I wish I could pay my fair share; not 43.6%.

Tell me about it! We are considered " rich " you know. I don't mind paying my fair share, but 43% is not a fair share. I am seriously considering cutting down my work hours this tax year since it is not worth working hard anymore

please do. Ill be happy to take your job

Are you qualified?

100 million in triple tax free... that's rich. But the slub living in NYC making $400,000 is one dowwn sizing away from the welfare rolls.

Probably not, but there are plenty of people / competitors that are waiting for the opportunity.

"But the slub living in NYC making $400,000 is one dowwn sizing away from the welfare rolls."
... exactly, so he should really be glad that safety net programs exist for all, his family included.

"43% is not a fair share"
... on last chunk of dollars earned. Net effective will be much much less. So smile and pay up ... and smile some more.

When is 2% of the population earning 35% of the income a fair share?

>When is 2% of the population earning 35% of the income a fair share?

What percentage would you like to regulate it to?

julia, when did you get out?? feeling better??

"When is 2% of the population earning 35% of the income a fair share?"

Your right, all the top earners should just stop working each year when they think they have earned enough. It is not a zero sum game.

I do pay the top rate. Just wish that ass hole in the White House would say thank you! Since 1% of the earners pay 38% of all income taxes, shouldn't they be pleased instead of derogatory? And by the way, what is the goal? Why won't anybody ask that question?

Currently, 48% of the population pays 3% of all taxes.

So is the goal to have 1% to pay 50%, I would like to hear the answer to that question. "Not paying their fair share" and "tax cuts for the rich" and the new 2 greatest lies ever told. At least the previous 2 could be dealt with using mouthwash!

shared sacrifice .....Those words make me sick.

Look, Wtushy is back!

patient,

what is your goal? to shift your tax burden onto poor struggling people so that you can have more cash lying around with which to pamper yourself? charming to call the president of the united states an asshole. on top of which, he hasn't raised your taxes! so what exactly is your beef with him?

>to shift your tax burden

Clever way to phrase the question. Perhaps the tax burden isn't patient's to begin with. So patient isn't shifting any tax burden.

happyrenter, why are you trying to shift your guilt onto patient?

huntersburg, incredibly enough we live in a democracy. we don't each get to decide what our "fair share" of the tax burden should be. so whether he likes it or not, patient's tax burden is his tax burden. and if he wants to pay less, someone else has to pay more.

Putting aside that government spending can and should be reduced substantially so reducing taxing on one person doesn't and shouldn't mean that someone else pays more,
you are now saying that a "tax burden" is fungible, in which case, once it's shifted to "someone else", it's not patient's tax burden that is shifting. Can you explain your logic?

Thanks for the input, Buyerbuyer.

This is the thread where people who dont have the wherewithall to make money think that people who do should pay a higher percentage? Yea I like this thread. not.

Let's demotivate the motivated, that will get things rolling!

Happy

Charming....the claim of being an asshole is pretty accurate, more importantly, nobody has denied it!

Over the last 23 years the tax base has narrowed every year, the burden continues to shift to upper earners. It is not even arguable that this is healthy for the existence of democracy. I am not an extremist, conservative or liberal. Merely part of the unrepresented independents. I believe in a progressive tax code, with ALL participating. Remember, the problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. That is the glide path that we are on and that the White house wants to accelerate.

happyrenter loves spewing more liberal myths. 47% of U.S. households pay no federal income tax. The 40th to 60th percentile of income earners pay an average of 3% of their income in federal income taxes. 3%.

To happy renter, someone in the 60th percentile is "poor" and "struggling".

happyrenter sounds like another bitter liberal who can't admit to his own inadequacies.

LICcomm, please provide us with a financial profile of the very wealthiest among the 47% of U.S. households who pay no Federal income tax. I want to know whether that's appropriate or not. Be sure to include how much they pay in regressive sales taxes as a percentage of their income.

