Taxing the rich does not work

[ChopperDoc]

TAXING THE RICH to balance the budget is a lie. The proposed tax increases on the "wealthy" would only bring in a few billion extra a year. If we collected that amount from the current wealthy for the next 300 years it would not pay down the debt that has been created in the last 5 years by our government, much less address the new unfunded stuff our politicians have in store for us.

Stop the orgy of government spending, create more opportunity for job creators to so just that, by lowering their taxes. Create more opportunity for folks to take tax deductions for major purchases over the short term. If we create more jobs, it creates more money coming in to the government because more than
% of the population will be paying in to the tax system.

The socialist model will not work.

from http://www.theblaze.com:

"New statistics compiled by the Internal Revenue Service offer a detailed look at which Americans pay the vast majority of taxes. According to the IRS, Americans making over $50,000 paid 93.3% of all federal taxes paid in 2010. These people had an effective tax rate of 14.1%. In contrast, those Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5% and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7%.

Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.

Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers.

In other words, only 85 million actually paid taxes.

But Tax Foundation data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS."

[WLJ]

Even if you taxed then 100%, it would barely dent the deficit. I've tried to explain this to 99% ers and even shown them the math and they just keep on going on about "tax the rich". it's true, fact and figures mean nothing to them, it's all based on emotions.

[Rem700]

we know it doesnt work....but poor folks here that he will take more money from the rich and they like hearing that....he is buying votes like usual.

[WLJ]

we know it doesnt work....but poor folks here that he will take more money from the rich and they like hearing that....he is buying votes like usual.

Problem is they pretty much define "rich" anymore as anyone with a job and pays taxes.

[Rem700]

we know it doesnt work....but poor folks here that he will take more money from the rich and they like hearing that....he is buying votes like usual.

Problem is they pretty much define "rich" anymore as anyone with a job and pays taxes.

bingo

[ChopperDoc]

What the 'Buffet rule" will really do:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... rialPage_h

The case for the Buffett tax keeps eroding. When President Obama announced the idea, he said it would help "stabilize our debt and deficits over the next decade." Then came the inconvenient revelation that the new 30% millionaire's tax would raise only $46.7 billion over 10 years, and would leave about 99.5% of the deficit intact in 2013. It was a far cry from "stabilizing the debt."

Now we learn that the Buffett tax the Senate is expected to vote on early next week will make the deficit worse. That's because both Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats have made it clear that their new "fairness" tax is to offset the revenue loss from another provision related to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Enlarge Image
2buffettrule
2buffettrule
Associated Press

That measure would exempt more than 20 million middle class Americans with incomes as low as $80,000 a year from getting nailed by the AMT. This year's Obama budget clearly describes their intent: "The Buffett Rule should replace the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now burdens middle-class Americans rather than stopping the richest Americans from paying too little as was originally intended."

The Joint Tax Committee—the official scoring referee on tax bills—calculates that the combination of AMT repeal for the middle class and the Buffett tax would add $793.3 billion to the debt over the next decade. As Mr. Obama has said, "This isn't politics, this is math."

The Buffett tax is losing any serious rationale by the day. Mr. Obama's position now is that we need a new fairness tax, because the old AMT fairness tax that was targeted at millionaires and billionaires isn't raising much money from the Warren Buffetts of the world. Instead it's siphoning income out of more and more nonmillionaires. So they argue it's time for a new Buffett rule, that is almost identical to the old Buffett rule, and no doubt in time will have the same unintended consequences.

The Buffett rule itself may die, but the name will live on as a metaphor for pointless public policy.

[Frailer]

First, I wholeheartedly agree that increased taxation isn't the answer to our deficit disaster.

But these figures are presented in a deceptive manner. It argues both that increasing taxes on the richest Americans would contribute little to our coffers while at the same time arguing that these same Americans pay the lion's share of taxes. You can't have it both ways.

Lies from the left...lies from the right.

[WLJ]

First, I wholeheartedly agree that increased taxation isn't the answer to our deficit disaster.

But these figures are presented in a deceptive manner. It argues both that increasing taxes on the richest Americans would contribute little to our coffers while at the same time arguing that these same Americans pay the lion's share of taxes. You can't have it both ways.

Lies from the left...lies from the right.

What is clearly needed is a massive cut in govt spending, tax the rich all you want and govt spending will just keep pace.

[ChopperDoc]

First, I wholeheartedly agree that increased taxation isn't the answer to our deficit disaster.

But these figures are presented in a deceptive manner. It argues both that increasing taxes on the richest Americans would contribute little to our coffers while at the same time arguing that these same Americans pay the lion's share of taxes. You can't have it both ways.

Lies from the left...lies from the right.

Um...yes, it is saying that because that is what is going on.

According to the IRS, Americans making over $50,000 paid 93.3% of all federal taxes paid in 2010.

That data is not Democrat or Republican. It just is.

