posted on December 23, 2000 01:06:57 PM
Here's your chance to strike back at me! I'm just completely lost on a simple math equation and you can help. Here it is:
During the electon I learned that 43% of this up-coming tax cut is going to the nation's welthiest 1%.
I also learned - from GW & Tricky Dicky, that the Wealthy pay 1/3 of the taxes; i.e. 33%. The Wealthy, defined by the GOP themselves, as anyone earning more than $200,000 a year.
So -- how come the top 1% get 43% of the refund when they obviously paid just a fraction of that in taxes to begin with?
posted on December 23, 2000 01:10:31 PM
the "wealthy" are apparently getting a gift, wouldn't you say? it is not a math problem. it is a political problem(read that agenda)!
The wealthiest 1% getting the majority of the tax benefits.
Why does no one point out that the wealthiest one percent actually get a smaller (percent) tax cut? But still, a small percentage of a very large number is still a large number.
For example, say a person making 1 million/year gets a 1% tax cut...that adds up to $10,000. A family making $30,000 a year can get a 10% tax break and only save $3,000. Now the family making $30,000 had a LARGER percentage tax cut but managed to only save about 1/3 as much as the other. Do the math. Since GWB policy plan? (I know you hate that one) does not discriminate in his tax cuts, that is, EVERY tax payer gets relief and not a select more-deserving few, the actual numbers will be higher for the "wealthiest 1%" but the percentage savings for the rest of us will actually be higher.
posted on December 23, 2000 01:18:08 PM
Sorry Borillar, I feel like I'm following you around this board. I will take leave now, since have Christmas things to do
posted on December 23, 2000 01:41:58 PM
OK. In case it wasn't clear enough, let's put this in terms that even Republican Voters can understand:
Take your income you have now and estimate the amount of taxes that you'll pay this year.
Next, pretend that instead you are in the Wealthiest 1% of Americans and will earn one BILLION dollars and pay $333,333,333.00 in taxes, leaving you to clear $666,666,666.00+.
Now whom do you feel more sorry for?
If you feel more sorry for the Billionaires, then you should be more satisfied to stay with your current income and tax rate.
Now, if you are in the Wealthiest 1%, take 43% of 1/3 billion and . . . lesse . . . carry the one . . . aha! You would get a tax break in the amount of $143,333,333! So, add that back to your 2/3 billion dollar income and you get $809,999,999.19 take-home pay.
Now, compare that to the likely $100 or so the middle-class family will see in tax cuts.
posted on December 23, 2000 02:02:28 PM
ok whatever, with your math, those lucky guys are only paying 19,000,000 in taxes.
How many here pay that much in taxes? How many really are the wealthiest 1 % ? A lot.
Not all Republicans either. There are quite a few Democratic wealthy in this country.
You really don't believe in Capitalism?
Do you really not want to strive, be secure maybe for future? Wouldn't you want your children be successful, or living paycheck to paycheck? What is so great, and what makes America, is those, 'Capitalistic Pigs', as many call them.
Do you really believe in all this gov't in your face, and the re distrubition of any wealth (I think some could call that communism)
Hey I would love to be in that top 1%. Isn't this something you or your children would want to strive for?
posted on December 23, 2000 04:38:14 PM
The hilarious thing is how Bush got elected on his tax cut promise that he has no conceivable way to deliver with the Congress he has. The rich guys won't get their tax cuts, but they got Bush.
posted on December 23, 2000 07:41:34 PM
There are so many millionaires now that they are quite common. Of course most of it is paper wealth not cash. If they are not carefull to plan their estate well the government will rip of 55% in estate taxes which usually destroys the business or farm or ranch that created the wealth. Taking more than half is not tax it is confiscation.
I would do something about it, but I am too old and tired to start a revolution - and that's what it would take. No one is going to get CLOSE to public office that would do anything about it.
posted on December 23, 2000 07:55:57 PM
Actually, NearTheSea, I am in favor of a Flat Tax Rate. While no tax plan or system will ever be 100% fair, charging everyone a flat 10% of their income is fair enough.
