1 of the truths about tax cuts:
 

Ok, so I'm listening to Mike Trivisonno on Cleveland's WTAM 1100 AM and he has on a rep. fro Miller Brewing talking about how Ohio plans to double the excise tax on beer. Right now Ohio pays 18 cents a gallon, Penn. pays 8, Ky. pays 8, Ind. pays 12.

This rep implied heavily (saying it in just about any possible way without saying it onb a CC radio station) that the taxes are Ohio's (please note, Gov. taft is a Rep. as is the Ohio house) way to make up for tax cuts.

He also stated:

- that it would hurt the 55% of Ohioans that buy beer, because they make less than 45,000. So the poor do pay for the tax cuts......

- that it Miller would probably shut down it's Ohio brewery (costing 600 jobs)

- that it would affect the suppliers, the building contractors who were going to add onto the facility

- that they project more people would buy cheaper beer and end up costing Ohio tax money because the cheaper beers cost less thus are taxed less

- that Ohio already has a state minimum on beer of 25% over cost, 1/2 of which goes to the state as an added tax.

What people don't see is that these income tax cuts that Bush and the GOP give to the rich, are killing the states and cities who have to raise their taxes, in hidden ways, that affect the lower classes far more than the uppers. Plus, as Bush's deficit spending continues to grow out of control.... those cuts aren't cuts in spending.

I"m sure the GOP will fight this by saying well the poor need to drink less.... or whatever, blaming the lower classes for this instead of sucking it up and paying their fair share. Instead, they'll cry about how taxes are still to high for them.

Well when the deficit comes to a head and we have to start paying it.... guess what the rich will be paying far far more than they ever imagined because as jobs get outsourced, as wages decline and factories close.... the rich will be the only tax base that can pay.

Instead of working for tax cuts work on a solution to increase the tax base fairly. Maybe it will require sacrifice from the rich and lower classes but it's far better than the course we are on now.

You know the great thing about sin taxes? If you dont like them you dont have to pay them.

That's right, you dont have to pay sin taxes. Just like I dont pay for the taxes known as the lottery. It's a choice, thus there is nothing "unfair" about it.

And yes, increased taxes hurt business thus jobs. Guess what... that's why Bush cut them.

Pan -

You know this isn't true.

The "crunch" felt by the cities/states happened because of the recession & 9/11. It happened because cities/states spent more than they were taking in, way more....and thought they could get away with it.

They assumed that revenue for them (which doesn't come from the income taxes that were cut) would continue to increase like it was in the 90's. They spent like revenue was going to increase like it did, even when all of the experts told them that the bubble would burst.

Then, when revenue fell, they weren't prepared.

Revenue from income taxes and corporate taxes to the federal gov't are at all time high's--at or surpassing Clinton's highest levels (I have posted the evidence here many, many times). If the tax cuts were hurting gov't revenue, then the numbers would be going down, not up, as they are and have been since 2001.

The bigger problem, closer to this issue, is our-of-control spending, not tax cuts. The money is coming in just fine, the problem is in the outlays.

Ask anyone that makes six figures if they're under taxed and see what they have to say.

That is a pointless statement. The thing with people making in excess of 100k is that they still consider themselves to be middle class when in fact they are not. Last time I checked being middle class didn't mean you were in the top 7% of all wage earners.

Sin taxes suck because they are usually proposed by someone who "hates" your sin but loves their own...

The Lottery as a tax...Gambling is a tax on people who are bad at math

the claim that raising the beer tax is to make up for the tax cuts smacks of the fallacy of a false cause. After this therefore because of this......That way the Rep and/or the legislature can avoid blame for any of their decisions. The rep is engaging in scare tactics in order to protect his interest...the things he says may or not be true but he certainly has something to lose if taxes increase.

Just like how Bush's tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy with new jobs but cutting taxes for business and in turn business would invest in their employees thereby creating new jobs? If you don't know that a business's first responsibility is to the shareholders and not the employees, the somebody needs to go back and take BA 101.

On the other hand, I guess they did, if you factor in Wal-mart and the like.

KMA-628, how should Pan....or anyone else react to you assertion that "you know this isn't true", solely because you say so? I cannot confirm or refute
your assertions, you offer only your strongly worded opinion.............
This is a subject well suited for posts containing well researched findings,
facts, and figures from sources with reputations for publishing non-partisan,
timely, comprehensive reports on the effects of government tax policies.

My research indicates that the problem appears to be tax cutting that a majority of states did in the late 90's, that have not been restored to make up for declining revenue, aggravated by Bush and the Republican Legislature's tax policies:

From the same source as above:<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/fedtax.htm">http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/fedtax.htm</a>
I was happy to find these links to current research reports from the non-partisan "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" . The findings and conclusions seem to refute much of what our federal executive and legislative leaders have been advocating and communicating to all of us about the goals and justifications for their tax "reform" legislation and policy positions.

so far, the only religion i'm aware of that prohibits consuming the fermentation of grape or grain has been islam. so I have to ask......who made drinking beer a sin?

The term was made under the Clinton administration when he jacked up the taxes on everything from alcohol to tobacco. I wasn't declaring it a sin, I was using the terminology the Democrats used at the time and what it has become known as.

I personally don't drink beer and rarely drink alcohol at all..... (turns into a semi-formaldahyde in your body and depletes your seratonin). But there are many that do and to punish them for doing so, so that we may have a President who runs deeper red ink than ever before cut taxes on the rich is pathetic and unjust.