I have no issue with some bottom percentage not paying federal taxes. Maybe even that should be 47% of the population. (And yes, sales tax is regressive).

But if you aren't paying taxes, you really have no case for telling other people to pay more taxes.

As I said a thosuand times already, 75% of those who don't pay federal income tax makes LESS than $20,000 a year. Are these the people you want to tax?

>makes LESS than $20,000 a year

No, but I don't think they should expect others to may more tax.

Why are you bitching if you are making good $? Would you rather make $25k a year and pay barely any taxes or where you are now? Is the tax system fair? Probably not but who said it has to be? No matter who takes over the White House, taxes will continued to be high.

>Would you rather make $25k a year and pay barely any taxes or where you are now?

The latter.

Now what's your point?

"No, but I don't think they should expect others to may more tax."

Why not? Why not tax the rich more when they are the ones benefiting from everything? Who do you think benefits from wars? Rich people. Who benefits from ObamaCare? Rich people. Who benefited from TARP? Rich people.

Rich peopel also got rich by paying those paying less than $20,000 a year.

What about the corporations. Why are they not paying taxes?

All corporate tax loopholes should be closed immediately. But the corporate tax rate shold not be lowered.

'To happy renter, someone in the 60th percentile is "poor" and "struggling".'

Well, according to a lot of people on this board, people earning $400K are poor and struggling, so someone that's earning ~$50K must be starving to death.

>What about the corporations. Why are they not paying taxes?

Yes they are, they are owned by shareholders who are paying taxes.

>Rich peopel also got rich by paying those paying less than $20,000 a year.

Who exactly are thes people working full time that earn less than $20k / year? Do you know them? Because my calculation is that they earn $10 / hour in which case I wnder why they aren't getting a second job or working harder to move up a little. Who Socialist are the $20K people?

Funny. Top rate of 91% under Eisenhower. I don't remember reading about anyone calling him a Socialist. Down to 39% under Bill Clinton, and from what I remember, everyone was doing pretty well back then. The middle class was strong and employed, and the rich were still pretty rich. Of course, some would say that Clinton was the beneficiary of Reagan's policies, and W. was stuck with Clinton's aftermath. A very convenient time-line for sure. My parents taught me that it was good to pay lots of taxes...it meant you were doing well. Personally, I think it's wrong to say earning 250K in NYC is the same as earning 250k in Paducah, KY, but the notion that taxes can never go up...for anyone...is just silly. If that's the case, why have taxes at all? Is the idea that the wealthy are entitled to unlimited goods, services, healthcare and infrastructure, and everyone else can fend for themselves? Is the only thing the less privileged are entitled to the false dream that anyone can be anything they want to be in America? You listen to these Tea Party imbeciles regurgitate talking points that they clearly have no understanding of while barely being challenged by the media. You see the polls that say a riculous number of Americans don't believe the president was born here. You watch a Republican presidential debate when most of the participants proudly proclaim that they don't believe in evolution. They don't believe in climate change either, but that was thunder-hail in New York City a few weeks ago, right? Sorry to get off-topic, but this country is screwed.

If someone is earning $7.25 an hour full time, they are making less than $20k.

>If someone is earning $7.25 an hour full time, they are making less than $20k.

Who?, give me an example of this person and how they got there.

>Is the idea that the wealthy are entitled to unlimited goods, services, healthcare and infrastructure, and everyone else can fend for themselves?
Who said that?

> You listen to these Tea Party imbeciles regurgitate talking points
So all discussions of fair taxes = imbeciles regurgitating talking points?

I love that the same people who think Armaggedon will result from raising the minimum wage a few cents are also the ones who like to pretend that nobody earns as little as the minimum wage.

Who is earning this minimum wage Alan?

According to Socialist, 47% of people pay no federal taxes, and of that 47%, 75% earn less than $20k/year. So about 35% of Americans make less than $20k / year. Seems like a lot, so who are they?

