Are the rich really being taxed?

[EricTheRed]

Does anyone else find it funny that Obama's plan to raise the highest income tax bracket to 35% is actually lower than Reagan's till the end of Regean's term. Of Course the main difference is obama plans to put a tax deduction cap at 28%.
links

[Al6200]

I wonder how that correlates to GDP growth for those years. I might calculate that tonight.

[ReiperX]

Is that right that they were paying 90% during the Rosevelt Administration?

[TheMason]

Does anyone else find it funny that, despite all the clamour for the rich to pay their fair share...

The Top 1% pays about 40% of the income taxes in this country while the bottom 50% pays only 3%? In fact, being in the bottom myself, over the past few years I have had a negative tax rate? That's right...my refund was larger than I paid in.

Linky

Also Reiper, yes the top tax rate under FDR was 90% of income above $25,000. However, only one person (JP Morgan, I think) qualified for this tax bracket. However, the rich hired lawyers and accountants to hide their income from the tax man. In the end the way FDR paid for his New Deal programs was through luxury/excise taxes. However, these taxes fell most heavily upon the lower/middle classes.

[ReiperX]

At 5/13/09 07:01 AM, TheMason wrote: Does anyone else find it funny that, despite all the clamour for the rich to pay their fair share...

The Top 1% pays about 40% of the income taxes in this country while the bottom 50% pays only 3%? In fact, being in the bottom myself, over the past few years I have had a negative tax rate? That's right...my refund was larger than I paid in.

This is something that I never thought was right, and I think it is something that needs to be done away with. I think the limit for what you can get back should be what you paid. I can understand certain situations where you shouldn't owe, but the government owing you is rediculous (nothing against you personally Mason or anything just a loophole that I don't think should be there).

Linky

Also Reiper, yes the top tax rate under FDR was 90% of income above $25,000. However, only one person (JP Morgan, I think) qualified for this tax bracket. However, the rich hired lawyers and accountants to hide their income from the tax man. In the end the way FDR paid for his New Deal programs was through luxury/excise taxes. However, these taxes fell most heavily upon the lower/middle classes.

Still 90% is, well, insane.

[EricTheRed]

Mason do you happen to have any .gov links at hand right now? I've also heard that the top 1% pays 10% on other sites not that I don't believe your link.
Also I think the argument is that the middle class is paying to much since the poor can barely sustain themselves so they wouldn't give that much taxes.

[Slipstreamer]

Probably not, gotta love America.

DE BUERH DE DUTCHLAND!

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 5/14/09 02:50 AM, Ershin2009 wrote: I hope they get taxed higher. Rich people such as Sean Penn and Oliver Stone really need to contribute those bucks to society for the social causes proposed by Obama.

yeah and taxingthe succesful doesnt seem wrong at all?

[morefngdbs]

At 5/14/09 08:02 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/14/09 02:50 AM, Ershin2009 wrote: I hope they get taxed higher. Rich people such as Sean Penn and Oliver Stone really need to contribute those bucks to society

yeah and taxingthe succesful doesnt seem wrong at all?

;;;
Let me clue you guy's in on something.
Most 'rich' people, don't use lawyers & accountants to HIDE their money...if they wanted to hide it they would need to dig a hole somewhere & drop it in ....tell no one, & its now hidden.

They use the services of these people to legally invest, and secure their finances.
When you start to earn enough that (as happens here in Canada) your seeing over 50% of your weekly pay being- deducted- for tax purposes. Depending on what you do, you can incorperate yourself ( you form a corperation ) then the company is the recipient of the earned money.

The Company gets paid 100% of what you earn , with NO DEDUCTIONS & on top of that here it adds a 13% HST tax to the bill. Everything we buy here costs 13% tax on it. So I collect it on say $100,000 dollars last year =$13,000 in collected Hst. But I get to deduct all the Hst I paid out from what is collected & I pay the difference (or the government pays me if I spend over what I collect) which is why I only paid less than $2000 dollars in Hst for 2008 & no income tax on my corperate earnings & less than $1000 dollars on 'personal' earnings.