Where are the capital gains taxes? Where are raising tarriffs? Where is an inheritance tax? Why tax those who can not afford to be taxed more when they choose to try to enjoy themselves a little? While the upper echelons (and I'm not talking anyone making less than a million), keep getting their taxes cut?

From replies on here I can see that the right cares not about the problems that face the cities, states and even the nation but about their own wallets. Perhaps if we raised tarrifs and taxed companies that sent jobs overseas we would be able to build a tax base where the burdens could be shared equally..... But the Right refuses to allow or want to even discuss that.

They would rather tax the beer and the alcohol and items that the lower classes on average spend more on, than to set a flat income tax or tax lurury items or have an inheritance tax.

As Pink Floyd sang:

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

Pan, the top 50% of wage earner pay over 96% of federal income taxes. Why should they pay more? I say the lower 50% need to pay their fair share

Did I say that or did I say the upper echelons that make over a million the very top .05% that pay what the wipe their arses with?

If my dad makes $5 million and pays under $2.5 million in taxes (state, local and Federal) and still drives a Porsche, a Range Rover, 2 Benzes, has a time share in Fire Island and takes 3 or 4 trips a year to Jamaica and the Carribean, has season tickets to the Indians and belongs to Muirfield Village Golf Course, and his taxes keep getting cut, while my wife and I barely make $30,000 and with taxes we pay about $5,000 and the hidden sales taxes keep going up, who misses the money the most?

And no it's not a slam on my father, it's a totally realistic question. Even he believes he doesn't pay his fair share, he sees that his tax cuts are being paid for by his children who barely make livings.

So to use that tired cliche that the upper 50% pay more than the poor is tripe because the poor pay far more than they can afford.

It is interesting what you learn about Clinton and Democrats on this board. To set the record straight:

1. Clinton and Democrats did not coin the term "sin tax". The word has been around probably since the 1790s and the Whiskey Rebellion.

2. Democrats and Clinton did not invent "sin taxes."

3. In fact, Alexander Hamilton probably should be credited with enacting the first federal "sin tax", on whiskey, in 1793.

Alexander Hamilton, by the way, was the leader of the conservative Federalist party.

4. Ever since then, Republicans have often proposed increases in sin taxes. For example, Ronald Reagan in 1982, along with his supply-side advisors, advocated doubling the excise taxes on gas, wine, and hard liquor.

His tax advisors told him that this would be a good deal, because raising excise taxes has less of a disincentive effect on work and investment than other forms of raising revenue.

Hmm... another fine example of useless one-liner. I don't know how many times I've had to shoot this crap down here and in other message boards. The lower 50% DO pay their fair share. Your little statistic is the most deceptive 'information' Rush ever posted.

Although the top 50% did indeed pay 96% in 2001, they also collected 86% of all money earned that year.

Here is a litle bit of information if you would like to see the full truth:

http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/richpay.html
Look at those numbers again. Everyone outside of the top 10% contributed a smaller tax share that their income share. Furthermore, only the top 1% are paying at a rate significantlly higher than their share of income. Personally I'm not going to cry about a group that makes their money by forcing everyone else to work for shit wages.

The bottom line is that if you are getting your information from Rush you are only getting half of the truth.

lets see, under clinton there was a republican majority so that would have to mean that the republicans proposed this tax increase on these specific items, right? so maybe the religious right special interest groups got this started and coined the phrase 'sin tax'.

Middle class is not just a nationwide class. In my city and county, I am middle class. I make somewhere areound $125k gross. Upper class in my area starts around $230k. In the place I used to live in, *nameles city to keep my identity offline*, the mean income was around $36k. Upper class there was above $80-90k. You have to adjust for income and real estate in areas. When I make $125k a year, I can own a home and make payments on nice cars and buy food and utilities, and still have a bit left over. If I made this amount and lived even 100 miles inland from here, I could live in a 5-6 bedroom house, drive an Astin Martin, and get that giant 50 inch plasma TV I've always wanted. You can't average out over the entire country when it comes to how far income will get you. It is relative.

I live in a small house that is worth like $500-600k. If my house were built exactly the same in Missouri, it would be worth maybe $95k.

From Kutulu's article:


Oh, ok :rolleyes:

So, in essence the rich both pay the inheritance taxes AND recieve their family's inheritance?? No fair!! :rolleyes:

There goes that tax cuts for the rich thingy


Kutulu, if that's the article that's going to blow away the 96% thingy, I think you're going to be disappointed. At best it splitting hairs and at worst, it's helping reenforce then argument.

Putting that aside for the moment, how muh more of my tax dollars do you want to confiscate for the govt? I'm in 94-99% bracket for reference

Be that as it may will, but the fact remains that it still puts you in at around the top 5%.

You say that as if it's a bad thing and that he should feel guilty about it. Why?

How convenient, you said absolutely nothing about this:

YOU brough in the whole 50% pay 95% crap. I posted that it's a half truth, you have no response yet. Your response was the equivalent to holding your hands to your ears and saying "la la la la la"

Whatever is necessary to ensure that the people making less than 29k/year don't have to pay more taxes that they can't afford and can have reasonable health care. The selfish upper class has decided to chose to give themselves more money at the expense of the workers that keep their system running. If they aren't going to willingly give their workers the means to take care of themselves, we'll take it from them.