A little over half of us pay into the federal income tax system while a little less than half do not pay into it at all or get a 100% refund. Many of those that don't pay into it draw on government assistance programs that are supposed to be temporary relief for their lifetime and their children are born into it and never pay into it either but they are on those programs from cradle to grave. Immigrants that move here at the age of 65 are drawing SS benefits and never pay one dime into it from an earned income here. That has been happening since Carter's time (if not before...).

A little over half of us are NOT paying the lion's share... we are paying the whole share. Of the approx. half of the population that pays taxes, the "rich" typically have the highest effective tax rate of the bunch of us. That does not even include corporate tax to the Feds. That does include the AMT, which will go away if the "Buffet Rule" passes muster, making it even less effective. So yes, it will do very little to increase our coffers.

Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.

I am not going to say that the one side lies less than the other. They are politicians. Deception is rule number one regardless of party.

The stuff I posted above is data from the IRS about 2010 returns. The left can lie about how the Buffet Rule will reduce the debt, but in reality it if they would just collect the back taxes owed by many of the "uber rich" (Lionel Richie owes over $1 million but supports the Buffet Rule, Warren Buffet owes - and is suing the .GOV not to pay - over $1 Billion in back taxes) they could likely make the same amount in income. The right can lie about how there is no crony capitalism, but we see it when we look for it just like we saw from the last Bush admin when big bankers friendly to the admin were warned about the impending collapse of Frannie and Freddie on the same day a press briefing to the public said those organizations were stable. The REPUBS gave the uber-rich time to react and even plan for how to get some of that bail out money from the .GOV where you and I had no access to that insider info. Yes, there is corruption and deceit from both sides of the isle and we have allowed it by buying into the kind of crap this administration is shoveling out right now about the "Buffet Rule". it tugs on the heartstrings about "fairness" but in reality does nothing to address the problems created by the big Federal Government and the orgy of spending going on for decades.

The 15% tax by the wealthy they are talking about as being "unfair" is only available on LONG TERM CAP GAINS, and then only depending on your income from other sources. If long term cap gains dividends are your only source of income in most cases you are not able to claim the preferred rate of 15% even on long term cap gains. All SHORT TERM CAP GAINS are taxed as normal income for whatever your bracket turns out to be. So there are a few that make the 15%, but not many. The hedge fund guys know how to work the system to maximize the money they earn under that 15% rule, and Warren Buffet has helped pen some IRS code via his lawyers and lobbyists that are beneficial to him in doing just that.

Why do you think ole WB wants a change in the tax code to tax more of the "rich"? His job is to hide his clients money (legally) from the IRS! How many folks will come knocking on his door for his help once a Buffet Rule is passed? The FED .GOV will just be expanding his client base and sending more investor case offshore.

Yes, in this case you can have it both ways, because that is what the numbers show. Increasing taxes on the rich will do little to bring in more income annually and will likely stagnate the economy more than it already is AND we taxpayers (approx 50% of the population) do pay in so the other half does not have to produce anything. The numbers show that, not the diatribe of politicians from either side.

[JustShootIt]

Its the Robin Hood fairy tale spin.....thats all it is....

People believe anyone out there with a little extra money is a fat bloated crook and its ok to take anything they have...1) because people believe they "didnt earn it.....2) if they are "rich" they can do without it or won't miss it

Bottom line....they will next be able to raise taxes to meet the .gov spending......we can not feed and clothe the entire population and/or keep up with all the money wasted by our gov....

Theres got to be a breaking point.....we've heard it for so long we almost become immune, but its going to happen...

[jackalo626]

I can't even type I get so mad at this topic and everybody with their hand out and taxing people that try harder more and penalizing people that succeed.

[WLJ]

Oh, and if you missed it, Obamacare is now costing 3x more than they said it would.

[Frailer]

According to the IRS, Americans making over $50,000 paid 93.3% of all federal taxes paid in 2010.

That data is not Democrat or Republican. It just is.

A little over half of us pay into the federal income tax system while a little less than half do not pay into it at all or get a 100% refund. Many of those that don't pay into it draw on government assistance programs that are supposed to be temporary relief for their lifetime and their children are born into it and never pay into it either but they are on those programs from cradle to grave. Immigrants that move here at the age of 65 are drawing SS benefits and never pay one dime into it from an earned income here. That has been happening since Carter's time (if not before...).

A little over half of us are NOT paying the lion's share... we are paying the whole share...

I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning the way the data are presented.

The "lie" is using $50K AGI as the break point--which is an attempt to turn this into a "we the middle class vs. they the slackers" thing. Looking at the *raw* data I'd contend that a more natural break point would be at $100K AGI, which is the first place the percentage of total tax paid jumps into double digits. Furthermore, the point at which taxation becomes disproportionate--i.e. the percentage of total tax paid is greater than the percentage of total US income--occurs at the $200K AGI point.

One could therefore argue that anyone whose adjusted gross income is less than $200K isn't paying their fair share.

Again, I agree completely that increased taxation won't fix the deficit; that can only come from deep spending cuts.

I just hate propaganda, which, IMHO, is what this is.

