Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

[channonc 466]

Not to completely derail, but to piggy back off what Titan said-- we have lost the ability to understand the difference between consumption spending and investment. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of MoCs who think all spending is bad. All spending is not bad, and some government spending, particularly on investments is good. By investments, one example is infrastructure (transportation, power, water systems) which keep our country competitive. Without investment in these basic things, we start to see our edge against the rest of the world diminish.

Nobody ever said get rid of government and that it didn't play a role or have a function. I'm not sure how power comes into play as a government function but even if it is, it has gotten way out of hand. You can't even go to the bathroom anymore without having to fill out a federal form of some kind. I know we haven't gotten that far YET but we're creeping ever closer. The federal government has a role, specified in the constitution and we should, by any means necessary, keep it within those boundaries. It's long since jumped out of that but it's time to start putting it back in there. You can call anything an investment and justify spending money on it. That is what we do now.

But at some point just saying "cut cut cut" is detrimental. I'm not suggesting we spend on everything just willy nilly, but I do think we need to recognize that spending in some areas needs to increase, it needs to decrease in other areas and we are probably spending the right amount in others. We need to cut the waste out with a surgical tool, not take a machete to the entire federal budget. It does more harm than good.

[autigeremt 6,650]

Not to completely derail, but to piggy back off what Titan said-- we have lost the ability to understand the difference between consumption spending and investment. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of MoCs who think all spending is bad. All spending is not bad, and some government spending, particularly on investments is good. By investments, one example is infrastructure (transportation, power, water systems) which keep our country competitive. Without investment in these basic things, we start to see our edge against the rest of the world diminish.

:starorange: :starorange:

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Some of you seem to believe that it is utterly offensive for governmental policy to assist the poor in an attempt to promote a better future for them but, at the same time, you seem to applaud governmental policy that assists the truly wealthy in an effort that guarantees they always will be. Interesting.

If the top .1% represent our best and brightest, why do they need preferential treatment? Is it a reward? Is it "divine right of kings"? Couldn't we just give them a certificate of achievement?

Killing our middle class will ultimately be, what kills America. America was built on hard work, innovation, and a sense of equality that produced a class of workers capable of mass consumption.

The hallmark of third world economies is, little or no middle class. Capitalism is NOT a game of Monopoly. What happens when someone, "owns it all"? Game over, play again another day. The real world does not work that way.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Not to completely derail, but to piggy back off what Titan said-- we have lost the ability to understand the difference between consumption spending and investment. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of MoCs who think all spending is bad. All spending is not bad, and some government spending, particularly on investments is good. By investments, one example is infrastructure (transportation, power, water systems) which keep our country competitive. Without investment in these basic things, we start to see our edge against the rest of the world diminish.

:starorange: :starorange:

Five stars? Wow! EMT doesn't just throw out five stars.

Spending to promote the general welfare is good. Spending to promote special interests is bad.

Every spending bill should be required to define how it will promote the interests of the country. The IRS code should carry the same requirement.

[cooltigger21 0]

We don't even need revenue neutral. All of these proposals still leave the leviathan in place. That is the reason for all of the problems we have in the first place. I know we could lose half of the federal agencies that exist now and still maintain an effective federal government capable of performing its constitutionally mandated functions. It sounds like fantasy and maybe it is but unless you do that then all this other stuff is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

We are in debt up to our ears and running deficits. Even if we cut spending to get us back in the black on a yearly basis, the cost savings need to go toward knocking out that debt or at least getting it down to a more manageable level. So at least in the near term, they would need to be close to revenue neutral.

If I run up crazy credit card debt at home, I may need to take a second job to generate more income to pay it off. I can cut spending (get rid of cable, go to a basic cell phone plan, sell a car/get rid of car payments, refinance my mortgage or move to a less expensive house) but that doesn't mean I should decrease my income accordingly. I'll never get out from under the debt unless I take all that savings, use the current level of income with my extra job and really attack it.

