http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/...elmsley-proud/
snip
Martin A. Sullivan, an economist and columnist for Tax
Notes, has found a new reason to invoke Helmsley’s “little
people” remark. In an analysis of the 20 highest income zip
codes in the nation for 2007 (as reported by the Internal
Revenue Service), he finds that the 130 individual tax
returns filed from the Helmsley Building in Manhattan showed
an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

The rich folks’ low tax rate shouldn’t come as too big a
surprise. As I pointed out here, because of the historically
low 15% rate on long term capital gains (compared to a top
tax rate of 35% for ordinary income, like salary) the 400
highest income Americans now pay a lower effective federal
income tax rate than the merely well paid. In 2007, the 400
derived two thirds of their average adjusted gross income of
$345 million from capital gains and paid an average
effective rate of just 16.6%.
snip


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?

"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?

Just more weaseling? Fudging the numbers to spread your
socialist propaganda?

feh.
Rich

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?
Remember Social Security and Medicare taxes are currently
capped at the first 106,800$ of annual earned income.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Raising or eliminating this cap is one of the measures being
considered to eliminate the projected SS shortfall.

Just more weaseling? Fudging the numbers to spread your
socialist propaganda?

feh.
Rich

-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/...elmsley-proud/
snip
Martin A. Sullivan, an economist and columnist for Tax
Notes, has found a new reason to invoke Helmsley's "little
people" remark. In an analysis of the 20 highest income zip
codes in the nation for 2007 (as reported by the Internal
Revenue Service), he finds that the 130 individual tax
returns filed from the Helmsley Building in Manhattan showed
an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

Ah, the government is forcing taxpayers to pay for a retirement program,
but in the
goodness of their heart the limit how much you or forced to pay in, same
with Medicare.
So forget about including SS and Medicare, those are forced savings for
later use.

The rich folks' low tax rate shouldn't come as too big a
surprise. As I pointed out here, because of the historically
low 15% rate on long term capital gains

The lower tax rate on capital gains is government admiting that lower tax
rates
increase economic growth. This is your incentive to save your money and
invest it.
Remember they already paid taxes on the money invested.
Since you now know how the system works, looks like you should strive to
be rich.
Mikek








(compared to a top
tax rate of 35% for ordinary income, like salary) the 400
highest income Americans now pay a lower effective federal
income tax rate than the merely well paid. In 2007, the 400
derived two thirds of their average adjusted gross income of
$345 million from capital gains and paid an average
effective rate of just 16.6%.
snip

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:53:38 -0600, "amdx" wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/...elmsley-proud/
snip
Martin A. Sullivan, an economist and columnist for Tax
Notes, has found a new reason to invoke Helmsley's "little
people" remark. In an analysis of the 20 highest income zip
codes in the nation for 2007 (as reported by the Internal
Revenue Service), he finds that the 130 individual tax
returns filed from the Helmsley Building in Manhattan showed
an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

Ah, the government is forcing taxpayers to pay for a retirement program,
but in the
goodness of their heart the limit how much you or forced to pay in, same
with Medicare.

As they most certainly limit what you can take out, limiting what you
are forced to pay in seems relatively fair.

So forget about including SS and Medicare, those are forced savings for
later use.

The rich folks' low tax rate shouldn't come as too big a
surprise. As I pointed out here, because of the historically
low 15% rate on long term capital gains

The lower tax rate on capital gains is government admiting that lower tax
rates
increase economic growth. This is your incentive to save your money and
invest it.
Remember they already paid taxes on the money invested.
Since you now know how the system works, looks like you should strive to
be rich.
Mikek








(compared to a top
tax rate of 35% for ordinary income, like salary) the 400
highest income Americans now pay a lower effective federal
income tax rate than the merely well paid. In 2007, the 400
derived two thirds of their average adjusted gross income of
$345 million from capital gains and paid an average
effective rate of just 16.6%.
snip

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?

"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?

Just more weaseling? Fudging the numbers to spread your
socialist propaganda?

feh.
Rich

If you engaged yourself in a little research before engaging your paranoia,
Rich, you'd realize that SS and Medicare effectively INCREASE the tax rate
even more for the janitor over the rich person. If you figure it in, the
absurdity of such low rates for wealthy people looks even worse --
especially if most of their income derives from capital gains. They'll pay
the "self-employed" Medicare rate.

