Quote from: TboneAgain on October 17, 2013, 03:38:42 PM
Roughly 47% of tax filers in the United States pay NO federal income tax whatsoever, OR get a "refund" extracted from taxes paid by others.

Just how "progressive" does a tax have to be to satisfy you?

T Bone Again, where did you find the figure "47% of tax filers in the United States pay NO federal income tax"?

Due to the nonsense such as 'weapons of mass destruction", too many people don't earn enough to pay taxes.  Due to special strokes for special folks, too many evade the taxes they should be paying. 

You quoted my post and I suppose you considered it.  If some negotiation and compromise does not occur, then there's little hope of reducing progressive income taxes.  It is one thing to desire its elimination and another thing to refuse to accept nothing less than absolute elimination.

The Wall Street adage is bulls or bears may emerge as winners but pigs always come out losing.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 20, 2013, 10:07:36 PM
T Bone Again, where did you find the figure "47% of tax filers in the United States pay NO federal income tax"?

Due to the nonsense such as 'weapons of mass destruction", too many people don't earn enough to pay taxes.  Due to special strokes for special folks, too many evade the taxes they should be paying. 

You quoted my post and I suppose you considered it.  If some negotiation and compromise does not occur, then there's little hope of reducing progressive income taxes.  It is one thing to desire its elimination and another thing to refuse to accept nothing less than absolute elimination.

The Wall Street adage is bulls or bears may emerge as winners but pigs always come out losing.

Respectfully, Supposn

It's worse than you think.




http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/2012-index-of-dependence-on-government

That only scratches the surface Solar.  Many of the 47% actually get taxes BACK which they never paid in.  It's the new form of Welfare.  Like I said, I help out all sorts and I see it all first hand.

One of the "homeless" guys I took in was a heavy Methamphetamine user.  He is 29 and has never worked at a legitimate job.

He makes $738/month from SS disability because he was diagnosed as ADHD.   A meth user hyperactive?  Go figure.  He also gets $219/month in Food Stamps.  He exchanges his food stamps for Meth (easy to do).

In addition, every year he receives between $4000 and $4500 back in taxes which he never paid in due to Earned Income Tax Credit.  They fill out their taxes as if they made some money working side jobs such as mowing lawns or cutting trees or some such BS claiming they made $14,000 or thereabouts.  Because of the EITC they get back more money than they put in.  So they claim they paid no taxes, get a credit for having paid $4500.  Then calculate the taxes owed on $14,000 which is next to nothing and get a return of over $4000.

During the past 3 years he has started a rather lucrative tax service (under the table of course) whereby he fills out the tax returns for others who don't work whatsoever, guaranteeing them the return will be good.  He makes 10% of the return payable up front.  He does this for about $300-$400 a piece and fills out between 100 and 200 of these every year.  Netting him an additional 60,000/year.  I was stunned to find out he makes almost as much as I do after taxes.  You would never know it.  It all goes to meth.

This is MUCH more common than you realize.  There are close to a dozen or so people in the projects of my hometown who provide this service (or so I am told).  Recently I learned this lucrative business was being taken over by organized crime.  Tax Fraud has become big business and has gone high tech where the perpetrators have software programs and everything that automatically fill out the forms for them.  I was told rumors many of those involved are being muscled out by the big boys though it's still difficult for them to control.  I also read a story written by a journalist on the internet about it who claimed the problem likely costs us close to $70B/year and is worth perhaps $4-5B/year to organized crime.

The EIC scam is tax fraud on steroids, to be sure. But I was objecting to Supposn's statement that US income tax rates "ain't effectively all that progressive." I'll quote some figures here that I got from the National Taxpayers Union, which they got from the IRS for the tax year 2009.

Income Segment                               Percent of Income Tax Paid

        Top 1%                                                       36.73%

        Top 5%                                                       58.66%

        Top 10%                                                     70.47%

        Top 25%                                                     87.30%

        Top 50%                                                     97.75%

     Bottom 50%                                                    2.25%

The Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org) has this to say on the subject:

"In 2010, the top 1 percent of tax returns included 18.87 percent of all adjusted gross income and 37.38 percent of all federal individual income taxes paid. The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent of taxes, and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62 percent of taxes."

