I'm the last guy to advocate progressive...

[SEVERUSMAX]

.....taxation, but I have to say that Michelle Bachmann's asinine statement that someone who (treated hypothetically) earns only 3 dollars a year should still pay taxes floored me. She had little chance of my vote already, due to her support of the Patriot Act, but this just proves that she is still a tax attorney for the IRS at heart: no common sense.

Whatever happened to Jefferson's maxim that "A wise and frugal government will not take from the mouths of men the bread that they have earned."

That's why I oppose gasoline, food, and medicine taxes. There's fair taxation and then there is destructive taxation, taxation that would make any medieval baron seem nice (since they didn't always take so much that the peasants starved, just half of the time).

I still have no love of the President and the Democrats, but I also have no love of people like Bachmann, out to literally tax the shirt off someone's back. Someone get this woman a basic course in economics.

I'll stick with Ron Paul, who is the real "constitutional conservative" of the field. I'll vote for him, regardless of party affiliation, too.

After all, if our choices come down to Obama vs. Bachmann (or someone like her), we're already screwed as a country. I might as well get my last wish as an American, a chance to speak my mind and my conscience one last time before the Union falls.

 

[lovecraft68]

This is a bit of an aside on Bachman herself, but on the note of taxes themselves.

Know what a big problem with taxes is? Why the states are trying to tax more items and for higher amounts? Because they are going broke and not getting tax dollars, know why?

Look no further than the box on your desk you are currently looking at. E-bay and Amazon do not charge sales tax. Everyone buys online and laughs at how they are beating the state they live in out of sales tax. Not only are you getting a deal, but no tax, Yay!

No yay. This is part of the reason (and yes greed is another) that the states are scrounging for new ways to tax you. They are not getting what they should from sales tax.

That's all I'll say or else I'll get into the rant of how the online industry has also destroyed the job market therefore the economy itself.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

This is a bit of an aside on Bachman herself, but on the note of taxes themselves.

Know what a big problem with taxes is? Why the states are trying to tax more items and for higher amounts? Because they are going broke and not getting tax dollars, know why?

Look no further than the box on your desk you are currently looking at. E-bay and Amazon do not charge sales tax. Everyone buys online and laughs at how they are beating the state they live in out of sales tax. Not only are you getting a deal, but no tax, Yay!

No yay. This is part of the reason (and yes greed is another) that the states are scrounging for new ways to tax you. They are not getting what they should from sales tax.

That's all I'll say or else I'll get into the rant of how the online industry has also destroyed the job market therefore the economy itself.

Well, stopping new technology from destroying old industries is like trying to stop the sun from rising or setting, or asteroids from hitting the Earth. Good luck.

But you're right that a narrower tax base has its disadvantages, although federal mandates aren't helping matters, either. I hear that Amazon has made a deal with California, however. Between that and Governor Moonbeam's sudden awakening to the fact that his own pension scheme (among similar ones in other states) is part of what bankrupted the Golden State, it might have a slim chance to survive. Which is more than the Republic itself can say, unless the right man gets the GOP nod.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This is a bit of an aside on Bachman herself, but on the note of taxes themselves.

Know what a big problem with taxes is? Why the states are trying to tax more items and for higher amounts? Because they are going broke and not getting tax dollars, know why?

Look no further than the box on your desk you are currently looking at. E-bay and Amazon do not charge sales tax. Everyone buys online and laughs at how they are beating the state they live in out of sales tax. Not only are you getting a deal, but no tax, Yay!

No yay. This is part of the reason (and yes greed is another) that the states are scrounging for new ways to tax you. They are not getting what they should from sales tax.

That's all I'll say or else I'll get into the rant of how the online industry has also destroyed the job market therefore the economy itself.

That's not entirely correct. First, some states do not have sales tax. Second, in CA at least, Amazon and other companies like that are required to collect sales tax (actually, it's called use tax) from their customers and report it to the state. However, the states usually have no way to enforce this, so Amazon and others don't bother. If the selling company is physically located in the state where they ship the goods, that state can enforce the tax, but otherwise it is quite difficult.

On the state income tax forms, there is a place to include untaxed purchases from out of state, and taxpayers are supposed to fill this in. Yeah, fat chance. I doubt if anybody ever does so, because there is no way for the state to check on the taxpayers. Companies who make such purchases are sometimes caught through an audit, but this is relatively rare.

ETA: I really doubt that anybody who earns only three dollars per year would ever be called on to pay tax on that income. When did MB ever say that?

 

[BONNIEBREA]

It's a shame (but not surprising) that the party that bills itself as "the party of Lincoln" (the republicans, for those of you who don't especially keep up with politics) has forgotten an idea he expressed often and of which he was a great proponent: "It is better to tax the wealthy few than the many poor."

