Republicans and taxes: Is Bush fair to you ALL?

[MODU]

In fact, we shouldn't be rewarding people who are lucky enough to be born with natural talent.  We should be teaching people that they can succeed by working hard, no matter the talents or status they are blessed with.

You might want to rephrase that thought.  I would really hate to believe that you would want to limit the opportunities of a person just because they are naturally talented.  In fact, those are the ones you want to encourage to excel as far as they can, since they tend to lead the way for the rest of us to follow.

[classical liberal]

The Facts

According to the US Treasury:

The Top 10% of the population pay 65% of all Federal Income taxes

The top 25% pay 83% of all income taxes.

The top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes.

The bottom 50% of the population only pays 4% of all taxes.

These are dead cold, hard facts.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

The notion that the "rich" don't pay their fair share is total Bullsh*t.

The poor & working class, when you factor in direct REFUNDABLE rebates, such as the EITC and various child care credits actually pay a NEGATIVE rate of Federal Income tax.

This of course makes great "class warfare" fodder for the left.  

The left harps away on the fact that many poor folks did not get a tax cut from the Bush tax package.  

This is true, but only because these people already paid no Federal Income  taxes.

These people got their tax break already - They benifited from the hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal spending on health, education, environment, roads & transportation, Unemployment insurance and welfare.  (in many cases to a greater degree than the general population) and they paid not a penny in federal Income taxes.  All their government was free to them, and paid for by somebody else.

A hell of a "tax break" - at least in my book.

When the left talks about tax "fairness" what they are really talking about is raising taxes, to take even more money away from the top 50%, so you can give even more money to the bottom 50% who already pay no income taxes anyway.

No rants please.  Just facts.

Are their any FACTS I have posted here that are not true...?

If so, which facts do you disagree with, and please provide a link to substantiate your disagreement.

If you want to agrue for MORE income re-distribution by the government, go ahead - but at least aknowledge that the "rich" (or even the semi-well off) already pay virtually all the taxes, and that what you advocate is that we take even more from the top so you can give even more to the bottom.

If you conceed this, I will at least aknowledge that you are intellectually honest, and we can have a discussion about taxes, anf how much additional tax you wish to extract.

But untill you do, I will regard everything you say as nothing more than class warfare political non-sense.

I am not rich, but I have done ok.

I have a pretty nice house, an nice car, and expect to have a nice retirement.  And I have paid a sh*tload of taxes in my life.

I have never cheated anybody, broken any rules, or exploited anybody to my knowledge.

I got where I am by working hard and following, not breaking, all the "rules".  I got an education, started a business, and did all the things a "good" citizen is supposed to do.

I am VERY tired of all these left wing folks suggesting that somehow I stole it all and that the difference between me and some down and out crackhead welfare "victim" is just pure luck.

Do the "rich" pay all the taxes? - Of course they do.  It has to work that way,

But instead of insulting me, calling me a "lazy fat cat" how about just saying "Thank-you for being a good citizen, we appreciate the many many thousands of Taxes you contribute to Society".. ?

Why don't you include all the other taxes people pay in your "facts"?  Three-quarters of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.  And what about the regressive effects of excise, sales, and property taxes?  Why do conservatives convenients ignore all the taxes the working poor do pay when reciting "the facts" about taxes?

The sales tax is the worst tax for the economy, though excises are a close second.  Property taxes are not as bad as excises but still much worse than Gains and Dividend taxes.  Personal Income taxes are the least bad of all taxes and Corporate Income taxes are virtually nonexistant given all of the loopholes in the Code.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rich have more expensive houses, ergo they pay more in property taxes.  You can't inlude FICA in this comparison as it directly funds a program that benefits those who pay into it proportionally to their contribution; in the context of you general argument FICA and excises like the Gas Tax are more similar than FICA and Income tax.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, only about 96%.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In fact, we shouldn't be rewarding people who are lucky enough to be born with natural talent.  We should be teaching people that they can succeed by working hard, no matter the talents or status they are blessed with.

You might want to rephrase that thought.  I would really hate to believe that you would want to limit the opportunities of a person just because they are naturally talented.  In fact, those are the ones you want to encourage to excel as far as they can, since they tend to lead the way for the rest of us to follow.

I don't want to limit their opportunities...I just want to limit how much these opportunities pay.  I don't think this would result in talents being squandered.