Check it out. A damp, warm cloth will take care of that egg on your face.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:53:38 -0600, "amdx" wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/...elmsley-proud/
snip
Martin A. Sullivan, an economist and columnist for Tax
Notes, has found a new reason to invoke Helmsley's "little
people" remark. In an analysis of the 20 highest income zip
codes in the nation for 2007 (as reported by the Internal
Revenue Service), he finds that the 130 individual tax
returns filed from the Helmsley Building in Manhattan showed
an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

Ah, the government is forcing taxpayers to pay for a retirement program,
but in the
goodness of their heart the limit how much you or forced to pay in, same
with Medicare.

As they most certainly limit what you can take out, limiting what you
are forced to pay in seems relatively fair.

Fair only if you don't mind billing the next generation for todays
retirees.
I think most people retired today get the money they put into SS back in
about 4-1/2 yrs,
and then live another 10 years.
Mikek

F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

Go **** Yourself. You made the claim, _YOU_ back it up. I'm not
going to do your homework for you.

But I'm sure this is just more smokescreen.

"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?
Remember Social Security and Medicare taxes are currently
capped at the first 106,800$ of annual earned income.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Raising or eliminating this cap is one of the measures being
considered to eliminate the projected SS shortfall.

Again, no actual numbers. Yeah, so they're capped. You _still_
didn't give any actual numbers, you're speaking in generalities
with nothing to back it up. Typical progressive/liberal/socialist
tactics.

Again, Feh.
Rich

F. George McDuffee wrote:

The rich folks’ low tax rate shouldn’t come as too big a
surprise. As I pointed out here, because of the historically
low 15% rate on long term capital gains (compared to a top
tax rate of 35% for ordinary income, like salary) the 400
highest income Americans now pay a lower effective federal
income tax rate than the merely well paid. In 2007, the 400
derived two thirds of their average adjusted gross income of
$345 million from capital gains and paid an average
effective rate of just 16.6%.

You mean those rich people investing in tax free municipal bonds? If some one pays into
social security above the cut off value, would the government accept it, would the
government give them a larger than legislated retirement benefit?

Wes

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

Go **** Yourself. You made the claim, _YOU_ back it up. I'm not
going to do your homework for you.


Damn, you wingers are intellectually lazy. Ok, I'm going to do your homework
for you. It will take me less than ten minutes. I have my timer going now.
g

Self-employment tax for 2011 is 13.3% -- 10.4% for SS and 2.9% for Medica

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...=98846,00.html

Once you've made $106,800, there is no additional charge for SS. So George's
example of someone earning $1.17 million actually pays 13.3% on his first
$106,800, and then 2.9% thereafter. It's a sharply regressive tax, in other
words -- the more you make, the lower rate you pay. In the case of the $1.17
million earner who is self-employed, it's 3.8% in self-employment tax
overall, which is his equivalent of payroll taxes.

If the janitor is a self-employed independent contractor, he's paying 13.3%
of his income in self-employment tax. If he's an employee making, say,
$40,000/yr.,

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Porte...-York,-NY.html

....he pays 5.65% of his wages. The same is true for any reasonable wage he
might be making.

So in payroll/self-employment taxes, the rich guy pays 3.8%, and the worker
pays 5.65%. (It's more likely that he is an employee, but if the worker is a
contractor, he's paying 13.3%.)

As for their income taxes, George pointed out that the rich folk in question
paid 14% on their adjusted incomes. The janitor is almost certainly in the
25% marginal bracket if he's single. If he's married, the wife is almost
certainly contributing to the family income, because you don't live a normal
married life in NYC on $40k:

http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2010/0...ome-tax-rates/

For a single janitor making $40k adjusted salary, his total federal income
tax is 14%:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/notice_1036.pdf

Total income tax, SS, and medicate payments for the janitor: 19.65%. Total
for the rich dude: 17.8%.

Done. 6 minutes, 40 seconds. Plus writing time. g

How long did it take you to decide that George was all wrong about the
payroll taxes -- even though you had no idea what you were talking about?


But I'm sure this is just more smokescreen.

