Fair Share of Taxes?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Well the first thing we need to do is quit all this class warfare. There is a gap between people paid a lot and those who are not paid as much. Well duh.

There actually is a difference between the wealthy and the poor. And what is funny is that the differences are put out for everyone to see, but instead of following the advice, many are just complaining about how much they have.

This is called being jealous.

Why should the brain surgeon make more then the guy sweeping the floor? Probably because the brain surgeon spent years developing a skill that is marketable. Then again there are people who started cleaning floors, and now make a lot more then that brain surgeon.

Locally we had a guy that started in a car wash, and eventually bought the car wash and a car dealership also. There are people who started working at McDonald’s, and ended up owning one or more.

The difference? Focus and delayed gratification. About 90% of the wealthy are first generation rich, meaning they earned it themselves. They did not inherit it, or get it as a gift.

The rich also work 60 - 80 hours a week, while the average person works less then 40.

I know a person who has 2 car payments equaling over a grand a month in payments. If that was put into a mutual fund instead, that would be worth a million in just over 20 years.

Most people are not wealthy because they do not want to do what the wealthy have done. They do not want to delay gratification, they want it now, and that credit card will get it now. No wait. They will just be paying for it 10 years after �??it�?? no longer exists. Some people are still paying for a meal they had last millennium.

Just watch this guys new show tonight:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/our-team/personalities/dave-ramsey.html [/quote]

Wait a minute. Did you just say future generations of Americans will be paying for Bush’s tax cuts?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Wait a minute. Did you just say future generations of Americans will be paying for Bush’s tax cuts?[/quote]

No, but they’ll be paying for the prescription drug benefit and the lack of a fix for social security and medicare…

It actually has risen if you count the value of benefits – particularly health-care benefits – as part of income.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/01/05/inequality-and-health-benefits/

The other “problem” is that a lot of the growth in income has been driven by education-intensive and technical-intensive industries – and those at the bottom don’t benefit from that nearly as much.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I work for somebody. [/quote]

That poor bastard!! Has to do his own work and then help you sweep and mop up. How fucking sad…

While you guys are raving about different tax systems, guess where your money is going?

i - President George W. Bush asked Congress for $189.3 billion on Monday to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for another year.

For comparison, here are the amounts the government has spent on other programs, along with the estimated costs of plans put forward recently.

– The U.S. government allocated $45.3 billion in supplemental funding to help victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Insurance companies are estimated to have paid another $45 billion in damages related to Katrina.

– The United States is building a fence along its border with Mexico in an effort to halt illegal immigration. The government has not offered detailed cost projections, but estimates have ranged from $2.2 billion for construction alone to $49 billion for construction and maintenance for 25 years.

– Bush recently vetoed a bill to expand a popular health care program for low-income children that would have cost $40 billion over 10 years, an average of $4 billion per year.

– Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination, recently proposed a health plan that would require all Americans to have insurance. The cost was estimated at $110 billion per year.

(Sources: Reuters, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office)[/i]

heres a small story you might get something from
(sourced from an aust. investment forum). Seems relevant to the OP’s post.

You may have heard calls from across Australia: “It’s just a tax cut for the rich!”, and it is accepted as fact.

But what does that really mean?

The following explanation may help.

Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner.
The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the
way we pay our taxes, and it went like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.

  • The fifth paid $1.

  • The sixth $3.

  • The seventh $7.

  • The eighth $12.

  • The ninth $18.

  • The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.

All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
said: “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to reduce the
cost
of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? They realised that $20 divided by
six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggested reducing each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:

  • The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100% saving).

  • The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

  • The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

  • The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

  • The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

  • The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for

free, as now did the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!”

“That’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between all of them to meet even half of
the bill! That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

[quote]lixy wrote:
While you guys are raving about different tax systems, guess where your money is going?

i - President George W. Bush asked Congress for $189.3 billion on Monday to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for another year.

For comparison, here are the amounts the government has spent on other programs, along with the estimated costs of plans put forward recently.