For instance, in the first half of the 20th century, the best professional athletes in this country were paid upper-middle class wages.  Yet people still dreamed of becoming pro athletes, idolized them, and trained hard to become them.  It didn't take ten-million dollar signing bonuses to encourage athletic excellence.   People with natural talents generally want to do what they have the talents to do, as long as they will be paid at least as much for it as any other generic job.  If we taxed pro athletes at 100% of their income over $1 million, the pros would work just as hard, and they would supply the same level of athletic entertainment, possibly without some of the labor difficulties and exorbitant prices ticket prices.  Just look at the continued success of the Olympics!

[MODU]

I have problems with your example.  For instance, many of the current naturally-talented athletes are the ones asking for the big contracts, while those that have busted their humps to get where they are today are simply happy to sign any contract they can get their hands on.  Secondly, you want to tax 100% for every dollar over $1Mill?  If that's the case, they wouldn't be going for the higher contracts since they'll never see the potential return on their investment.  The owners would then be getting away with "cheap" players and pocketing all the money.

Now, if you take this down to a real-world application, you have a naturally talented pc programmer making slightly above average pay in a company to spit out code every week.  You would want to cap his fincancial growth possibility simply because the older man in the office next door had to go to school for 6 years and has to work much harder and longer to gain the same skills required to do the job as the talented person?

This is the failed concept behind socialism (which, for those history buffs, the colonists practiced when they first settled in America).  If you limit the reward potential, you end up limiting our growth and development.  Competing to get those higher salaries and positions drive both those with talent as well as those without.  This is similar to Afirmative Action, but on the lines of ability and not color (another failed concept).  By limiting those who can easily do the job from obtaining their full potential (skill and pay wise), then all you do is hurt the nation.

[??????????]

Gates like every individual SHOULD be paying 0% income tax.  Because individuals do not earn income. They earn wages. Businesses are the only legitimate source of income.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I have problems with your example.  For instance, many of the current naturally-talented athletes are the ones asking for the big contracts, while those that have busted their humps to get where they are today are simply happy to sign any contract they can get their hands on.  Secondly, you want to tax 100% for every dollar over $1Mill?  If that's the case, they wouldn't be going for the higher contracts since they'll never see the potential return on their investment.  The owners would then be getting away with "cheap" players and pocketing all the money.

Now, if you take this down to a real-world application, you have a naturally talented pc programmer making slightly above average pay in a company to spit out code every week.  You would want to cap his fincancial growth possibility simply because the older man in the office next door had to go to school for 6 years and has to work much harder and longer to gain the same skills required to do the job as the talented person?
c
This is the failed concept behind socialism (which, for those history buffs, the colonists practiced when they first settled in America).  If you limit the reward potential, you end up limiting our growth and development.  Competing to get those higher salaries and positions drive both those with talent as well as those without.  This is similar to Afirmative Action, but on the lines of ability and not color (another failed concept).  By limiting those who can easily do the job from obtaining their full potential (skill and pay wise), then all you do is hurt the nation.

In the case of the athletes...yes, athletes probably wouldn't demand contracts of more than $1 million/year.  But the owners couldn't benefit THAT much, since they also couldn't make more than $1 million/year.  The additional money would go toward lowering prices or reinvesting in the business for things like stadium improvements.  Also, player salaries in the major sports are so exorbitant right now that very few owners actually make money.  Owning a team is a luxury hobby for people with money to burn, not a profitable enterprise.

If people only worked because of financial incentives, and you pay exceptionally talented people millions of dollars per year, these people would probably only work for a few years and be set for life before retiring, depriving the world of these talents.  If you instead pay them upper-middle class wages, they can still live comfortably, but can't just retire young, and have to keep contributing to society.  Therefore, we would get more production out of the most effective producers if we DIDN'T make them rich quick.

Of course, many exceptionally talented people continue to work even after being set for life financially because they enjoy their jobs, enjoy the fame their jobs bring them, or just enjoy competitition.  All these incentives would still be there if you raised upper-class taxes.  It is people stuck in working-class or working-poor jobs that only work for the money; these are the people who will legitimately work harder if given tax breaks.

And if you think financial incentive is important to keeping the strong, why do you support inheritances and lotteries, which provide are financial disintentives to hard work?

[MODU]

I know where you are trying to go with your argument, but you are using a utopian environment to make your case, which would never exist in our lifetime (only in a Star Trek future).  We are a Capitalistic society, and will always be in our lifetime (barring some major global catastrophe).   But using your example, you've now pushed your 100% taxation rule outside of individuals and now onto companies.  You say the teams won't be able to hoard the millions saved on pro-athletes who now find big contracts meaningless since they will never see their money.  If you apply that to the teams, they will no longer find a reason to operate after the first few seasons since they'd max their capital gain potential.  Spread that to all the companies in existance, and you'd have total economic collapse.  

