Needless to say, that's false too.
U.S. National Debt Hits $17 Trillion: How Did We Get Here?
- Thread starter cosmictraveler
- Start date
No, it doesn't. The top 1% pay nowhere near what they should, as we see by the deficit and increasing wealth inequality. The bottom half should probably pay no income taxes at all, considering their extra tax burden otherwise and the small overall income tax contribution they make.
Lol... except it isn't. I suggest you look it up.Needless to say, that's false too.
. Do a little research before you summarily and without merit dismiss reality. I live in Kansas. I'm very familiar with the state. If you need some help, just ask.
Last edited:
Well you don't understand many things, that's not new. Who owns the Social Security Trust Funds? The United States government owns the Social Security Trust Funds. Who "borrowed" money from the funds? The US government "borrowed" from one fund. You don't understand that?
Oh, and what shit will hit the fan if you don't pay it back? Nothing, nothing will happen. You will incur a 10% penalty fee if you take it out before you are 59 and a half years old. But that's it. You don't have to pay it back. There is no contractual obligation to pay it back.
Well, that's because money is transferred from different funds as has been endlessly explained to you. Investors really not interested in the mechanics of the government's internal accounting.
It doesn't matter. Look up the definition of debt. Debt occurs when one entity borrows from another. You can't become indebted to yourself. A legal entity cannot borrow from itself. That's not debt. The government can call and account for its internal transfers anyway it wants to. It can call those internal transfers anything it wants to. It's not material. It doesn't change a thing.
This really isn't that difficult.
Well if you really believe that you should tell that to the IRS when you file your tax returns and see how far that gets you.
Yeah, we, i.e. government, need to get money to fund government operations and programs. But that has nothing to do with this issue.
It is your claim, it is BS, (not just BS, but actually kind of dumb), and it is your responsibility to reference your claims when requested. Heck, maybe you meant something slightly different from what you said in an attempt to mislead, I don't know. Either way, it is your responsibility to clarify/prove. So yeah, I am asking: prove your claim.
Lol... except it isn't. I suggest you look it up.
Also, I'll take your ignoring of my previous post as an acknowledgement that you were in fact spouting BS, as I pointed out.
Not sureally where this leads us since the bedrock on which your belief that the rich don't pay enough taxes is mostly wildly false. I guess I'd really like to know if you knew it was BS when you said it and are trying to support your position through deception or if you really just didn't know. Or perhaps better yet, if there is a specific tax rate structure you would like to see.
Last edited:
You are entitled to you opinion, but your opinion isn't directly about the fact you were responding to. No matter what your opinion on what "should" be, what Joe claimed *is* was false.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
FYI
The social security trust fund "loans the federal government money" by buying special issue treasury bonds which generally mature between 1 and 15 years. In aggregate the current yield of bonds(current purchases and past purchases) is roughly 3.37% (mostly due to purchases when the yield was higher. eg: current 10 yield = 1.57%, in 2005 that was up to 4.6%.
here's a link to historical rates:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-c.../Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2005
The ss trust fund ain't got a mattress under which to stuff all that money. So, the money is invested in the most secure means possible.
Do you trust your congress?
The social security trust fund "loans the federal government money" by buying special issue treasury bonds which generally mature between 1 and 15 years. In aggregate the current yield of bonds(current purchases and past purchases) is roughly 3.37% (mostly due to purchases when the yield was higher. eg: current 10 yield = 1.57%, in 2005 that was up to 4.6%.
here's a link to historical rates:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-c.../Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2005
The ss trust fund ain't got a mattress under which to stuff all that money. So, the money is invested in the most secure means possible.
Do you trust your congress?
Which is why I specified income taxes.
A lot of people pay zero income taxes. Most are dirt poor, because they have almost no income. A very few are rich, because they have almost no income. (Which is why it is called an "income tax.")
Correct. So to your original statement, "it's not untoward or unexpected that they should pay more in aggregate terms" - which they do.