– The U.S. government allocated $45.3 billion in supplemental funding to help victims of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. Insurance companies are estimated to have paid another $45 billion in damages related to Katrina.

– The United States is building a fence along its border with Mexico in an effort to halt illegal immigration. The government has not offered detailed cost projections, but estimates have ranged from $2.2 billion for construction alone to $49 billion for construction and maintenance for 25 years.

– Bush recently vetoed a bill to expand a popular health care program for low-income children that would have cost $40 billion over 10 years, an average of $4 billion per year.

– Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination, recently proposed a health plan that would require all Americans to have insurance. The cost was estimated at $110 billion per year.

(Sources: Reuters, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office)[/i]

FACTBOX: Bush wants more war funds | Reuters [/quote]

In 1966, we spent about 43% of the federal budget on the military. We now spend about 20%. Most of the shift has been to help the poor and aged, and for aid to education.

Thanks to your Muslim brothers, we’ll probably begin a slow shift back to a war footing. Eventually, if we get back to 43%, you can kiss the ME goodbye as it will mostly be a smoking ruin, except for the oil fields.

“I’m afraid all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
— General Yamamoto, just after Pearl Harbor

If your Muslim brothers had one brain between the whole lot of them, they’d shut up, sell oil, and try to industrialize. Instead, they wave a red flag (nukes) in front of our faces and threaten to destroy our Israeli ally. “Uhhh…yeah…that’s a good plan ya got there…yeah…good luck with that…uh…yeah…”

Fucking idiots.

[quote]ShaunW wrote:

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between all of them to meet even half of
the bill! That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

[/quote]

Who is John Galt?

“In the world of Atlas Shrugged, society stagnated when independent productive achievers began to be socially demonized and even punished for their accomplishments, even though society had been far more healthy and prosperous by allowing, encouraging and rewarding self-reliance and individual achievement. Independence and personal happiness flourished to the extent that people were free, and achievement was rewarded to the extent that individual ownership of private property was strictly respected. The hero, John Galt, lives a life of laissez-faire capitalism as the only way to live consistent with his beliefs.”

We talked a little about the Flat tax in my Federal Tax law class. It basically benefits the rich and hurts the poor. Wealthier people pay a higher marginal tax rate, and a flat tax would benefit them tremendously. In contrast, people making “average” salary don’t really pay much in federal income tax at all…kinda like this study points out.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Wait a minute. Did you just say future generations of Americans will be paying for Bush’s tax cuts?

No, but they’ll be paying for the prescription drug benefit and the lack of a fix for social security and medicare…[/quote]

Exactly.

An excellent paper showing that the median wage has grown about 28% over the past 30 years.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/07-09/wages.cfm

[quote]ShaunW wrote:
heres a small story you might get something from
(sourced from an aust. investment forum). Seems relevant to the OP’s post.

You may have heard calls from across Australia: “It’s just a tax cut for the rich!”, and it is accepted as fact.

But what does that really mean?

The following explanation may help.

Suppose that every night, 10 men go out for dinner.
The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the
way we pay our taxes, and it went like this:

  • The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.

  • The fifth paid $1.

  • The sixth $3.

  • The seventh $7.

  • The eighth $12.

  • The ninth $18.

  • The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.

All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner
said: “Since you are all such good customers, I’m going to reduce the
cost
of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? They realised that $20 divided by
six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. The restaurateur suggested reducing each man’s bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:

  • The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100% saving).

  • The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

  • The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

  • The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

  • The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

  • The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for

free, as now did the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10!”

“That’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn’t have enough money between all of them to meet even half of
the bill! That, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

[/quote]

Like most stories, this never really happens.

This is real though: I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett | Business | The Guardian

"Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the “Sage of Omaha”, has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: “The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It’s dramatic; I don’t think it’s appreciated and I think it should be addressed.”

During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.
“There wasn’t anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don’t have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do,” he said."