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's a shame (but not surprising) that the party that bills itself as "the party of Lincoln" (the republicans, for those of you who don't especially keep up with politics) has forgotten an idea he expressed often and of which he was a great proponent: "It is better to tax the wealthy few than the many poor."

"Poor" is a relative thing, but I am inclined to agree with Lincoln. Of course, in his day, taxes were mostly on property and excise taxes, including those on imported goods so the wealthy, by default, paid most of them, even more than they do now.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

Actually excise taxes and taxes on imports were paid then mostly by ordinary working people and the poor, just as today the immense bulk of the country's tax load is carried by the poor and working class in the form of sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, and the like. That's why it is so disgusting (and embarrassing) to listen to the wealthy whine about how much they pay in taxes. Taxes paid by the wealthy (top income tax rates, estate tax, capital gains tax) are all at historic lows. Lincoln was good to his word too (and perhaps this is the reason he should be remembered as "Honest Abe") as he funded federal spending on the Civil War with the first federal income tax. And it applied to only the wealthiest Americans.

 

[mikey2much]

The high tax rates for the wealthy

served another function, they forced the rich to look around for something they wanted to do that would serve the public good. If they found a cause that they were interested in, they could earn tax credits by supporting their cause. That is how some many towns got libraries. But the thing is, The rich could have a say in where their tax money was spent, if they chose. All charities, and church contributions were tax deductions.

About the three dollars a year. If, (bless your heart) you only make three bucks a year I think you would still have to pay SS . I don't think there is any way to get out from under SS contributions. That is one reason the dems and most americans are so dead set against the republican efforts to stop it.

The expression, 'all men are created equal ' is a crock of shit. Some of us are more gifted than others, some of us are better able to deal with life than others.

Taxation is the best method mankind has come up with to try to level out the field that nature has given us. Some people who scream their hatred of taxes the loudest, have fond memories of people being so poor that they would sell their bodies for a can of corn. A fair tax system is our best defense against that type of situation developing here.

 

[SevenSquared]

today the immense bulk of the country's tax load is carried by the poor and working class in the form of sales taxes, gasoline taxes, property taxes, and the like. .

Do you actually have anything to back this up or is it just a socialist rant?

In the US, income tax accounts for neatly 50% of federal revenue with payroll and corporation taxes making up most of the rest. And the top 10% of earners pay over two thirds of the total income tax and I would imagine a not-much-smaller portion of the others. Even leaving these figures as unknown, this leaves the top 10% of earners accounting for around 40% of federal tax revenues through basic maths. In reality I would guess it is probably well over three quarters.

I guess you will scream 'state taxes!' at this point. I don't have figures to hand regarding that but if I find any I will post them.

 

[SevenSquared]

Finally found something with some figures for overall taxation. You might find this to be interesting reading - Figure 1 on page 5 is particularly revealing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf

 

[SevenSquared]

Having said that, I still hate Michelle Bachman

 

[BONNIEBREA]

Do you actually have anything to back this up or is it just a socialist rant?

In the US, income tax accounts for neatly 50% of federal revenue with payroll and corporation taxes making up most of the rest. And the top 10% of earners pay over two thirds of the total income tax and I would imagine a not-much-smaller portion of the others. Even leaving these figures as unknown, this leaves the top 10% of earners accounting for around 40% of federal tax revenues through basic maths. In reality I would guess it is probably well over three quarters.

I guess you will scream 'state taxes!' at this point. I don't have figures to hand regarding that but if I find any I will post them.

What I find interesting about this is that the information I've presented apparently isn't what you hear from the republican party, get from conservative movement sources (like The Tax Foundation), read in the Washington Times or hear on Fox, so you do what they've trained you to do: place the label "socialist" on it ("liberal" would also have been acceptable) so as to dismiss it, and then proceed to parrot back the "information" those partisan sources endlessly dun into the faithful. You seem well trained (or indoctrinated). Maybe they have some sort of medal for you. You should definitely look into it.

 

[SevenSquared]

What I find interesting about this is that the information I've presented apparently isn't what you hear from the republican party, get from conservative movement sources (like The Tax Foundation), read in the Washington Times or hear on Fox, so you do what they've trained you to do: place the label "socialist" on it ("liberal" would also have been acceptable) so as to dismiss it, and then proceed to parrot back the "information" those partisan sources endlessly dun into the faithful. You seem well trained (or indoctrinated). Maybe they have some sort of medal for you. You should definitely look into it.

Maybe you should stop making assumptions. I'm not even American.

 

[DeeZire]

Finally found something with some figures for overall taxation. You might find this to be interesting reading - Figure 1 on page 5 is particularly revealing.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdf[/QUOTE]

From the Wiki article on the Tax Foundation:

Its website states that journalists should describe it as: "a nonpartisan tax research group,"[1] though it has been described as having a "pro-business leaning"[2] and it has ties to various conservative groups.

