Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

WTF, we had a lengthy discussion of income inequality in this thread from less than two months ago:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=76626

Inequality was the subject of that thread, unlike this one. It has 133 posts, including quite a few from you and me. I think we said just about everything that needs to be said regarding the issue. Why rehash it now?

It might be a good idea for you to go back and reread that thread, since your posts in this one clearly show that you didn't learn much from it.

But it does show that you have no idea how to carry on an intelligent discussion. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Now now PJ, carrying on an intelligent discussion with you folks on this subject is an oxymoronic concept at best but really there is no need for you to be so hard on yourself.

No, it is like we are discussing football and you are bitching that we aren't mentioning baseball. Local taxes are a local matter and since we don't all live in the same place, it makes no sense to discuss here. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Taxes are Taxes and Sport is Sport, sport. No matter how you try and spin it. When you are talking about a concept (taxation), it is idiotic not to talk about the whole funding/spending process.

It might be a good idea for you to go back and read that thread, since your posts in this one clearly show that you didn't learn much from it. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That is one way to look at it...another is that you and PJ haven't learnt a freaking thing. I'll go with that one.

You two are at least smart enough NOT to get into a discussion as to WHY there has been this huge increase in our Gini numbers.

Inequality was the subject of that thread, unlike this one

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Taxes are a matter of fairness, you can not have a ''intelligent discussion'' about them without talking about income inequity. But then it is apparant that certain folks want neither a fair nor intelligent discussion on this matter. So I banter with you folks until you do!

WTF, we had a lengthy discussion of income inequality in this thread from less than two months ago:

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Yes we did and I find this post as relative to this thread as it was to that one.

But for some the topic always goes to the progressive nature of the tax code, never the regressive nature of sales tax or other revenue generating tactics of various forms of government entities. I never hear these same folks that bitch about Federal income taxes and about the poor not paying their fair share suggest that we start paying traffic tickets on a % of your income or passports or car registrations. You will get no argument out of me that we are taxed to death but for once it would be a welcome change for those that have, to acknowledge that those that are less fortunate are not some free loaders not paying as much as they can in various forms of taxes.







http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD007146 92
Since 1992, the bottom 90 percent of Americans have seen their incomes rise by 13 percent in 2009 dollars, compared with an increase of 399 percent for the top 400.

The annual top 400 report was first made public by the Clinton administration, but the George W. Bush administration shut down access to the report. Its release was resumed a year ago when President Obama took office

Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007.
Payroll taxes did not add a significant burden to the top 400, not changing the rounding of rates by even one decimal. With payroll taxes taken into account, the effective tax rate of the top 400 would be 17.2 percent in 2006 and 16.6 percent in 2007, my analysis shows -- the same as not counting payroll taxes. As a point of comparison, about two-thirds of Americans pay more in Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes than in federal income taxes.
Originally Posted by WTF

Their effective income tax rate fell to 16.62 percent, down more than half a percentage point from 17.17 percent in 2006, the new data show. That rate is lower than the typical effective income tax rate paid by Americans with incomes in the low six figures, which is what each taxpayer in the top group earned in the first three hours of 2007.

I find it interesting that people will tell you that tax rates which are too high on the upper incomes will prevent people from wanting to make more money, while at the same time they're telling you that tax rates have no impact on income inequity.

Now now PJ, carrying on an intelligent discussion with you folks on this subject is an oxymoronic concept at best Originally Posted by WTF

I have called you many things over the years, but never an oxymoron.

That is one way to look at it...another is that you and PJ haven't learnt a freaking thing. I'll go with that one.

You two are at least smart enough NOT to get into a discussion as to WHY there has been this huge increase in our Gini numbers. Originally Posted by WTF

Just because we still don't agree with your nonsense doesn't mean we haven't learned a thing.

I have learned that Gini numbers are an even more stupid concept than I thought they were.

...while at the same time they're telling you that tax rates have no impact on income inequity. Originally Posted by Doove

Thats not what I said. I said inequality is not caused by tax rates -- something entirely different.

Thats not what I said. I said inequality is not caused by tax rates -- something entirely different. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So then.......does that mean you think they do have an impact?

Since, after all, you've made it a point to actually deny having said the opposite....

WTF, would you mind clueing us in as to the point of your last post?

It seems to be simply that the top 400 income earners in the country typically pay an effective tax rate of around 17%, and that it's a lower rate than that paid by moderately affluent folks pulling down 6-figure salaries. We already knew that. That's why I said that the brunt of the burden will be borne by the middle class, not the wealthy. That's the way it is now, that's the way it's always been, and that's probably the way it always will be.

Perhaps you intended to insinuate, but didn't say, that the roughly 17% effective rate is so low because of all those "tax cuts for the rich."

If so, that argument falls flat on its face, too.

Remember that I said this earlier in the thread:

Another curious thing happened in the late 1960s, even though the 70% top tax bracket existed then. Several newspapers and magazines reported that a number of the country's wealthiest individuals and families, all centimillionaires (there were virtually no billionaires at the time) were paying zero or close to zero tax. Embarrassed politicians were pressured to "do something", so the result was the AMT, enacted about 40 years ago. The purpose was to get at least some revenue from the wealthy. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I also noted earlier that prior to the 1986 tax law changes, it was far easier than today for the wealthy to shelter most of their income from taxation. The 70% top bracket rate was utterly meaningless to those with substantial net worth. In fact, the Treasury actually extracted more revenue from the wealthy with a 28% top bracket rate after all the easy loopholes and shelters were blown away.