Completely incorrect. Let's take some numbers from 2012:
Average top 1%er income tax rate - 22% Cutoff - $435,000 and above Income tax paid for someone at the cutoff - $95,700
Average bottom 50%er income tax rate - 3.3% Cutoff - $36,000 and below Income tax paid for someone at the cutoff - $1,080
OK. Right now the minimum income tax is 10%. What should the minimum be? 15%? 20%? That is going to hammer the lower income groups, but we do have to raise taxes.
Agreed. Fortunately, they are not.
And if their workers are paying 5% of their income in taxes (putting them solidly in the middle of income earners) then those executive tax rates should also be cut to 5%?
Agreed.
They already pay far more than their share of income taxes.
They are very close to that now. In 2012 the bottom 50% paid 2.8% of all income taxes in the US; the upper 1% paid 38% and the upper 5% paid 59%.
Last edited:
Yes the total is the total. But as previously pointed out, you are only totaling the federal income tax. I suggest you look at your reference. You are just looking at the tax which is mostly paid by wealthy individuals and ignoring the taxes which are mostly paid by the middle class. That's not a good or fair representation.
Yes it was my choice to point out the taxes you are ignoring e.g. payroll taxes and state income taxes, etc. and to also point out you are only referencing percentage of the income tax paid and not the percent of income which as previously pointed out is the relevant metric. And where did I "mix and match"? I didn't. My point was, you need to look at the entirety of the tax burden and that is not what you or your source has done. You cannot just take the tax which is mostly paid by the wealth and ignore everything else as you have done. Nor does it address the ability to pay issue i.e. the percent of income burden. As previously pointed out the wealthiest earn most of the income, so it should be expected they would also pay most of the income tax. But that says nothing about the ability to pay or the burden that tax imposes in individual taxpayers.
Why would I want to change the "claim"? I have provided the data to back it up. You just don't like it. So you ignore it. Once again for your edification, tax rates for America's wealthiest residents have gone from 95% to 28% and is now at 39.6%. Capital gain taxes for American's wealthiest have gone for 40% to 15% and is now at 20% for America's wealthiest. Whither you chose to recognize that or not, those are hard facts and those are significant tax reductions. The fact is America's wealthiest residents are paying far less in taxes than they were a before Reagan raised payroll taxes.
As demonstrated by the chart below payroll taxes, the taxes paid overwhelmingly by middle income folks has risen significantly over time whereas income tax receipts have remained relatively constant during a period in which income tax rates were cut by more than half. The chart clearly demonstrates a shift in tax burden from the wealthiest to the middle class.
Well if "much of the rest is false" then you should be able to prove it. So let's see it. Where is your evidence?
Well, the average Joe Middle Income will probably pay between 10% - 15% of his income in federal income taxes, add on to that payroll taxes and you are looking at an effective tax rate of at least 25% - 30%. That's far more than Romney, Trump, or Buffet pays. Your average rich person does pay virtually nothing in payroll taxes because payroll taxes are capped. Income beyond a certain income e.g. 118,500 isn't subject to the Social Security tax. When you make millions of dollars a year, the few thousand dollars a rich person might pay in payroll tax is virtually nil. And most wealth folks don't have earned income, they derive their income from investments, and unearned or passive income isn't subject to payroll taxes.
Now whether you can understand that or not, others can and do understand it, including one of the world's most successful and respected investors, Warren Buffet.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/
"We fact-checked Warren Buffett's statements about taxes in the New York Times. Buffett said that his taxes amounted to "only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent." Individual tax filings are private, so there was no way we could compare Buffett's actual tax return with that of his secretary and other co-workers. (We contacted his office when we did the fact-check and didn't hear back.) So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/
And how do you know they are "outliers"? Where is your evidence they are "outliers"? And there is nothing "nebulous" about the rich except their incomes. The unfortunate fact for you is not all income is taxed equally. Some kinds of income, the kind of income most wealthy folks earn, isn't even recognized as income. Some bond income isn't treated as income. Income from certain legal entities isn't reported as income e.g. master limited partnerships. That's how people like Trump and Romney can pay virtually no taxes yet earn huge incomes.