I understand that but my basic thought is that we could reduce the rates way back and it would be considered not revenue neutral according to current tax revenues from all sources. These tax proposals, along with reduced government spending will send the economy into orbit which will increase revenue to the government. Now the next part of the equation is ensuring that money goes toward debt service. There is a line you need to set it at and I'm not the one to say exactly where it should be as far as the rate goes but I don't think any of these models even take into account the increase in economic activity that would result from being enacted.

[Mims44 1,876]

The flat rate confuses me, not in it's application but in how people talk about.

I've seen quite a few people (various programs/courses) saying that a flat 15% or so would increase the amount brought in by a large amount.

And then quite a few others say the exact opposite, that up to a 20% would be needed just to stay even with what we bring in now.

I do think a flat would be easier, for the next generation there would be no questions or worry about it, when you join the work force you know you're giving 15%, get a raise/promotion/new job... still 15%.

But I am no where near qualified enough to say if a flat could be at a reasonable level and help the country, especially since even "experts" aren't unanimous.

[channonc 466]

Not to completely derail, but to piggy back off what Titan said-- we have lost the ability to understand the difference between consumption spending and investment. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of MoCs who think all spending is bad. All spending is not bad, and some government spending, particularly on investments is good. By investments, one example is infrastructure (transportation, power, water systems) which keep our country competitive. Without investment in these basic things, we start to see our edge against the rest of the world diminish.

:starorange: :starorange:

Five stars? Wow! EMT doesn't just throw out five stars.

Spending to promote the general welfare is good. Spending to promote special interests is bad.

Every spending bill should be required to define how it will promote the interests of the country. The IRS code should carry the same requirement.

Well, if by spending bills you mean appropriations bills, if you read the Committee reports and the conference reports they pretty easily spell out what the money is being given for, why and what the mechanism is to spend it.

Tax policy is a whole other ball of wax.

[channonc 466]

Not to completely derail, but to piggy back off what Titan said-- we have lost the ability to understand the difference between consumption spending and investment. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of MoCs who think all spending is bad. All spending is not bad, and some government spending, particularly on investments is good. By investments, one example is infrastructure (transportation, power, water systems) which keep our country competitive. Without investment in these basic things, we start to see our edge against the rest of the world diminish.

:starorange: :starorange:

Wow. Thanks! (::blushes:

[autigeremt 6,650]

Not to completely derail, but to piggy back off what Titan said-- we have lost the ability to understand the difference between consumption spending and investment. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of MoCs who think all spending is bad. All spending is not bad, and some government spending, particularly on investments is good. By investments, one example is infrastructure (transportation, power, water systems) which keep our country competitive. Without investment in these basic things, we start to see our edge against the rest of the world diminish.

:starorange:/> :starorange:/> :starorange:/> :starorange:/> :starorange:/>

Five stars? Wow! EMT doesn't just throw out five stars.

Spending to promote the general welfare is good. Spending to promote special interests is bad.

Every spending bill should be required to define how it will promote the interests of the country. The IRS code should carry the same requirement.

Well, if by spending bills you mean appropriations bills, if you read the Committee reports and the conference reports they pretty easily spell out what the money is being given for, why and what the mechanism is to spend it.

Tax policy is a whole other ball of wax.

I'd give you 10 stars but it might be counterproductive. Even generals had to stop at five.

[homersapien 11,393]

House Votes To Repeal Tax On Richest 0.2 Percent Of Americans

http://www.huffingto..._n_7079744.html

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives voted Thursday to give a tax break worth $269 billion to the richest few thousand estates in the country, and add that cost to the federal debt.

Called the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015, the bill would end the nearly 100-year-old federal estate tax. All but three Republicans voted in favor, while all but seven Democrats voted against. The legislation passed 239 to 179.

The measure benefits only the top .2 percent of the population because the other 99.8 percent of the country doesn't own enough wealth to ever pay the tax. Only estates worth more than $10.9 million for couples and $5.4 million for individuals fall under the tax.