Since you brought up the disparity in taxes paid by the bottom 50%, how much more do you want to take from a family of 4 that nets less than 29k/year?




Err on the side of life, as long as they aren't capable of living. Screw the people that actually need help.

It's nothing to feel guilty about. All I was saying was that it doesn't put him in the middle class.

First, you should note that I have always taken issue with CBPP, anytime anyone has used them as a reference. They are hardly non-partisan and hardly accurate--see my past posts on them (i.e. SS threads).

Second, the irony in this is kinda funny.

In another thread, someone made outlandish claims about the "Bush tax cut" which I refuted with primary evidence (not from a think tank). Here is the claim:
Now, we look at the truth (posted in response to the above assertion):
Now, if tax revenue was "destroyed", how can the numbers being increasing?

If you look at the data, you will see a dip after 2001 that trended upward for 2004. This would make sense once you factor in the economic impact of 9/11 and a recession (that started before Bush took office).
LINK

Host -

The previous assertions about Bush destroying tax revenues were made by you. I refuted it with the same exact evidence as I listed above--you never responded. In this case, I am repeating claims I have made here over and over again--I get tired of citing the same source when nobody bothers to reply.


Now, we have this comment:
A simple check with U.S. Department of Labor proves this to be a false claim as well. LINK

?


That's not going to help your argument. This family's AGI (if making 28,000per year) will be at 13, 900 before child deduction/credits and childcare tax credit. Thus, they will recieve the monies they paid into the system plus money they didn't pay into it because of the child tax credits.

You amke a very emotional argument, but unfortunatley, the facts get in the way and blow it out of the water

Pan -

The "right" doesn't refuse to allow taxes, we try and keep them within limits. On one side you have people that want an incredible hike in taxes and on the other side you have people that want less taxes - this creates a balance. One side isn't getting their way over the other side as taxes have increased and decreased at the same time (just in different areas).

As for the problem you are specifically referring to, I have little sympathy for states that went nuts with their spending and got caught.....just as I will have no sympathy for the federal government when the same thing happens to them.

In the 90's, the states saw a boon in tax revenues, the numbers kept going up and up and up. They mistakenly assumed that this trend would continue, even when the experts were warning them otherwise.

Then, in 2000 and 2001 we got the double-whammy. A recession started and then 9/11 happened.

The states got caught with their pants down--the money wasn't flowing like it was before.

However, they weren't willing to tighten the belt and reduce spending, too many people/departments/etc got used to receiving all this money and didn't want to lose a penny so the states had two choices:

1) Reduce spending to within current revenue limits

-or-

2) Find other ways of getting more revenue

Which leads us to this problem that you are describing.

Believe me Pan, I know all to well what you and your state are going through. We have the same bullshit tax increases here that primarily effect the poor.


As I have said many times here, I do not see the level of taxes as the problem--I see the level of spending as the problem. If spending could be kept in check (at the federal/state/city levels), we would see a lot of these problems go away.

Now, are politicians going to voluntarily reduce spending? Nope. We have to force them to do it. They only way to do that is a spending cap placed on the government.

From my personal viewpoint, I can say beyond doubt that when and if my father dies before I do, my sister and I will inherit a lot of money but in ways my father set up so that thea least amount of taxes will be taken out (trust funds, land, life insurance policies (which are not taxed)... etc.)

However, I have already told my father that I don't believe in not paying my fair share, so I will pay taxes on whatever I am given, even if it means selling land, antiques and such for less than full value.

It's not that I am some saint or dreamer, it's just I love my country and will be more than happy to pay whatever I can to help her. Besides, in my mind inheritance to me is valueless as I would rather have the time with my father. Plus, I didn't work for it, he did. So even if I only recieved a penny and the rest goes to taxes, it is found money that cost me nothing. I would rather work for what I have anyway than be given it, because it means far, far more to me when my blood, sweat and tears went into it. I LIVED THAT RICH LIFE AND WAS GIVEN A LOT.... AND IT MADE ME COLD AND VALUELESS.

Too bad more people don't believe that way. So personally take all you want when I get it, it's the cost to protect my freedom and keep society moving forward.

kutulu - I'm looking at the charts you posted. Ok, the top 50% of wage earners collected 86% of all monies earned that year...ok. They still paid 96% of all income taxes. Wouldn't it be more fair if they paid only 86% of all income taxes? I'm missing your point completely on this one.

pan - By your statements, you understand that it is your hard work that earns your money. Its admirable that you are so adament about paying your fair share. The question is though, What is your opinion of a fair share? How much should the top wage earners pay, in your mind, in order to pay their fair share?

Of the country, yes. Locally, no. Locally I am somewhere between the top 37-43%. I'd call that middle class. The fact is that the cost of living adjusts it's self with the mean income in a given area. I spend around $3.05+ per gallon on gas when people elsewhere pay $1.50-2.00. I obviously pay a lot more for housing. The housing prices in my area rival Honk Kong and Manhattan, the most expensive in the world. While I'd love to try and use the money I make to help and balance the out of control war train we call a budget, I do have costs of living. High costs of living. If I did the same job I do here in, say, Arkansas, I would be making somewhere between $60-70k a year. Where does that put me? I'd say that's middle class. Remember that this equasion has a lot of variables, like adjusting for local inflation.