Once can argue that with 10%, the rich pay more taxes. But one can also argue that for the poor, a dollar may mean a meal, life or death in poverty.
NearTheSea, you said "Hey I would love to be in that top 1%. Isn't this something you or your children would want to strive for?"
There's an old saying, "If you want to live like a Republican, you'd better vote as a Democrat." It is the Democractic Party who traditionally offers everyone a helping hand, who insists on education for everyone, who fights to make the playing field level for everyone, not just for the Rich and Powerful.
Again: "Isn't this something you or your children would want to strive for?"
The answer is NO! En-Oh spells NO!
While money cannot solve every problem, there are certinaly problems that only money can solve. But how much is enough? Why does Bill Gates, with his 100 Billion Dollar fortune fight so hard to corner even more of the market? What's the point of that? You can only live in one house, drive one car, fly one airplace, sail one boat. And if you have all of these things and you had more money, wouldn't it be better to help those less fortunate to get to their feet, help break the cycle of poverty and ignorance? Of what real importance is a hoard of gold if it is used simply to possess things and people?
NO!
I want for my children to strive to be independantly wealthy; that is, to have enough money coming in so that they do not live from one paycheck to another. The rest of the time and effort ought to be spent trying to beomce a better person, to become more educated, to become more involved with one's fellow man rather than use money to shut them out.
NO! NO! NO!
To reach that level of wealth that you refer to costs more than simply time and effort: it costs the lives of the many that you have to step on to get there - the people that you use, the ones that you ruin. And in the end, you have no humanity left, no soul, and all the gold in the world. What a thing to wish for!
posted on December 24, 2000 01:45:19 PM
Why Borillar I didn't know you were such a tax radical, and also a friend to the rich Republicans you have been lambasting lately. If you had been running for president I'm sure your tax policies would have garnered many a Republican vote.
Considering that the current marginal tax rates tax the top 1% of income producers at 39.6% and approximately the next four percent of the top income producers at 36% your proposal of a 10% flat tax rate would be welcome relief far in excess of any modest 10% rate reduction proposed by George Bush. A 10% reduction in the rate paid by the top 1% would yield them a reduction of 3.96%. This pales next to your proposal of a cut for them of 29.6%. And I know many of them would be thrilled with the reduction of the capital gains tax from 20% to your 10%.
Even the best tax attorneys, using every shelter, deduction, and loophole available, would be hard pressed to achieve reductions anywhere near the magnitude of what you propose. I'm sure that the high income folks would even accept your liberal agenda for that type of tax break. Talk about buying votes!
For an interesting viewpoint on the benefits of soaking the highest income earners with higher tax rates you might want to read this article.
If you run on this platform in 2004 give me a call, I might consider working on your campaign.
Dr. Beetle
Typos, typos, typos.
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Dec 24, 2000 01:47 PM ]
posted on December 24, 2000 02:17:22 PM
Incredibly naive. You think anyone who makes any money has it just come in to their bank or credit union? NOT. Even I couldn't afford to do that.
A 10% flat tax would not allow for any sheltering, and because of that them rich folk would have a tax increase.
Can you really believe that if it were as you seem to think it is, Dr. Beetle, the flat tax would not already be the system in use? It isn't because they don't want it to be.
posted on December 24, 2000 08:42:49 PM
While corporations might pay zero taxes due to write-offs and tax incentives the Alternative Minimum Tax prevents that urban myth from happening to many a tax payer.
I think that those whose position in power is due to continual funding of excessive entitlement programs have a lot more to do with not having a flat tax than those in the upper income brackets. There are significantly more people in the former category than in the latter.
To those with excessive cynicism even the most reasonable people seem naive.
Dr. Beetle
[ edited by DoctorBeetle on Dec 24, 2000 08:44 PM ]
posted on December 24, 2000 11:55:53 PMDoctorBeetle: I am not for making the Rich poor the the Poor rich. I am for FAIRNESS. That means a level playing field for everybody so that they can stand or fall on their own merits. I believe that with loopholes, the 1% do not and have not paid nearly anything in the way of taxes. The tax code is so complicated and so unbalanced and unfair to everyone of every economic class that it ought to be completely scrapped in favor of a Flat Tax Rate.
