I'm going for lunch. I've done my best to bring some fact and reason, but the OWS crowd is motivated by greed and jealousy, so there's no reasoning.
You were in fact talking about income taxes in your arguments, not payroll taxes (were any of you arguing to raise those??)...you want to raise income taxes on "the rich," right? Well as the table shows they already pay 70% of all income taxes now. And if you just want to consider total federal taxes of any kind, the top 1% pays close to 30% of that as of 2005 (I'd guess more now).
Here are a series of questions:
what % of the total federal tax burden should the 1% carry?
what % of the total income tax burden should the 1% and the 10% carry?
what percentage PRECISELY (name a number, not a relative figure) total should a "rich person" pay in taxes as part of their income? (edit: I mean total...this includes federal, city, state, etc. ...how much should they have to pay as their total tax burden as percentage of income)
When you answer these questions people can see if you're honest and arguing in good faith, or just full of s*it
Last edited by mishima1970; 2012-04-17 at 12:50 PM.
You seem to want to force things to be done the way they have already been done. In case you didn't notice, it's not working. And you know what they say about trying to do things the way they've always been done, and expecting a different result...
The only thing in Japan that is harder than being a foreigner in Japan, is being Japanese in Japan.
Seems that you can't do so. I'm not surprised. From the data you linked to, it seems that many within the bottom 49% of households do in fact pay taxes (income, payroll and excise).
For clarity - 70%.
mishima, you made the mistake of replying to posts from a couple of the forum members who are incapable of reasonable debate. It will always diminish to name-calling from them. I occasionally fall into the same trap as you, but have learned over time to ignore them for the most part. You'll occasionally see posts about things you never actually said, or things taken out of context, but you'll get used to it. I'm of the hopeful, but so far unsuccessful opinion that if you ignore them, they will eventually go away.
enjoy the rest of the forum. just don't be surprised if they stalk you in the other sections as well.
One nation, under God.
I feel that there should be no ultra-rich (Tim Cook, Zuckerberg, Gates, Buffett, the Waltons, the Mars family, the Kochs, Adelson, Larry Page, Bezos, Bloomberg) in this world. The gap between them and the rest is obscene. Of course most of their wealth is sort of tied up, but nonetheless they can and do access lots of it. In my world, if you were to amass personal wealth of $20 million (arbitrary generous figure open to discussion), the rest goes back into your company and to the government. However, I think that anyone who has been smart enough to amass such a huge amount of money (even the Kochs) should get to have a direct say with some oversight in how their billions are applied for the public good (i.e., not to be squandered). for example, in Japan, it drives me nuts that the considerable taxes my wife and I pay will end up in Fukushima "pork" or a new scheme to buy the Senkaku Islands.
So, the uber rich in the USA still should be paying. Possibly the ideological rift in the USA is too great to even consider all of this. Anyway, America is broken and Romney won't fix it and Obama is moving far too slowly, imo.
I really hate the NTA.
But I wanted to add a clarifying twist here….
I’d make the tax rate that applies – the base rate that must be paid before any deductions or reductions are taken into consideration.
The amount of income that is left over – following the payment of the base rate – should then be used to calculate a surplice income tax – and for this tax, then those deductions and reductions can be taken. For sure, given the accountants and schemes used by the rich – they would only wind up paying the base rate – but at least they would pay that – instead of the meager 15 to 19% that these guys pay on 270 million and above today.
Of course, if what the person confronting you has said is indeed true, you will look as foolish as your words and unsupported claims have painted you.
For example, in post #44 of this thread you made a rather implausible and unsubstantiated claim about the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax. That post is still there for anyone who cares to check it, and so you will have to wear it since you seem unable to defend it. Just as mishima will have to wear his claim about the bottom 49% of households which he claimed paid no taxes unless he chooses to defend it. Highly unlikely.
Of course, if you could defend what say, that would be another matter. That, too, might be interesting, and possibly fruitful to all involved. An honest debate on complex issues can lead to new understandings. I've certainly had to readjust my thoughts on certain topics before. That is healthy. Far more so than dueling sound bites, however entertaining they might sometimes be. But that would involve some reading and thought on your part... Carry on.
"47% of households paid no federal income tax for 2009"
another link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...-like-20120417
"First, while it's true that 47 percent of households pay no federal income tax..."
Google this: percent of americans who pay no federal income tax
There are at least ten pages of results.
This is my last reply.
One nation, under God.
Originally you claimed that "47 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes". Now you are trying to support that with the fact that "47% of households paid no federal income tax for 2009".
Can you not see that they are different?
Indeed on one of the very sites you just provided a link to it says:
Last June, my colleague Bob Williams posted a TaxVox article that reported 47 percent of American households paid no federal income tax in 2009. Bob was exactly right, but rarely has a bit of data been so misunderstood, or so misused.
Let me explain―repeat actually―what this means: About half of taxpayers paid no federal income tax last year. It does not mean they paid no tax at all. Many shelled out Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. In fact, only 14 percent of Americans didn’t pay either income or payroll taxes. Some paid property taxes and, it is fair to say, just about all of them paid sales taxes of one kind or another. So to say they pay no taxes is flat wrong.
There are many Americans who are not taxpayers. There are also many Americans who don't pay federal income tax, but who still pay taxes. According to your link, in 2007, payroll taxes accounted for almost 34% of federal tax revenues while individual income tax accounted for about 45%.
Payroll taxes, which fund Social Security tax, Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI), unemployment compensation, and various smaller retirement programs, accounted for 34 percent of federal revenues in 2007, roughly $870 billion.
The payroll tax share of federal revenues has grown from about one-sixth in 1960 to more than one-third today
Maybe you made an honest mistake. Maybe you trusted too much in distorted sound bites fed to you over the radio. Maybe you deliberately misrepresented the facts for your own political agenda. I don't know. But you do seem to have a tendency for this sort of "slip up", and then when you are challenged on it, instead of admitting to a mistake or presenting your case backed up by credible sources, you run and hide. It's hard to have a reasonable debate with someone who presents their position in such a fashion.
An honest reply will usually get one in return. A disingenuous one gets quite another response. Don't matter much to me because I can often work with whatever is or isn't there. That's the beauty of foil.