Something that is seldom stated, but tremendously important, in my opinion, is that the above figures apply only to income tax returns received by the IRS. (Even the almighty IRS finds it tricky to analyze data from tax returns they ain't got.) MANY MILLIONS of US citizens (not to mention non-citizens) don't file at all. My neighbor across the road and my mother down in Southern Ohio, for example, never file. They both receive taxpayers' money in the form of SS and disability payments, but their incomes are below the filing threshold, and they don't file.

It's not 47% or 49.5%, it's somewhere WAY north of 50% of income-receiving citizens (and non-citizens) who pay no tax or a "negative" tax.

Supposn, I'll pose my question again. Just how "progressive" does a tax have to be to satisfy you?

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 17, 2013, 03:38:42 PM
Roughly 47% of tax filers in the United States pay NO federal income tax whatsoever, OR get a "refund" extracted from taxes paid by others.
Just how "progressive" does a tax have to be to satisfy you?

T Bone Again, where did you find the figure "47% of tax filers in the United States pay NO federal income tax"?

Due to spending increases such as 'weapons of mass destruction", tax reductions favoring those who are wealthier that are supposed (due to the concept of "drip down") be of net benefit to our entire economy, too many people don't earn enough to pay taxes and too many evade paying their full share.

You quoted my post and I suppose you considered it.  If some negotiation and compromise does not occur, then there's little hope of reducing progressive income taxes.  It is one thing to desire its elimination and another thing to refuse to accept nothing less than absolute elimination.

The Wall Street adage is bulls or bears may emerge as winners but pigs always eventually lose.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 21, 2013, 07:38:37 PM
T Bone Again, where did you find the figure "47% of tax filers in the United States pay NO federal income tax"?

Due to spending increases such as 'weapons of mass destruction", tax reductions favoring those who are wealthier that are supposed (due to the concept of "drip down") be of net benefit to our entire economy, too many people don't earn enough to pay taxes and too many evade paying their full share.

You quoted my post and I suppose you considered it.  If some negotiation and compromise does not occur, then there's little hope of reducing progressive income taxes.  It is one thing to desire its elimination and another thing to refuse to accept nothing less than absolute elimination.

The Wall Street adage is bulls or bears may emerge as winners but pigs always eventually lose.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm just gonna assume you're on some, uh, medication. I see double posts all the time, usually just seconds apart, mostly the result of someone not familiar with the forum in which they're posting (not this one very often). But your double posts are 17 1/2 hours apart.

Sheesh.    Maybe it's time to call up the basement stairs and ask grandma for a cup of tea or something.

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 13, 2013, 06:32:15 PM
Here's the problem with your proposal, and you HAVE to know this. There will NEVER be an "incremental" shift from income tax to a federal sales tax. The power to tax is Power Pure. NEVER will Congress or the administration voluntarily give that up. It is literally what they live for.

I won't delve into issues of double taxation (there would be) and lobbyist frenzy (there would be) and anarchic confusion (there would be). I'll just point out that nothing short of total replacement of the income tax (which used to be illegal, by the way) with a sales tax could suffice. If there is some sort of fuzzy, middle of the road transition period like you're talking about, I can GUARANTEE you that we will have BOTH an income tax AND a federal sales tax forever, or at least as long as the Congress could make it happen.

Get y'self a copy of The FairTax Book. Read and learn.

Yes!

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 21, 2013, 03:50:18 PM
The EIC scam is tax fraud on steroids, to be sure. But I was objecting to Supposn's statement that US income tax rates "ain't effectively all that progressive." I'll quote some figures here that I got from the National Taxpayers Union, which they got from the IRS for the tax year 2009.

Income Segment                               Percent of Income Tax Paid

        Top 1%                                                       36.73%

        Top 5%                                                       58.66% ...