Your post does nothing at all to bolster any of your previous arguments.

WTF, would you mind clueing us in as to the point of your last post?

It seems to be nothing more than that the top 400 income earners in the country typically pay an effective tax rate of around 17%, and that it's a lower rate than that paid by moderately affluent folks pulling down 6-figure salaries. . Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

My point is that if you can not even get politicians to do anything about this inequity, how the fuc does anyone think that the working class will see any fairness in the tax code. Why shouldn't they cheat ever chance they get? No Gawd Damn wonder Reagan had to expand the IRS!

Now who defends this inequity...why the GOP!

Thats not what I said. I said inequality is not caused by tax rates -- something entirely different. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The tax code is the problem. If you do not want to call it tax rates, fine by me (call it an oxymoron!) but the tax code is set up for the connected.

So then.......does that mean you think they do have an impact?

Since, after all, you've made it a point to actually deny having said the opposite.... Originally Posted by Doove

If income inequality exists pre-tax, then taxes don't cause inequality.

My point is that if you can not even get politicians to do anything about this inequity, how the fuc does anyone think that the working class will see any fairness in the tax code. Originally Posted by WTF

I doubt that many people realize how little tax the very wealthy have always paid. Most people probably believe that returning the 35% bracket to the 39.6% level will go a long way toward restoring "tax fairness."

Now who defends this inequity...why the GOP! Originally Posted by WTF

Well, so do the Democrats!

At least, none of them are going to lift a finger to do much about it, even with a liberal in the White House and large majorities in both the House and Senate. Of course, they really can't, short of outright wealth seizure.

One thing that's sort of humorous is that Buffett famously lamented that his administrative assistant pays tax at a higher effective rate than he does. He advocates higher taxes on the "wealthy", or at least so they say. But do you think he has any intention of paying more tax? No, of course not. He wants you to pay more tax if you're moderately affluent (but not wealthy). Besides, all his money is going to a charitable foundation. He's obviously not too worried about tax liability.

About the only way you can get a lot more money out of the wealthy is to confiscate it with something like a draconian net worth tax. I'm sure that would thrill many members of the wealth-envy crowd, but the blowback might be rather severe.

Sure would be a helluva short-term stimulus package for FBOs, though. They would be able to sell a lot of fuel and services to owners of private jets on their way out of the country.

About the only way you can get a lot more money out of the wealthy is to confiscate it with something like a draconian net worth tax. I'm sure that would thrill many members of the wealth-envy crowd, but the blowback might be rather severe.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It's called an estate tax. Warren ought to have to spend it while he is alive or lose it! Gates too. That'd restart the race every generation.

I doubt that many people realize how little tax the very wealthy have always paid. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Well, I never been one to give the general public much credit...afterall look who we have elected in the last thirty years. Everything from a peanut farmer to an actor to a community activist to a failed oil wildcatter with a certified skirt chaser leading the pack! The most experienced one outta the bunch was kicked out after 4 years. Bush deserved better.

The so-called social democracies of Europe operate a federal government that is closer to 30% of GDP -- it takes that much to pay for all those health care and income transfer schemes. Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ..what do you mean by SD of Europe? Are you talking about the European Union as a whole..or individual countries? I'm thinking you mean EU since that is the closest thing to Federal we have (state being each individual country as it were).Thanks in advance for clarifying..

C

I'm going to bed..so I'll read your response in the morning PJ

I'll say this before toddling off though...
I am not and never have been overly impressed with the European Union. The premise was that members would be aligned socially, politically and economically. How is that even remotely possible? The folks like Germany who switched to the Euro have had their backs broken by the debt of other countries, despite "rigorous" terms of financial standing needed to be proven before a country was allowed to join.
I could go on all day about the lack of political alignment. It was very clear after 9/11 and has continued in some way or another since then.

The nickname for the EU is "The United States of Europe."
Peoples biggest fears were that we would move to a state and federally regulated way of life (like the US)..which is exactly what happened. It's a complex way to govern and it's causing England some major headaches. European law supercedes country law...so EU is the equiv of fed and each individual country is the equiv of state law. Earlier this summer, England were overruled when they wanted to send back 2 terrorists to their home country after they had almost blown up a part of England. The Union intervened and handed down a directive essentially saying, "No, you can't do that. They will get persecuted in their own countries so it's a breach of their human rights...etc"...so we now have them living in our own backyard. For all our (England's) faults as a country I don't see any major benefits of joining the EU yet..and that terrorist BS was the last straw for me in terms of supporting such a coalition. Too many chefs and all that....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7129649.ece

I guess my point is that I don't care for double regulation if you want to call it that..because I've seen how it worked before and I didn't think it was bad enough to change. You don't have that luxury here...and it's increasingly clear to me how complex it is..working on a 2 tier system (great recent example is the immigration laws that certain states are trying to push through out of frustration of the fed level of regulation). Hey..you guys have double the number of "states" to co-ordinate than the EU too. That shifts the problem from a headache to a migraine!

C