taxation

[henry quirk]

What is equitable ('fair') taxation?

That is: if you had your say, how would you structure American taxation (on the local, state, and/or federal levels)?

[infinite monkey]

I would pay approximately...none.

The rich (I will define rich as anyone with more money than I have) will give 50%. Said 50% goes mostly to me.

I don't care about the roads or the infrastructure or services or community or animals or starving children or the space race or the cold war or the hot war or reduced lunches or shelters or bread or milk or the price of rice.

(Sorry, I was channeling another dwellar.)

Anyway, I don't really understand taxes I just know that I pay the hell out of them and I consider it to SUCK but I consider it integral to being a participant in a community.

I hope you get some interesting answers because I know there are a lot of folks here with some very evolved ideas on the tax system.

One thing I know (well, NOW I know, thanks to monster) is that corporations are NOT people, because Texas never executed one.

[/levity]

[HungLikeJesus]

I'd say an ideal ratio would be 1/3 of income goes to taxes (federal, state, local, etc.), 1/3 goes to savings/investments, and 1/3 goes to expenses.

I haven't really thought it through, but it sounds like a good balance.

[glatt]

And toll roads should be illegal. Highway maintenance should be paid for with federal gasoline taxes.

Virginia is considering putting tolls on 95, so that it can tax out-of-state drivers passing through, just like all the other East Coast states do. Sure, I feel sorry for Delaware, where 50% of their traffic is out-of-state people driving through, but there has to be a better way to pay for things than to stop the flow of traffic to collect money.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

I'd say an ideal ratio would be 1/3 of income goes to taxes (federal, state, local, etc.), 1/3 goes to savings/investments, and 1/3 goes to expenses.

I haven't really thought it through, but it sounds like a good balance.

So we should all pay 100% tax rates? Do we get to eat

[HungLikeJesus]

That's the third third.

[classicman]

1/3 actually sounds reasonable, but when one considers the lower incomes ...

[infinite monkey]

I'd willingly give a buck fifty to those who suffer so through their own damn fault.

Mostly, it's the ones who don't want to GIVE who realize, when confronted with the harsh reality of the world, that they believe the world should GIVE to them.

They suffer so. More than anyone.

[infinite monkey]

Don't you have to have an actual job to pay income tax?

[classicman]

nope, unemployment benefits are taxable as income.

[Lamplighter]

Social Security is taxed as ordinary income...

and there is no withholding during the year so retirees can get caught
with unexpected taxes (depending on their other incomes)

ETA: also, each monthly SS payment includes a $45.50 deduction for Medicare

I suppose Merc would call all this double and triple taxation.

[classicman]

Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?

Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression
Now does a secretary usually pay higher tax rates than a millionaire?
The answer to that question is definitely not.
Most secretaries don't make that much. Salary.com put the average salary for an entry-level secretary at $33,249. The top marginal rate for the secretary would be 15 percent, and then typical deductions and exemptions would reduce the tax burden even more. If the secretary had children and no other income, the likely income tax burden would be zero.

OK, so lets put that tired incorrect argument to rest.

Which leads us to another fact-check of ours. We fact-checked Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who said, "Fifty-one percent -- that is, a majority of American households -- paid no income tax in 2009." We rated that True.

So, the majority of nouseholds in the US do NOT pay ANY income taxes. Something just seems weong with that conceptually.
Two down.

Here's another accurate statement: The wealthy pay most of the income taxes in the United States.

As they should ... three for three.

Let’s say you’re a millionaire CEO, being paid a regular salary. In that case, you're paying the top marginal rate -- currently, 35 percent -- on everything you make above $379,150. (Earnings below that level are taxed at a lower rate.)

Numbers from the nonpartisan CBO show that the wealthy pay most of the taxes in the United States. In 2007, the top 10 percent of tax payers accounted for 72.7 percent of all income taxes owed. That top 10 percent included people making adjusted income of $102,900 or higher. Keep in mind, that top 10 percent accounts for 42 percent of all income earned. They paid an average tax rate of 26.7 percent.