In 2011, Krugman accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.

In the US, income tax accounts for neatly 50% of federal revenue with payroll and corporation taxes making up most of the rest. And the top 10% of earners pay over two thirds of the total income tax and I would imagine a not-much-smaller portion of the others.

Most of their income is from capital gains, which is only taxed at 15% - if it's taxed at all after it's been laundered through various tax shelter schemes.

Even leaving these figures as unknown, this leaves the top 10% of earners accounting for around 40% of federal tax revenues through basic maths. In reality I would guess it is probably well over three quarters.

According to the numbers from 2007, the top 10% owned 83% of the financial wealth in this country, and yet they only covered 40% of the federal tax bill? Looks like all those high dollar political donations have been paying off.

I'm with Elizabeth Warren on this one. Anyone who benefits from the society in which they live needs to reinvest in that society so that future generations will have the same opportunity they had. That's not happening today. It was happening in the 50's, when the economy was booming and the tax rate on the rich was 90%. Hmmm. I wonder if there's some sort of correlation between a prosperous society and high tax rates for the rich? There is definitely a correlation between a declining society and low tax rates. All you have to do is look at how the bottom 50% of this country are doing right now. Or walk into an underfunded public school with overcrowded classrooms, overworked teachers, and no school supplies. Or drive on a crumbling road. Talk to any international traveler and ask them how the infrastructure in the USA compares with other industrialized countries. It's embarrassing. The rich are looting this country, and convincing the poor that it's in their best interests to vote for them. It's a script Hollywood would have rejected as implausible. And yet, here we are.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenSquared
Do you actually have anything to back this up or is it just a socialist rant?

In the US, income tax accounts for neatly 50% of federal revenue with payroll and corporation taxes making up most of the rest. And the top 10% of earners pay over two thirds of the total income tax and I would imagine a not-much-smaller portion of the others. Even leaving these figures as unknown, this leaves the top 10% of earners accounting for around 40% of federal tax revenues through basic maths. In reality I would guess it is probably well over three quarters.

I guess you will scream 'state taxes!' at this point. I don't have figures to hand regarding that but if I find any I will post them.

What I find interesting about this is that the information I've presented apparently isn't what you hear from the republican party, get from conservative movement sources (like The Tax Foundation), read in the Washington Times or hear on Fox, so you do what they've trained you to do: place the label "socialist" on it ("liberal" would also have been acceptable) so as to dismiss it, and then proceed to parrot back the "information" those partisan sources endlessly dun into the faithful. You seem well trained (or indoctrinated). Maybe they have some sort of medal for you. You should definitely look into it.

What I find interesting is that you didn't answer 49's question about the source of what you refer to as information. I consider it to be your opinion rather than information.

Speaking - or writing - of "indoctrination," do you read things like the Huff Post and similar blogs?

 

[SevenSquared]

According to the numbers from 2007, the top 10% owned 83% of the financial wealth in this country, and yet they only covered 40% of the federal tax bill? Looks like all those high dollar political donations have been paying off.

The point was made in response to Bonniebrea's assertion that the bulk of the tax bill is picked up by the poor, which is quite clearly bollocks, no matter how much she claims I am just brainwashed by foreign political parties I don't like and TV stations I don't watch.

And quoting spurious wealth:tax ratios isn't really helpful. Wealth is (for the most part) not taxed, income is, just like in every other western country. You will find the rich pay a far higher proportion of income as tax than the poor do. If you want to make the argument that wealth should be taxed instead of income, then feel free, that's an entirely different argument (and would lead to a completely different economic system too).

I apologise for quoting a source that has apparent 'conservative leanings' (I had no idea I just google searched for figures on tax distribution in the US). I was just trying to provide some actual figures to back up my arguments, which is more than anybody else has done.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have often heard or read people citing the 90% tax rate on the rich. It never existed. That 90% rate was the MARGINAL rate on taxable income that was more than a very high figure. Here is a history of the highest and lowest marginal rates: http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Keep in mind the income amounts were the amounts back then. That $400,000 figure would be the equivalent to several millions now.

 

[Handley_Page]

.....taxation, but I have to say that Michelle Bachmann's asinine statement that someone who (treated hypothetically) earns only 3 dollars a year should still pay taxes floored me. She had little chance of my vote already, due to her support of the Patriot Act, but this just proves that she is still a tax attorney for the IRS at heart: no common sense.

Whatever happened to Jefferson's maxim that "A wise and frugal government will not take from the mouths of men the bread that they have earned."

That's why I oppose gasoline, food, and medicine taxes. There's fair taxation and then there is destructive taxation, taxation that would make any medieval baron seem nice (since they didn't always take so much that the peasants starved, just half of the time).

Things might be different over there, but :

Surely it depends upon the 'floor' level at which point the taxation starts ?.
I mean, if the tax started to be due at , say, $5, then the $3 would attract no tax. (It's how we do it over here, although I agree with your general opposition).