Of course. He's baffling you with the facts. As we know, those things cause
righties an awful lot of trouble...


"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?
Remember Social Security and Medicare taxes are currently
capped at the first 106,800$ of annual earned income.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Raising or eliminating this cap is one of the measures being
considered to eliminate the projected SS shortfall.

Again, no actual numbers. Yeah, so they're capped. You _still_
didn't give any actual numbers, you're speaking in generalities
with nothing to back it up. Typical progressive/liberal/socialist
tactics.

Again, Feh.
Rich

On Feb 23, 6:15*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:




So in payroll/self-employment taxes, the rich guy pays 3.8%, and the worker
pays 5.65%. (It's more likely that he is an employee, but if the worker is a
contractor, he's paying 13.3%.)



Done. 6 minutes, 40 seconds. Plus writing time. g


6 minutes and 40 seconds is pretty good but you only did half of the
task. You did not say anything about the relative benefits from the
Social Security taxes. I have not kept up with the way SS benefits
are calculated, but as I remember the benefits are calculated on the
wages. But the wages up to something like $7,500 count 90 %. The
wages from $7,500 to $45,000 count 60 % and the wages over $45,000
count 15%. So the worker making $40,000 get credit for $$26,000 and
the rich guy get credit for $38,000. So the one guy payes about 2.5
times as much tax and gets a benefit that is 1.5 times as much.

Dan


Those are not the right numbers, but were close to being right at one
time.

On Feb 23, 8:55*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Nobody asked. And it had nothing to do with the claims being made.

The subject was Rich claiming that George was distorting the truth about the
tax rates because of his "socialist agenda." But the fact is that George was
right; the payroll tax/self-employment tax issue makes the relative tax
rates between the rich guy and the janitor even more lopsided.

--
Ed Huntress



I think that it is part of the discussion. If the janitor paid twice
the percentage of the rich man, but got a million dollars a year in
benefits. And the rich guy paid in more total dollars but got nothing
a year in benefits, I think even you would agree it was relevant.

It is like the woman that agree to have sex for a million dollars but
would not for $10. We are just discussing the price.

Benefits have to be considered when one says the relative rates are
lopsided. Yes they are, but the benefits are also lopsided in the
other direction. The benefits mitigate the fact that the relative
rates are lopsided.

Dan

" wrote:

On Feb 23, 8:55 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Nobody asked. And it had nothing to do with the claims being made.

The subject was Rich claiming that George was distorting the truth about the
tax rates because of his "socialist agenda." But the fact is that George was
right; the payroll tax/self-employment tax issue makes the relative tax
rates between the rich guy and the janitor even more lopsided.

--
Ed Huntress


I think that it is part of the discussion. If the janitor paid twice
the percentage of the rich man, but got a million dollars a year in
benefits. And the rich guy paid in more total dollars but got nothing
a year in benefits, I think even you would agree it was relevant.

What is relevant is
that a large portion of the social security tax
that was collected was not spent on social security
Instead, it was put in the general fund like income tax

So the whole notion of an exemption for the rich for fICA
is a scam since it is really the janitor's FICA paying
govt. spending the rich should also participate in paying

And were talking trillions of dollars that
Bob the janitor will have to pay again in taxes
when the govt. needs the money for Social security

Of course Bob the janitor could have voted against
Reagon and the Bushes
And avoided being screwed so badly on taxes

But Bob the janitor is as dumb as a box of rocks
So he votes for Reagon who tells him
"everybody gets a tax cut"
But the result of the tax cut is
Bob the janitor's withholding goes up
and his paycheck gets smaller
and he don't have the math skills
to know that he is being screwed

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

Go **** Yourself. You made the claim, _YOU_ back it up. I'm not
going to do your homework for you.


Damn, you wingers are intellectually lazy. Ok, I'm going to do your
homework for you. It will take me less than ten minutes. I have my timer
going now. g

Self-employment tax for 2011 is 13.3% -- 10.4% for SS and 2.9% for
Medica

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...=98846,00.html

Once you've made $106,800, there is no additional charge for SS. So
George's example of someone earning $1.17 million actually pays 13.3% on
his first $106,800, and then 2.9% thereafter. It's a sharply regressive
tax, in other words -- the more you make, the lower rate you pay. In the
case of the $1.17 million earner who is self-employed, it's 3.8% in
self-employment tax overall, which is his equivalent of payroll taxes.

