11
12
13
14
15
16
SVreX wrote:Full disclosure:
I just noticed the article I linked is from 2007. Doesn't change the essence or the point, but it might currently be off by some percentage points.
I have a bigger issue that it uses 2004 numbers, which predate the current recession. This is difficult though, because I can not find a reputable source that provides both percent income and percent tax burden newer than that.
SVreX wrote:The numbers are not necessarily inflated. His numbers were from CA. My article link was Federal from 2007. I can easily see there would be a difference.
Your numbers are fabricated.
My numbers are not fabricated. My numbers are at the Federal level.
His numbers are not backed up by any references. Where is he getting that 50% number? Can you find it? I suspect he heard that number, it made him angry, and he repeated it because it's a good entertainment sound bite.
The percent of tax burden is also of limited meaning without also including the percentage of income. It would not surprise me at all if the wealthiest people in California (and probably New York) are wealthier than the wealthiest people in other states.
Salanis wrote:I think focusing on just Federal Income tax compared to income (not including investments and other forms of wealth, or any other taxes) is a very limited way of looking at the situation which is used to scew things in favor of making us feel bad for the poor, put-upon rich people.
Don't be ridiculous.
Examining Federal dollars is a perfectly legitimate way to discern and analyze issues with Federal spending.
Pooling it together with a few state dollars thrown in in whatever convoluted manner one chooses is an illegitimate method of defending a nebulous concept which is not defendable.
How about NH? How are we gonna count them? There IS NO state income tax there, so I guess we'll just have to make it up.
I'm not trying to fact-check Carallo's numbers. I know nothing about CA, and don't really care. I am asking you to give a basis for your (apparently fabricated) claim that wealthy people who earn 50% of the income should have to pay an equivalent 50% of the tax burden (regardless of the actual percentage numbers, or which government level we are discussing).
His point: there IS NOT a fair correlation between how much of the tax burden the wealthy pay and how much they make. Your claim: there IS such a correlation.
The facts appear to say you are wrong.
Salanis wrote:My numbers are not fabricated. My numbers are at the Federal level.
You're right. I apologize. It's not the numbers that are fabricated, it's the relationship and correlation.
The 50% is irrelevant. It makes no difference what the real numbers are.
The question is, is the amount they pay in taxes a fair and equitable percentage.
You are claiming the wealthy pay a similar percentage of the overall taxation as their percentage of the income. If that were true, I'd agree with you.
It is NOT TRUE. They pay a great deal higher percentage in taxes than the percentage of the income they make, regardless of the actual numbers.
SVreX wrote:I'm not trying to fact-check Carallo's numbers. I know nothing about CA, and don't really care. I am asking you to give a basis for your (apparently fabricated) claim that wealthy people who earn 50% of the income should have to pay an equivalent 50% of the tax burden (regardless of the actual percentage numbers, or which government level we are discussing).
I presume that's a typo.
You keep using the 50% tax burden number but that is a questionable one, at best, since it only applies to CA, and we have no reference to what it actually is.
If we limit ourselves to just Federal Income Tax across the entire country (which we have better figures for) the numbers look more like people earning 20%-24% of the income paying roughly 37% of the FIT. Why is that fair or not? I see several reasons.
First, there are other taxes that people pay in this country. The less wealthy people pay a greater proportion of the money they earn in sales tax. The middle class probably (I don't have numbers) pay a greater proportion in property tax compared to other demographics. When you look at the whole picture, rather than one slice, the situation looks more equitable to me. Does it come out to be exactly even? Probably not. But the discrepancy is a lot smaller than people make it out to be.
Second, I have no problem with a graduated tax rate. Around 2000, my dad was in that top 1%. He was in the 50% income tax bracket. He complains about how much he had to pay, but later will comment that he earned more money than he could reasonably spend at the time, and did things like buying small airplanes just so that he could spend some of his money. That is only one situation, but I don't really feel bad for him.
I don't see a big issue with a graduated tax rate. I don't think it unfairly punishes anyone. I am not discouraged from wanting to make more money because it will put me into a higher tax bracket.
I suspect the fairness of graduated income tax rates is the fundamental point we disagree on. I'd say that's a subjective point that neither of us can be right or wrong on. Obviously neither is going to convince the other on it.
If you REALLY care (and I don't think you do), the 50% is apparently a factual number in the state of CA. It includes the state taxes.
Hmmm... maybe Carolla was right...
Article also discusses the pitfalls of overtaxing the rich.
SVreX wrote:The 50% is irrelevant. It makes no difference what the real numbers are.
The 50% makes a difference and it doesn't. The actual numbers do make a difference and they don't. Yes, the wealthiest people pay a greater percentage than they earn. But people throw around bigger numbers to make the situation sound more extreme. Than it is.
The question is, is the amount they pay in taxes a fair and equitable percentage.
This is where we disagree, I think. "Fair" and "equitable" aren't necessarily the same things. Do the wealthiest pay an equitable amount? No, but it's closer to equal than people throw around numbers for. Do they pay a fair amount? That is subjective. I say that what they pay with a graduated income tax rate is fair.
My reference to the 50% was not a typo.
It is a carry-over from YOUR statement.
Salanis wrote:I don't feel bad for people who don't have a job because they don't put in the work to finding one, or who won't take something because it's "below" them.
