I’d like to ask the leftists on this blog to define “fair” as used by Senator Биден
Update: O’Bama and Биден want to raise taxes only on the top 5% of earners. That top 5% already pays 60% of the federal income taxes in this country. So when you hear the leftists bitch that 50% of some tax break will go to the top 5%, remember that that tax cut will actually increase the percentage of the income tax they pay.
Well, you know, Jack…that some people actually own more than one house. Now, how is that fair again, when some don’t even own one???
The definition of ‘rich’ depends upon who you ask. To a homeless person, a person who works at McDonalds is ‘rich’.
Hell, our country is ‘rich’. So I guess we all fit into that category. Homeless and all.
I did not ask for the definition of “rich,” but for the definition of “fair.”
Anyone game? Zimzo? Puffalump? El Jefe?
Let’s start with XX% of disposable income. That is, estimate what’s left after spending on necessities, add it all up across the country and calculate the % based on what it costs to run the country. % should end up about 40%.
Since almost all of a rich person’s income is disposable, their tax rate might end up being 38% or so. To a person that makes less, their rate will be less.
No problem there, Sanity. The amount spent on necessities should not be taxed. That’s what the standard deduction and the dependent exemptions are supposed to be for. Are they high enough?
# The value of each personal and dependency exemption, available to most taxpayers, is $3,500, up $100 from 2007.
# The new standard deduction is $10,900 for married couples filing a joint return (up $200), $5,450 for singles and married individuals filing separately (up $100) and $8,000 for heads of household (up $150). Nearly two out of three taxpayers take the standard deduction, rather than itemizing deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.
So says the Infernal Revenue Service.
For a family of four, that’s $24,900.
Anyway, above that amount, you favor a flat tax rate? Sounds conservative to me. Who are you, and what have you done with Sanity?
Well, in NoVA, I might make the standard deduction for a family of four about $100,000. How’s that? Sanity back?
No, but inSanity is.
It does not cost anything near $100k for a family of four in this area. The median household income in Fairfax is less than that.
Oh, wait, that was 2004. Wow. Went from $88,100 in 2004 to $105,200 in 2007. And the median family income is $122,000.
http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/demogrph/gendemo.htm#inc
Wow.
Shall we base the deductible on median household or family income for the area of one’s primary residence?
curious Sanity, who decides what constitutes necessities ?
Since almost all of a rich person’s income is disposable, their tax rate might end up being 38% or so. To a person that makes less, their rate will be less.
Sanity:
I want you to read this again and then ask yourself if even you are dumb enough to believe what you have just read.
i’m a leftist? how will the “tax cut will actually increase the percentage of the income tax they pay.”
Yes, you are a leftist. If, before a tax cut, the top 5% pays 60%, and that top 5% get 50% of the benefit, then they will end up paying a larger proportion of the taxes. It’s simple math.
Let me give you some hard numbers for an example. Let us say that the top 5%, in total, pay $60B in taxes, and the rest of us pay $40B. Congress then passes a $10B tax cut, half of which goes to the top 5%. That top 5% would then be paying $55B, and the rest of us $35B. So the top 5% will go from paying 60% to paying 61%. (55/90 = 0.61111)
Get it now?
a leftist by the standard here, not every where, but i’ll embrace it. i see what you are saying but under that logic aren’t cutting the percentage of income paid by the top five percent significantly more than the rest the country? and cutting government funds to give it back to them? i can only hope mccain takes up this argument. won’t this cut hamper the repubs ability to start new wars? and about fairness, Jesus said were are supposed to give up everything, people are getting off pretty easy.
Yes, in Europe and the former Soviet Union, you would be considered a moderate. In the United States, you are a leftist.
You are also inarticulate:
“[Under] that logic aren’t cutting the percentage of income paid by the top five percent significantly more than the rest the country?”
Seriously, I cannot make sense out of that.
But let us look at the income of the top 5%. It’s on the same page I linked to in the post. The top 5% had $2,977,714M in AGI, and paid $615,680M in income taxes. The other 95% had $5,144,326M in AGI, but paid only $408,059M in income taxes. So, the top 5% paid 20.7% of their AGI, and the rest paid 7.93%.
Now, let us say Congress passes a $100B tax relief package — just under 10%, and the top 5% get half of the benefit. Now, the 5% will be paying $565,680M in taxes, or 19.0% of their AGI. The rest of us will be paying $358,059M, or 6.96%.
So, the top 5% would see an 8.21% reduction in their taxes, and the rest of us get a 12.23% reduction in our taxes.
On to your next point: “and cutting government funds to give it back to them?”