I spend my extra money on my daughters college fund and retirment. I haven't been on a vacation in 5 years. I have a modest home with modest amenities (30 inch tv, basic dish network, dial up internet, copmputer, and my reading chair). I'm not rich by American standards. If I had my income elsewhere, I might be, but that's not the case. I am not elsewhere.

KMA-628, your assertion that the CPBB is "Not non-partisan and hardly accurate", does not make it so:

Link to search results on the subjerct of CPBB accuracy:
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FACT+CHECK+CBPP&btnG=Google+Search">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=FACT+CHECK+CBPP&btnG=Google+Search</a>

factcheck.org believes the CPBB to be independent:
The CPBB was also accurate in the report referred to in the above quote box:
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/1-28-04bud.htm">http://www.cbpp.org/1-28-04bud.htm</a>

KMA, please link the actual posts where you dispute CPBB items, and I will gladly debate them with you.

The CBO link that you posted shows federal revenue down and
income tax at it's lowest percentage of GDP in many years,
7 percent vs. 10 percent in 2000. The federal revenue figures reinforce that recession did not start until 2001, and march 2001 seems to be the official "date of record" that most economists point to as the start date of the recession.

In my opinion? I believe a flat tax of 17-20% with deductions only for families WITH CHILDREN that make under $100,000, and for families without children $30,000.

No loopholes, no deducting interest rates (nice scam but it allows people like my father who owns several properties a nice cut in and of itself).

I also believe if we make it 20% that 3% goes to pay down the debt and by constitutional law can only be used for that purpose. And once the debt is paid down the tax drops to the straight 17% (that's the number I have heard bandied about a lot in public debate).

I also believe that Capital Gains taxes, luxury taxes and estate taxes should go up also.

What 'facts' are blowing that out of the water? I've posted their contribution, all you've posted is anectodatal crap. Post numbers if you have them

No, it wouldn't. Doing so would require everyone except the top 5% to have a substantial increase in taxes. The people in the bottom 50% alone would be looking at being taxed at a rate of at least 4 times their current rate. Why should we raise taxes on 90% of America so that the top 5% can get a tax break.

Life isn't fair. Period. Although it may be fair that the top 5% pay taxes at a disproportionate rate when compared to their income it's also not fair that people in the bottom 50% work just as hard and don't have health insurance or anything beyond the most basic needs (if even that much).

Like I said before, the top 5% are the ones who set the wages for the virtually all of the employees of the country. Their tax burden could be less if they chose to pay people a wage that realistically allows them to cover all their basic needs and health care.

That's fine but we all know about the outsourcing and wage reductions that have been going on for the last few years. There may be more jobs but if they all pay peanuts then how is that supposed to stimulate the economy?

How about if I just use yours?

Quote: "The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities"

For example, one of their recommendations for SS solvency is to cut benefits. I discussed this in a different thread, where I talked about my dislike for the CBPP; a thread you were involved in. I am very conservative in my economic thinking and even I think we can do something about SS that doesn't involve cutting benefits

They are a liberal think tank.

I have a problem with some of their ideas just as you would have if I posted something from Heritage or Cato.

Nothing real complex here, they just view things differently than I do.

Also, your link from FactCheck correctly labeled them as "liberal" which removes any doubt in my mind if they are partisan or not.

Lastly, you statement said that tax revenue was "destroyed" which is hardly the case. When revenue goes up, it can hardly be described as "destroyed". Now, if you want to discuss tax revenue compare to GDP, I am fine with that, however, you will also have to include a lot of other information into your argument that you may not want to consider.

If you meant tax revenue was "destroyed" as compared to GDP than you should have said it, not added the thought later. Plus, even if you compare tax revenue to GDP I hardly think the word "destroy" could factor in as an adjective.

If you're at all vaguely familar with taxes and deductions, you will realize that your family of four making 28,000 does not pay taxes in the end. In fact, April 15th for these people is more like December 25th because of what they get back. It's govt hand out day, not tax day for them.

.

Unless you can cite a sample tax return your 'facts' are meaningless. I understand how deductions and exceptions work but as far as I'm aware you don't get back more than everything you put in over the course of the year (meaning if a person's total tax ends up at $0 and they had $1,000 taken out over the course of the year they aren't getting a check for $2,000. But that's beside the point...

You are focusing on details and missing the big picture because you cannot support an arguement that people in the bottom 50% have the means available to pay the increase in taxes necessary for a flat tax rate. Neither do most of the people in outside of the top 10% for that matter.

Keep in mind that the bottom 50% is a broad catagory. It ranges from teachers (some with Masters Degrees) all the way down to the person who works 1 day a week to get out of the house. The facts do indeed show that the bottom 50% DO pay taxes. They just don't pay them at a rate that you deem 'fair'

The fact is that you are suggesting that 90% of the country should pay more so that the top 5% can lessen their tax burden and so far you have refused to say why that is justified outside of 'it's not fair'.

Kutulu -

My wife is making up a hypothetical return in a few minutes (she is a tax accountant) and I will pass it on when I get a chance.

Basically: Married filed Jointly gets EIC if their income is under $35,458. Then, you add in the standard deductions, the kid deductions and you will see that the hypothetical family of four will get back more than they paid.

That doesn't count additional deductions, i.e. if they own a house, etc.

Basically, as you go down the income ladder from $35K the less you pay in taxes and the more you get back.