Get over it. The SS you pay in is a forced retirement savings account.*
It was not designed to
pay for other government programs. I think the wealthy pay a pretty hefty
share of the tax burden,
here's some data for 2008.

The top 1/10 of 1% pay 18.47% of the taxes, that's 0.1% pay 18.7%
The top 1% pay 38.02% of the taxes.
The top 5% pay 58.72% of the taxes.
That seems sick to me 5% pay almost 60% of the taxes?
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes.
The top 25% pay 86% of the taxes.
50% of the tax payers pay 97.3%.
The bottom 50% pay just 2.7% of the tax burden.

Source;
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Mikek
* Most people need to be forced.
I may* be better off because I was forced
to pay SS, ( because I will probably get out more than I paid in)
But those younger than me will not get the same benefit. The system
cannot continue to pay out more than it takes in.
May*, it just depends on how long I live and how good my investments
would have returned if I saved the money rather than pay it to SS.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 23, 8:55 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Nobody asked. And it had nothing to do with the claims being made.

The subject was Rich claiming that George was distorting the truth about
the
tax rates because of his "socialist agenda." But the fact is that George
was
right; the payroll tax/self-employment tax issue makes the relative tax
rates between the rich guy and the janitor even more lopsided.

--
Ed Huntress



I think that it is part of the discussion. If the janitor paid twice
the percentage of the rich man, but got a million dollars a year in
benefits. And the rich guy paid in more total dollars but got nothing
a year in benefits, I think even you would agree it was relevant.

It is like the woman that agree to have sex for a million dollars but
would not for $10. We are just discussing the price.

Benefits have to be considered when one says the relative rates are
lopsided. Yes they are, but the benefits are also lopsided in the
other direction. The benefits mitigate the fact that the relative
rates are lopsided.

Dan

The fairness of the program is a fair subject, Dan, but that wasn't what
Rich was addressing. He was claiming that George was distorting the actual
taxes by not including SS or Medicare. As I pointed out, including those
things makes the disparity even worse.

What's "fair" in SS depends on how long you live, for one thing. For
another, it's a philosophical question with no unequivocal answer.

--
Ed Huntress

"amdx" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

Go **** Yourself. You made the claim, _YOU_ back it up. I'm not
going to do your homework for you.


Damn, you wingers are intellectually lazy. Ok, I'm going to do your
homework for you. It will take me less than ten minutes. I have my timer
going now. g

Self-employment tax for 2011 is 13.3% -- 10.4% for SS and 2.9% for
Medica

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...=98846,00.html

Once you've made $106,800, there is no additional charge for SS. So
George's example of someone earning $1.17 million actually pays 13.3% on
his first $106,800, and then 2.9% thereafter. It's a sharply regressive
tax, in other words -- the more you make, the lower rate you pay. In the
case of the $1.17 million earner who is self-employed, it's 3.8% in
self-employment tax overall, which is his equivalent of payroll taxes.

Get over it. The SS you pay in is a forced retirement savings account.*
It was not designed to
pay for other government programs. I think the wealthy pay a pretty hefty
share of the tax burden,
here's some data for 2008.

The top 1/10 of 1% pay 18.47% of the taxes, that's 0.1% pay 18.7%

Keep in mind that this figure (which comes from the IRS) is based on
ADJUSTED gross income. When you earn more than $6 million/yr., which is what
this group earns on the average, your real income and "adjusted" income are
spread quite far apart, because their business and rental deductions are
intermingled with their personal property (that Gulfstream jet is charged to
the "company," but it seems to do a lot of business around the Riviera.
There was a business convention there every few weeks, you see....).

The percentage of total individual income earned by this group, after these
"adjustments," is about 10% of all US income. But the various deductions
this group gets bring their income and tax rate pretty close to that of the
average worker.

The top 1% pay 38.02% of the taxes.
The top 5% pay 58.72% of the taxes.
That seems sick to me 5% pay almost 60% of the taxes?

Only if you don't look at it closely.

The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes.
The top 25% pay 86% of the taxes.
50% of the tax payers pay 97.3%.
The bottom 50% pay just 2.7% of the tax burden.