And that my friends, is the truth they don’t want you to know.

Flat tax? BRING IT ON ! ! !

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Like most stories, this never really happens.

This is real though: I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett | Business | The Guardian

"Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the “Sage of Omaha”, has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: “The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It’s dramatic; I don’t think it’s appreciated and I think it should be addressed.”

During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.
“There wasn’t anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don’t have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do,” he said."

And that my friends, is the truth they don’t want you to know.

Flat tax? BRING IT ON ! ! ![/quote]

This is exactly why I advocated a flat tax in an earlier post. This is the problem with having capital gains separate from income. Social Security and Medicare also cause tax payers in lower brackets to pay higher effective rates. Phase out social security and medicare and put a single flat tax on earnings of any kind. It’s really pretty simple. If somebody comes up with a plan for a good consumption tax I would also be for it. All I want is something that is fair too all. The current system definitely favors the poor and hurts the rich, but it also favors the super rich, such as Buffet.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Like most stories, this never really happens.

This is real though: I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett | Business | The Guardian

"Warren Buffett, the famous investor known as the “Sage of Omaha”, has complained that he pays a lower rate of tax than any of his staff - including his receptionist. Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52bn (£25bn), said: “The taxation system has tilted towards the rich and away from the middle class in the last 10 years. It’s dramatic; I don’t think it’s appreciated and I think it should be addressed.”

During an interview with NBC television, Mr Buffett brandished an informal survey of 15 of his 18 office staff at his Berkshire Hathaway empire. The billionaire said he was paying 17.7% payroll and income tax, compared with an average in the office of 32.9%.
“There wasn’t anyone in the office, from the receptionist up, who paid as low a tax rate and I have no tax planning; I don’t have an accountant or use tax shelters. I just follow what the US Congress tells me to do,” he said."

And that my friends, is the truth they don’t want you to know.

Flat tax? BRING IT ON ! ! ![/quote]

Is he counting his capital gains as income? Very probably.

Income from wages is taxed too highly.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Is he counting his capital gains as income? Very probably.

Income from wages is taxed too highly.[/quote]

Yes, he is. His salary is actually only $100,000. That 15% capital gains tax keeps his effective rate pretty low.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Is he counting his capital gains as income? Very probably.

Income from wages is taxed too highly.

tedro wrote:
Yes, he is. His salary is actually only $100,000. That 15% capital gains tax keeps his effective rate pretty low.[/quote]

15% and no payroll withholding for social security or medicare either… Which is how regular income should be treated as well…

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Is he counting his capital gains as income? Very probably.

Income from wages is taxed too highly.[/quote]

Have you ever asked yourself the question why income from capital is taxed so much lower than any other income?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Is he counting his capital gains as income? Very probably.

Income from wages is taxed too highly.

Have you ever asked yourself the question why income from capital is taxed so much lower than any other income?[/quote]

That is actually pretty simple.

You can only rob people that cannot defend themselves.

Money can be transferred in a heartbeat and there are a lot of legal structures that make it perfectly legal.

The middle class cannot flee because they are their money making assets.

The “rich” do not have to bribe anyone.

Their money just leaves.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
An excellent paper showing that the median wage has grown about 28% over the past 30 years.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/07-09/wages.cfm [/quote]

Awesome! except for the fact that they neglected to mention that the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen by 1100% in the same time.

I think we should have a sales tax. And eliminate all other taxes. With some sort of credits available for lower income brackets to alleviate a higher percentage of their earnings going towards taxes.

This would help soften problems with illegal aliens skirting taxes, and help alleviate some of the drain they have on certain parts of the economy.

It would encourage personal savings, because if you save the money you wont be taxed on interest accrued. This would also help encourage people to not be on social security as much since they would be able to save much more money over a lifetime of work than the government could provide.

I’m sure there are negatives in my theory, but I think they can be worked out. The problem is our government spending is too high and our taxes are too high, but apparently not high enough to cover the costs. We need to cut both in order to get anywhere.