I suggested a Flat Tax Rate. Back in 1992-93, that notion was put to the test: compared to the income the government had then, what precentage of a Flat Tax Rate would there need to be to bring in the equivelent amount? The answer was 17%, not 10%.
17%?
Wow!
You'd think that all the Rich and Powerful would just jump at the chance to pay so little in taxes . . . huh? Isn't that what your conservative Republican mind tells you? Well, the Rich and Powerful didn't want it! They got their New Republican friends to squash the idea quick! Hmmm . . . now why would they do that, I wonder . . .
I'll tell you : it's because with the loopholes, they don't pay any taxes! And yes, 43% of the 1.5 trillion dollar tax break is going to them -- even though they never paid a dime into it in the first place!
But, of course, as usual, New Republicans believe that whatever makes the Super-rich even richer is good for the country. Sacrifice your kids education, the nation's health, and slay the elderly with no prescription drug benefits -- so long as this 1% gets more than the Lion's Share of YOUR tax dollars!!
posted on December 25, 2000 04:44:56 AM
" so long as this 1% gets more than the Lion's Share of YOUR tax dollars!!"
I am sorry I have to call you on this.
If they end up paying less or even NOTHING it is still not taking the other fellows tax dollar unless it is actually paid out to them. This is the same untruthfull statement form used by politicians where they consider a reduction in the rate of increase a decrease!! We only took 40% more instead of 50% more so it is a decrease. Damn liars, and people stupid enough to believe them. Not a one of them can speak truth if they can think of a lie.
posted on December 25, 2000 02:08:13 PMBorillar if we accept the figure that the proposed tax cut gives 43% of the benefit to the top 1% of taxpayers how can your statement of the 1% do not and have not paid nearly anything in the way of taxes be true? The only way you can possibly benefit from a tax cut is if you are paying taxes.
Your assertion that I'll tell you : it's because with the loopholes, they don't pay any taxes! And yes, 43% of the 1.5 trillion dollar tax break is going to them -- even though they never paid a dime into it in the first place! is a logical contradiction. 1) Only tax payers benefit from tax rate reductions. 2) The top 1% of income earners actually pay no taxes. 3) Therefore the top 1% of income earners get the lion's share of tax rate reductions. A fatally flawed argument.
If, in the interest of fairness, you have no problem with everyone (regardless of income) paying an identical percentage of taxes why would you be against everyone getting an identical percentage reduction in their tax rates? Whay does the fairness principle apply on one end and not the other?
posted on December 25, 2000 02:25:16 PM
Borillar-your flat tax whatever, wasn't that Ross Perots thing, with the charts and graphs?
About striving to become better and all, as you mentioned above to me, look: Bill Gates and his wife are giving away 1/3 (someone else can look it up) of their money.
They are not blindly giving it to the big charitys either, they themselves sit on a board they set up, and take individual letters and requests, and hand out the money, money for young people to go to school, money for research on Aids and just plain individuals. They do stress, yes you can write to them, but they are giving a hand up NOT a [/b]hand out[/b]. So he, himself, his wife, and others go through the many requests they recieve.
posted on December 25, 2000 06:24:52 PMNearTheSea: no, it wasn't Ross: he just took up the hue and cry after the facts. I recall that some bi-paartisan effort was made to look into the feasability of a flat 10% tax rate. They finally announced that there was no way that 10% would work ,that it could only work with an estimated 17%. The media got ahold of that fact and it was on the news quite a bit. I'm sure that there was a near tax-revolt and Congress came under fire about it. Who gets taxed in this country and wouldn't want a flat tax rate? I mean, 17%? Heck, even the lowest taxable income level is around 25% right now.
DoctorBeetle's logical mind is boggling at the arrogant explantion that I made. Yet, it is the only explantion that fits the facts. Let's examine this closer:
View #1: The Ultra-Rich Pay Taxes
---------------------------------
OK. So, in order to qualify for a tax break, you need to be incurring a tax debt. Makes sense?