Kinda hard to cite sources since this is all under IRS rules, that is why she (my wife) is using her tax software to make a hypothetical return based on $30K, average withholding, etc.

The burden really isn't in the $35K and under, it is the $35K to $115K range. That is the range, in my opinion, that feels it the most come 4/15.

Have fun with it. I've never qualified for the EIC so I really don't know much about it.

I agree that it's the $35 - $115k range that is hurt the most but original complaint was about the <$29k and their 'free ride.' The people between 35-115 make up 40% of the population and even then they pay less than what a flat tax rate would require.

I like the flat tax idea, but you will hear a lot of screaming over the children part. People without children already bitch about having to pay for public school when they don't have kids, imagine how much they will scream when there is another benefit they don't get because they aren't procreating.

Keep in mind that the concept of a flat tax is to deal with spending, not income. Deductions, benefits, etc should be based on amount of spending, not how much a person makes. Mainly because, one of the reasons to go with a flat tax over an income tax is that, hypothetically, a flat tax encourages saving (something our economy is sorely lacking in) whereas income taxation doesn't.

I see your point, but the "non-rich" benefit greatly from deducting interest rates.

In many cases, the deduction from their mortgage interest rates is the only reason they get a return and don't have to pay.

That kinda is one of the concepts behind a flat tax. However, they problem is in spending.

If you can't control gov't spending, no amount appropriated to debt will help, as the debt will just continue to increase beyond revenue.

You might be interested in this: Awhile back I was reading an article about flat taxes currently in use. Estonia has one that has worked so well that they are now in the process of lowering the flat tax rate. They have seen tremendous growth in revenue since changing their taxation system. Not that Estonia itself is a great example, but it was interesting to read about their success. I will look for the article later and post it if I can find it.

This is where you won't find any friends among the flat tax proponents.

It is most definitely not a "sin" tax. Dammit man, but i resent anyone telling me that i haven't earned the right to put some money down on the bar, and have a cold one after a long day. Using beer and spirits as a way to plug the dam of a broken tax structure is not an okay option. Nickel and dime people on this little shit...it does nothing but make the tax system less transparent, and more aimed at the working classes.

Ummmm.... You DO realize that all of the bad things that might happen are a result of the proposed tax INCREASE, don't you?

which is proposed to address the shortfalls created by income tax cuts.

That explains this statement.

Basically, the fact that EIC recipients have continued to exist is what qualifies them for a chunk of everyone else's money.

Income taxes go to the federal gov't--not to the states.

State taxes, which weren't cut by Bush, go to the state.

and you think that federal funding to the states hasn't gone untouched?

Look...i don't know the hard numbers for ohio. i don't live there. but the article does pretty clearly report that the implication was that these beer taxes were in response to other cuts. This is not the discussion, KMA. This is a RTFA issue.

In my Minnesota, the state is in the same bind. the bush economy has not been kind to our tax base, and a bunch of like minded "tax cut" republicans have gutted social services and run up a deficit. user fees are in a sharp rise...and i wouldn't be unsurprised to see shit like this beer tax come this way.

regardless of your opinion of what is taxed, i think it's far more interesting (and frightening) to talk about how our government has already budgeted our money. $71 billion annually on education vs hundreds of billions on defense...I know that education is a state and local issue, but the failure of our inner city children and many other parts of our public school system is a national problem.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on a flat tax. But if your dad, who makes $5mm a year, pays half of that in taxes, how can you or he say he is not paying his fair share? 50% is a hell of a lot more than the 20% you proposed.

He pays it but he does get quite a bit back, once he writes off interest, depreciations on businesses, losses on stocks, charitable contributions.... etc. By the end of the day he probably gets a majority of it back in refunds.

I was talking from his gross pay check. Plus that 50% included state, local, property taxes.

Let me just say last year he bought a Range Rover and took 1 of his Carribean trips on just his refund monies.

So you tell me.

Not necessarily all true.

The federal gov't does kick money to the states.

State taxes while they do stay in state are now being used to make up for the federal losses of tax monies.

I do wonder why our military budget is so high when I have been reading 25% of all US bases are on the chopping block and may soon be closed.

Or how this administration can say they are pro-veteran while they close VA hospitals and cut veterans benefits.

(Just an aside as the base in my hometown of Mansfield Ohio is on that block and the VA hospital in Brecksville is the only VA hospital that treats addicted veterans, which by the way contains the country's best Compulsive Gambler's treatment facility.)

I would mention that he supported one hell of a lot of people with his state and local taxes, and educated a great many more with his property taxes.

And the operative word in your last sentence is REFUND. It was his money to begin with, and whatever he didn't get refunded supported how many families? Three? Four? Twenty?

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!

You've hit on the crux of the issue with your post...income redistribution.

There will come a day very very soon when the lower classes wil simply just STOP working and revolt. And it will be because of pompous attitudes like the 2 posts above me.

Doubt what I say.......ask King Louis the 16th and Marie Antoinette... keep the attitude going..... I'd rather pay taxes than be in civil war or lose my freedoms....

Read your history, primarily 1780's and 90's France and compare it to today. I am prepared to die in battle for what I believe in....

My father knows this and again I re-iterate.... he knows his tax burden is too low right now, but as he says knowing and doing are 2 totally different things. At least he knows....... some on here it will have to take revolution for.

