http://www.tompaine.com/a..._taxes.php

What do you all think?

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 4/16/2007).]

I couldn't find the word confiscatory in the article - I assume, therefore, that it must have been written by a communist.

Bridger: I think that you are right. This must have been written by a communist. Notice how many times the phrase FOR THE COMMON GOOD is used. Right out of Karl Marx.

Or the bible....

To me this article implies that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes on a percentage basis. In other words, how much of the total tax burden do the top 1% or top 10% of taxpayers contribute to the overall tax burden? Interesting that they don't provide any data to back up any assertions.

So, a couple questions for you Brian.

What is the income tax distribution by income tax group? What do the top 1% and 10% of taxpayers in terms of income pay in terms of the overall tax bill? How much do the bottom 50% or 25% pay? Do the answers, from unbiased sources, to those questions demonstrate that we are in a system where low income wage earners are picking up too much of the tab?

I did a quick web search and could not find current data, but I'm sure it exists somewhere in cyberspace. Since Brian brought it up, I thought I would let him do the research.

Just curious.

Just Google, % of taxes paid by the rich. Lots there to read.

Don't read the bible.

"What do you all think?"

1-I think we should all get two or more jobs, or at least one that pays over $150,000/yr, so that we can make more money and thus contribute more to the "common good". After all, it is our moral obligation to ensure our government has all the money it needs. Who needs sleep when the "common good" is at stake?

2-I am glad I live in Wyoming where I pay only federal tax. We may have a crappy looking Easter egg, but not having to pay any state income tax puts a smile on my face.

3-The guy that wrote the article is uninformed if he really believes that there is such an animal "conservative tax policy". When was the last time you heard anyone be they elephant or donkey, talk about an actual cut in taxes? The last "cut" was actually a tax deferment because there was no commensurate cut in spending.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (edited 4/16/2007).]

Following is a link to a report on actual income tax distribution. Not sure about the source but it looks pretty reputable. Looks like under the republican lead congress and administration, Brian and those like him got what they wanted in terms of the wealthy paying most of the taxes. If I were part of that progressive tax group I don't think I would complain too loudly.

http://www.taxfoundation....w/250.html

Interesting - the top half of taxpayers pay 96.3% which means those poor hardworking folks on the bottom are paying 3.7%. The top 1% of taxpayers are paying 36% of the taxes.

Anyone care to make the case that the rich aren't paying their fair share?

I am usually a little reticent to engage in these discussions lest they degenerate into name calling, but this is one topic that really gravels me. I have heard repeatedly that the rich don't pay their share and lump it all on the little guy - look at the data and draw your own conclusions.

[This message has been edited by Big Dave (edited 4/16/2007).]

People who claim the bible justifies socialism generally don't understand the difference between charity, and being "charitable" with other people's money.

Big Dave
You hit the nail on the head. I work for a CPA firm and the rich pay there fair share. They also do not get the deductions the middle class and poor get.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/bl..._silliness

what about this point on taxation

Oh those Lucky Duckies! http://dir.salon.com/stor...index.html

Rick--It is not about charity, it is about priorities. Though, I would say that some priorities are more charitable. I believe complaints you are talking about are based more on how the government chooses to spend the tax revenue.

For instance, I think it is a waste of money to provide many millions of dollars for an abstinence based education program that simply is not working. That money should be allocated much differently. We could go through a host of issues. Should mega churches and small churches be considered nonprofits when they become political? Should we subsidize Haliburton by giving them noncompetitive bids? Are millions of education dollars better spent on standardized assessments or should the investment be spent on labs, new texbooks, and lower class sizes? When cuts do need to be made in education, should they eliminate athletic programs, field trips, or postpone buying new curricula? More prisons or more drug treatment programs? Mandatory jail sentences for petty (my definition) drug offenders? I won't even touch the Iraq issue. It is the priorities that are different--not the definition of charity.

Democrats over the past 15 years have been the tax and spend accordingly party. For the moment, Repeublicans are the tax less and spend more party. It is all about philosophy.

Tammy and the rest--I would not making the case that the super wealthy do not pay a large percentage of the taxes, except in the case of Social Security. We should not expect Bill Gates (who is against repealing the estate tax, yet would gain the most) to pay the same as a typical Walmart worker? What percentage is fair, however? Who should the tax burden fall on? When future tax laws are implemented, who should have a greater burden?

It is really about who gets to decide what is a priorities. The individual or the federal government. If I had more of what the federal government confiscates I would have the means to be more charitable than I already am.

BTW: abstinence works every time it is tried.

Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.

There's an old pun for ya, Richard

Richard--I still fail to see your point exactly. Are you in support of the Articles of Confederation, or are you proposing the government limits all spending on social issues (Medicare, Social Security, etc.) so that you can contribute more to charities which will (hopefully) pick up the tab?

Maybe you are still trying to decide what is essential government. How about allocating our taxes to the government. Maybe, the government could tell us the percentage of our income we owe for taxes, but let us individually determine how to allocate it. Talk about holding th government accountable. No more of Bush spending his political capital, but Bush trying to convince us how to spend our donation to government. Imagine the drama of Bill Gates allocating his taxes.

Seriously, though, it is still about setting priorities and budgeting money.

My mention of "charity" was only because it's usually used as the misguided "Biblical" justification for socialist programs. It had nothing to do with the rest of the discussion.

As for the rest, the problem with government is that if you use it to solve a problem, you'll end up still having that problem, and at least a couple of new problems that you didn't have before. Government is in nearly every case the most inefficient (and ineffective) means to solve any particular problem.

