Santorum drops out

[Effected After]

Let me ask you "fair share" geniuses again...how much SHOULD a rich person pay as part of his income? Somehow none of you want to answer this. What percentage, precisely?

I'd say 2.5 times whatever the second-bottom quintile is paying (the bottom shouldn't be required to pay taxes at all).

[timely response]

You/it are not only lying (we're not even talking about state taxes here for example, by the way), but also irrelevant, because the top 1% still pay about 27-28% of all federal taxes (and 39% of the share of all income taxes).

Me lying? What claim have I made?

I've simply asked you to support your claim that the bottom 49% of households pay zero taxes.

Seems that you can't do it with the data you linked to. But go ahead, prove me wrong. Point me to the data which supports your claim.

[mishima1970]

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

[mishima1970]

I'd say 2.5 times whatever the second-bottom quintile is paying (the bottom shouldn't be required to pay taxes at all).

Cool I agree. I say the second-bottom quintile should pay 0 income tax, and therefore the rich should pay 2.5 x 0 = 0.

Name a precise percentage you think is "fair share" or gtfo...

Lunch now maybe continue this later...

[Effected After]

Cool I agree. I say the second-bottom quintile should pay 0 income tax, and therefore the rich should pay 2.5 x 0 = 0.

Are you really advocating no one paying taxes? I'm not sure how you think your country is going to pay for all its

Name a precise percentage you think is "fair share" or gtfo...

I don't think it should be a set percentage. I think the way it is fair is to make it a floating scale based on what the people at the bottom are paying. This is the only way to keep it fair. The rich won't want to force the poor to pay more taxes, because they'll have to pay more themselves. And the poor won't want to force the rich to pay more, because they also will have to pay more. This keeps everyone in line.

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...

[timely response]

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?

Um, where did I mention anything about raising taxes, payroll, income or otherwise? I do believe that I was challenging both you and RU to support some seemingly spurious claims which you made.

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).

When you answer these questions people can see if you're honest and arguing in good faith, or just full of s*it

When you and RU have supported the claims which you made with credible sources, then perhaps we can have an honest discussion. It's hard to discuss complex issues with people who just make stuff up, deliberately or otherwise. Bon appetite.

[TJrandom]

...Let me ask you "fair share" geniuses again...how much SHOULD a rich person pay as part of his income? Somehow none of you want to answer this. What percentage, precisely?

OK, I'll bite... Until such time as the budget is balanced and the debt paid off - all of it... I'd say that the top marginal tax rate should be 70% for those making over 270million a year - which is what I understand the top 400 people make. At the bottom (or near it) - I'd keep the 30% rate for those making 200k. Keep the lower rates below the 200k, but add in a 10% base rate for anyone and everyone not already paying more. After the debt is paid off - then the rates can be relaxed - just so long as the budget is balanced, and no debt is ever again incurred. By all means - cut the budget too - down to a number that the nation can live with without people dying in the streets for lack of food and health care.

For clarity - 70%.

[ruserious]

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.

[Super Grover]

America discriminates against minorities right now, e.g., Asians in college admissions and in other ways. It also discriminates against whites, and will continue to when whites are a minority.

America's debt is not payable by any means at this point. Even if you taxed all the rich (however you define them) 100% of their net worth, it wouldn't pay off the debt. And the debt is not there because of low taxes, but because of out-of-control govt. spending on entitlements (= buying votes).

I think discrimination has changed a lot from when I was a kid, but of course it still exists. As for the debt, I wonder. I have several Canadian friends (professionals) who specifically left Canada so that they could make much more money and pay a lot less tax. So "under-taxation" is an issue. If the USA were to vastly curtail military spending and related spending, plus entitlements (as you write), a lot could be done to manage the debt. So far nothing much, imo. Still in denial.

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.

[Effected After]

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.

In this case, Mishima was the one calling names, and rather than having his comments taken out of context, was just asked to back up the comments he made.

[TJrandom]

OK, I'll bite... Until such time as the budget is balanced and the debt paid off - all of it... I'd say that the top marginal tax rate should be 70% for those making over 270million a year - which is what I understand the top 400 people make. At the bottom (or near it) - I'd keep the 30% rate for those making 200k. Keep the lower rates below the 200k, but add in a 10% base rate for anyone and everyone not already paying more. After the debt is paid off - then the rates can be relaxed - just so long as the budget is balanced, and no debt is ever again incurred. By all means - cut the budget too - down to a number that the nation can live with without people dying in the streets for lack of food and health care.

For clarity - 70%.

I am truly overwhelmed by the vote of confidence all of you have placed in me – for correcting the US deficit and the messy tax code – all in one post – as evidenced by the lack of any opposing comments.

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.

[timely response]

You'll occasionally see posts about things you never actually said, or things taken out of context, but you'll get used to it.

If you are worried about your words being taken out of context or misrepresentations of what you have said, you can always either link back to the original post yourself, or challenge the person confronting you to do so. If what the person has said is untrue, they will be unable to support it, and the impotency of their claims will become immediately apparent for all to see. More effective than a well aimed bucket of ice cold water.

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.

I'm not in the 1 percent yet, but unlike the entitlement liberals who want the government to give them everything for free, I am working my ___ off to get into that 1 percent.

47 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes.

By the way it's the bottom 49% of HOUSEHOLDS that pay zero taxes...

I'm of the hopeful, but so far unsuccessful opinion that if you ignore them, they will eventually go away.

What you haven't realized is that you are just a foil. It is really irrelevant whether or not you reply. A non-reply to a challenge backed up by credible sources is confirmation enough that your views are untenable. So either way, you do your position a disservice. Either you dig yourself a deeper latrine pit, or you run and hide for all to see. Neither option being an advisable way to go about building broader support for your position.

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.

[ruserious]

link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...households.cfm

"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.

[timely response]

link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...households.cfm

"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..."

Listen, words have meanings. When we change the words in a sentence, very often it changes the meaning. Politicians and radio pundits are very adept at twisting the meaning of words to suit their own political goals.

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.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2010/4/15/

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

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...roll-Taxes.cfm

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.