Huntersburg once again shines a spotlight on why debate with this crowd is an exercise in futility. The fact the nobody comes out and explicitly says it, does not mean that it's not the inevitable result of the policies they are advocating, right? To spell it out for you, the wealthy will never be deprived of anything because they can afford to pay for whatever they want or need. To all those who can't....tough noogies. And no, a rational discussion over fair taxes, or any other issue, is welcome. People ignoring facts to impose their ideology is dangerous. Ignoring the difference between those two sentences = Huntersburg.

Your prior post was drivel, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. But now you've confirmed, you speak with anger but no sense whatsoever.

"Who?, give me an example of this person and how they got there."

Fast food workers. Big box store workers.

Do what Louise Ehrenreich did in Nickeled and Dimed: ditch your resume, hit the boonies, and see what it gets you per hour. There're lots of those people, as the median weekly full-time wage is only $750.

Or go in the other direction. Go out and try to double your income, so you can pay your taxes without whining, and let us know how it goes. If it's so easy, prove it.

That 50% of workers making less than $750 are probably none too bright, may be morally defective, may be reaping their just desserts, and so on, but squeezing more tax out of them wouldn't get us very far.

Huntersburg once again confirming his expertise in employing the "Na Na Na Na, I can't hear you" technique. Thanks for making my point for me.

"reaping their just desserts"? No, they're in the kitchen of every restaurant, prepping, making, and plating your [the collective your, not NWT's] dessert, and the other courses too. Stocking shelves at your local Piggly Wiggly. Et cetera.

>ditch your resume
No thanks, worked too hard to do that.

>There're lots of those people, as the median weekly full-time wage is only $750.
Which happens to be near $40k/ year.
Where's the overtime? 2nd job? Taking on extra responsibility? Trying to do better to get more? Did they study hard in school?

>That 50% of workers making less than $750 are probably none too bright, may be morally defective, may be reaping their just desserts, and so on, but squeezing more tax out of them wouldn't get us very far.
Which I didn't advocate. I merely said they have no basis to be asking others to pay more.

If they shouldn't pay more, and if we shouldn't pay more, then where's the money going to come from? Somebody's got to pay for us swaggering around as if we weren't a debtor nation. Trillions don't come easy, and they've already been spent, so cutting future spending won't be enough. Neither will squeezing blood from the hoi-polloi stone.

"If they shouldn't pay more, and if we shouldn't pay more, then where's the money going to come from?"

I don't know. The tooth fairy?

What a highly relevant article:

New York’s Nassau County Going Broke as No One Wants to Share Fiscal Pain

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-14/new-york-s-nassau-county-going-broke-as-no-one-wants-to-share-fiscal-pain.html

Great article on tax breaks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17TopDown-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

guess who benefits? here's a hint: not poor people.

>then where's the money going to come from?"

Cut. Cut spending. Cut entitements. Keep the safety net for the poor. Everyone else, if you paid too little into social security, you get a choice - keep working, or reduce your annual payments. Cut the DOE. Cut agricuture subsidies. Italy should be responsible for Libya. If you smoked in the past 10 years, your medicare age is raised. If you are poorand have more than 3 kids, we'll cover their food and healthcare (and schooling) but not yours. CUNY - nope - the better students will be covered by private universities, and the average students had free education until high school, we don't need to pay for mediocre colleges and remedial math an English. Free recurring dialysis - we should draw the line and look if you contributed to your own problems. Raise gasoline taxes to account for the environmental costs and the cost of wars.

>guess who benefits? here's a hint: not poor people.

No shit, idiot. Of course poor people don't benefit from tax cuts if they aren't paying the taxes. No one said that poor people benefit from tax cuts.

Unless lower taxes = higher growth. But everyone ignores the detriment of higher taxes and higher government spending to the economy.

"of course poor people don't benefit from tax cuts if they aren't paying taxes"

sigh. poor people do pay taxes.