Still, that doesn't mean all the rich were on the hook for that much. Again, because of the lower rates paid on capital gains and dividends, some wealthy people paid much lower rates than others.
"We estimate that nearly half of the benefits from the lower rates on gains and dividends goes to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households," he said. That top one-tenth includes people with incomes of $2.3 million dollars a year or more.

Therein lies the rub ... Capital gains and dividend income. Tax it all the same and solve that issue.

But even the most aggressive tax increases on the wealthy would raise only $700 billion to $800 billion over 10 years, when the federal government needs to be considering deficit reduction of between $1.2 trillion and $4 trillion over that time period.

To achieve real savings, lawmakers need to look at tax code in its entirety, eliminating all sorts of loopholes and special exemptions, he said. And, they need to make reductions on the spending side, particularly on entitlement programs projected to expand due to an aging population.

from here
Its time for lawmakers from both parties to stop doing what is in their own best interests and do what is right for the country, for a change.
Look at the deductions like those mentioned above, which primarily benefit only the uber-rich and eliminate them - NOW.

[BigV]

Does a secretary pay higher taxes than a millionaire?
Quote:
Obama didn't say that secretaries pay higher taxes than millionaires, although he left that impression
Now does a secretary usually pay higher tax rates than a millionaire?
The answer to that question is definitely not.
Most secretaries don't make that much. Salary.com put the average salary for an entry-level secretary at $33,249. The top marginal rate for the secretary would be 15 percent, and then typical deductions and exemptions would reduce the tax burden even more. If the secretary had children and no other income, the likely income tax burden would be zero.
OK, so lets put that tired incorrect argument to rest.

The weasel words here give the escape route. "A" secretary and "A" millionaire. "Usually" Sure. I bet you can find a set of circumstances that make that "tired argument" to rest. I bet you can find "another" set of circumstances that make that claim that "Obama didn't say" true. Now we're fact checking things the President *DIDN'T* say? wtf?

Salary dot com says the average salary is 33k. hm. doesn't that mean that plenty secretaries make more and plenty make less? And, of course, the leading promoter of this image, probably the creator of this image is Warren Buffett. I feel confident that his secretary isn't making the average salary, though the secretary probably isn't making a million dollars. So, as far as I'm concerned, this myth is NOT busted.

[classicman]

I believe YOU would believe that in spite of the points in the article.

[BigV]

Here's more about why I think it's a poor argument.

"more taxes" what the hell equals more taxes? More dollars? Higher percentage? This vagueness in the language lets everybody claim greater victimhood.

"millionaire" What constitutes a millionaire? AGI? (by the way, that's adjusted gross income) By the time we're adjusting it, it's not really income anymore is it?

and this is the biggest SNAFU of all : Income.

You definitely hit this one on the head in the last point you made, full props, yo.

A secretary is likely making the money they live on, what you and I in ordinary language would call "income" from her wages or salary. I can't say from personal experience, (dammit), but I bet the vast majority of folks who make the money they live on that is in the seven figure range is NOT making that money, from wages (srsly? 1,000,000 / 2080 = $480/hr. not happening) could be salary, sure. But someone that "valuable" would negotiate hard to have that compensation categorized as something else that is less vulnerable to taxation than mere "salary". We will have a discussion on "carried interest" in a little while.

You rightly point out that inbound cash flow that is called "capital gains" has an entirely different tax structure. You rightly point out that the inbound cash flow that is called "dividend income" is taxed at a different rate. The capital gains one seems unfair, artificial. If I buy a __________ for 100 dollars and later I sell the same __________ for 150 dollars, the difference is 50 dollars. why does it matter what the __________ is that generated the net 50 dollars? Be assured, it does matter, as does the length of time between the first purchase and the subsequent sale. Why? The plain answer is that by our laws, we've decided to give preferential treatment to some kinds of transactions. Why we decided to do this and what we were told was the justification for this decision is a matter for a whole other thread, or board, or national shouting match about "class warfare". It is UNDENIABLE that there are differences, and the OVERWHELMING trend of these differences is to be more favorable to folks with more money than folks with less money. This same thing is true about the concept of "deductions". One man's deduction is another man's loophole.

We haven't even begun a discussion about deductions. I'm gonna need more beer first though.

Alright. enough for now.