGreathouse]

That last part isn't technically true, only because the funds owed to SS by the treasury are already included in the current national debt figure. It added to the debt in the past tense, since the money has already been spent, and the obligation to repay it is current federal debt.

Quite right, my apologies for imprecision.

 

[OmCheeto]

Stop talking sense, Om. You'll get banned from P&WA

Sorry!

And thank you for putting that "&" in there. I saw "PWA" earlier and couldn't figure out what it was:
"Peoples Workers Alliance?" Another Marxist comment?
"Pro-Wealth Assn?" A Libertarian think tank?

Anyways, in case anyone wonders where I came up with the 3 and 1/3 percent tax increase, it's from the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2588911&postcount=246" thread post I made in February.

Actually, that graph is kind of telling. Let me regurgitate it:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11014/MainText_HseVersion.28.1.3.png

That's really impressive that government spending tended lower as a percent of gdp from 1984 through 2001, from 24 to 18%. Starting with 12 years of Reagan-Bush, then 8 years of Clinton. Almost makes it look like the government was shrinking. But that can't be right. Republicans and Democrats reducing spending?

 

[CRGreathouse]

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Just needs a bit of tweaking in my opinion. Maybe a 1/3 of 1% annual increase over the next 10 years. To balance the budget of course.

Lowest Quintile _______4%
Second Quintile ______11%
Middle Quintile ______17%
Fourth Quintile ______21%
Highest Quintile _____34%

All Quintiles ________26%

Top 10% ______________38%
Top 5% _______________41%
Top 1% _______________45%

Those numbers are reasonably close to my understanding (though, to be honest, I didn't think the bottom quintile was paying *any* net tax -- are you including the EITC?

Personally I'd prefer to reduce the deficit by decreasing spending than raising taxes (cut spending until we have a meaningful surplus, run this for a number of years until the debt is largely erased, then cut taxes further). But I don't imagine that is politically feasible.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's really impressive that government spending tended lower as a percent of gdp from 1984 through 2001, from 24 to 18%. Starting with 12 years of Reagan-Bush, then 8 years of Clinton. Almost makes it look like the government was shrinking. But that can't be right. Republicans and Democrats reducing spending?

Heh. I'd prefer to look at the parties controlling Congress, in which case it was Republicans and Democrats rather than Republicans and Democrats.

 

[CRGreathouse]

No, it's not true that SS cannot run a deficit, and turbo-1 didn't imply that at all, it's just true that it doesn't run a deficit (yet) and therefore as a system, its revenues cover the cost of its expenditures.

OK, now I have two competing assertions...

 

[CRGreathouse]

IMO - SS was intended to serve as a retirement trust - a safety net to supplement retirement savings. It has evolved into an unfunded entitlement program.

As usual, you are much better at expressing yourself than I am. :shy:

 

[OmCheeto]

Those numbers are reasonably close to my understanding (though, to be honest, I didn't think the bottom quintile was paying *any* net tax -- are you including the EITC?

The bottom quintile pays a tax, even though they and the second quintile both get the EITC, because excise and social security taxes are a bit regressive:

10.3% tax rate for the bottom quintile
vs
1.9% tax rate for the top 1%

 

[Gokul43201]

1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?

I did it fairly comfortably, for over 5 years. And while I was single with no dependents, I was also living in an urban area. I imagine it's probably easier to live on that income in rural parts of the country. Harder if you have a dependent.

2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home?

Sorry about what? I would hope you'd feel sorry for any law abiding citizen who has suffered an injustice, irrespective of how much they earn.

 

[mheslep]

1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?

First, I've personally done it on less back in the grad school days. Second those are wages for individuals, not households, to include some high school student working at the mall, or some illegal alien with a bogus ssn living in house of twenty plus people.

 

[mheslep]

I did it fairly comfortably, for over 5 years.

Just saw this. Mac and cheese, tea, is all one needs for an all night-er.

 

[Al68]

Three questions:
1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?
2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home?
3. Does asking the above two questions confirm that I'm a Marxist?

1. Not very comfortably, unless it's just a single person with no bills.
2. No. Why would you?
3. If it did, I would be one, too. Nobody has suggested such a thing.

How can someone really believe that the difference between themselves and people who disagree with them is whether or not they feel sorry for rich people or don't think it's hard to be poor? Is Democratic Party propaganda really that effective?

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me.