Source;
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Mikek
* Most people need to be forced.
I may* be better off because I was forced
to pay SS, ( because I will probably get out more than I paid in)
But those younger than me will not get the same benefit. The system
cannot continue to pay out more than it takes in.
May*, it just depends on how long I live and how good my investments
would have returned if I saved the money rather than pay it to SS.

My own opinion on this:

1) Even though social security is called a "tax", it is more like a
forced savings program -- participants pay in, and then they get an
annuity by the time of retirement, somewhat related to how much they
paid. Additionally, there is a little bit insurance thrown in called
social security disability.

I would, therefore, exclude SS from consideration.

2) Beyond this, much of the income of people with considerable assets,
is in form of dividends and capital gains. The long term capital gains
part is taxed very leniently. Many business ventures or executive
compensation, hedge fund manager compensation and so on, is arranged
so that the gains are least taxable.

In addition to this, there are some tax maneuvers that may be illegal,
but are practiced. Say, if you own a rental apartment, you could
write off repair costs, and throw in some money you spent on repairing
your own house. That is not legal, but hard to prove. It works only if
you have a rental apartment.

This is what Leona Helmsley did, and she would get away with it, if
she was not such an asshole and did not try to stiff her vendors.

The so called "charitable contributions" are also, often, nothing but
a sham. I consider both "church contributions" -- which are basically
fees to belong to a local social club -- and "dirty goodwill clothes
donations", to be a form of tax scams, judging by what I see.

They are not a real form of charity, such as writing a check to a distant
charitable organization like Red Cross or NRA Foundation.

So, it is not surprising that people with income, many assets,
complicated tax situations, etc have a relatively low total tax rate.

Personally, I do not think that it is fair or sensible.

I would like, personally, to belong to the "wealthy" category, but, at
the same time, I recognize the unfairness of this sort of taxation. I
also do not believe the bull**** about how the wealthy will "stop
working" if their taxes are bring in line with the marginal tax rates
on ordinary income.

I would, personally, work just as much (or little) regardless of how
my long term capital gains are taxed. In any case, a long term capital
gain tax is discounted _even if_ it is at the marginal income tax rate,
because it is only effective when securities are sold. I have some
stocks that I own since 1996, and I never paid a dime of taxes on
those.

i

On 2/23/2011 4:46 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?
Remember Social Security and Medicare taxes are currently
capped at the first 106,800$ of annual earned income.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Raising or eliminating this cap is one of the measures being
considered to eliminate the projected SS shortfall.

Just more weaseling? Fudging the numbers to spread your
socialist propaganda?


See what happens when you tell a conservative the truth. He calls you a
socialist. I just wonder what it will take for the right wing, white man
to finally understand what the republican party is out to do? This is
one of the central pillars of the republican party. That is to make sure
that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. Any time the
wealthy can get a reduction in taxes, and which causes a reduction in
services to poor people, it's a victory for the republicans.

The fact that the wealthy are not paying half or more of their income is
something everyone should be aware of. It's the middle class who pay
half or more of everything they make. The system is fundamentally unfair
and inequitable. If you make under 100K a year, by the time you get done
adding up all the taxes you pay, federal, state, local, property, and
the hidden ones, it takes at least half of all your income. The wealthy
are not paying taxes at that rate. Neither are the corporations. A lot
is made about the corporations being taxed at the highest rate in the
world except for Japan. That is true but the "real" rate American
corporations pay is down in the lowest in the world category.

So what's wrong with the rich and the corporations paying low taxes and
the middle and lower classes paying high taxes? If you don't see
anything wrong with that you're obviously a republican.