This is what you would want (still basing it on the initial argument of unjustly punishing the talented):

First, you would have to come up with standardized tables so you can convert cost of living expenses/rates across the US.  Then, calculate what the average pay per position would be on a national level (which would require at least 100 variations of "Financial Analyst" alone to meet all the minute variations in job descriptions).  After that, you unjustly punish the talented, you would set an incremental tax increase on salaries over the national average.  So, say if the national average salary for "Financial Analyst definition #78" is $50K, the talent-tax penalty is 0%.  At $60K it is 10% for the $10K over the national average.  At $70K it is 20% for the $20K over the national average, and so on until until you reach $150K, where the rate hits 100% (not that there are a lot of Financial Analysts out there pulling in $150K to begin with).  

But that too will never happen.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'm don't want to push 100% taxes onto corporations profits.  Assuming corporate profits are reinvested in the company, they would not be taxed at the personal income rate.  I have no problem with companies accumulating capital that will go toward making the business more efficient.  But if these profits were used to pay any employee or shareholder, even the owner, a salary or dividend of over $1 million, that employee would have to pay the personal income tax on that money.

So, if the a pro sports team made higher profits as a result of lower player salaries, the owner himself could not pay himself a salary of over $1 million out of these profits...if he didn't want this profit taxed, he would have to give it back to consumers or reinvest it in the business.

I generally agree with the Rawlsian theory of distributive justice: we should tolerate inequality only when necessary to provide an incentive structure that will benefit all people, even those who aren't already rich or talented.

And I fully realize this will never happen in my lifetime.  But I hope is it something we can steadily move toward.

[MODU]

Understood.  It would only occur at the point when money started losing it's meaning.  Which goes back to my early statement about how the colonists in America were originally Socialists - they did things to survive, and they knew they couldn't do it as individuals, but rather as a village.  No one was "better" than the other, since without one, the who village was lost.  It was only after, when the colonies began to expand, and the villages became towns and cities, that Socialism was displaced with Capitalism.

[John Dibble]

I just don't get the concept that the rich, the talented, the efficient, the hard-working, ect. don't deserve their money(since they get lots of it) and the people with less money somehow deserve to get those people's money. So please, explain it to me - why do the rich deserve to have their money taken, and why do those who aren't rich deserve to have that money?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I just don't get the concept that the rich, the talented, the efficient, the hard-working, ect. don't deserve their money(since they get lots of it) and the people with less money somehow deserve to get those people's money. So please, explain it to me - why do the rich deserve to have their money taken, and why do those who aren't rich deserve to have that money?

It isn't entirely "their" money...money is only valuable because it is backed up by the security and organization provided by the state.  

A person may have the right to his own labor in "the state of nature", but he doesn't have the right to usurp all the progress and effeciency that modern society has given to him, mix these social resources with his labor, and claim the product of the two is entirely his own.  By himself, man can barely provide for his own survival.  When enhanced by the progress, security, and efficiency of modern, organized society, man's labor is much more valuable, but no longer completely owned by him.

Thus, a person has the right to whatever he could produce in the state of nature.  Any surplus which is created by the existance of the state is property of the state, to be distributed as the state sees fit through a fair political process.

[John Dibble]

I just don't get the concept that the rich, the talented, the efficient, the hard-working, ect. don't deserve their money(since they get lots of it) and the people with less money somehow deserve to get those people's money. So please, explain it to me - why do the rich deserve to have their money taken, and why do those who aren't rich deserve to have that money?

It isn't entirely "their" money...money is only valuable because it is backed up by the security and organization provided by the state.  

A person may have the right to his own labor in "the state of nature", but he doesn't have the right to usurp all the progress and effeciency that modern society has given to him, mix these social resources with his labor, and claim the product of the two is entirely his own.  By himself, man can barely provide for his own survival.  When enhanced by the progress, security, and efficiency of modern, organized society, man's labor is much more valuable, but no longer completely owned by him.

Thus, a person has the right to whatever he could produce in the state of nature.  Any surplus which is created by the existance of the state is property of the state, to be distributed as the state sees fit through a fair political process.

What?! You do realize that people don't just amass wealth, right? They spend that money - thus they redistribute it to others through the market. Rich people also don't get rich on their own, as you say - which is why they pay for labor and the other factors of production(redistributing it).  They get money as a return on their usefulness to society - they provide a good or service that enhances society, society pays for it, they get money back. If the service provided was not useful in some way to society, the person would earn squat. The entrepreneur CREATES progress by using the system, he doesn't take away from it. Modern society has progressed in a good part due to hard-working, talented individuals who worked, a good deal in their own self-interest, and gave society something they were willing to pay for.