Tell that to the members here who repeatedly insist, after being shown that data repeatedly, that it's not only not progressive, but that rich people in general pay little in taxes, while working and poor people pay a lot.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The bottom quintile pays a tax, even though they and the second quintile both get the EITC, because excise and social security taxes are a bit regressive:

10.3% tax rate for the bottom quintile
vs
1.9% tax rate for the top 1%

There are <= 61 million people in the bottom quintile. According to the BLS (using their latest figures, November 2010), there are 30 million unemployed and 2.5 million more marginally attached to the labor force (people who don't have jobs but want jobs and have looked for a job in the past year, even though they aren't currently looking). On this basis alone, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work at all, and so presumably pays essentially no tax.

Of course there are more people who aren't in the labor force, and I'm not sure how this is handled by the statistics. The labor force participation rate is certainly low enough (~64%) that if every person in the US was counted, there would be no bottom-quintile persons in the labor force at all, and all in the second quintile would be either out of the labor force or unemployed. I assume this is not the case (surely they don't count babies in the quintiles?) but I don't know what is. If the only people counted were those in the labor force (employed + unemployed) and the MAttLF, then there would be 199 million people in the quintiles, in which case the unemployed and MAttLF would account for 82% of the bottom quintile. (I don't see how the numbers could get any better for the bottom quintile, since any additional people that are included don't make money and so are in the bottom quintile.)

My numbers are too shaky at this point to see what kind of money the employed people in the bottom quintile could make, but it's hard for me to imagine that the taxes they would pay on it would exceed the EITC and welfare for the whole quintile. What think you?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Edit: Nothing against OmCheeto, who rocks, but a clarification:

2005 Post Tax Wages (assuming a 2000 hour work year)

______________________yearly_____monthly___hourly
Lowest Quintile _____$15,300 _____$1,275 ______$7.65
Second Quintile _____$33,700 _____$2,808 _____$16.85
Middle Quintile _____$50,200 _____$4,183 _____$25.10
Fourth Quintile _____$70,300 _____$5,858 _____$35.15
Highest Quintile ___$172,200 ____$14,350 _____$86.10

All Quintiles _______$67,400 _____$5,617 _____$33.70

Top 10% ____________$246,300 ____$20,525 ____$123.15
Top 5% _____________$369,800 ____$30,817 ____$184.90
Top 1% ___________$1,071,500 ____$89,292 ____$535.75

Hmm. I think the assumption is unwarranted and misleading. While a quick Google search did not give me the numbers, I've seen statistics on numbers of hours worked by quintile (both by household and individually) and it's pretty extreme. On one hand, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work (this is a "we should feel sorry for them" sort of thing, not a "they are lazy" thing), even when the country is not in a recession. On the other, the top quintile works a lot -- 55 or 60 hours a week, maybe? So while assuming 2000 hours per week is reasonable for the middle and fourth quintiles, it's not for the second quintile (which has trouble finding full-time work) and top quintile (which work long hours on average), and it's extremely inaccurate for the bottom quintile (most of whom don't have work).

Of course this may not change conclusions if $60 per hour is considered "high" in the same way $85 per hour is. (I've rounded to the nearest $5 per hour; I'm not comfortable giving more precise numbers without actual data!)

 

[OmCheeto]

Edit: Nothing against OmCheeto, who rocks, but a clarification:


Hmm. I think the assumption is unwarranted and misleading. While a quick Google search did not give me the numbers, I've seen statistics on numbers of hours worked by quintile (both by household and individually) and it's pretty extreme. On one hand, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work (this is a "we should feel sorry for them" sort of thing, not a "they are lazy" thing), even when the country is not in a recession. On the other, the top quintile works a lot -- 55 or 60 hours a week, maybe? So while assuming 2000 hours per week is reasonable for the middle and fourth quintiles, it's not for the second quintile (which has trouble finding full-time work) and top quintile (which work long hours on average), and it's extremely inaccurate for the bottom quintile (most of whom don't have work).

Of course this may not change conclusions if $60 per hour is considered "high" in the same way $85 per hour is. (I've rounded to the nearest $5 per hour; I'm not comfortable giving more precise numbers without actual data!)

I think you would go crazy if you tried to analyze all the numbers. That's why I just displayed them without the 3 pages of explanation that the CBO listed for how they got the numbers.

I added the monthly and hourly rates because the annual rates are a bit intangible at the top end.(At least to us who have spent our lives in the bottom 2 quintiles) Can you imagine sitting in your office and having your secretary come in every hour and handing you a $500 bill, announcing "Pay hour!". And then imagine thinking to yourself; "Geez! If I were being taxed at a flat rate, she'd be handing me an extra $200 an hour. I hate these high taxes. How am I supposed to run a household and send kids to college on only $4000 a day?"*

*numbers are rounded as I'm getting tired of all this math.

