On Oct 21, 6:23*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

...





In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

* *You said much more of the wealthy's incomes derive not from
paychecks
and them went on to suggest this was a bad comparison (how much of
income taxes the top 1% pay. I merely stated that this was a
nonsensical
argument since the figures were based on total income reported which
has
very little do with paychecks. It takes into account the different
rates
for cap gains as an example.

Much better, although not totally correct. *There's a physical limit to
the
amount of money you can make by the sweat of your brow. *Investment
income
has no such limitation. *That's an important distinction between the
upper
and lower classes.
Not only is it NOT an important distinction, in this context it is
totally.

Totally what? *I can't keep debating you if "you no speaka de english." *I
assume these discussions get you pretty riled up by the number of errors
that keep creeping in.

You are looking at total income from all sources and the taxes
thereon when you look at effective rates. The discussion is how much
income and what part of that goes to taxes.

Well, that's how *you* want to frame the discussion but I'm not going along
for the ride.

Of course that's how a reasonable person would frame the discussion.
Figure out how much people in the various income brackets are paying
in taxes of all kinds. Exactly what is your problem with doing that?
And why is it that many of us give you facts and figures, such as
those
that show the top 1% are paying 40% of the income burden, but all
you ever have is emotion, with no facts?



*Here's why the distinction is important, again borrowed from
Nobel laureate Paul Krugman:

The budget office's numbers show that the federal tax burden has fallen
for all income classes, which itself runs counter to the rhetoric you hear
from the usual suspects. But that burden has fallen much more, as a
percentage of income, for the wealthy. Partly this reflects big cuts in top
income tax rates, but, beyond that, there has been a major shift of taxation
away from wealth and toward work: tax rates on corporate profits, capital
gains and dividends have all fallen, while the payroll tax - the main tax
paid by most workers - has gone up.

Which as usual doens't support your claim.



So at least one world class economist (and I) believe that there is a VERY
important distinction about how that income is earned. *Workers are getting
hit harder than people who earn passive income. *The burden shifts from the
wealthiest, who make much of their income just from having money, to the
middle and lower class who typically have a very small percent of their
income derived from investments.

Krugman goes on to say:

According to new estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center,
one-fourth of those with incomes of more than $1 million a year pay income
and payroll tax of 12.6 percent of their income or less, putting their tax
burden below that of many in the middle class.

Instead of listening to a guy that's one nut short of being a
communist,
why not look at the actual data, for the Tax Polic Center,
which clearly shows that the higner
the income level, the higher the taxes paid:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...66&Topic2id=48



This is another case of the illusion of our nation having the highest
corporate tax rate in the world on paper but the truth is that GE and lots
of other companies pay little or no taxes and actually get taxes back. *It
just boggles my mind that people who despise welfare for citizens just look
the other way when huge corporation get checks from the treasury, and for a
lot more than any single welfare recipient. *Or 10,000 of them.

Govt checks? Are we back to the TARP LOANS again? The loans
where the govt has already been paid back most of the money and
will likely recover almost all of it?

As for some companies not paying their fare share of taxes, I agree
that should be looked into. But before you go off the rails, it might
be worthwhile to look at how GE paid no taxes. I have not looked at
it in detail, but from what I understand it's a whole combination of
things. Everything from carrovers of losses from prior years, to
losses in businesses in the current year, to tax credits for renewable
energy. You give credits, they get used, isn't that what the govt
wants? As for getting rid of those credits and closing the loopholes,
that's a postion many of the Republican candidates propose.
Make the tax rate lower and close the loopholes.




The top 1% has a higher effective rate of taxes than any other group.

That's the "oh the rate is so high for the uber rich" but as Warren Buffet
has shown, that's just on paper too.

No, it;s not just on paper, go look at the link I provided above.
The rich are paying higher rates. Yes, there are some like
Buffet, but he's the exception.




*With all the tax shelters and other
games the super wealthy can play, that "higher effect rate" is just a
political theater to make the middle class citizen feel better about paying
more in taxes than some of the uber rich.

If itls a higher effective rate then it's real, not some illusion.






* *The problem is they are already paying their share, and part of
mine,
and a bit of yours. If they were really ripping off the poor, their
shares of taxes paid and income would be a lot closer. If the
hyperventilation crowd was correct, they would paying LESS than their
part of the income stream, not double.

But that's what progressive taxation all about. *(-:
* * And according to the OECD figures I spouted numerous times, we not
only have the most progressive system among the developed world but take
a higher %age of total taxes from the top (in this case) 10% than any
other developed country except one.

We are the world's most powerful country. *We maintain a military so large
that no other country comes remotely near us in military strength. *We are
the leader of the free world. *That kind of stuff costs money.

So does all the social programs and they consume twice the budget
of the Dept of Defense.


*Back off on
those expenditures and we could ease up the burden on the rich.

LOL. Sure, you libs would then just spend it on other stuff,
like Obama's new "stimulus".




*Remember
it's always the rich that have the most to lose in case of war or
insurrection. *Ask the wealthy Jews of Germany where their money went after
Hitler took power. *The uber-rich push a big agenda on America. *They should
be privileged to pay for it. *Instead, the middle class is asked to bail out
their banks,

The lie repeated. The loans to the banks have ALL been paid back
and the govt earned 10% interest.





fight the wars that usually serve business and the rich quite
well. *Ask the relatives of a certain coffee maker/cremetorium maker that
starts with a K about how well they made out selling arms in WWII.

* *And they pay taxes on it.

Not enough for my taste.
The rich use government services that the middle
class never, ever need. *Like military excursions to protect overseas
investments. *Most Americans pay more payroll than income taxes, but
that
reverses when incomes cross a certain threshold.
* * Yeah. the bottom two quintiles since tax credits like earned income
and others were put in place (and expanded under Bush) to address the
payroll tax concerns.
* * *At the other end, SS taxes stop at the exact same place that
benefits stop. So, even if a person makes $60 kajillion a year, their SS
is based only on whatever the cut off is (something like $130,000 IIRC)..

What a great deal for super-earners. *So the CEO pulling 10 million deprives
the fund of the considerable income it would have gotten if 9 million of
that went to lower wage earners in the company in the form of raises, better
health bennies and more hires to share the workload.

If the workers don't like what the CEO makes, then can get a
job at another company. If you don't like what the CEO makes,
you don't have to buy their products. If the shareholders don't
like what the CEO makes, they can reduce it.



Wealth begins to attract more wealth and if the upper level tax rate isn't
nearly confiscatory,

And there you have it folks. The truth comes out.





the country's wealth will migrate to a very few people,
just like it's doing now. *The plain facts are that the Bush era tax cuts
resulted in a drop in government revenue that's just one of the many reasons
we're so damn deep in the hole. *We bought the idea that tax cuts for the
rich create US jobs. *Obviously they do not given our current circumstances

They were creating jobs and the economy was fine for years.
The tax cuts didn't cause the recession. Bush had a deficit of
only $160bil with those rates in effect.