As for the rest, the problem with government is that if you use it to solve a problem, you'll end up still having that problem, and at least a couple of new problems that you didn't have before. Government is in nearly every case the most inefficient (and ineffective) means to solve any particular problem.

----------------------------------

Except for the Department of Defense, of course.

Social Security has been a highly effective program. In addition, compared to private accounts there is very little overhead. Now, if the government's little IOUs were just paid back.

Of course like any program it could use some tweaking, if they just made the contribution a flat percentage of your income (with no caps), it would be solvent forever.

"Social Security has been a highly effective program."

For who? Federal government cash-flow and spending maybe, but its evolution into a retirement fund has been a disaster.

I can do more to take care of myself with the $4000 I "paid" in this year, if I could put the money in my AmeriTrade account than the Federal government will ever do for me in a social security account.

I prefer self reliance and responsibility for my self over reliance on the government nanny state.

http://www.treas.gov/offi...7_web_.pdf

Richard--I could also do better on my own, but than again that isn't really the point. I would now have to provide for grandparents and parents who may not have been as fortunate. I would have to seriously up my contributions to charities to help support those who do not have a pension or the means to save. Of course, those charities would have overhead, which make them more inefficient than social security.

I could also do much worse. I could lose my pension in an Enron type scandal. Or, I could die at an early age, leaving my wife and kids to get by on just my life insurance policy.

I can do more to take care of myself with the $4000 I "paid" in this year, if I could put the money in my AmeriTrade account than the Federal government will ever do for me in a social security account.


------------------

Richard: And your employer put in $4,000 as well. It is frustrating that $8,000 was paid by you and your employer and was paid to some old people.

Not that I have anything against old people. To paraphrase Charles Barkley, "I have nothing against old people..........I want to be one someday."

While the Bible certainly promotes helping the poor and being generous, the government forcefully extracting the money from "the rich" and spending it as they see fit (even if some of it does help the poor) isn't exactly the same thing now is it? Actually it's not even close.

The government doesn't just "forcefully" extract money from the rich, everybody is taxed. Whether it is a gasoline tax, sales tax, property taxes, income tax, etc., we all pay taxes.

People who see government simply as an entity that is ruining their way of life, have their head buried in the sand.

Seems to me that our founding fathers were concerned about taxation ruining their lives. They paid nothing in taxes as compared to tax rates today. Guess they too had their heads in the sand.

Yes, and in their infinite wisdom the founding fathers decided that the Bill of Rights only applied to white men.

Does Shay's Rebellion ring a bell, Richard? The Founding Fathers got a lot right, and they certainly provided a framework for a successful form of new government. One of their greatest gifts was to provide a Constitution that was flexible and could be amended to fit the needs of society. However, our Founding Father's government's inability to "forcefully" generate taxes had devastating consequences.

I believe that at some point your philosophy about government turns in to socialism and then communism.

And a does your philosphy turn into anarchy?

At first I thought this to be funny, then I realized the truth of it.

Tax his land, tax his bed, tax the table at which he's feed.

Tax his tractor, tax his mule, Teach him taxes are the rule.

Tax his cow, tax his goat, tax his pants, tax his coat.

Tax his ties, tax his shirt, tax his work, tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco, tax his drink, tax him if he tries to think.

Tax his cigars, tax his beer, then tax his tear.

Tax his car, tax his gas, find other ways to tax his _ss.

Tax all he has,let him know, you won't be done till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers, tax him some more, tax till he's good and sore.

Then Tax his coffin, tax his grave, tax the sod in which he's laid.

Put these words on his tomb, "TAXES DROVE ME TO MY DOOM"

When he's gone, Do not relax, It's time to apply The Inheritance Tax.

COMMENTS: None of these Taxes existed 100 years ago, our nation was the most prosperous in the world. There was no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
And I still have to "press 1" for English.

PS: If you haven't done so read "The Incredible Bread Machine".

"And a does your philosophy turn into anarchy?"

On the contrary. A reduction in tax coupled with a reduction in federal spending leads to more liberty and freedom for all. It also provides an opportunity for the citizens of this country to exercise personal responsibility in caring for their neighbor, which is not a constitutional role of government.

Increased taxation and social spending leads to anarchy. Communism is nothing more than socialism at gunpoint.

AJS--our nation was not the most prosperous nation in the world 100 years ago. It wasn't until after WWII, with Europe and Asia in shambles, that our nation became a world leader. Interestingly enough, many taxes were in place at that time. So was the idea of a strong central government and the positive effects of government spending.

The GI Bill is now recognized as the beginning of a strong middle class. Before the GI Bill, colleges were only for the elite. I'm sure you have heard of "old money" and "new money".



[This message has been edited by Pluto (edited 4/22/2007).]

It wasn't until after WWII, with Europe and Asia in shambles, that our nation became a world leader.

So many broad statements, so little evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ic_product

Look at 1938 in particular (pre-WWII) Our GDP, even at the tail end of the Great Depression was more than double that of any of the other leading "Great Powers"

If we weren't a "world leader" who was?

AJS and Rick, I'll eat a little crow. I should have said that our nation became "the" undisputed world leader.

The U.S. was the leader, in total GDP, prior to World War 2. What I should have said was that the U.S. became the worlds economic super power during and after WWII. In a nutshell, the GDP combines economic size and development. As our population rose in relationship to the world, so did our share of the worlds GDP. Between 1930 and 1945, our share of the worlds GDP went from 15% to 35%. A huge jump no matter what way you compute the numbers. During this period, we also went from 2nd, behind the U.K., in GDP per capita to 1st overall. A status we still enjoy.

The U.S. GDP benefitted from massive government spending during World War II and the economic "shambles" Europe and Asia were left in after the war.