 

[Al68]

Can you imagine sitting in your office and having your secretary come in every hour and handing you a $500 bill, announcing "Pay hour!".

Sure! I imagine it would totally rock.

And then imagine thinking to yourself; "Geez! If I were being taxed at a flat rate, she'd be handing me an extra $200 an hour.

Why? Is the $200 part of my income either way? Why would I ever use the word "extra" to describe it? Because Democrats wanted it but didn't get it? Is that the definition of "extra"? I must be misunderstanding your post.

I hate these high taxes.

Sure do!

How am I supposed to run a household and send kids to college on only $4000 a day?"*

Why am I "supposed" to do anything, and why would that be a problem, or relevant?

 

[OmCheeto]

And then imagine thinking to yourself; "Geez! If I were being taxed at a flat rate, she'd be handing me an extra $200 an hour.

Why? Is the $200 part of my income either way? Why would I ever use the word "extra" to describe it? Because Democrats wanted it but didn't get it? Is that the definition of "extra"?

Gads. Someone needs to invent poly-dimensional hypertext formatting.

Why?

Why what? Imagine?

Is the $200 part of my income either way?

Yes?

Why would I ever use the word "extra" to describe it?

Because when you get $500, and then you get another $200, the 'another' $200 is called extra. It's like extra sprinkles on your ice cream.

Because Democrats wanted it but didn't get it?

I don't really see any evidence that either party wants your money. They are just trying to keep the country running. Except in that post office holding board position at the bank, or $$ for the election.

Is that the definition of "extra"?

No. Extra, like I said above, is like extra sprinkles on your ice cream. ie, something more than you expected. Kind of like a tax cut. Only extra, should mean you don't have to pay it back later. ie. We should figure out a way to balance the budget. Not every year. But Overall. And keep government expenses at a minimum, while keeping a non-perpetuating safety net for our poor folk, so they don't revolt and kill everyone like the Bolsheviks supposedly did way back when. I say supposedly, because I wasn't there.
I'll ask my friends on Monday.

 

[Al68]

...ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me.

Stop talking sense, Om. You'll get banned from P&WA

Does that mean you will retract your repeated (unsubstantiated and absurd) assertions that the rich don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor and working people? And retract your repeated assertions that Republicans have ever advocated such a thing?

 

[Al68]

No. Extra, like I said above, is like extra sprinkles on your ice cream. ie, something more than you expected.

An accurate analogy would be an ice cream that I bought with sprinkles that someone else later wanted to take but didn't. I would never use the word "extra" to refer to the sprinkles the ice cream had when I got it, and still has, just because I expected that someone might take the sprinkles.

But the important thing is that your characterization falsely implies that I received the $200 from government. That's not where the $200 came from. (Unless you're referring to a government job or contract).

And while I know you didn't specifically say that, Democrats often use words like "give to" to describe tax cuts. That's like saying that if I bought an ice cream with sprinkles, then my girlfriend wanted to take my sprinkles but failed to, she would then claim she "gave me" the sprinkles.

I don't really see any evidence that either party wants your money.

LOL. I don't know what to make of that. Did you think I meant they wanted to take it for their own personal use?

 

[OmCheeto]

Does that mean you will retract your repeated (unsubstantiated and absurd) assertions that the rich don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor and working people? And retract your repeated assertions that Republicans have ever advocated such a thing?

I'm sorry. I'm old. I have Alzheimers. I can only remember once where I quoted Warren Buffet stating that it was unfair that he paid a higher rate of taxes than his secretary.

Or is "don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor" some kind of word play?

Russ has a word for similar bouts of linguistic spaghetti in the physics sections. Though I can never keep it in my head.

 

[OmCheeto]

An accurate analogy would be an ice cream that I bought with sprinkles that someone else later wanted to take but didn't. I would never use the word "extra" to refer to the sprinkles the ice cream had when I got it, and still has, just because I expected that someone might take the sprinkles.

But the important thing is that your characterization falsely implies that I received the $200 from government. That's not where the $200 came from. (Unless you're referring to a government job or contract).

And while I know you didn't specifically say that, Democrats often use words like "give to" to describe tax cuts. That's like saying that if I bought an ice cream with sprinkles, then my girlfriend wanted to take my sprinkles but failed to, she would then claim she "gave me" the sprinkles.LOL. I don't know what to make of that. Did you think I meant they wanted to take it for their own personal use?

Do you hide your whereabouts because of incarceration? That's ok if it is. It would explain a lot.

And I really admire your spirit, and hope you do really well when you get out. But if and when you get out, I would recommend this time paying your taxes, unless of course you like it there.