Companies have the ability to 'write off' expenses which covers just about everything you can buy. The Company pays a salary to you the earner which is low enough that you get out of your 'higher' tax bracket.

So in my case, my company bought the truck & car I drive, pays for the gas, insurance & upkeep.
My company ownes my land, home & business ,all the equipment . It pays me a small monthly salary that I am taxed on. But because it has so many expenses chewing away at all the earnings, it has only paid corperate taxes once in over 10 years.

I'm just a small business owner, & I can see that the more you bring in, the more places there are to "hide it" which is actually not hidden it's just used to purchase assets for the company etc.
Equipment upgrades, new truck(s), clothing, property improvements, you name it are paid with your earnings & are tax deductable & your allowed to prorate cash reserves etc.
So this allows one person who say works at the bank to pay a higher tax bracket than someone who works for himself makes twice as much money & pays little or no taxes.

This is a simplified description , it is a little more complex than this when you get into my investments etc. BUT THIS IS NOT ILLEGAL to do , you just have to figure out how to incorperate yourself & fit it in to how you earn a living.

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/13/09 07:01 AM, TheMason wrote: Does anyone else find it funny that, despite all the clamour for the rich to pay their fair share...

The Top 1% pays about 40% of the income taxes in this country while the bottom 50% pays only 3%? In fact, being in the bottom myself, over the past few years I have had a negative tax rate? That's right...my refund was larger than I paid in.

Linky

As far as I can see that link doesn't tell what has been included in the calculation. For example, if they in those lowest 50% include all children that don't pay taxes, how many under that age do you have? 20% of your population?
If you include those, and for example people who has retired or are too disabled to work, of course you're gonna get an extreme number. How many people in the US are without an income? While NTU may not lie, at the same time they do have an agenda and if they can tell a half-truth that supports that agenda, they will.

[TheMason]

At 5/13/09 05:40 PM, EricTheRed wrote: Mason do you happen to have any .gov links at hand right now? I've also heard that the top 1% pays 10% on other sites not that I don't believe your link.
Also I think the argument is that the middle class is paying to much since the poor can barely sustain themselves so they wouldn't give that much taxes.

At 5/15/09 04:10 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: As far as I can see that link doesn't tell what has been included in the calculation. ...
If you include those, and for example ... While NTU may not lie, at the same time they do have an agenda and if they can tell a half-truth that supports that agenda, they will.

I have seen that data on numerous websites and American news outlets. The story is the same: despite the progressive "soak the rich" rhetoric, the poorest in this country pay very little to a negative tax rate.

Also to get to Saber's point, the data is an analysis of Income Tax Returns. In other words the people who file income tax returns. So no, the distortion you ask about does not exist. The truth is, in terms of income taxes the rich pay for more than they get credit for. Furthermore, Obama's promised programs will require a tax increase across the board and not just income taxes. Excise taxes will generate a great deal of income and if it is anything like the '30s and 70s then most of the burden will fall on the lowest classes the worst...

[Sajberhippien]

At 5/15/09 05:26 AM, TheMason wrote: Also to get to Saber's point, the data is an analysis of Income Tax Returns. In other words the people who file income tax returns. So no, the distortion you ask about does not exist.

They could very well say that they count "no income tax returns" as "zero tax"; it's not directly incorrect.
I'm not saying they HAVE done that in this case, I'm just saying they COULD have done that and that they would have a MOTIF of doing that.

The truth is, in terms of income taxes the rich pay for more than they get credit for.

Sure, I agree on that. That's part of the point of having taxes at all, to even it out a bit.

I'm not commenting on Obama's tax policies in particular, since I don't feel I know enough about them. I'll leave that to you americans. I just commented the source, as I found the lack of explanation of the data somewhat disturbing.