I also don't feel bad for people have to pay more taxes because they earn more money. If a group earns a bit under 50% of the income in this country, it's not particularly a hardship if they pay a bit over 50% of the taxes.
I do not care about the percentage. YOU used it to try to make a point which was incorrect in it's assumptions, and would have been incorrect regardless of what percentage number was plugged in.
Your point was wrong. We can look at the Federal, combined state, or whatever other variation on the them you want to. It's still wrong.
SVreX wrote:My reference to the 50% was not a typo.
It is a carry-over from YOUR statement.
Salanis wrote:I don't feel bad for people who don't have a job because they don't put in the work to finding one, or who won't take something because it's "below" them.
I also don't feel bad for people have to pay more taxes because they earn more money. If a group earns a bit under 50% of the income in this country, it's not particularly a hardship if they pay a bit over 50% of the taxes.
Which was a carry over from:
SVreX wrote:First off- that's not what you said. You referred to the 1% or the .5% Carolla reffered to. That would be the top earners who pay 50% of the taxes, not the "evil derivatives traders". You are changing the focus.
Salanis wrote:The 50% makes a difference and it doesn't. The actual numbers do make a difference and they don't. Yes, the wealthiest people pay a greater percentage than they earn. But people throw around bigger numbers to make the situation sound more extreme. Than it is.
That's true, but not this time. As I noted earlier, Carolla's numbers were correct in the statement he made about the state of CA. They were NOT an exaggeration.
It all comes down to, the wealthy pay more in income tax because we have a graduated tax rate. Do you believe that is fair or not? I do. You don't.
Am I going to say anything that is going to convince you that a graduated tax rate is fair? Probably not.
Are you going to say anything to convince me that a graduated tax rate isn't fair? Probably not.
I used the 50% as an accurate quote of the correct article, which was based on the state of CA, and was true.
You contorted the 50% to include a presumption that wealthy also earn an equivalent 50% in income, which was false.
You don't have to convince me a graduated tax rate is a good idea. I think it is a good idea.
You have to convince me that you aren't distorting the facts to make a case based on false assumptions.
The top 1% of wage earners paying 37% of the gross Federal taxes when they earn 19% of the income while the bottom 50% of wage earners paying 3% of the gross Federal taxes when they earn 13% is out of balance, regardless of whether or not the tax rate is graduated.
Period.
SVreX wrote:I used the 50% as an accurate quote of the correct article, which was based on the state of CA, and was true.
You contorted the 50% to include a presumption that wealthy also earn an equivalent 50% in income, which was false.
I did not know the numbers, so I looked them up and found out I was not correct. I found out the wealthiest people in the country earn 20%-24% of the income and pay about 37% of federal income tax.
Presuming that the wealthiest 1% of people in CA pay nearly 50% of income tax in the state, what percentage of income do they have for the state? It is probably greater than the national 24% number. No one is providing what that number actually is.
Again, this comes down to: Do you believe a graduated tax rate is fair? I do. If you do, what graduated rate do you believe is fair? I don't know enough to say, which is why I'm glad I don't have to set that rate.
Oh, and I forgot one thing.
Not only is it out of balance, but OWS thinks it should be more out of balance.
Entitlement thinking.
Exactly what Carolla was addressing.
SVreX wrote:The top 1% of wage earners paying 37% of the gross Federal taxes when they earn 19% of the income while the bottom 50% of wage earners paying 3% of the gross Federal taxes when they earn 13% is out of balance, regardless of whether or not the tax rate is graduated.
Umm... the point of a graduated tax rate is to not be balanced. Even with small gradation, the wealthiest will pay a greater proportion than the poorest.
Sounds like we now have an argument about whether or not the level of gradation is fair or not. That is too big a question for me, but I have not seen anything to say that the wealthiest people pay an unfair amount.
I know I support repeal the Bush-ear tax cuts. I think we should repeal them for everyone, not just the rich. This country needs the revenue.
That sounds like a good question for another thread.
This one is about OWS. Carolla made the point that they have an entitlement mentality which is killing the country.
I agree.
Salanis wrote:SVreX wrote:The top 1% of wage earners paying 37% of the gross Federal taxes when they earn 19% of the income while the bottom 50% of wage earners paying 3% of the gross Federal taxes when they earn 13% is out of balance, regardless of whether or not the tax rate is graduated.
Umm... the point of a graduated tax rate is to not be balanced. Even with small gradation, the wealthiest will pay a greater proportion than the poorest.
Sounds like we now have an argument about whether or not the level of gradation is fair or not. That is too big a question for me, but I have not seen anything to say that the wealthiest people pay an unfair amount.
I know I support repeal the Bush-ear tax cuts. I think we should repeal them for everyone, not just the rich. This country needs the revenue.
What exactly does the nation need the revenue for?
Invading brown countries and feeding the morbidly obese if you listen to both sides.
SVreX wrote:That sounds like a good question for another thread.
This one is about OWS. Carolla made the point that they have an entitlement mentality which is killing the country.
Agreed. Best for another thread.
I agree that many (but not all) have an entitlement mentality. I don't think it's killing this country (I do not believe when people tell me the sky is falling). I don't believe it's healthy for this country either.