 

[Al68]

I'm sorry. I'm old. I have Alzheimers. I can only remember once where I quoted Warren Buffet stating that it was unfair that he paid a higher rate of taxes than his secretary.

Or is "don't even pay proportionally higher taxes than the poor" some kind of word play?

Russ has a word for similar bouts of linguistic spaghetti in the physics sections. Though I can never keep it in my head.

I was asking turbo-1 to retract those assertions he made previously, not you. Sorry that was unclear. I only quoted your post before his because you correctly characterized US effective tax rates as "quite progressive", and he seemed to agree with your post.

Do you hide your whereabouts because of incarceration? That's ok if it is. It would explain a lot.

And I really admire your spirit, and hope you do really well when you get out. But if and when you get out, I would recommend this time paying your taxes, unless of course you like it there.

LOL. Now that's funny!

..It really doesn't matter that you and I understand that Marxist and Socialist are simply political terms... So when you use it as a careless joke, we take it as you so jokingly intended it, as an insult.

From the other thread, but I never used the term as a "careless joke" or as an insult. That was my point. The objection was to my using it as an adjective to describe an ideology and propaganda method, not as a noun to refer to a person. But apparently the word has been banned altogether, now, anyway.

BTW, where are you from? 6 years on the forum, and still hiding your whereabouts? Where's that Assange guy when you need him?

LOL. I use a laptop with a Verizon wireless card. Apparently it hides my location. I currently live (un-incarcerated) in my hometown of Kingsport, TN. My current location (un-incarcerated) is Eaton, OH. I have no reason to hide my approximate location, but I'm not saying which specific strip club or brothel I'm in.

Edit: I see in your profile you're an ex-Navy nuke. Small world, I am too. But I served on an aircraft carrier, not a sub. Figured having water on all 4 sides and underneath was enough for me.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm sorry. I'm old. I have Alzheimers. I can only remember once where I quoted Warren Buffet stating that it was unfair that he paid a higher rate of taxes than his secretary.

I remember going over those numbers and finding them inaccurate -- that Buffet does pay higher taxes even counting FICA for the secretary. (I'm never quite sure how I should count that -- if it was a normal retirement plan it certainly wouldn't count as taxes. But since there's a real possibility it won't pay out for some [beyond just the chance that you don't live long enough] I suppose there's basis for thinking of it as a tax.)

 

[WhoWee]

This is more chatty than chat.

But anyways, my point seems to have been appropriately expanded upon by others, so I'll throw something new out, which is derived from the http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml" provided earlier. And I do this because the numbers jumped out at me in one of those "OMG" kind of ways.


2005 Post Tax Wages (assuming a 2000 hour work year)

______________________yearly_____monthly___hourly
Lowest Quintile _____$15,300 _____$1,275 ______$7.65
Second Quintile _____$33,700 _____$2,808 _____$16.85
Middle Quintile _____$50,200 _____$4,183 _____$25.10
Fourth Quintile _____$70,300 _____$5,858 _____$35.15
Highest Quintile ___$172,200 ____$14,350 _____$86.10

All Quintiles _______$67,400 _____$5,617 _____$33.70

Top 10% ____________$246,300 ____$20,525 ____$123.15
Top 5% _____________$369,800 ____$30,817 ____$184.90
Top 1% ___________$1,071,500 ____$89,292 ____$535.75


Three questions:
1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?
2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home?
3. Does asking the above two questions confirm that I'm a Marxist?

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Just needs a bit of tweaking in my opinion. Maybe a 1/3 of 1% annual increase over the next 10 years. To balance the budget of course.

Lowest Quintile _______4%
Second Quintile ______11%
Middle Quintile ______17%
Fourth Quintile ______21%
Highest Quintile _____34%

All Quintiles ________26%

Top 10% ______________38%
Top 5% _______________41%
Top 1% _______________45%

Are these numbers based on tax returns filed - or are people not required to file a return also included? Also, is the EITC included in this presentation?
The question of how someone might survive on minimum wage is valid. However, the valid response will be situational.

 

[nismaratwork]

Are these numbers based on tax returns filed - or are people not required to file a return also included? Also, is the EITC included in this presentation?
The question of how someone might survive on minimum wage is valid. However, the valid response will be situational.

...Because any of that would make up for a $100K gap for post tax in the highest quintiles in general, and from a gap of $176,000 up to a $1,000,000 gap in the top between the top 10% -> 1%...?

