The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not sure what relevance this has to any of yours or ss2k5's earlier claims (that you both seem to have abandoned?), but P-S lays it out and I see no reason to dispute their findings. 70% or so for the current top tax bracket, whatever that cutoff happens to be. I don't have a specific number for the lower end, but I support a basic income.

 

We're at historically low tax rates and historically high concentrations of wealth and income, yet it still isn't enough. Even one penny more in taxation would be too much, would be "taxing him to death." From P-S:

 

I haven't abandoned anything. You're claiming this guy is so rich his statements about paying more taxes is absurd. I want to know not what he should be taxed, but at what income level you become so absurdly rich that you can no longer complain about having to pay higher taxes.

[Jenksismyhero]

Poor Mark Zuckerberg, he probably has the hardest life ever. He probably wishes he made 17.00 bucks an hour. That way when he went home he wouldn't have to worry about all those billions.

 

We should start a charity for him.

 

Yeah, that's not the point here. No one feels sorry for these guys, I certainly don't. The point is that Zuckerburg spent time creating and developing an insanely valuable business and continues to do so. You cannot equate his burdens from work with that of his employees.

[StrangeSox]

And he specifically says I know a lot of you aren't stiffs! So which is it?

 

He is explicitly referring to his own employees, while you claimed he was not. He is telling them that, while they may work hard, he works much, much, much harder, ever toiling away at the business. They have weekends and happy hour and 8-4 jobs, but not he! He is always selflessly working, never taking time off, not even to plan and visit his 90,000 square foot home or use his yacht. Think of the yacht! It sits alone, empty, unused, bobbing in waves like a forgotten bottle tossed to the sea.

 

Dude, do you know anyone that's tried to start a business? The amount of risk and work involved for the majority of the time you're working? I don't think you appreciate at all the sacrifices involved there. It's A LOT different than working MOST 9-5 jobs. Do you think Jesse Eisenberg...er...the guy who started Facebook... has a cushy, easy work day trying to make sure he doesn't lose billions for his investors? That he doesn't totally crap out and make his millionaire employees suddenly poor? Come on. Think about athletes even. It's really easy to say "oh you play a game for a living" but the amount of crap involved in their day is not comparable to your average blue or white collar employee. Mo' money, mo' problems!

 

I know people who have started businesses, and I've seen the tail-end of people who worked literally for days straight without sleep for years in order to succeed.

 

But we're not talking about someone struggling to start a business here, someone begging friends, relatives and banks for a small loan to get his company going. We're talking about a man who started a company decades ago and has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of it. A man who could live comfortably and extravagantly for the rest of his life without a single financial worry for him or the next several generations of his family.

 

The wealthy are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. The middle class are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. The working poor are not immoral, greedy, selfish bastards cruising on easy street. They are all people like you and me; some are immoral, lazy, selfish, greedy, others are moral, hard-working, selfless and caring, and there is no strong correlation between the categories. I don't assume that those above me have some monumentally more difficult job, nor do I assume those below me have it easy. Do I think Zuckerberg has some cushy, easy job? No, I'm sure he works hard. But he also now has many millions of his own to fall back on if he fails. Do you think his job is sufficiently more stressful than the waitress working her second shift worried if she'll make enough in tips to cover the rent check due at the end of the week because her employer only has to pay her $2.15 an hour?

 

If Paris Hilton was the owner of your lawfirm and sent that email, would you be so sympathetic with the concerns expressed? About how hard she's had to work, about how unfair it would be to take anything more from her for the lazy parasites, and that, if they do, she'll fire you all and run off to the tropics?

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, that's not the point here. No one feels sorry for these guys, I certainly don't. The point is that Zuckerburg spent time creating and developing an insanely valuable business and continues to do so. You cannot equate his burdens from work with that of his employees.

 

Uh, his "point" was a big sob story to make you feel sorry for how hard he works, so much harder than everyone else!

[StrangeSox]

I haven't abandoned anything. You're claiming this guy is so rich his statements about paying more taxes is absurd. I want to know not what he should be taxed, but at what income level you become so absurdly rich that you can no longer complain about having to pay higher taxes.

 

So you still think it's about "business costs" and some actual accounting and financial projections he's done?

 

I mean, he said if Obama gets re-elected, and his policies get implemented, I will have no choice, because of the amount of money it's going to cost the business, to let people go and/or drop certain benefits. H

 

Because his closing paragraph makes it clear that he'd be closing up shop because of ideological opposition to raising some of the lowest tax rates ever marginally higher, not because of business costs, which wouldn't make sense anyway because employee costs aren't taxed.

[StrangeSox]

Tangential but P-S had a good paper last year examining how progressive the US tax system really is:

 

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

 

Turns out, not very, especially compared with historical levels. So much for "punishing success."

[southsider2k5]

Tangential but P-S had a good paper last year examining how progressive the US tax system really is:

 

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

 

Turns out, not very, especially compared with historical levels. So much for "punishing success."

 

http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercoo...-pay-larger-sh/

 

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."

 

[StrangeSox]

That's not the same thing as the progressiveness of our tax system, though. If anything, given that our system isn't very progressive, it shows that the income gap in this country is significantly larger than in other countries.