Actually, what IS your point? First of all, it is not “[giving] it back to them.” It is letting them keep what they have earned. It is not the government’s money.
dude, you seem to be pretty angry. it would be sad if it weren’t so ironic given your complaints about how liberals are bitter with no sense of humor. i’m guessing there is a correlation with this type of anger and obsession with grammatical errors, but that’s for another day. look at the ratio of the difference in percent of income taxed. you report a 1.7% reduction among the wealthy (20.7-19.0) and for the rest of us (7.9-7) the reduction is .9%. 1.7/.9 is approx 2, that is almost a 2 fold greater decrease in taxes among the wealthy than among the the rest of the population. also, among the wealthy, that large sum is split among a much smaller population, at a time when people are struggling. again, mccain, pick this argument up!
oh and the comment,
“First of all, it is not “[giving] it back to them.” It is letting them keep what they have earned. It is not the government’s money.”
Is there a ’second of all’ grammar nazi?
And you seem to be pretty dense.
I suggest that you calm down. If I have to come to your hood to calm you down, it is never pretty.
what Jack hates to do more than anything is repeat himself for the “cheap seats”.
Nicely twisted. Did you go to our American schools here? You should definitely get your money back on that.
Yes, there is. Secondly, the wealthy do not just hide their money in their mattresses. They either spend it or invest it, creating more jobs. It is not the middle class that is the engine of growth in the U.S., but those who create jobs. Even middle class small business owners, if they are successful, become wealthy as they create more jobs.
Now, back to your percentages. Yes, as a percentage of INCOME, the tax reduction is a larger percentage of their income for those paying 21% as opposed to those paying 8%. That is to be expected — they pay a higher percentage to start with.
If we were to create tax breaks that reduce the percentage of income reduced equal — the top 5% go from paying 21% to 19% of their income, and the rest of us go from 8% to 6% — in very short order the top 5% would be paying ALL of the income tax.
That seems to be the trend. If you look at Table 6, you will see that in 1980, the top 5% paid 36.84% of the total income taxes. In 2006, it was 60.14%.
Now, I ask you, how high do you want that percentage to go?
“They either spend it or invest it”
Key point jack. One of the first things one learns in Economics 101 is that a sound thriving economy depends upon money in circulation. The wealthy do fuel that engine, as in many cases that is how they became wealthy.
wow bullet, i’m perfectly calm, clearly you are pretty worked up. but you and jack are welcome to come to b’more, because “you can’t touch this!”
the proportion paid is probably the result, in part, of a greater increase in income earned among the wealthiest relative to the rest of the popluation. the increase in both is about 40% since 87. the wealthy are making an increasingly larger proportion of the money. and the percentage of income is what is important, that’s money that also goes into the economy. our economy hinges largely on spending among those with disposable income. why would you want to give the wealthy back what could go to giving poor folks like me an education.
Yes, the top 5% has increased its share of the total income. This is to be expected in a capitalist system. Let me explain with the classic example of increased productivity.
A landowner has hired a plowman who can, with a horse-drawn plow, plow one acre each day. (Just as an aside, this was the earliest definition of an acre — the amount of land that could be plowed in a day.) The landowner buys a tractor, and now the plowman can plow ten acres each day. Who should get the benefit — the owner who invested the money to buy the tractor, or the plowman who is now sitting and riding instead of walking behind the horse?
Now, the percentage of income paid in taxes has been reduced at all levels. In 1980, the top 5% were paying 26.85% of their income in taxes, now it is 20.68% — a 22.98% reduction. Meanwhile the bottom half has seen the percentage of their income paid in taxes reduced from 6.10% to 3.01% — a 50.7% reduction.
If the percentage INCOME paid in taxes had been reduced at the same rates across the board, the bottom half would now be paying no taxes at all. (I do not have the data available right now, but I have heard that the bottom 40% do indeed pay no federal income taxes at all, and actually have a negative tax rate.)
good example, it’s kind of funny because it reads sort of like a parable out of the ‘wealth of nations.’ i do prefer the story in Mark about the widow. if the wealthy are making more money and taking more in, why cut their taxes over those with less income? if you favor tax reductions, why not raise the cutoff so that more people do not pay taxes? i don’t see this hindering investment, this money goes back into the economy in terms of services and paying off debt and would even “trickle-up.” the wealthy would still have large sums of available income. i certainlly don’t have a degree in economics, but the sign of a healthy economy around the world appears to be a large and strong middle class with a disposable income, not an untaxed wealthy elite.
“if the wealthy are making more money and taking more in, why cut their taxes over those with less income?”
Because the wealthy are the ones creating the jobs, and making the capital investments.
“if you favor tax reductions, why not raise the cutoff so that more people do not pay taxes?”
Why should people not pay taxes, yet receive the benefits and privileges of citizenship? This is the modus operandi of the left — take from the few, give to the many, and the many will vote for you. It is very dangerous to have a majority of people who do not contribute to the government, but who have a say in how that money is collected and spent.
“i don’t see this hindering investment, this money goes back into the economy in terms of services and paying off debt and would even ‘trickle-up.’ the wealthy would still have large sums of available income.”