Democrats were harshly critical of the bill, saying that it showed Republicans were being hypocritical with their recent expressions of concern for the widening income inequality gap in America.

"Today's vote to repeal the estate tax is just the Republican's last attempt to tilt the U.S. tax code in favor of their ultra wealthy campaign donors," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

"Today my Republican friends have discovered there’s $270 billion of revenue that somehow the federal government no longer needs," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) “They have decided to give an additional tax cut to people who need the help the least.".......

[icanthearyou 4,463]

House Votes To Repeal Tax On Richest 0.2 Percent Of Americans

http://www.huffingto..._n_7079744.html

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives voted Thursday to give a tax break worth $269 billion to the richest few thousand estates in the country, and add that cost to the federal debt.

Called the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015, the bill would end the nearly 100-year-old federal estate tax. All but three Republicans voted in favor, while all but seven Democrats voted against. The legislation passed 239 to 179.

The measure benefits only the top .2 percent of the population because the other 99.8 percent of the country doesn't own enough wealth to ever pay the tax. Only estates worth more than $10.9 million for couples and $5.4 million for individuals fall under the tax.

Democrats were harshly critical of the bill, saying that it showed Republicans were being hypocritical with their recent expressions of concern for the widening income inequality gap in America.

"Today's vote to repeal the estate tax is just the Republican's last attempt to tilt the U.S. tax code in favor of their ultra wealthy campaign donors," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

"Today my Republican friends have discovered there’s $270 billion of revenue that somehow the federal government no longer needs," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) “They have decided to give an additional tax cut to people who need the help the least.".......

Now, if we can only get the capital gains rate to zero,,,, Utopia!

[DKW 86 7,430]

House Votes To Repeal Tax On Richest 0.2 Percent Of Americans

http://www.huffingto..._n_7079744.html

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives voted Thursday to give a tax break worth $269 billion to the richest few thousand estates in the country, and add that cost to the federal debt.

Called the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015, the bill would end the nearly 100-year-old federal estate tax. All but three Republicans voted in favor, while all but seven Democrats voted against. The legislation passed 239 to 179.

The measure benefits only the top .2 percent of the population because the other 99.8 percent of the country doesn't own enough wealth to ever pay the tax. Only estates worth more than $10.9 million for couples and $5.4 million for individuals fall under the tax.

Democrats were harshly critical of the bill, saying that it showed Republicans were being hypocritical with their recent expressions of concern for the widening income inequality gap in America.

"Today's vote to repeal the estate tax is just the Republican's last attempt to tilt the U.S. tax code in favor of their ultra wealthy campaign donors," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

"Today my Republican friends have discovered there’s $270 billion of revenue that somehow the federal government no longer needs," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) “They have decided to give an additional tax cut to people who need the help the least.".......

Again, this is why I cant force myself to care about the Republicans anymore.

It should be very very clear that no one cares about the deficits in DC.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Politically tone deaf.

[homersapien 11,393]

Politically tone deaf.

For eliminating the dreaded "death tax"?

The no-nothings will eat it up.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Politically tone deaf.

For eliminating the dreaded "death tax"?

The no-nothings will eat it up.

Politically tone deaf.

For eliminating the dreaded "death tax"?

The no-nothings will eat it up.

Politically tone deaf.

For eliminating the dreaded "death tax"?

The no-nothings will eat it up.

Politically tone deaf.

For eliminating the dreaded "death tax"?

The no-nothings will eat it up.

You

you like many others seem to have an insatiable appetite for other people's money. Why should money that people accumulate AFTER they pay taxes on it be taxed again because they die? Is it their fair share? Its hilarious watching peope that dont pay s*** pontificate about whats fair for those who pay most all of it

[homersapien 11,393]

For eliminating the dreaded "death tax"?

The no-nothings will eat it up.