 

[WhoWee]

...Because any of that would make up for a $100K gap for post tax in the highest quintiles in general, and from a gap of $176,000 up to a $1,000,000 gap in the top between the top 10% -> 1%...?

I would like to pose a question to everyone content to engage in the demonization of "rich people" rhetoric. How much money first needs to be invested in order to achieve earning of $1.0 million/year? Moving forward, what is the incentive for anyone to risk capital if larger and larger shares of earnings will be re-distributed to other people?

Something else, given the economy, why does anyone believe the taxable income levels of recent years will be available moving forward? Personally, I'm a business owner and not on anyone else's payroll and, my earning are down significantly from last year and down about 75 percent fron 3 years ago. If you double or even triple my tax rate - I'll still pay less than in previous years. I would also not risk any additional capital.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would like to pose a question to everyone content to engage in the demonization of "rich people" rhetoric. How much money first needs to be invested in order to achieve earning of $1.0 million/year? Moving forward, what is the incentive for anyone to risk capital if larger and larger shares of earnings will be re-distributed to other people?

Something else, given the economy, why does anyone believe the taxable income levels of recent years will be available moving forward? Personally, I'm a business owner and not on anyone else's payroll and, my earning are down significantly from last year and down about 75 percent fron 3 years ago. If you double or even triple my tax rate - I'll still pay less than in previous years. I would also not risk any additional capital.

So... was that a yes or a no?

 

[WhoWee]

So... was that a yes or a no?

Yes or no to what specific question?

 

[OmCheeto]

I would like to pose a question to everyone content to engage in the demonization of "rich people" rhetoric.

I hope you're not talking about me. I have many rich friends. And I would love to someday be a rich person. I'm sure everyone would.

How much money first needs to be invested in order to achieve earning of $1.0 million/year?

That depends on the year, ones "perception", and luck. But based on my knowledge accumulated over the last two years of investing, my best guess would be $17,000,000.

Moving forward, what is the incentive for anyone to risk capital if larger and larger shares of earnings will be re-distributed to other people?

Depends. If one has way more the $17,000,000 to invest, a lower return still nets you a healthy income.

Something else, given the economy, why does anyone believe the taxable income levels of recent years will be available moving forward?

Depends on if you are talking about people who are employed, or people who make their money investing. It's all very complicated. But those who invest their wealth for income, and have the best perception, will do very. As for employed people here in the States, it is a bit more complicated. I would expand more, but it would take many hours/days to explain my thoughts.

Personally, I'm a business owner and not on anyone else's payroll and, my earning are down significantly from last year and down about 75 percent fron 3 years ago. If you double or even triple my tax rate - I'll still pay less than in previous years. I would also not risk any additional capital.

bolding mine...

Is there a proposal by anyone to double or triple anyone's tax rate? As I said earlier, based on the CBO numbers, the tax rates appear to be where they should be. We just need to bump them slowly up, for everyone.

With the possible exception of those po' folk at the bottom.

 

[WhoWee]

Is there a proposal by anyone to double or triple anyone's tax rate? As I said earlier, based on the CBO numbers, the tax rates appear to be where they should be. We just need to bump them slowly up, for everyone.

With the possible exception of those po' folk at the bottom.

My point is that we're in a Recession and (other than large corporations and perhaps medical) profits and earnings are typically lower for small business owners. I'm not sure if doubling or tripling the tax rate on business owners would accomplish anything - except to de-moralize the group.

IMO -the tax increases proposed are not going to solve the deficit problems unless the economy picks up.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes or no to what specific question?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3033475&postcount=493

 

[WhoWee]

So... was that a yes or a no?

No? I'm not sure we're in agreemeent with the premise of your question.

Again, regardless of the percentage imposed on the "rich" - until the economy rebounds - collections will continue to be less than adequate. Last month the shortfall was roughly $150 Billion.

 

[nismaratwork]

No? I'm not sure we're in agreemeent with the premise of your question.

Again, regardless of the percentage imposed on the "rich" - until the economy rebounds - collections will continue to be less than adequate. Last month the shortfall was roughly $150 Billion.

The direction of my question is that, when deciding what to cut or massage in the budget, maybe items that have a large effect on the deficit are better than more ideologically palatable ones which don't. I was wondering if you thought that the items you listed in that post I responded to would make a significant difference, not if it would erase the shortfall.

We obviously agree that things need to be cut, so that part of the premise we agree on...

 

[Al68]

...Because any of that would make up for a $100K gap for post tax in the highest quintiles in general, and from a gap of $176,000 up to a $1,000,000 gap in the top between the top 10% -> 1%...?

Who said anything about "making up for" that gap? That gap is in post-tax income.