   ... Bottom 50%                                                  2.25%

The Tax Foundation (www.taxfoundation.org) has this to say on the subject:

"In 2010, the top 1 percent of tax returns included 18.87 percent of all adjusted gross income and 37.38 percent of all federal individual income taxes paid. The top 5 percent earned 33.78 percent of income and paid 59.07 percent of taxes, and the top 10 percent earned 45.17 percent of income and paid 70.62 percent of taxes."

Something that is seldom stated, but tremendously important, in my opinion, is that the above figures apply only to income tax returns received by the IRS. (Even the almighty IRS finds it tricky to analyze data from tax returns they ain't got.) MANY MILLIONS of US citizens (not to mention non-citizens) don't file at all. My neighbor across the road and my mother down in Southern Ohio, for example, never file. They both receive taxpayers' money in the form of SS and disability payments, but their incomes are below the filing threshold, and they don't file.

It's not 47% or 49.5%, it's somewhere WAY north of 50% of income-receiving citizens (and non-citizens) who pay no tax or a "negative" tax.

Supposn, I'll pose my question again. Just how "progressive" does a tax have to be to satisfy you?

T Bone Again, what percentage of the nation's total individuals' ACTUAL incomes did the top 1%, top 5% and the bottom 50% of USA's earn?  [I'm writing of actual rather than reported total or adjusted gross incomes].

Wealthy taxpayers are generally owners, or principle share holders, or partners of enterprises.  They are generally well advised as to the laundering of the disbursements from those enterprises prior to being passed on to them as dividends or incomes in other forms.  Thus to that extent these wealthy taxpayers' total incomes are in aggregate understated.  That's their "first bites of the apple" before their tax preparers add up their total reported incomes.

Individual income tax filers make adjustments to their total reported incomes.  The adjusted gross incomes are then allowed our tax regulations further deductions and finally the per capita $3800 deduction per taxpayer s and their dependents from taxable incomes.

[Per capita amounts deducted from taxable incomes rather than as tax credits are not the greatest incidents of regressive tax regulations, we could grant more consideration to those less wealthy with no reduction of tax revenues.
Tax credits rather than deductions from taxable incomes would be of benefit those income tax filers earning less than the median incomes; it would be of no net difference to those earning the median income; and the difference would be inconsequential to those earning more than the median incomes].

You fault our tax laws because too many people don't earn enough to pay taxes but you find no fault with tax regulations and enforcement that permits too many to evade paying their full share of taxes?

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 21, 2013, 09:52:15 PM
T Bone Again, what percentage of the nation's total individuals' ACTUAL incomes did the top 1%, top 5% and the bottom 50% of USA's earn?  [I'm writing of actual rather than reported total or adjusted gross incomes].

Wealthy taxpayers are generally owners, or principle share holders, or partners of enterprises.  They are generally well advised as to the laundering of the disbursements from those enterprises prior to being passed on to them as dividends or incomes in other forms.  Thus to that extent these wealthy taxpayers' total incomes are in aggregate understated.  That's their "first bites of the apple" before their tax preparers add up their total reported incomes.

Individual income tax filers make adjustments to their total reported incomes.  The adjusted gross incomes are then allowed our tax regulations further deductions and finally the per capita $3800 deduction per taxpayer s and their dependents from taxable incomes.

[Per capita amounts deducted from taxable incomes rather than as tax credits are not the greatest incidents of regressive tax regulations, we could grant more consideration to those less wealthy with no reduction of tax revenues.
Tax credits rather than deductions from taxable incomes would be of benefit those income tax filers earning less than the median incomes; it would be of no net difference to those earning the median income; and the difference would be inconsequential to those earning more than the median incomes].

You fault our tax laws because too many people don't earn enough to pay taxes but you find no fault with tax regulations and enforcement that permits too many to evade paying their full share of taxes?

Respectfully, Supposn

Obviously, if we adjusted the playing field so that marginal tax rates applied to raw incomes, as opposed to AGIs, the top earners, who traditionally -- and legally -- have larger deductions, would pay even more than they do now. That would make our income tax structure MORE progressive.