You

you like many others seem to have an insatiable appetite for other people's money. Why should money that people accumulate AFTER they pay taxes on it be taxed again because they die? Is it their fair share? Its hilarious watching peope that dont pay s*** pontificate about whats fair for those who pay most all of it

First, if you seriously contend every asset in one's estate has been already been taxed, then "no-nothing" was a reasonable description.

Secondly, the principle of double taxation is not really relevant. The purpose of the law is to prevent formation of the sort of capital-based dynasties that are an overt threat to democracy.

Liquidizing such fortunes - one way or the other - is better for the country. That's why so many billionaires support the concept. It's not like anyone is going to be impoverished with such a tax. Look at the details. It's just another part of estate planning (for 0.2% of the population :-\ ).

And really, please learn how to use the 'quote' and 'edit' functions. I am tired of cleaning up your messes.

[DKW 86 7,430]

Wealth Distribution in the World:

Wealth Distribution in the US:

Do the Wealthy Really Create Jobs?:

Let those with open minds hear/see the truth.

[homersapien 11,393]

Wealth Distribution in the World:

Wealth Distribution in the US:

Let those with open minds hear/see the truth.

Great presentations.

It's very difficult to imagine a positive political future with the current trends.

Nice to see the Republican's doing their part to address the problem. :-\

[AUTUmike 79]

The flat rate confuses me, not in it's application but in how people talk about.

I've seen quite a few people (various programs/courses) saying that a flat 15% or so would increase the amount brought in by a large amount.

And then quite a few others say the exact opposite, that up to a 20% would be needed just to stay even with what we bring in now.

I do think a flat would be easier, for the next generation there would be no questions or worry about it, when you join the work force you know you're giving 15%, get a raise/promotion/new job... still 15%.

But I am no where near qualified enough to say if a flat could be at a reasonable level and help the country, especially since even "experts" aren't unanimous.

You're correct in noting that the rate of a proposed flat tax seems to vary. The key reason for that is that taxing basic goods--like food, energy, and clothing--represents a regressive tax since someone making $20,000/year will spend a greater proportion of their income on those goods than a person making $200,000/year (thereby making the poor pay a higher effective tax rate). When faced with this reality, the flat tax folks began to modify their proposal to exclude certain basic goods from being taxed. However, the removal of even food alone from taxable purchases obviously creates a huge tax revenue reduction, which must be compensated for in order for their proposal to be solvent. With that missing revenue though, the tax rate on other items shoots up (and that explains the variance in flat tax rates you see). If you remove basic goods from being taxable, then the actual rate necessary to maintain current tax revenue levels is closer to 30%.

[JoeBags7277 734]

I distictly remember flat tax advocates in the 90's touting a 10% rate. Ahh, the 90's. Aren't y'all glad we've blown all that money on "defense" spending this century?

[Mims44 1,876]

I distictly remember flat tax advocates in the 90's touting a 10% rate. Ahh, the 90's. Aren't y'all glad we've blown all that money on "defense" spending this century?

We've actually lowered defense spending.

China's the top now (as far as yearly % increases)

Yay, We're #2, We're #2!

[channonc 466]

I distictly remember flat tax advocates in the 90's touting a 10% rate. Ahh, the 90's. Aren't y'all glad we've blown all that money on "defense" spending this century?

We've actually lowered defense spending.

China's the top now (as far as yearly % increases)

Yay, We're #2, We're #2!

But we still spend WAY more than China on defense in terms of actual dollars.

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

[Mims44 1,876]

I distictly remember flat tax advocates in the 90's touting a 10% rate. Ahh, the 90's. Aren't y'all glad we've blown all that money on "defense" spending this century?

We've actually lowered defense spending.

China's the top now (as far as yearly % increases)

Yay, We're #2, We're #2!

But we still spend WAY more than China on defense in terms of actual dollars.

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

Yeah, that's why I said in % increase.

We were up by so much no one's gonna overcome that all of a sudden.

But give China just a bit longer, they'll do it eventually:)