Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by CorvusCamenarum, Sep 20, 2011.
I'm savagely shocked no one here has picked up on this yet. Well, not really.
If you really want to go ahead and tax the rich well, then heavily tax those reach CEOs with $1/year salaries but with heavy stock options, cash 'bonuses' and other investments through the company they run that are taxed at a much lower rate.
I doubt Eric Schmidt or Steve Jobs took $1/year as payment and nothing else. Private plane gotta be paid somehow.
My apologies for not being so quick on the draw.
Though, there are some comparisons that seem odd:
It's an apples to oranges comparison that the reporter doesn't make clear.
Of course, there's also this:
Also, the next time a conservative goes on and on about the 'liberal' media, it's worth noting that the Associated Press, the NYTimes, and CSMonitor to name but a few have all attempted to wrangle this story using data from the IRS, CBO, etc.
Is the secretary paying more taxes than buffet even tho she has a lower tax rate?
If so then all it should take is to start taking out the exemptions, credits and deduction at all levels, so everyone does indeed pay taxes?
It really is a clusterf*ck, the tax code here isn't the mess yours seem to be and we still have ppl evading and using funny accounting, so much so that one of the presidential candidates is advocating a single tax to replace income and VAT not sure if he'll even be able to do it if he even gets elected tho...
And in the end isn't the problem the big corporations that do everything in their power to get out of paying taxes? if i recall correctly apple actually reports its entire earnings in the US or something like that and pays full taxes in the US even for sales outside of it? and from what i read that time it seems to be one of the few actually doing that.
Oh yeah i actually saw some dude in CNN last night that was complaining how the top 1% pays 40% of the income tax, but isn't that top 1% also making or at least have wealth near 40% of the total as well? in the end they are paying their "fair" share if so.
IMHO everyone should pay the same % of income that IS fair, but ppl don't want fair
Quite simply, the figures are impossible.
In the first figure for million+ earners, the think tank uses all taxes, including payroll taxes like FICA to arrive at 29.1%.
However, for the $20-30k range, the 5.7% figure is impossible because FICA would total 7.65% of income at that level.
If the premise is that sub $30k earners are going to participate in the underground economy for a substantial portion of their income, then was a similar allowance made for those million+ earners who can move money offshore, defer their earnings, etc?
Are we also expected to believe that a household that earns $75k can knock down their taxable income down by $33,000 without adversely affecting their quality of life?
Maybe instead of using a biased source for the figures, we should stick to sources that have no dog in the fight.
Attn: Robber Barons of the 21st Century
Don't worry! Cap'n Perry and the Lost Taxes Rangers will surely save the day!
Warren Buffet's companies owe millions in back taxes for over a decade......
No Apple doesn't do that. They were one of the companies begging congress to lower taxes so they could bring the money back to the US without being taxed.
Maximum rate of taxes on capital gains = 15%
So, anyone who makes capital gains is paying a lower percentage of that income in taxes than anyone but the lowest earners.
I don't see how that is in any way complicated. Just treat all income as ordinary income, eliminate deductions for anyone who has an AGI over X, and eliminate the "death tax." (It's ordinary income too).
I watched so many movies of them as a kid!
My fav is the one with them bringing up a piano up the stairs!
Not sure about stock options and all that, but every bonus or dollar over overtime I've ever made has been taxed at *above* the normal rate. Until April, anyway, when after depriving me of the time value of my money, the government so graciously gives some of it back.
It seems perfectly clear to me; comparing federal tax burdens across income brackets. Or would you have felt better had he said "Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes."?
No, she isn't paying more, but Buffett's big thing right now is touting how her marginal tax rate is more than his, so the government should tax people like him more, which the data shows is already going on. Like I said in the other thread where this came up, if he really believes what he's saying then he should pony up and make a big show of cutting a check and lead by example.
Are you factoring in not only deductions, but credits as well to arrive as a net tax burden? Deductions can never get you a check, they just take off of AGI. Credits can actually push you into a negative tax, which would offset what we pay into FICA.
The numbers I heard on the radio yesterday were closer to a billion.
Just going to point out that not tax at a higher rate. It is require by law for them to collect it at I believe 25%. Also you need to remember overtime tax rate is going to come out of your top tax bracket you are in so it will appear out of line with the others.
Say your salary gets you into the 25% tax bracket. Any over time and bonuses are going to be tax at the 25% tax bracket because your base salary puts you in there and that money is going to come straight from that point.
It is going to appear out of line because of both the law requiring them to collect at the higher rate plus it is going on top of a salary that push you into your highest tax bracket. If it is 25% then all over time is going to come from that point.
Also your original post has already been shown that it has tons of miss information in it and it is not comparing Apples to Apples.
I thought capital gains taxes are 20% if you've held them less than one year.
I think the Obama quite is referring to the fact that Buffet pays less tax than his secretary, and Obama is simply trying to close the loophole. Not that he wants billionaires to pay 50% in tax, where everyone else pays 35%... just that he wants billionaires (and millionares) to actually pay their 35%.
That's why no one's picking up on it. It's not a story.
How many tax credits is a household making less than $30k really going to be able to take advantage of?
Just about the only one I can think of is the child tax credit, which IIRC is a maximum of $1,000 per dependent child.
The mean number of children under the age of 18 per household is below 2 these days. If we assume a $30k household with 2 dependents, that gives us $2000 in tax credits.
That would essentially have to be the typical tax credit given to make the 5.7% figure believable. However, with the number of children in poor households who have parents with partial custody, the number of sub-$30k households which are illegal immigrants (and who hence pay FICA but do not file a return), and the number of sub-$30k workers who are frequently independent contractors who pay both parts of FICA make the assumption that the average sub-$30k is able to shave such a substantial chunk off of their taxes is suspect.
Those are the loops and problems.
This is what Obama is trying to do and stating in the article.
Thought I would put the 2 important posts together to make it easier for everyone to understand whats going on.
Well, yes because the meaning of these sentences changes.
One of the biggest is the EITC, which can take just a little more than $5,000 at its maximum, but the average is according to the Brookings Institute, about $3,000. About 25 million individuals and families were able to take this exemption in 2007, and I'm sure that number has increased as wages have fallen.
Something that's important to keep in mind is that because of the structure of the tax system, people at the lower income levels will never pay income taxes because of personal exemptions for taxpayers and dependents. Thus, the idea that taxpayers at the subsistence level of income should pay the same rate of federal taxes is foolish. Not only are we ignoring the basic realities of income distribution, but we're still not dealing with the reality that people at the lowest levels still pay a large chunk of their income from sales taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes. Not to mention fees like those attached to cable, phone, and other utility bills.
I believe if you have it less than a year it is considered income and taxed as such.
More than a year it is at the 15% rate.
The other thing to consider is that you can offset gains with losses. So, if you have short term losses, you can sell short term gains without realizing any gain. You have complete control over when you take gains and losses, so anyone with the resources to survive without being required to sell assets, can through thoughtful timing, avoid most taxes.
Accountants and tax lawyers get paid what they do, not because the tax code is complicated, but because gaming the tax code is. There are many ways to reduce your tax liability if you have the money. Not the money to pay an accountant, but the money to pay taxes on. The more you have, the more it is possible to reduce tax liabilities.
Did you know we still have an incredibly complicated deduction put in place for equipment/boats used/destroyed during WWII? It's still on the books because some corporations are able to use its terms to reduce their tax liabilities. There have been efforts to remove these types of deductions, but people of a certain political persuasion object every time.