So, once again - how do these people deserve to have the fruits of their labor, which society gave them willingly, taken away from them and given to someone else(who you still have not proven deserves it).

[Bogart]

It seems to me that in a purely theoretical sense, redistribution of income is counterproductive. Of course, we must collect taxes to provide for certain of those things which are essential to our modern society. The wealthy, who could afford to construct their own roads, have some of their money taken to construct roads for the poor who cannot afford to construct them--for example.

Taken to an absurd extreme, redistribute $1 million to each person in this country. Two hundred and eighty million is a line item in the budget. The problem is, having been freed from the need to work, many people would stop doing so. The economy would collapse, not being able to survive on consumption.  

The need to, not simply the desire to, strive to improve one's condition is the point.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It seems to me that in a purely theoretical sense, redistribution of income is counterproductive. Of course, we must collect taxes to provide for certain of those things which are essential to our modern society. The wealthy, who could afford to construct their own roads, have some of their money taken to construct roads for the poor who cannot afford to construct them--for example.

Taken to an absurd extreme, redistribute $1 million to each person in this country. Two hundred and eighty million is a line item in the budget. The problem is, having been freed from the need to work, many people would stop doing so. The economy would collapse, not being able to survive on consumption.  

The need to, not simply the desire to, strive to improve one's condition is the point.

I'm not suggesting that we just give people money for doing nothing.  People who are able to work should have to work if they want to earn a decent living.  But people who do put forth their best effort to contribute to society should not be penalized just because they are not gifted with natural talent.

[John Dibble]

It seems to me that in a purely theoretical sense, redistribution of income is counterproductive. Of course, we must collect taxes to provide for certain of those things which are essential to our modern society. The wealthy, who could afford to construct their own roads, have some of their money taken to construct roads for the poor who cannot afford to construct them--for example.

Taken to an absurd extreme, redistribute $1 million to each person in this country. Two hundred and eighty million is a line item in the budget. The problem is, having been freed from the need to work, many people would stop doing so. The economy would collapse, not being able to survive on consumption.  

The need to, not simply the desire to, strive to improve one's condition is the point.

I'm not suggesting that we just give people money for doing nothing.  People who are able to work should have to work if they want to earn a decent living.  But people who do put forth their best effort to contribute to society should not be penalized just because they are not gifted with natural talent.

I don't know where you get the idea that we're trying to penalize the poor just because we don't support overtaxation of the rich.

[bushforever]

Thousands of my hard-earned money going to ME instead of government waste spending and failed welfare programs sounds fair to me.  It's my money and I earned it and I should be able to spend it the way I want to spend it.  Whether it's helping out the economy and myself by going on vacation or buying new appliances, saving it for my retirement or my child's education so I can assure a bright future for my family, or donating it to a homeless shelter, church, or scholarship fund of MY choice.  To quote Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th century, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem."

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It seems to me that in a purely theoretical sense, redistribution of income is counterproductive. Of course, we must collect taxes to provide for certain of those things which are essential to our modern society. The wealthy, who could afford to construct their own roads, have some of their money taken to construct roads for the poor who cannot afford to construct them--for example.

Taken to an absurd extreme, redistribute $1 million to each person in this country. Two hundred and eighty million is a line item in the budget. The problem is, having been freed from the need to work, many people would stop doing so. The economy would collapse, not being able to survive on consumption.  

The need to, not simply the desire to, strive to improve one's condition is the point.

I'm not suggesting that we just give people money for doing nothing.  People who are able to work should have to work if they want to earn a decent living.  But people who do put forth their best effort to contribute to society should not be penalized just because they are not gifted with natural talent.

I don't know where you get the idea that we're trying to penalize the poor just because we don't support overtaxation of the rich.

The poor are penalized by the capitalist system for not have the talents or the education to succeed in the market.  I don't think they should have to suffer   in their lives just because that's how the market would put them without interference.  Our society is affluent enough to provide a decent living for the everyone and still provide incentives to work.

And it's NOT your money...that money is printed and guaranteed by the federal government.  If they weren't around collecting taxes and protecting both your physical safety and the stability of the currency and the markets, that money would be worthless.  The rich owe the state a huge debt for allowing them to live in a safe and free society where they are given the opportunity to succeed.  

Again, if you don't want to be taxed, just leave the country.  No one is forcing you to stay here.  But if you are going to take advantage of the many gifts that modern, free society has granted you, you must pay the costs that come with that as well.

[John Dibble]

The poor are penalized by the capitalist system for not have the talents or the education to succeed in the market.  I don't think they should have to suffer   in their lives just because that's how the market would put them without interference.  Our society is affluent enough to provide a decent living for the everyone and still provide incentives to work.