And in answer to your questions.... what percentage of his money goes to a war he does not believe in as opposed to educating which he does believe in?

WIll his grandkids be paying 90-100% to pay for the red ink we chose to run now because of greed?

What percentage of his money goes to give GOP Senators and Reps raises while they refuse to raise the minimum wage, while people go broke because the government won't fix healthcare?

What percentage of his money goes into the roads, the schools, the rebuilding and the future and what percentage goes into foreign leaders as bribes to "support us", Haliburton products that get bought but never arrive to the military, the president's "vacations", GOP votes on powerplays like Terry Schiavo, need I go on?

I would just encourage you to rethink this position in light of the realization that we are operating within the tailend of a capitalist production-consumption chain. that is, rethink what will happen to the economy when 300+ million consumers stop pumping as much money back into the system.

So you're saying that people who are given free education, healthcare, and pay no taxes are as bad as those peasants who paid ALL of the French taxes and were reliant on agricultural base that couldnt support the population? Wow...

Pan, how much more in taxes should your father pay? How much moe should people making 150000 a year pay? Give me a number, percentage, whatever. All I hear it's not enough and the soup lines are getting longer and longer. Give a number!!!

I already posted on page 1 I believe (may be wrong it ma be in another thread), I am a believer in a flat tax. 17-20% where 17 is the number and the extra 3% goes directly to pay down the deficit (by constitutional amendment if need be... and if the deficit is paid down the tax reverts to a straight 17%.

(I use 17% because that is the number I hear bandied about in many debates from people on both sides.)

I also believe firmly in raising the tariffs, (which I have discussed ad nauseum), especially raising tariffs to equal those other countries have on us (otherwise it isn't fair and equal trade is it...... hence one major reason for trade deficits).

I also believe in capital gains and inheritance taxes on anything over 1 million dollars.

That's a brief answer, like I said I already gave a number and talked about it.

The point is, if everyone knew they were paying EXACTLY the same percentage, I think we all could live with that.

Now, the percentages and the way taxes are they are all over the map and in most cases harmful to the lower, the middle class and upper middle class, while extremely lenient on those making the most.

It's a fallacy that the GOP lives and thrives on that the rich pay too much and are unhappy. I speak from what I know.

My father is a GOP, but not for tax cuts..... he votes GOP because he believed like many they were the fiscally responsible that would cut red tape, make government smaller but more efficient and that social programs would still be ok.

He is one, who now, believes he was lied to and feels used because he sees huge deficits from massive war costs while social programs suffer, government gets bigger and the religious right is taking over and pushing their agendas.

My father and I have a lot in common and I take after a lot of his political views, it's just I'm more socially liberal and think we need to fund more social programs (like addiction clinics and so on), and he believes that private funding of social programs works better because of less government interference and regulations would mean better treatments. In some ways I agree.

But I digress....

Pan, just because your wealthy dad says he pays too little in taxes doesn't mean that his opionion has more weight than people who say they pay too much. I understand your eagerness to use him as an example to us minions that are only in the top 5%, but please don;t presume that he speaks for all wealthy folks.

A flat tax.....I could live with that

I presume nothing. The fact of the matter is wages are going down,the tax base is being depleted by outsourcing, lower wages and tax cuts to the most wealthy, while our great supreme handpicked by God, Himself, leader runs higher and higher deficits spending more on militray and less on social programs and education.

To make up for the loss in tax cuts and the rise in state deficits the states are raising sales taxes, and "sin" taxes. These taxes affect the middle and lower classes far more than income taxes affect the rich, to say otherwise is foolhardy and blind.

When I call to order a phone with the utmost basic service and out of the 14.95 I pay, 10 of it is taxes, something is seriously wrong. That 10 doesn't mean jack to the extremely wealthy but someone living from paycheck to paycheck that 10 means a lot.

When you buy gas and .44 cents/gallon is tax, it doesn't affect the extremely wealthy, but again the middle and lower classes that are trying to make it are absorbing it and losing the battle of trying to save.

To sit there and say the rich pay far too many taxes when the hidden taxes and sales taxes hurt the middle classes and poor far more than a raise in the upper echelons income taxes would hurt them, there is a serious problem.

Part of the advancement of the human race is based on the fact that those who have more share, we don't see that today. In essence the way the debt is and the way greed and selfishness has risen, we are headed backward not forward and we are developing into a 2 class society.

Perhaps, it came with the super fast moving technology, or perhaps greed is the result of the baby-boomer generation that has been spoon fed by the press to believe they were/are the greatest generation, they had great oppurtunities and they found that money and toys are far more valuable than family and helping maintain a nice community with great schools and decent jobs.

The future at the rate we are going is not going to be pretty, if we do not change the way we think, the way we do business and the way we spread our wealth, we will as a nation perish into totalitarianism and lose what we do have.

I say totalitarianism because government is run by people's wallets and when the tough times come people will seek the person and party they believe have the answers and in reality it could lead to very bad things.

Ask 1930's Germany, one of Hitler's greatest selling points that got him into power was the fact he was able to put people to work, lift them out of the massive depression and inflationary problems they faced and turn Germany into the wealthiest nation at the time.

History will repeat itself again and we in the US are headed for choosing a leader that will pull us out of our problems while we turn blind eyes to loss of liberties and rights (look what we are turning blind eyes to now).

If we continue to tax and cut services to the middle class while the rich continue to get tax cuts, then we are doing far far more damage than good.