[SadisticMonkey]

The tax rates for therich currently are slightly less ridiculous than they were in the past, yes.

[TheMason]

At 5/15/09 05:31 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/15/09 05:26 AM, TheMason wrote: Also to get to Saber's point, the data is an analysis of Income Tax Returns. In other words the people who file income tax returns. So no, the distortion you ask about does not exist.

They could very well say that they count "no income tax returns" as "zero tax"; it's not directly incorrect.
I'm not saying they HAVE done that in this case, I'm just saying they COULD have done that and that they would have a MOTIF of doing that.

Well the thing is, most of the studies I have seen that come up with the same or very similar results are studies of Income Tax Returns. So yeah, they could have done that. But I highly doubt that they did, and if they did then; 'oh well'...I'll have to dig for another survey that will be methodologically rigorous.

[Hoekzema]

Obama was stupid enough to call the Netherlands a 'tax paradise'
yet we have (fact) the highest taxes in the world.
About 60 % over your income.

That's why we have so many Polish people in our country

[skyraider]

I don't see why he wants to raise tax rates. It's much more economically efficient for these "rich" that he so despises - even though he is among them - to deposit their money in a savings bank, where the bank can lend it out several times to finance new production, which creates jobs.

Or we can trust the almighty federal government to spend money more efficiently than individuals. Are we that stupid? Unfortunately, we are. Oops.

[MrFrizzleFry]

So in the end, it the government favors the bums and spites the successful.
:Woo Hoo, I comin' out on top.

[Alphabit]

Ultimately we don't want the taxes for the wealthy to be too high as to deter people from trying to be productive, but not too low to have a few people hold monopolies and have excessive control over society.

I mean, we can never make the system 'fair'; at best we can try to make it so that the most people get the most money with only limited regards as to the disparity of wealth.

[Korriken]

At 5/23/09 09:09 AM, Alphabit wrote: Ultimately we don't want the taxes for the wealthy to be too high as to deter people from trying to be productive, but not too low to have a few people hold monopolies and have excessive control over society.

I mean, we can never make the system 'fair'; at best we can try to make it so that the most people get the most money with only limited regards as to the disparity of wealth.

wanna make it "fair" everyone pays the exact same percentage of their income in taxes.

Example: you make $100? pay $25, you make $100 billion? pay $25 billion.

everyone should chip in, not just those who worked their asses off to make themselves well off while Joe the Slacker sits on his front porch drinking budweiser, chain smoking and waiting on his welfare check, while bitching how he has it bad, occasionally screaming at his 7 children by 5 mothers.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/23/09 09:16 AM, Korriken wrote: wanna make it "fair" everyone pays the exact same percentage of their income in taxes.

This.

[yinyangman]

Sure. But severe taxing on the poor has to be worse and more brutal than this.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/23/09 10:31 PM, yinyangman wrote: Sure. But severe taxing on the poor has to be worse and more brutal than this.

Sorry, when/where are the poor being taxed "brutally"?

[All-American-Badass]

At 5/13/09 05:52 AM, ReiperX wrote: Is that right that they were paying 90% during the Rosevelt Administration?

and Eisenhower. but there were so many loopholes and deductions back then that they didnt pay much more than they would today. today theres not as many deductions

[SmilezRoyale]

One can complain that the rich aren't paying ENOUGH of their fair share in taxes... if we assume that the numbers that suggest that the top 1% pays the majority in taxes are false.

If they are indeed trying to get out of paying those taxes, raising them isn't going to really solve any of the problems.

The income tax was at 90% durring wartime, as was the case under Wilson as well. Wilson and FDR were two of the most power-grabbing of the presidents in history, GWB pales in comparision to them.

The truth is, i think, with the vast majority of the politicians being rich, and certainly having ties to the rich, i doubt that the 'rich' are really paying any taxes that aren't compensated in favors and priviledges.