Hawke

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:55:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
I have not kept up with the way SS benefits
are calculated, but as I remember the benefits are calculated on the
wages.
snip

Some insight on the current status of Social Security

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...3062765.column


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:55:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
I have not kept up with the way SS benefits
are calculated, but as I remember the benefits are calculated on the
wages.
snip

Some insight on the current status of Social Security

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...3062765.column


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)

FWIW, I think that was Dan's comment. I don't want to get involved in the
subject of SS payouts, because there is no hope of illumination or agreement
about something that's purely a matter of one's philosophy about who should
pay for what.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:52:15 -0800, Hawke
wrote:
snip
See what happens when you tell a conservative the truth. He calls you a
socialist. I just wonder what it will take for the right wing, white man
to finally understand what the republican party is out to do? This is
one of the central pillars of the republican party. That is to make sure
that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. Any time the
wealthy can get a reduction in taxes, and which causes a reduction in
services to poor people, it's a victory for the republicans.
snip
===========
The problems seems to go far deeper [and be far more
dangerous, because we can't just "throw the bums out"] than
simply two obsolete/archaic political parties [Republicans
and Democrats] that should have long ago joined the Whigs
and Federalists in the history books, compounded by grossly
excessive numbers of career politicians now in their dotage
in party leadership positions.

John Carroll's assertion and insight that the current
socio-economic problems are mainly mental [as in moonbat
crazy] rather than financial/fiscal seems to be fully
corroborated and verified.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mar...mas-2011-02-22
snip
In fact, behavioral science tells us that bankers and
politicians are lying to us 93% of the time. It’s 13 times
more likely Wall Street is telling you a lie than the truth.
That’s why they win. Why we lose. Because our brains are
preprogrammed to cooperate in their con game. Yes, we
believe most of their lies.
snip

But is it a lie if they believe it when they tell it?


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 2/25/2011 10:46 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
===========
The problems seems to go far deeper [and be far more
dangerous, because we can't just "throw the bums out"] than
simply two obsolete/archaic political parties [Republicans
and Democrats] that should have long ago joined the Whigs
and Federalists in the history books, compounded by grossly
excessive numbers of career politicians now in their dotage
in party leadership positions.

John Carroll's assertion and insight that the current
socio-economic problems are mainly mental [as in moonbat
crazy] rather than financial/fiscal seems to be fully
corroborated and verified.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/mar...mas-2011-02-22
snip
In fact, behavioral science tells us that bankers and
politicians are lying to us 93% of the time. It’s 13 times
more likely Wall Street is telling you a lie than the truth.
That’s why they win. Why we lose. Because our brains are
preprogrammed to cooperate in their con game. Yes, we
believe most of their lies.
snip

But is it a lie if they believe it when they tell it?


Keep in mind that the terms Whig, Federalist, republican, and Democrat,
are nothing more than labels. They're the name that a group of mainly
men who hold similar views on issues chooses. So I doubt that you can
get any changes we need by doing away with republicans or Democrats. If
the people who comprise these parties think and act the same way as
before nothing is going to change. We've been stuck with a bunch of
people who pretty much all think the same in their basic values. That's
why we're not changing, and they are a reflection of the people.

A good example of the foolishness of the people was the failure of the
people of California to pass a referendum legalizing marijuana. Everyone
knows that the way we have handled marijuana for 50 years has been a
failure yet when the people are given the choice of making a real
change, what do they do? They vote to maintain the status quo. If that
is what the public is going to do when given the chance to make a change
why would anyone expect that the representatives of the public would do
any different?

I'm afraid the problem is with the American people and not anywhere
else. We are in a similar position as were the Romans after they reached
the peak of the empire. A noted historian described the Roman people
then as weak and decadent. With that kind of population it's no surprise
they declined. Weak and decadent sounds like a good description of
Americans and that applies both to the public and its representatives.
So we will continue to muddle along with none of the changes we need to
make ever being achieved. At the same time other nations will pass us by
as we wonder what went wrong.

Hawke

wrote in message
...

On Feb 23, 8:55 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Nobody asked. And it had nothing to do with the claims being made.

The subject was Rich claiming that George was distorting the truth about
the
tax rates because of his "socialist agenda." But the fact is that George
was
right; the payroll tax/self-employment tax issue makes the relative tax
rates between the rich guy and the janitor even more lopsided.

--
Ed Huntress



I think that it is part of the discussion. If the janitor paid twice
the percentage of the rich man, but got a million dollars a year in
benefits. And the rich guy paid in more total dollars but got nothing
a year in benefits, I think even you would agree it was relevant.

It is like the woman that agree to have sex for a million dollars but
would not for $10. We are just discussing the price.