Pan, I don't necessarily disagree with a flat tax, but you seem to be contradicting yourself on this one. Use the gasoline tax as an example. It is like a flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage of their fuel costs in taxes, yet as you stated, this hurts the lower income people more. A flat tax would have the same effect on lower income folk. Someone making $30,000 and paying 17% would be left with $24,900 while someone making $3,000,000 would be left with $2,490,000.

If a flat tax were implemented the rich would end up paying much less and the poor would be paying much more. I think what you want is a progressive tax, like we have now, just more progressive. That would ensure that the rich pay their "fair share" and that the poor don't get shafted.

Another alternative is to do away with income taxes all together and rely on a value-added (sales) tax. This way people only pay taxes based on their consumption. The rich would obviously pay more $$ in taxes here, but at the same time would be paying a lower percentage of their income than poor people.

Either way you look at it, it's unfair to someone.

The term "sin tax" has been around far longer than Clinton.

I don't live in the states, so im not going to get into the whole tax debate. All though Im currently doing a simple research project on Sin taxes for a college paper.
My stance that I was given is that sin taxes should be abolished.
It seems that most people don't even thinkg of them as taxes.
They are usually included in the price so they're unnoticable.

alot of my info is about cigs, but its all relative....

Alot of politician like to argue that some of the $ goes into programes to discourage such activities, but of course they dont want these activities to stop, then they wont be getting their $.

Reports show that for every 10% increse in prices 4% usage drops.
smoking bans in the workplace and such do a better job @ discouraging use.

these taxes only encourage smuggling.
I can buy a case of beer brewed here (canada) for more than 1/2 off if I goto the states and buy it.
between 1980-1994 cig smuggling increased 253% and shopping across state borders rose 395%

during ww1 canada implemented a 10% tax on their diamonds to help w/ the war effort. this was never dropped, thus making canadian diamonds more expensive than others right here in canada. which would you buy?

I dont know, it just seems to me that there are better ways to discourage use.
when Im done my essay I might post it on here just to see what you all think.

I personally see no problem with the sin taxes. If people don't want to pay the tax, don't use the products. I'd much prefer taxes on goods that are not in any way necessary, than more taxes on work or a general sales tax.

The biggest problem with "sin taxes" is they are aimed at products lower classes buy.

An upper class Heineken drinker isn't going to really notice 18-20 cents increase, whereas the person who buys Busch is far more likely to notice the increase.

Same with cigarettes. The upper class Dunhill/ Nat Sherman smoker won't notice a 50 cent increase whereas the lower class Marlboro smoker will.

Same as Gas Taxes that in Ohio are 44 cents per gallon. The upper class driving that brand new SUV that gets 10 MPG doesn't miss that 44 cents/gallon, yet the guy driving the beat up 10 year old car does.

These taxes by ANY study shows that the lower clases spend more money on and buy more of these products than the upper classes.

Yet, they keep cutting capital gains taxes, inheritence taxes and luxury taxes, where the upper classes have more disposable money.

So tax wise the beer drinking cigarette smoker that makes $30,000 a year pays far far more of a percentage in taxes than the upper class does. But those who support these taxes (usually the GOP) do not mention that, and will change the subject as to how the upper class pays more in income taxes. Yet, the poor are in fact paying a higher percentage.

The right also argues that these people choose to drink and smoke. True, but to say that while you drive a new luxury SUV that gets 10 MPG is hypocritical.

In essence these taxes afford the right to cut the upper class taxes. And yet looking at how inflation is soon coming, gas prices are soaring and the stock markets running flat at best, the LIES that those cuts help the economy are bullshit. What they are allowing is for the rich to save up for the serious recession/depression we are about to hit into.

Call me a pessimist, but watch gas prices and gold..... I lived through the mid 70's to early 80's and the trends today are exactly the same as the trends that caused that. But the worst part is there is a smaller middle class, more wealth is owned by the very very rich, government is running up heavy debts and putting less and less into true growth projects such as education and small businesses, and people make less, survive on credit and have fewer otions for jobs. We won't even get into the trade deficit.

So unless we find a way to even out taxes, rebuild a true decent paying manufacturing sector and middle class growth instead of loss, our country is living on seriously borrowed time.

The right will argue, cry scream and shout but they will not argue with facts about why the taxes on the rich should be lower and that it promortes growth.

The 3 fastest growing employment sectors in the past 10 years have been: temp. jobs, Wal*Mart and other discount retailers and the fast food industry..... which of those actually pay decent, liveable wages and give benefits?

While the top 1% have seen their personal wealth grow exponentially. Don't believe me look how much Bill Gates, the Walton family, Warren Buffett, etc were worth 20 or even 10 years ago and compare how much of the GDP and percentage of wealth the "middle classes" held 20 years ago, 10 years ago and now. Then see where the wages have gone..... compare how the worker wages have held steady or gone down, benefits have seriously declined, while again, the CEO's wages and benefits have increased exponentially.

AGain, the right will never aknowledge this, show facts or even truly debate this, all they can do, however, is keep claiming they pay too much in taxes.

I wonder if a flat tax were implemented combined with closing all the loopholes if the rich would still pay less.

Where do we get this presumption that taxes must be "fair"? Nobody wants any of their money taken away from them so, by very definition, taxes are inherently "unfair".