The most heavily taxed income is wage income and that's just a plain and simple fact and wage income is earned almost exclusively by middle income folks. When you look at executive pay, the least portion of that pay package is almost always wage income because wage income is so heavily taxed.
And you think that makes sense....seriously?
Well, actually, it's your claim. You asserted what I wrote was untrue. So where is your evidence to back that assertion?
Well, actually, I have responded to your previous post...oops? Just because I have a life and other things to do, it doesn't mean I'm avoiding you. Are you feeling neglected?
LOL...well in my world truth and reason aren't bullshit. In your world truth and reason are not needed nor wanted. Your ignorance doesn't mean things aren't true. Your inability to perform due diligence and research before making stupid partisan pronouncements doesn't make a falsehood true. Your penchant for making false statements and misrepresentations doesn't make those falsehoods and misrepresentations true or any less misrepresented.
For your edification:
http://www2.kusports.com/news/2016/may/17/ku-coach-self-other-llcs-avoid-taxes-under-kansas-/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...selves-businesses-as-kansas-tax-plan-founders
Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) are tax exempt in the State of Kansas. This gets back to the point I made in response to your previous post, the post you claim I didn't respond do. Not all income is recognized i.e. reported as income or taxed as income. The state's richest residents include the Koch brothers who own one of the largest business enterprises in the world. It just so happens that the Koch enterprise which is headquartered in Kansas is structured around numerous LLCs. So the richest men in Kansas and who are among the richest men in the world pay no state income taxes because LLC income isn't taxed in Kansas.
So, do you feel like eating crow or do you want to continue your shenanigans?
Last edited:
LOL...well in my world truth and reason aren't bullshit. In your world truth and reason are not needed nor wanted. Your ignorance . . .. Your inability to perform due diligence and research before making stupid partisan pronouncements . . .penchant for making false statements and misrepresentations . . . So, do you feel like eating crow or do you want to continue your shenanigans?
So you were asked for what your specific point (or proposal) was, your response was five personal attacks, and no proposal.
I hear the Trump campaign needs a new communications director . . .
Do ya now...
Well the truth is the truth and that is the bottom line. If it doesn't comport with your beliefs, whose fault it that? It's not mine. The fact is you only see one side of the story - ever. When you call people names, when you make false assertions, you shouldn't be surprised when people defend themselves.Why do you put "borrowed" in quotes? They actually did borrow the money. They sold bonds, which earn interest - like any other debt.joe said:
The point is: the loans from the SS funds will now have to be paid back from general Federal tax revenues - income taxes, that kind of thing. That's because it's the Federal government that owes the money, and that's how the Federal Government pays its debts. The alternatives would be defaulting on those bonds, or borrowing the money necessary - from somebody else.
No, they don't.
It should be 0% and more like 90%. If fairness is your goal.billvon said:
The imposition of an income tax on high incomes, and high incomes only, was originally and still should be a major means of achieving fairness in the tax system as a whole, and thereby preventing distortion of the economy as well as the governance of the country as a whole.
And as I have repeatedly written you can't logically take a piece of something and imply it is the whole as you and Russ have done. That's a composition fallacy. Further, as I previously wrote, the referenced data didn't address the percent of income each group pays i.e. what percentage of their income they pay in taxes. It didn't address the ability to pay i.e. the income tax burden. It didn't address the ability to pay i.e. progressiveness of the tax code. It addressed the portion of "income tax receipts" derived from a specific income group. And as I pointed out, since the wealthiest earn more income, it would be expected that they pay more taxes in aggregate terms and relative terms. They pay more in aggregate terms but not relative terms and that's a problem. Moreover, that wasn't the genesis of this discussion. This was a discussion about government debt and the ability of government to manage that debt. The government clearly, and contrarty to conservative assertions, has the ability to manage its debts. Tax rates are at historic lows. So there is room to increase those rates.