For one thing, the money spent in the process of collecting and redistributing the money is wasted — nothing productive comes from the accountants and tax collectors. Then there is the problem that giving a bunch of people money just raises the prices of everything. And if you take away part of the rewards, people are less willing to take risks — i.e., invest in capital improvements.
“i certainlly don’t have a degree in economics, but the sign of a healthy economy around the world appears to be a large and strong middle class with a disposable income, not an untaxed wealthy elite.”
But is that a result of a strong economy, or the cause? I contend that it is the result. We see China now with a strong economy, and their middle class is very small indeed. We must ask ourselves, how did those in the middle class get to be middle class. I daresay the majority got there by working for someone who is wealthy. Those who have small businesses, plumbers, electricians, etc., generally borrowed capital (hence the term “capitalism”) to start their businesses, to buy their trucks, tools, etc. From whom did they borrow? The wealthy.
I recommend The Wealth of Nations. That will be too much to read in time to cure your ignorance before the election, so try Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics.
read sowell’s book for an education on economics? please, that’s about as like reading only zinn for a grasp of us history. most of your last post is opinion and clearly we disagree. again, i’m certainly not an expert on economics, but i agree with the obama plan and dems in general. i’m guessing you are not an expert either (but that you think you are) and you agree with mccain. so be it.
I did not say to read ONLY Sowell, but it is a good start. If I thought you could get through The Wealth of Nations in time to cure your ignorance before the election, I would recommend that, then The New Industrial State, and only then move on to Sowell.
Obviously I have read much more on the subject than you have. I suspect you have read neither Adams nor Sowell. I have read many books by authors with whom I disagree. I have read Das Capital. I have read God’s Economics. Both support the socialist politics of O’Bama, and naturally, both have gaping logical flaws.
It is by reading a wide variety of material that one gets to the point of actual understanding.
We have seen the results of socialism. It has been an abject failure wherever it has been tried. Resources are not unlimited. You cannot give everyone everything they want. If the government is going to provide health care, for instance, it must ration it. Do you want the government to tell you what operations you may have? That’s how things are in England.
Why don’t you try to BE in the top 5%, el jefe, instead of just stealing from them?
who’s saying anything about socialism? i thought we were just talking about tax cuts? do you have to dichotomize things to make them easier to understand? you are as bad as the libs you criticize for implying someone a racist for not supporting obama or sexist in not supporting clinton, just name calling to dismiss an argument. and where did adams come in? wealth of nations was written by smith, i do know that and i think that supports my point about your expertise on the topic.
In that case, I was speaking of John Adams, who was a certainly a fan of Smith, but Adams’ writings are a little more accessible that Smith’s. (The problem may actually be getting hold of them.) Adams, being a key player in the birth of our Constitution, discusses the relationship between economics and the role of the government therein.
Like the other Founders, Adams was fully aware that the Constitution would serve as a basis for the nation’s future economic life. He did not conceive of economic deportment as something apart from political and social endeavors. Adams read virtually every major work in history, politics, law, and social thought available in his time. He certainly knew exactly what Greek, Roman, and Scholastic philosophers, sages, and theologians had said about the material sphere of life. He displayed knowledge of French Physiocracy and admired the axiom that most wealth, at least honestly got wealth, originated in agriculture. Of course, toil in crafts, services, and the small industries of the times was meritorious as well. Adams accepted Smith’s doctrine of free trade, as did Veblen, and certainly recognized the potential contribution of liberated foreign and domestic commerce to America’s expanding economy. His approach to economic policy was pragmatic and unpredicated on either a bias towards state action or the market. He believed in the law-and-order and contractenforcement functions of government and the need for an independent and responsible judiciary. In this sense, he demonstrates his lawyerly mien, which still so dominates Washington and state-level policymaking in the United States, and so frequently bedevils those enthusiastic, well-intended economic policy counselors who seek instant and rational application of the principles of The Modern Economic Science to the complicated material affairs of the nation’s and states’ commonwealths.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3620/is_199710/ai_n8780905/pg_8
Also, Smith has a LOT of numbers — pound, shillings, and pence — in his writings, which, while making good, solid examples, does not make for smooth reading.
Sorry for the confusion.
Let’s go back to the original question, el jefe. How do you define “fair,” or how do you think Sen. Биден defines “fair” w.r.t. taxes?
i really do want to read wealth of nations, but i also have wish list a mile long of books. right now i don’t have much choice on what to read.
as for fairness, i think it can be inferred from the thread what i think is fair. good discussion and i wish i could keep it going, but i have got to spend this week doing a ton of work on stuff that i’m supposed to become an expert in. see if you can get some repsonses from some others left of center on fairness, i’m curious what they say.
“i think it can be inferred from the thread what i think is fair.”
Inference is generally wrong. I would prefer you state it directly. What is your definition of fair w.r.t. taxation?
Comments
Leave a comment Trackback