What ruling stick do we use to decide if someone is paying enough, not enough or too much?

The purpose behind a flat tax is not to make sure the rich pay more, pay less, or any of that crap. That has absolutely nothing to do with the concept.

Now, it should be a consideration when preparing a proposal, but with everyone having different opinions as to what is "fair", we will never be able to achieve a system that will apeal to everybody.

Here are my two requirements for any tax reform to be considered (by me, at least).

1) It must bring in the necessary revenue for our gov't to continue. (I would also like to see the addition of spending caps placed on our gov't)

2) Everybody must either pay the same amount in taxes as they were or less. No increases whatsoever.

I wasn't questioning the fairness, I was asking stevo if closing the loopholes and putting in a flat tax might bring in as much or more from those most able to pay are paying now. The tax code is so complicated that I believe many people who can afford tax attorneys and accountants will instead pay that money in taxes with a flat rate and no loopholes.

flstf -

That was more of a general comment that I wrote because of what you and stevo where writing. I was responding to you, but the comment wasn't really pointed at you--sorry, I shoulda been more clear.

This whole concept of taxes being fair, or needs to be fair, is sometimes foreign to me.

I could respect your opinion Pan if it wasn't for the fact that your post makes it seem like because you don't have the money your father has, it's not right for him to have it either.

Yeah the guy gets some breaks, but so do you. So do all of us. Each tax bracket has it's advantages or disadvantages. Being a single male, it sucks seeing almost 40% of my paychecks taken away, but you know what my take home is all for me so that ain't all that bad.

Even after his tax break, your father probably still paid more in taxes then I will make the next 5 years, and I respect that. I also respect you paying your taxes, and everyone else paying.

I feel personally like people would find anything they can to make the tax cut look bad. It was mentioned before about goverment spending and that's a huge issue. You save $2.00 but spend $5.00, you aren't sitting pretty in the positives here.


In the end I'll say this. Your problems aren't bigger then someone elses just because they could afford to forget or erase them. Your problems are your problems, and no amount of making anyone else suffer should make your problems better. If it does then the only person wrong would be you.

That's the vibe I'm getting.

My attraction to tax reform like the flat tax or some kind of national sales tax instead is because of the complicated tax code. Even the IRS has problems interpreting it. There must be a simpler way.

Try as I might, sometimes I never really know whether my tax form is totally accurate or not and I imagine there are millions of us in the same boat. The last time I traded some commodity contracts the long term taxes wound up being more than the short term ones which I know/think is wrong but I just followed their instructions. Anyway you know what I mean.

Like I said I never begrudge a person for hardwork earning his money. But with wages going down the loss of industry, the tax base is not there for these cuts.

And to cut what social and educational services we do have while spending huge amounts on foreign countries that the leaders keep the monies, on a war that they have no exit plan for and keep throwing money into (and most goes to Haliburton who doesn't even supply what they have said they would to the troops), to cut veterans benefits and close VA hospitals while claiming to be all for the vet, there are serious problems.

It amazes me how fast the right is wanting to crush any social programs but yet will throw HUGE money at a war and offer tariff free or very very little tariff trade to countries that hate us and tariff our imports out of competition.

Until you fix the tax base and build it back up, the rich are eventually going to have to pay more taxes, because they will be the only ones paying.

And if you think the GOP can remain in control as they keep cutting social programs and running extremely high deficits while cutting the rich's taxes you are in for an awakening.

I said this in '88 and I'll say it now, the best thing the Dems can do is lose in '08 and allow the GOP to continue to show their true face. Because they will have to either severely cut social programs and that will not go over well as wages keep falling, or they will have to massively raise taxes. Either way they slice their own throats.

And remember Bush HAD to raise taxes to pay for Reagans deficits. Just as in '08 (or sooner) the sitting Pres. will have to.

i make over 6 figures, and i am undertaxed. we donate seriously to causes we like, and try to make a difference.

we have 3 bridges in this town that need serious work, and the infrastructure of America is only getting worse.

could we spend less on the military and more on infrastructure and education? you bet. I'd love to see it. but i would happy to pay more tax. i have no issue with carrying the load i can carry. the fact that it's more load than others can carry is not an issue for me.

for each his ability, or something...

You have me lost. You don't like paying taxes because you feel you pay too much and it is unfair to you, yet, you say that the concept of taxes being fair is sometimes foreign to you.

Look around man, our country right now is built on debt from people who made certain wages, and now those wages are declining fast.

Gas prices are just the tip of the iceberg, everything is going to go up, vendors will have to raise prices because of transportation costs, products made with petroleum and petroleum by-products are going to go up. Inflation is coming and it is going to come in hard and fast and our current wages will not handle it. Nor will the country because there is no freaking industry anymore to pull us out.

Who do you propose to pay taxes when the family of 4 will be barely making it? Who do you propose to buy houses and keep new construction going when noone has the jobs nor the wages to buy?

It's far more than just taxes man, the economy is getting ready to take a serious dump and the CEO's are making fortunes and getting taxed far less than the country can afford.

You want lower taxes but then you fight against rebuilding industry, tariffing imports, Small Business Loans, fair wages, and so on. We can't afford it, we either need to build a working class with decent wages and tariffs and have government offer SBL or wait for the economy to crash and tax the rich far far more heavily than they are now to pay for the lost taxes from the lower class, because the middle class will be non-existant.