Taxation of food or medicines ? that's obscene !
Gasoline, however, seems to me to be OK, if kept at a reasonable level. Of course, that's not a lot of help for farmers and dwellers in a really rural location, who maybe don't have 'public transport' available.

 

[amicus]

Soak the Rich! Sings Deezire and all the other whiners; samo, samo...

State and Local Governments Employ 16.6 Million Full-Time Equivalent Employees in 2010
Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

There is no revenue problem, there is a spending problem when the working people of America support over 18 million bureaucrats, not a single one of which produces a single loaf of bread.

Stop whining about how much money you want to steal from the rich and address the real problem, HUMONGUS GOVERNMENT.

Imagine how much money we would save if we actually had a limited, small government as intended. Like military, police and courts, those authorized functions of government. Not to mention the 47 million Americans getting free food from the government.

egads, people!

amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Todays paper whines about the loss of millions to fund black mentors in the local schools. In 2010 we spent 30 MILLION for uneducated baby mommas to work with black girls after school.

Your typical classroom aide makes minimum wage, the dropout baby mommas make 75K.

This sort of nonsense got going 20 years ago. The government paid mental hospital inmates wages, to help their self esteem. At my hospital the INMATE-PEER FACILITATORS started thinking of themselves as professional staff though all of them were crazy as Usual Suspect shithouse rats.

Few give any thought to how tax money is spent or what workers forfeit when the Usual Suspects confiscate pay for taxes.

 

[mikey2much]

Good information is hard to find in America these days

.

I apologise for quoting a source that has apparent 'conservative leanings' (I had no idea I just google searched for figures on tax distribution in the US). I was just trying to provide some actual figures to back up my arguments, which is more than anybody else has done.

Don't feel shit upon. All America is looking for the truth and it is so well hidden in the bullshit that the government and the rightwing idiots spew forth. We are in the dark over here in America, that's the way our leaders want it to be.

It took our government ten years to figure out that Iraq has no WMD's, when the truth was plainly stated before the war started. They,The rightwingnuts, like confusion, it turns them loose to run things the way they want to while the people are trying to untangle the lies.

 

[mikey2much]

He would have no complaint about dropping ten thousand dollar bombs on mud huts thoug

Soak the Rich! Sings Deezire and all the other whiners; samo, samo...



There is no revenue problem, there is a spending problem when the working people of America support over 18 million bureaucrats, not a single one of which produces a single loaf of bread.

Stop whining about how much money you want to steal from the rich and address the real problem, HUMONGUS GOVERNMENT.

Imagine how much money we would save if we actually had a limited, small government as intended. Like military, police and courts, those authorized functions of government. Not to mention the 47 million Americans getting free food from the government.

egads, people!

amicus

This poor old guy has had his mind warped by listening to too much right wing radio. Give him a glass of warm milk and push him over by the window, so he can watch the world go by without him or his outdated ideals

 

[mikey2much]

We throw that much away every day in Iraq

Todays paper whines about the loss of millions to fund black mentors in the local schools. In 2010 we spent 30 MILLION for uneducated baby mommas to work with black girls after school.

Your typical classroom aide makes minimum wage, the dropout baby mommas make 75K.

This sort of nonsense got going 20 years ago. The government paid mental hospital inmates wages, to help their self esteem. At my hospital the INMATE-PEER FACILITATORS started thinking of themselves as professional staff though all of them were crazy as Usual Suspect shithouse rats.

Few give any thought to how tax money is spent or what workers forfeit when the Usual Suspects confiscate pay for taxes.

In a country where the poor can't buy toilet paper with their foodstamps, I am sure we are paying unwed mother 75,000 a year to sit on their ass. James you should know better.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In a country where the poor can't buy toilet paper with their foodstamps, I am sure we are paying unwed mother 75,000 a year to sit on their ass. James you should know better.

Its in the paper, with pix and interviews.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/educat...elf-esteem-programs-at-poorer-schools/1200527

READ IT URSELF.

 

[R. Richard]

Let me try to inject some basic economics into the discussion.

It costs money to collect taxes. If Bachmann actually intends to try to collect money from someone who earns only $3 per year, that's insane. However most, if not all, in Washinton are insane.

Yes, the very rich do appear to pay a very large percentage of IRS taxes collected. However, let's trace the path of those taxes. I make $10 million per year. The government wants to take $5 million of that in taxes. Okay, I jack up the prices of what I sell and I make $20 million a year, with the government taking $10 million in taxes and I make $10 million per year after taxes. Yeah!

Quiz: Who actually pays the $10 million dollars a year in IRS taxes?

Answer: Consumers. Who are consumers? Look in your shaving mrror/makeup mirror in the morning. Say, "Hi there, consumer."