Refundable tax credits are ok for poor people. its tax exampltions that help the wealthiest most.

50% of your fellow Americans pay ZERO dollars in federal income tax. They pay nothing for the functioning of their country. Quite disgraceful.

"Cut. Cut spending."

Cut what spending? Be specific. Name programs. How should we cut entitlements? Should we give old people a voucher instead of Medicare?

If you raise gas taxes, what do you think happens to the cost of goods you buy? What do you think will happen to food prices? High food prices were a major cause of the Egypt riots....

It's interesting that the aveage joe understands increased taxes, but doesn't understand policies that destroy his savings or the purchasing power of his salary. It's also interesting that the average person doesn't get that as a result of Q.E. & Q.E.2 the duration of U.S. gov't debt has dramatically shortened. What will happen to the U.S. deficit after interest rates rise 200 bps or more?

Ok. here's a simple way to collect more taxes. End the home owner tax deduction, which just results in the wealthy gaming he deduction against tax free income in the muni-bond market. Add to that lower income brackets which can't effectively benefit anyway or renters which don't get any deduction.

Shouldn't we wait until the housing market recovers befoere getting rid of the mortage deduction? Now is too late to dump it. We should have done it when prices were rising.

Hair of the dog that bit you remedy?

>Cut what spending? Be specific. Name programs. How should we cut entitlements? Should we give old people a voucher instead of Medicare?

Didn't I list several things?

>High food prices were a major cause of the Egypt riots....

Now we are Egypt, brilliant.

Cutting spending to NATO and eliminating military programs the armed service does not want is a start.
Raising the retirement age is another necessary step
Making civil workers contribute more to their pensions another step
Ending Ethanol subsidies.
Instead of paying people to buy chevy volts why not tax gasoline. Same end result.
Ending home owner tax deduction.
Flat tax for corporations so G.E. IBM, Pfeizer & JNJ start paying taxes

There are tons of good ideas.
Of course anyone impacted would shoot down those ideas that hurt their interests...

Your proposals don't come anywhere close to balancing the budget.

Letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire would pretty much wipe out the deficit. Note, I said all, not just for upper income brackets. Or as a compromise, I would allow some of them to remain in place, but I would lower the threshold from $250,000 to $125,000.

We can also end 25 bps paid on bank deposits kept at the Fed.
Hey, it's a start and more than what the Democrats or anyone else is offering.
Most subsidies make no sense(corporate or individual) and only add to the deficit.

Our leaders need to adopt more of a PAUG mentality(pay as you go), otherwise the the Euro exchange rate will be 1.60 a year from now.. How embarrassing is that, considering the basket case the Euro is assumed to be..

ower the threshold from $250,000 to $125,000.

Or you can flat tax it and no play favorites with he economic group you mos like...

If your serious about balancing the budget, this is what you do:

* Return to Clinton tax rates fror individuals making over $125k, couples making over $150k
* Cut defense spending 25%
* Eliminate No Child Left Behind
* Eliminate National Endowment for the Arts
* Eliminate all subsidies, with the mortage interest deduction eliminated once housing recovers
* Close all tax loopholes
* Reduce healthcare costs through single payer

The last one is the most imporant. You can't balance the budget unless you control healthcare costs. ObamaCare, as well as the current Republican proposals like tort reform, all fail to do this.

" Cut defense spending 25%
* Eliminate No Child Left Behind
* Eliminate National Endowment for the Arts
* Eliminate all subsidies, with the mortage interest deduction eliminated once housing recovers
* Close all tax loopholes "

Agreed. Also phase out social security and medicare . but have a very strong safety net for the poor and for people incapable of taking care of themselves.

>>Free recurring dialysis - we should draw the line and look if you contributed to your own problems.

That sounds an awful lot like a death panel to me....

Or personal responsibility. Or realizing that we can't pay to keep cronically sick people forever.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit Julia. It's entirely self funded. Cutting it will not save a single penny.