For the third time, I'm asking you, how progressive does a tax have to be to suit you?

Oh, and your use of the word "inconsequential" pretty much shows everyone the color of your slip. When it comes to taxes, that's a word applied by lib/progs to money extorted from somebody else, every time. Most of us here consider taxation in general to be thinly-legalized robbery; it is never "inconsequential."

Quote from: Supposn on October 21, 2013, 09:52:15 PM
T Bone Again, what percentage of the nation's total individuals' ACTUAL incomes did the top 1%, top 5% and the bottom 50% of USA's earn?  [I'm writing of actual rather than reported total or adjusted gross incomes].

Wealthy taxpayers are generally owners, or principle share holders, or partners of enterprises.  They are generally well advised as to the laundering of the disbursements from those enterprises prior to being passed on to them as dividends or incomes in other forms.  Thus to that extent these wealthy taxpayers' total incomes are in aggregate understated.  That's their "first bites of the apple" before their tax preparers add up their total reported incomes.

Individual income tax filers make adjustments to their total reported incomes.  The adjusted gross incomes are then allowed our tax regulations further deductions and finally the per capita $3800 deduction per taxpayer s and their dependents from taxable incomes.

[Per capita amounts deducted from taxable incomes rather than as tax credits are not the greatest incidents of regressive tax regulations, we could grant more consideration to those less wealthy with no reduction of tax revenues.
Tax credits rather than deductions from taxable incomes would be of benefit those income tax filers earning less than the median incomes; it would be of no net difference to those earning the median income; and the difference would be inconsequential to those earning more than the median incomes].

You fault our tax laws because too many people don't earn enough to pay taxes but you find no fault with tax regulations and enforcement that permits too many to evade paying their full share of taxes?

Respectfully, Supposn

So now the truth finally comes out, you despise rich people, even though they pay the lion share of taxes.
Like I have said time and time again, why are you ignoring a flat tax, why aren't you advocating that everyone pay taxes?

But I digress, why not just shrink govt...now stay with me here, I have an actual point.
How about we shrink govt, make some serious cuts in it's bureaucracy, the parts that slow production, like the EPA, where 97% of it's workforce are considered "Nonessential".
The EPA alone would allow production to speed up, the paperwork alone slows business way down, not to mention the waiting process of approval.

Govt is too damn big, too intrusive, too damn restrictive to the point it stifles and slows production, yet you want to empower govt with even overbearing power to tax.
Now why is that, why do you want to empower the biggest hindrance to production?

I know the answer, you love govt, a socialist at heart, you love the idea of a power that can slay the private sector into compliance, regardless of how damaging it is to the economy.
You do realize, you're on the verge of fascism, right?

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 21, 2013, 11:27:01 PM
Obviously, if we adjusted the playing field so that marginal tax rates applied to raw incomes, as opposed to AGIs, the top earners, who traditionally -- and legally -- have larger deductions, would pay even more than they do now. That would make our income tax structure MORE progressive.

For the third time, I'm asking you, how progressive does a tax have to be to suit you?

Oh, and your use of the word "inconsequential" pretty much shows everyone the color of your slip. When it comes to taxes, that's a word applied by lib/progs to money extorted from somebody else, every time. Most of us here consider taxation in general to be thinly-legalized robbery; it is never "inconsequential."

T, this is the game he plays, obfuscate and ignore, move back to his fantasy reality of "govt can do no wrong" and post as if you are in agreement with him.

T Bone Again &  Taxed, among congressional members that are proponents of the "fair tax", there are many, possibly the majority of them that may be inclined to hold out for single step transference of income tax revenue sources.  They are far from a congressional majority.
Members across the entire political spectrum recognize the imprudence of transferring our major source of federal revenue in a single step.  I do not believe a majority of congress would vote for a single step bill and it's unlikely that a president would sign off on it if it should pass congress.

A bill for incremental shifting of the revenue sources would explicitly schedule the steps and there'd be provisions for congress advised by the to CBO, (Congressional Budget Office) to make adjustments to the bill between steps to retain its revenue neutral intent could gain support across the entire political spectrum for various reasons.