Well, that is only true because the poor outnumber the wealthy, and that has always been the case. But some very wealthy people and corporations who earn lots of money also pay no income taxes e.g. the the Trumpster.
No, my previous post was completely correct for the reasons previously given. As previously stated, all income is not treated equally. Earned income/wage income, the income most people, the poor and middle class are dependent upon, is the most heavily taxed income. Passive income i.e. investment income is the least taxed income. In many cases it isn't taxed at all. That's how people like Romney, Buffett, and Trump, can pay less of their income in taxes than your average working stiff pays. That's how Buffett and pay about 17% of his income in federal taxes and a guy like Trump can pay zero income taxes. Now you may think that is fair, but I would hazard a guess most people don't share that belief.
Why would anyone want to increase income taxes on the poorest Americans? I'm not a Republican.
Have you not been paying attention Bilvon? They are and for all the reasons previously given. Did you not read my references about LLCs and Kansas taxation? Did you not read my references to Warren Buffett? http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/
No, the tax system should be progressive, and that is one of the problem with America's system of taxation. It's a hodgepodge of regressive and progressive taxes. Progressiveness is one of the fundamental principals of taxation. Taxation must be affordable, therefore it must also be progressive. Below is a brief list of the principals of a good system of taxation.
- Efficient - A tax system should raise enough revenue such that government projects can be adequately sponsored, without burdening the economy too much (not particularly the tax payer), as not to become a disincentive for performance (internal and external investment, work returns and savings).
- Understandable - The system should not be incomprehensible to the layperson, nor should it appear unjust or unnecessary complex. This is to minimize discontent and costs.
- Equitable - Taxation should be governed by people's ability to pay, that is, wealthier individuals or firms with greater incomes should pay more in tax while those with lower incomes should pay comparatively less.
- Benefit Principle - Those that use a publicly provided service (which is funding primarily through taxation) should pay for it! However, conflicts in principle may and often do arise between this and principle 2. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Principles_of_Economics/Taxation
Oh, hogwash. They sold bonds? Who sold those bonds, and who purchased them?
Failing to put back money the government transferred from one government fund to another government fund isn't in anyway shape or form a government debt default. I suggest you go back and read or re-read previous posts.
That's ok, I know what Joe's answer is: Joe's answer is that there is no such thing as "progressive enough". Any tax rate for the "rich" is too low and any tax rate for the "everyone else" is too high. Where this leads is that the bottom 99% of the population don't work and receive a guaranteed minimum income from the government, for an effective tax rate of negative infinity while the 1% operate the robot factories and get taxed to a level to bring them down to the guaranteed minimum income in his automated socialist utopia.
"Paying their fair share" would mean that every 1% pays 1% of the country's upkeep. The top 1% pay far more than that. Indeed, the top 5% pay more than 50%. So it is currently biased very, very, very far towards the poor, and penalizes the rich.
So "fairness" = most people contribute nothing, and one out of every 100 carries 90% of the load?
You are proposing everyone's favorite tax scheme - "tax someone else." And that's why we have a debt of $17 trillion.
Since no one else is actually proposing anything, I will. An across the board tax increase; all tax brackets go up 10%. (so 10% goes to 11%, 39.6% goes to 43.5%.) This hits the rich most (of course) since their taxes will go up by a larger amount than the poor AND will go up by a larger percentage. It will not affect the lower 43% at all, since they don't currently pay income tax.
Nonsense. Not even in total tax burden does that make sense - let alone in income tax, which is supposed to balance the disproportionate burden of other taxation on the poor.billvon said:
Of the income tax burden, yes - of course. That's what it's designed for.billvon said:
Now you aren't even adjusting your income tax for differential gains in income by class over the past thirty years, or the proportion of income gained via return to capital.billvon said:
Then you use a different definition of "fair" than everyone else.
OK. So increasing taxes on the rich more than on the poor is too unfair for you as well, because your taxes will go up too.
Again, a case study in why we have a $17 trillion dollar debt.