"With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program."

--President Franklin D. Roosevelt

Why do you like death panels so much huntersburg? I'm surprised you support them, ebcause if we really had them, half the Tea Party would be euthanized tomorrow.

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit Julia. It's entirely self funded. Cutting it will not save a single penny.

--
Mantra repeated by Democrats and dead wrong. Ignores the present value of the liabilities.

So then raise the cap on the payroll tax. Polls show that as being the most popular option, NOT raising the retirement age or cutting benefits.

* Reduce healthcare costs through single payer
Actually this is a key point, Until the consumer bears more of the cost of insurance, we'll continue to have run-away health care costs. The Swiss model is the best I've seen. Can't be a fluke that typically uninsured medical costs have gone up far less than those that are typically insured(e.g. plastic surgery, lasik , etc)

>Why do you like death panels so much huntersburg? I'm surprised you support them, ebcause if we really had them, half the Tea Party would be euthanized tomorrow.

Does this mean fewer demands on my family's hard earned dollars to support the irresponsible and entitled?

The Swiss system has an individual mandate. And it prohibits insurance compnaies from making a profit. And it includes govt. subsidies for poor people. Sounds like ObamaCare to me. Are you endorsing ObamaCare?

"Social Security does not contribute to the deficit Julia. It's entirely self funded. Cutting it will not save a single penny.""So then raise the cap on the payroll tax. Polls show that as being the most popular option, NOT raising the retirement age or cutting benefits"

If ss is self funded, why rise the cap?

Why raise the cap?

I'm endorsing a dual insurance system. A basic system that is utility in nature that provides a basic agreed upon safety net. And for the privileged of being allowed to offer such a policy the insurance companies would be allowed to offer free-market policies that provide for higher end coverage.

Because it can only pay 100% of benefits until 2037.

Phase it out. Let the young decide if they want tro participate.

Employer linked health insurance is bad for society. Those not lucky enough to work for a large company are at a competitive disadvantage. Should all be done at the individual level(with a level playing field).

Huntersburg sounding very angry....and "cronically" wrong.

Ive always found that theres a pretty strong positive correlation between wealth and cheapness.

Millionaire Next door...

Thanks for pointing out my spelling IamSpartacus. Interestingly, I haven't seen MidtownerVirgin posting much recently.

people making 20,000 or less also get free food, low income housing, free medical, and get to send their kids to college for free with some extra spending money. who pays for that? probably the rich people who had to pay for their education had to work countless hours neglicting family to climb the corporate ladder. no pitty necessary but to say that all millionaires, which now doesn't actually mean a million but those who earn a 1/4 of a million, need to pay more because the benefits low income people receive isn't enought doesn't seem fare. use the programs that are available ot the low income and advance yourself and you too can be rich. by the way if everyone was taxed 30% of their income above say $50k per year, wouldn't the higher income earners be paying more? hmm 30% x $50, vs 30% x $250K
saying the rich should pay more can be compared to the student who studies hard for a test all night and gets an A, the other student partied all night came into class late and failed the test. the teacher decided to "sprea the wealth" and gave the A student a C+, wow, now that's paying your fair share!

Perhaps the minimum wage needs to be raised. This way we will have less poor people. It should be no less than $12 an hour.

What happens to the people who are only worth $10 an hour? No work?

Everyone should pay taxes. There is no reason to have anyone not paying taxes unless they are earning 0. It doesn't matter if someone is only paying 5% of their income, everyone should pay into the system. If people are going to expect the "rich" to pay more, then the "poor" can pay some. We are all in this together. Besides, there is something to be said about making some sort of contribution to the services received.

Everyone does.

Income taxes.

"We are all in this together."

Are we really? How many rich people have to deal with chronic unemployment, foreclosure, and living check to check? Rich peopel can always find a new job easily. Poor people can't.