[Frailer]

By way of follow-up, here is why using income percentiles as benchmarks for tax burdens is deceptive. Using percentiles deceptively leads one to believe that the progression is linear, when nothing could be further from the truth:



Data are from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

[WLJ]

It all boils down to the simple fact the govt spends far too much, and most of it is buying votes.

[WLJ]

Taxing the rich does not work

Sure it does, it buys votes.

[Frailer]

It all boils down to the simple fact the govt spends far too much, and most of it is buying votes.

Absolutely true.

And when the books don't balance Democrats set their sights on the lazy rich and Republicans take aim at the lazy poor.

The truth is always in the middle. Always.

[ChopperDoc]

According to the IRS, Americans making over $50,000 paid 93.3% of all federal taxes paid in 2010.

That data is not Democrat or Republican. It just is.

A little over half of us pay into the federal income tax system while a little less than half do not pay into it at all or get a 100% refund. Many of those that don't pay into it draw on government assistance programs that are supposed to be temporary relief for their lifetime and their children are born into it and never pay into it either but they are on those programs from cradle to grave. Immigrants that move here at the age of 65 are drawing SS benefits and never pay one dime into it from an earned income here. That has been happening since Carter's time (if not before...).

A little over half of us are NOT paying the lion's share... we are paying the whole share...

I'm not questioning the data. I'm questioning the way the data are presented.

The "lie" is using $50K AGI as the break point--which is an attempt to turn this into a "we the middle class vs. they the slackers" thing. Looking at the *raw* data I'd contend that a more natural break point would be at $100K AGI, which is the first place the percentage of total tax paid jumps into double digits. Furthermore, the point at which taxation becomes disproportionate--i.e. the percentage of total tax paid is greater than the percentage of total US income--occurs at the $200K AGI point.

One could therefore argue that anyone whose adjusted gross income is less than $200K isn't paying their fair share.

Again, I agree completely that increased taxation won't fix the deficit; that can only come from deep spending cuts.

I just hate propaganda, which, IMHO, is what this is.

I do see your point, but I suppose I saw this article from a different perspective: In a direct answer to the allegations by the White House that the 'rich' do not pay their fair share (the rich being defined as over $250k annually regardless of the residence ZIP Code) and that Obama is the "Champion for the Middle Class". The way the data was relayed was a great way to do it based on the liberal interpretation we are hearing from the the Hill. That is why I agree with the way it is published.

The raw data is always the best place to get what you want and you should always fact check because there is an agenda from both sides. I am not sure I agree that the answer is always in the middle for EVERY subject, but it usually the answer that most can live with on most subjects.

[theduke282]

No spin on this. Data per the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The average weekly salary for non-supervisory employees is less now than it was in the mid-1970's, adjusting for inflation. This is because in the mid 70's there was a move in the govt. to start deregulation and lowering the tax rate on the wealthiest citizens. The move was started with the idea that all would benefit. However, with people in non-supervisory roles making less than their counterparts some 40 years ago its an easy arguement to say they aren't better off.

Also, the wealth gap between CEO's and the avg. salary of their employees is up to 380 to 1 in 2011. In 2010 it was 343 to 1.

[ChopperDoc]

Ah yes, that evil deregulation. This thread will really make a turn for the worst if we start in on that.

The .GOV attempting to regulate everything from your speech to to cow farts over the last decade plus has nothing to do with where those salaries are now.

[theduke282]

I agree that things are over regulated in many ways now. However, I also feel that certain regulations are required to keep things going smoothly. Of course the important part is actually enforcing things instead of just adding more unenforceable rules.

[Toddinlou]

Under the current tax system the "rich" have several loopholes that the most do not have access to. Increasing tax rates on the wealthy will not increase .gov revenue. That is a fact that has been demonstrated time and time again. Income and revenue will simply be structured in a way to minimize or defer taxation to a later time. It's tax planning to defer income to years when it will likely be taxed at a lower rate. So yes, taxing the rich to raise revenue is pure BS, it is not the intent. It's a feel good thing to make people think yah, we are really sticking it to those rich bastards the whole time we are sending out welfare checks with money that we don't have.

[Rem700]

If we could find a way to privitise gov spending we might have a chance. At least then people would be accountable for there failures. We all know efficiency is not in the gov dictionary. It becomes more apparent everytime i pass a gov road crew fixing a pot hole, digging a ditch or whatever. Its always 4 guys standing around watching and one guy working. If we could actually turn it into a business type model (not for profit but just to simply find and maintain the break even point for a balanced budget) then we might be able to turn things around. BUt with the current administration that is an impossible feat. We have all seen how little he cares about increasing the deficeit as long as he is buying the poor vote with his empty promises and with the money of tax payers. IMO tax deferment is not a LOOPHOLE per say. THey will eventually have to pay that tax at some point in the future. They are just kinda playing the tax lotto, hoping to win a smaller tax payment. But anyway i feel i am rambling now. All politics just makes my blood boil because no matter what they say to our faces(regardless of party) they all have a personal agenda and it is to get rich doing as little as possible while trying to make the american public work as hard as possible for them. Show me an honest politician and ill sell you my 100 acre farm on the moon for a dollar.