And if the Rich are paying out taxes in so high a tax bracket as would allow the top 1% to get 43% of the tax break, wouldn't a mere 17% flat tax rate be a hell of a better break than the proposed tax cut? Sounds right, doesn't it?
Then tell me this, Oh Most Logical One, why did the Rich and Powerful kill the idea?
Answers:
--------
a) The Rich enjoy paying out a lot more taxes than anybody else.
b) The Rich think that they'll end up paying out more money with a Flat Tax Rate of 17% than with current tax breaks.
View #2: The Ultra-Rich Don't Pay Taxes
---------------------------------------
The Ultra-Rich are the ones who get the tax loopholes, file their taxes, and don't pay a penny. FACT: General Motors has not paid a single penny in taxes since the early 1950's.
Because the Ultra-Rich benefit so heavily from these loopholes and Special Favors from New Republican buddies in Congress, a Flat Tax Rate of 17% would make them end up paying money for a change, because a 17% Flat Tax Rate is not only a Maximum Tax Rate but also because it is a Minimum Tax Rate -- get it?
Answers:
--------
a) The Ultra-Rich do not want a Flat Tax Rate because it will force them to pay taxes.
b) The Ultra-Rich do not want a Flat Tax Rate because they enjoy paying taxes at a higher rate than the rest of us.
FYI: after these same allegations continued to surface, the GOP media-blitz finally came out with the statement that if all the Rich were actually made to pay their share, it wouldn't contribute more than a few percentage points to the US Treasury. This was during the prior Bush administration. The reason was to discredit the anger being heaped upon the Rich by the Democrats from 10 years of "Trickle-Down Economics" which only made the Rich richer and the Poor poorer.
SO! II CAN'T BE BOTH WAYS -- CAN IT?
DoctorBeetle, I believe that your logical thought processes are failing to take into concideration political shenannigans. >>GASP!!<< The GOP might be doing something IMMORAL? How Dare I!
No other explanation fits the facts: the Ultra-Rich do not want a Flat Tax Rate of only 17% because they will pay more in taxes. In fact, they pay little if not nothing in taxes. Yet, the New Republicans are going to use legal maneuvering to get that GIGANTIC tax benefit into their hands. SURPRIZE!
posted on December 28, 2000 09:19:11 AMBorillar, I see that you never got your original question answered. Let me take a stab at it for you. For simplicities sake lets assume that you and I are the only two taxpayers, I am the high income one and you are not. For this example, though your mind may boggle at the thought, I will actually be paying my taxes.
Last year the total tax revenue was $10.00, $9.00 from me and $1.00 from you. Both candidates for president, in an attempt to buy our votes with our own money, have promised a 10% rate reduction in income taxes. The candidate that offered to pay everyone equally is inaugurated. Due to the declining economy inherited from a previous administration our income remains flat for this year and we pay identical taxes. The tax rate reduction law is enacted and is in effect for this fiscal year.
My new taxes are $8.10 (reduced by 10% of $9.00) and your new taxes are $0.90. In this instance we have 50% getting 90% of the benefit. If a smaller portion of the populace pays a higher percentage of the taxes they will get a higher percentage of the actual dollar reduction in tax revenues.
I highlight the word benefit because, as Gravid correctly pointed out, it is the ultimate in spin to paint a tax rate reduction, which allows us to keep a slightly larger portion of our own money, as if the government were doling out dollars to us. The admittedly effective tag line that the rich get a disportionate benefit in tax dollars from an across-the-board tax reduction did its intended job in stirring up the masses.
As for your assertion that the majority of high-income earners (greater than $200k per annum) pay little or no income taxes, I found that hard to believe. But I must admit that I had no basis in fact to support my opinion. So I decided to go to the source - the Internal Revenue Service. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act there are a lot of very enlightening documents available on their web site. At the following URL I found a document from 1997 (the latest I could find) that surveys how many high-income household tax returns end up without any tax due, a subject dear to your heart and so appropriate to this thread.