Benefits have to be considered when one says the relative rates are
lopsided. Yes they are, but the benefits are also lopsided in the
other direction. The benefits mitigate the fact that the relative
rates are lopsided.

Dan


Everybody really pays at the self employed rate! Employees have it hidden
from them, but that extra money could have been wages, but the employer
figures it in to his employment cost. Which includes any taxes: SS, FUTA,
State unemployment taxes. Workers Comp, medical and any other insurance.
And most people at more than a $1,000,000 income are paying income tax at a
higher rate than a 14%. A million income may be the gross and you have
expenses if you are self employed. Those are deductible. When the upper 5%
pay 57% of all income taxes collected, they are not getting a free ride.
The free ride is the fact that a person making $45k a year does not pay any
Federal Income Tax. He is paying SS and medicare, but he will most likely
collect back on that at a higher rate than he paid in. Especially if you
figured the lower level wage earner had to buy an annuity and future medical
policy with that same money. It is not really a tax when looked at that
way. The problem is the Fed's look at it just like income tax payments they
can use as they like. Not as payments on a future income string payout.
Ponzi is the best description of SS and Medicare these days.

"Califbill" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...

On Feb 23, 8:55 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


Nobody asked. And it had nothing to do with the claims being made.

The subject was Rich claiming that George was distorting the truth about
the
tax rates because of his "socialist agenda." But the fact is that George
was
right; the payroll tax/self-employment tax issue makes the relative tax
rates between the rich guy and the janitor even more lopsided.

--
Ed Huntress



I think that it is part of the discussion. If the janitor paid twice
the percentage of the rich man, but got a million dollars a year in
benefits. And the rich guy paid in more total dollars but got nothing
a year in benefits, I think even you would agree it was relevant.

It would be, if that was the way it is. But it isn't.


It is like the woman that agree to have sex for a million dollars but
would not for $10. We are just discussing the price.

Benefits have to be considered when one says the relative rates are
lopsided. Yes they are, but the benefits are also lopsided in the
other direction. The benefits mitigate the fact that the relative
rates are lopsided.

How are the benefits lopsided in the other direction? They're both entitled
to roughly the same benefits.


Dan


Everybody really pays at the self employed rate! Employees have it hidden
from them, but that extra money could have been wages, but the employer
figures it in to his employment cost. Which includes any taxes: SS, FUTA,
State unemployment taxes.

Right. But to keep it simple, the percentages I showed in my previous
message are what each of them, the janitor and the rich guy, actually pay
out of their gross income.

Workers Comp, medical and any other insurance. And most people at more
than a $1,000,000 income are paying income tax at a higher rate than a
14%.

Again, that was the percentage that the people who live in that hotel pay,
with an average income of $1.17 million.

A million income may be the gross and you have expenses if you are self
employed. Those are deductible.

That was all figured on the basis of adjusted gross income. The deductions
are already taken out.

When the upper 5% pay 57% of all income taxes collected, they are not
getting a free ride.

Nobody said they're getting a free ride, but your numbers do not show that
at all. Can you see why?

The free ride is the fact that a person making $45k a year does not pay
any Federal Income Tax.

The guy in my example has an adjusted gross income of $40k and pays 14%
overall. His marginal tax rate is 25%.

He is paying SS and medicare, but he will most likely collect back on
that at a higher rate than he paid in. Especially if you figured the
lower level wage earner had to buy an annuity and future medical policy
with that same money. It is not really a tax when looked at that way.
The problem is the Fed's look at it just like income tax payments they can
use as they like. Not as payments on a future income string payout. Ponzi
is the best description of SS and Medicare these days.

Tell us what the Treasury would do with excess payroll taxes they collected,
if they wanted to save that money. Specifically, what would they do with it?
Invest it in French treasury bonds?

--
Ed Huntress

Welcome back, Ed.

I knew it would be politics and economics...

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Welcome back, Ed.



Hi, Richard. This is just short stay.

I knew it would be politics and economics...



g It started with annealing aluminum alloys. Then I made the mistake of
looking around...and saw numerous factual misconceptions that needed
correcting.

Speaking of which, what do you think now of Glenn Beck's claim, over a year
and a half ago now, that we were inevitably in for raging inflation, and it
was coming "very soon"?