As opposed to a system that rewards them for absolutely nothing? Not having talent can be made up for by working harder, and education IS provided(yes, I know this is by the state, there are a multitude of taxes that pay for this, most of them not income taxes). There is no such thing as a completely fair system, and the unfairness of the redistribution system is much greater than that of the capitalist system in my opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, the government prints the money, but it is the people who use it who give it value. If the government didn't print money, there would be a different currency - be it goods for bartering, precious minerals(gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, or something else), or even a privately run currency. And there is nothing stopping private organizations from making currency(in fact, some do: http://www.norfed.com/). It is the people who give the government money value, not the government - if the people wanted to start accepting shark teeth as currency the government couldn't stop them, so that federal gaurantee means nothing to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's taxes in every country, like going anywhere else would be any better. I never said I didn't like to be taxed anyways, or that there should be no taxes - I said I dislike the income tax, as it is anyways. There are a multitude of other taxes I'm fine with. But taxes in general should be kept to a minimum, as well as government spending. And, by this argument that you use, if you don't like capitalism, move somewhere that doesn't have it.

[MODU]

I just came across this article, which mirrors two of our current discussions on this forum: taxation and open discussion with the President while on the campaign trail.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040811/pl_nm/campaign_bush_taxes_dc_1&printer=1

----------------------------------------------------------------

NICEVILLE, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering.

"It's an interesting idea," Bush told an "Ask President Bush" campaign forum here. "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously."

Republican economists who speak regularly to the White House have said that the Bush campaign has been mulling the idea of an overhaul of the tax code as part of an agenda for a second term should Bush win reelection.

Some lawmakers have floated ideas of simplifying the tax code by putting in place a "flat" income tax rate or a national sales tax. But those ideas have so far not gained much traction in Congress. Opponents say such a system would not be in the best interests of the poor and the middle class who would pay the same tax rate as the wealthy even though they have less disposable income.

[classical liberal]

Funny how it's the Democrats advocating a flat tax.  Steny Hoyer has held a few Special Orders late at night discussing his people's plans for flat taxes and tax simplification.

[Bogart]

Beyond what has already been said, I think it's worth mentioning that everyone has a different definition of what constitutes a "decent" living. This is a big part of what determines one's incentive to try to do better. There are those for whom no amount of money is enough, they always want more. There are those for whom a basic existence is sufficient. There are those who are fine with even less.  And, people continue to work beyond what even they feel is enough for themselves for a variety of reasons. They may enjoy working, they may want to set their children up. Either way, it provides the motivation to continue working and producing. It is not the state's place to determine for its citizens what is or is not enough.

Second, while true that the state does provide for basic security, etc, it provides these things for everyone. Therefore, this is a wash.  Some would still be more successful than others whatever level of services the government supplied.

[A18]

Bill Gates has paid a huge 15% tax over the last few years. While America has been fighting this war. Insteasd of paying 40% tax under Clinton. Bill Gates pays 15%. 

Um, the top tax rate is 35%. It would be awesome if it was 15%.

If Bill Gates paid 15%, it's because of tax loopholes, and is just another reason we need a flat tax of 17% with no loopholes, and a certain amount of money exempt.

[David S]

Bill Gates has paid a huge 15% tax over the last few years. While America has been fighting this war. Insteasd of paying 40% tax under Clinton. Bill Gates pays 15%.  

Where the hell are you getting your information from? Do you have access to Bill Gates tax returns?

In any event I'm betting that over his lifetime he has paid many times more in taxes than you will ever earn.

BTW Gates created a company that makes useful  products that people all over the world use every day. Thats a benefit to mankind

His company Microsoft  provides jobs for 57,000 people, another benefit to mankind.

Gates is a philanthropist and has donated millions of dollars to charity, yet another benefit to mankind.

Now how much did you pay in taxes, and what have you done for mankind?

[John Dibble]

Bill Gates has paid a huge 15% tax over the last few years. While America has been fighting this war. Insteasd of paying 40% tax under Clinton. Bill Gates pays 15%. 

Um, the top tax rate is 35%. It would be awesome if it was 15%.

If Bill Gates paid 15%, it's because of tax loopholes, and is just another reason we need a flat tax of 17% with no loopholes, and a certain amount of money exempt.

It's likely because Gates makes extremely large, tax-deductible contributions to charitable causes.

[John Dibble]

David S and John Dibble- I doubt nomorelies can answer you since he has been banned from the forum!

Yeah, but other people will read this stuff.