The document (97HIINCO.EXE) is provided in a self-extracting archive which contains a summary in PDF format as well as a number of Excel spreadsheets. The document states that there were 1.807 million household tax returns in 1997 with adjusted gross income of $200k or more. As to the "little or none" tax payment issue the report had the following to say:
As already described, only a small portion of high-income taxpayers were able to escape all income taxes (0.084 percent, which is rounded to 0.1 percent in Table 4).
Another group of high-income taxpayers— small, but larger than the nontaxable group— was able to offset a very substantial fraction of its income before being subject to tax. This type of high-income taxpayer pays income tax equal to only a small share of his or her income. Such taxpayers may be called “nearly nontaxables.” (About 0.7 percent of high expanded-income taxpayers reported some tax liability, but were able to reduce their taxable income to less than 25 percent of their expanded income.)
Overall, a large portion of high-income taxpayers were subject to tax on a large share of their income and, consequently, reported very substantial amounts of tax. (Almost 64 percent had taxable income equal to 80 percent or more of expanded income; and almost 97 percent had taxable income equal to 50 percent or more of expanded income.)
So in a nutshell -
Approximately 1,517 out of 1.807 million paid no taxes.
Approximately 12,649 out of 1.807 million had deductions of 75%, or more, of their income.
Approximately 1.753 million had deductions less than half of their income.
Approximately 1.156 million had deductions less than 20% of their income.
As for your statement on General Motors' taxes, unless you are referring to someone retired from the Army, it has no bearing on the discussion of individual taxes. Please remove that particularly smelly red herring from this discussion.
posted on December 28, 2000 05:03:01 PM
Hey Borillar, I have a little more math for you. You have repeatedly made the assertion that it is the rich Republicans that are blocking the flat tax proposal. Let's subject that opinion to some math based on the IRS report I cited in my previous post.
1) Approximately 1,517 out of 1.807 million paid no taxes. - These people would definitely be opposed to a flat tax.
2) Approximately 12,649 out of 1.807 million had deductions of 75%, or more, of their income - The great majority of these people would probably be opposed to a flat tax.
3) Approximately 600,000 (1.753 million - 1.156 million) had deductions between less than half of their income and 20% of their income - The great majority of these would benefit from a 17% flat tax.
4) Approximately 1.156 million had deductions less than 20% of their income - Everyone benefits from a 17% flat tax rate.
Filing as an individual with a 31% tax rate on $100k (50% of $200k) = $31,000 taxes.
Filing as an individual with a 31% tax rate on $110k (55% of $200k) = $34,100 taxes.
Filing as an individual with a 31% tax rate on $120k (60% of $200k) = $37,200 taxes.
Filing as an individual with a 36% tax rate on $140k (70% of $200k) = $50,400 taxes.
Filing as an individual with a 36% tax rate on $160k (80% of $200k) = $57,600 taxes.
Filing jointly with a 28% tax rate on $100k (50% of $200k) = $28,000 taxes.
Filing jointly with a 31% tax rate on $110k (55% of $200k) = $34,100 taxes.
Filing jointly with a 31% tax rate on $120k (60% of $200k) = $37,200 taxes.
Filing jointly with a 31% tax rate on $140k (70% of $200k) = $43,400 taxes.
Filing jointly with a 36% tax rate on $160k (80% of $200k) = $57,600 taxes.
Flat rate tax on $200k without any deductions = $34,000 taxes.
Of course as the income increases beyond $200k the benefits of a 17% flat tax rate increase proportionally. So out of the 1.807 million taxpayers that you assert are actively blocking a flat tax it appears as if 1.6 million of them would see a benefit from the adoption of a flat tax rate of 17%.
You are granting a disportionate amount of influence to the less than 200,000 taxpayers that would see tax increases with a flat tax. The IRS estimates that there will be 127 million (non-corporate) tax returns filed for the year 2000. Less than 16 hundreds of a percent stand to lose if the flat tax is adopted.