Fair tax proponents would reasonably insist that the reduction of regular income tax rates for every income bracket and the increase of the sales tax rate would for each step be SIMULTANEOUSLY ENACTED UPON THE SAME DATE.

Everyone in the USA would be subject to a federal sales tax.  Upon each incremental step of tax revenue sources, additional individuals would no longer be subject to income taxes, (because their income bracket would no longer be subject to income taxes).  That's the ultimate simplification of income taxes for those no longer subject to that tax.

It's my opinion that after one of the incremental steps, the sales tax rate will approach a rate USA voters would deem to be unacceptable and further transference of tax revenue sources would have to be delayed if not completely halted.  If I'm incorrect, USA's income taxes would be eliminated.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on October 22, 2013, 09:39:31 AM
T Bone Again &  Taxed, among congressional members that are proponents of the "fair tax", there are many, possibly the majority of them that may be inclined to hold out for single step transference of income tax revenue sources.  They are far from a congressional majority.
Members across the entire political spectrum recognize the imprudence of transferring our major source of federal revenue in a single step.  I do not believe a majority of congress would vote for a single step bill and it's unlikely that a president would sign off on it if it should pass congress.

A bill for incremental shifting of the revenue sources would explicitly schedule the steps and there'd be provisions for congress advised by the to CBO, (Congressional Budget Office) to make adjustments to the bill between steps to retain its revenue neutral intent could gain support across the entire political spectrum for various reasons.

Fair tax proponents would reasonably insist that the reduction of regular income tax rates for every income bracket and the increase of the sales tax rate would for each step be SIMULTANEOUSLY ENACTED UPON THE SAME DATE.

Everyone in the USA would be subject to a federal sales tax.  Upon each incremental step of tax revenue sources, additional individuals would no longer be subject to income taxes, (because their income bracket would no longer be subject to income taxes).  That's the ultimate simplification of income taxes for those no longer subject to that tax.

It's my opinion that after one of the incremental steps, the sales tax rate will approach a rate USA voters would deem to be unacceptable and further transference of tax revenue sources would have to be delayed if not completely halted.  If I'm incorrect, USA's income taxes would be eliminated.

Respectfully, Supposn

What in the Hell are you yammering on about, " incremental steps", it's a flat tax, everyone pays the same.
Are you suggesting the rich pay a higher rate sales tax, or that high-end purchases like yachts be taxed at a higher rate?

Why is it so hard for you to get your point across in simple terms?

Quote from: TboneAgain on October 21, 2013, 11:27:01 PM...For the third time, I'm asking you, how progressive does a tax have to be to suit you?

Oh, and your use of the word "inconsequential" pretty much shows everyone the color of your slip. When it comes to taxes, that's a word applied by lib/progs to money extorted from somebody else, every time. Most of us here consider taxation in general to be thinly-legalized robbery; it is never "inconsequential."

T Bone again, what dollar amount of tax credit would be revenue neutral to $3,800 deduction from individual filers' taxable incomes per capita for ech filer and their dependents?  That's the question that should be asked.  (That per capita tax credit amount should be annually cost of living adjusted).

I do not know what the median total or the gross adjusted incomes of filers are, but for the sake of discussion let us use $50,000 for individual and $100,000 per joint filing couples.

I'm suggesting a comparison of individuals' income taxes within our present per capita $3800 deductions from taxable incomes and the proposed undeclared revenue neutral amount of tax credits per capita.

Many lower income individuals do not now and would not under the proposed changes, fully benefit from the tax considerations per capita.
But many of those earning less than the median incomes would receive increased benefits due to this proposed change of tax regulations.  Those earning the median wage would receive little or no benefit due to the change but their taxes would not be increased.

You're contending it would be of significant consequences to individuals and/or to our economy if we revenue neutrally replaced a $3,800 per capita deductions from taxable incomes with an amount of tax credits per capita?

You do not believe there is a national benefit for more equitable tax regulations?  How much less median wage purchasing power would suit you?

Respectfully, Supposn