I said then that he should have read Chapter 2 of his new economics textbook
before making a fool of himself. You were incredulous. d8-)

I don't think he's figured out yet how we can print so much money and not
have inflation.

--
Ed Huntress

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
On 2/23/2011 4:46 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?
Remember Social Security and Medicare taxes are currently
capped at the first 106,800$ of annual earned income.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Raising or eliminating this cap is one of the measures being
considered to eliminate the projected SS shortfall.

Just more weaseling? Fudging the numbers to spread your
socialist propaganda?


See what happens when you tell a conservative the truth. He calls you a
socialist. I just wonder what it will take for the right wing, white man
to finally understand what the republican party is out to do? This is one
of the central pillars of the republican party. That is to make sure that
the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. Any time the wealthy can
get a reduction in taxes, and which causes a reduction in services to poor
people, it's a victory for the republicans.

The fact that the wealthy are not paying half or more of their income is
something everyone should be aware of. It's the middle class who pay half
or more of everything they make. The system is fundamentally unfair and
inequitable. If you make under 100K a year, by the time you get done
adding up all the taxes you pay, federal, state, local, property, and the
hidden ones, it takes at least half of all your income. The wealthy are
not paying taxes at that rate. Neither are the corporations. A lot is made
about the corporations being taxed at the highest rate in the world except
for Japan. That is true but the "real" rate American corporations pay is
down in the lowest in the world category.

So what's wrong with the rich and the corporations paying low taxes and
the middle and lower classes paying high taxes? If you don't see anything
wrong with that you're obviously a republican.

Hawke

We all have the same government protecting our rights, why should a rich
man pay 10x, 100x, or even a 1000x for the same benefit? He shouldn't.
Mikek
Again, the top 5% of taxpayers pay over 58% of the tax burden.
What more do you want? Please don't answer that!
Mikek

On 3/2/2011 5:02 AM, amdx wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 2/23/2011 4:46 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:32:00 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

an average adjusted gross income of $1.17 million and an
effective federal tax rate of just 14%. That, Sullivan
observes in a blog post here, is a lot lower tax rate than
the Helmsley building janitors likely paid, when Social
Security and Medicare payroll tax rates are figured in.

"Likely?"
Got numbers, or are you just weaseling?
Read the article

"When you figure in SS and MC?" Howcome you didn't
"figure in" the SS and MC rate for the "rich" guy?
Remember Social Security and Medicare taxes are currently
capped at the first 106,800$ of annual earned income.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
Raising or eliminating this cap is one of the measures being
considered to eliminate the projected SS shortfall.

Just more weaseling? Fudging the numbers to spread your
socialist propaganda?


See what happens when you tell a conservative the truth. He calls you a
socialist. I just wonder what it will take for the right wing, white man
to finally understand what the republican party is out to do? This is one
of the central pillars of the republican party. That is to make sure that
the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes. Any time the wealthy can
get a reduction in taxes, and which causes a reduction in services to poor
people, it's a victory for the republicans.

The fact that the wealthy are not paying half or more of their income is
something everyone should be aware of. It's the middle class who pay half
or more of everything they make. The system is fundamentally unfair and
inequitable. If you make under 100K a year, by the time you get done
adding up all the taxes you pay, federal, state, local, property, and the
hidden ones, it takes at least half of all your income. The wealthy are
not paying taxes at that rate. Neither are the corporations. A lot is made
about the corporations being taxed at the highest rate in the world except
for Japan. That is true but the "real" rate American corporations pay is
down in the lowest in the world category.

So what's wrong with the rich and the corporations paying low taxes and
the middle and lower classes paying high taxes? If you don't see anything
wrong with that you're obviously a republican.

Hawke

We all have the same government protecting our rights, why should a rich
man pay 10x, 100x, or even a 1000x for the same benefit? He shouldn't.
Mikek
Again, the top 5% of taxpayers pay over 58% of the tax burden.
What more do you want? Please don't answer that!
Mikek




Hedge fund managers that make a billion a year ought to be paying 90%.
And we don't all get the same benefits or burdens. It's all unequal,
which is why the tax code should be used to spread the wealth for the
good of the country not just the lucky few. Of which you're not likely
one of. Question for you. Is it just envy that makes you defend a group
you will never belong to?

Hawke