[StrangeSox]

I agree that it sucks that the rich pay such a huge portion of the total taxes in this country! This sucks because they control so much of the wealth, e.g. 400 people control more wealth than the bottom 150 million, not because their taxes are too high.

[southsider2k5]

That's not the same thing as the progressiveness of our tax system, though. If anything, given that our system isn't very progressive, it shows that the income gap in this country is significantly larger than in other countries.

 

This flat out shows that more taxes come from the richest taxpayers than anywhere else. The highest brackets are paying a way higher percentage of the taxes in this country.

[StrangeSox]

This flat out shows that more taxes come from the richest taxpayers than anywhere else. The highest brackets are paying a way higher percentage of the taxes in this country.

 

But it still doesn't say anything about the progressiveness of our tax system. You do realize that, right?

[southsider2k5]

But it still doesn't say anything about the progressiveness of our tax system. You do realize that, right?

 

The top 10% are paying 45% of taxes. 47% pay nothing at all. The system is not progressive. That makes absolute sense to me.

[CrimsonWeltall]

The top 10% are paying 45% of taxes. 47% pay nothing at all. The system is not progressive. That makes absolute sense to me.

 

Two-person country has flat tax rate of 10%.

 

Homeless Joe pays 10% of his $0 income, for $0.

Mr. Rich pays 10% of his $10,000,000 income for $1,000,000.

 

Mr. Rich pays 100% of the country's taxes.

 

SUPER PROGRESSIVE FLAT TAX

[Soxbadger]

That article is purposefully misleading. This is an old article, its from 2008: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-o...sive-tax-system

 

Of course, these measures do not include the litany of other taxes households pay in each country, such as Value Added Taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes, but they do give a good indication that our system places a heavier tax burden on high-income households than other industrialized countries.

 

Those parts are left out of the Washington Times article.

 

Youll notice that they mention Sweden, Sweden has 25% Vat tax, US 0. So when the rich guy in Sweden buys a $500k Bentley, he pays 25% to the Swedish govt. In the US, 0.

 

Thus the rich pay more federal taxes in Sweden, its just not all "income tax" there are other taxes.

 

Damn conservative media bias.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Two-person country has flat tax rate of 10%.

 

Homeless Joe pays 10% of his $0 income, for $0.

Mr. Rich pays 10% of his $10,000,000 income for $1,000,000.

 

Mr. Rich pays 100% of the country's taxes.

 

SUPER PROGRESSIVE FLAT TAX

 

So 47% of filers have no income?

[StrangeSox]

"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."

 

Gini Index

Belgium: 28

Germany: 27

France: 32.7

Sweden: 23

US: 45

[southsider2k5]

That article is purposefully misleading. This is an old article, its from 2008: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-o...sive-tax-system

 

 

 

Those parts are left out of the Washington Times article.

 

Youll notice that they mention Sweden, Sweden has 25% Vat tax, US 0. So when the rich guy in Sweden buys a $500k Bentley, he pays 25% to the Swedish govt. In the US, 0.

 

Thus the rich pay more federal taxes in Sweden, its just not all "income tax" there are other taxes.

 

Damn conservative media bias.

 

There sure are. And you just ignored the ones in the US in your example.

 

[Soxbadger]

This flat out shows that more taxes come from the richest taxpayers than anywhere else. The highest brackets are paying a way higher percentage of the taxes in this country.

 

 

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-o...sive-tax-system

 

 

household taxes (income taxes and employee social security contributions)

 

No it doesnt, the original article in 2008 clearly states that its only showing income/social security, its not taking into account other taxes that the US does not collect at all.

 

Its not a complete picture. Because 25% VAT in Sweden is a pretty significant amount of money not to consider.

[southsider2k5]

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-o...sive-tax-system

 

 

 

 

No it doesnt, the original article in 2008 clearly states that its only showing income/social security, its not taking into account other taxes that the US does not collect at all.

 

Its not a complete picture. Because 25% VAT in Sweden is a pretty significant amount of money not to consider.

 

And taxes that the US taxpayer pays too. Those aren't the only two taxes that rich people pay.

[Soxbadger]

There sure are. And you just ignored the ones in the US in your example.

 

 

 

Are you confusing state/local tax. Because the US does not have a VAT tax on all sales. There may be a few federal taxes, but those are exceptions. When you go to Target/Walmart, you dont pay national sales tax.

[StrangeSox]

The top 10% are paying 45% of taxes. 47% pay nothing at all. The system is not progressive. That makes absolute sense to me.

 

You are trying to make a slight-of-hand with the terms and, of course, with the "nothing at all" claim. "Percentage of taxes paid" and "tax rates" are not the same thing. Percentage of taxes paid is a function of both tax rates and income distribution.

 

The P-S paper is talking about total tax progressivity. The article you quoted is talking about total taxes collected. Yet you still intentionally and knowingly used the misleading "47% don't pay any taxes! (of one very specific type of tax, to the exclusion of all other taxes)" line. Of course things won't make sense when you're being intentionally dishonest.

[southsider2k5]

Are you confusing state/local tax. Because the US does not have a VAT tax on all sales. There may be a few federal taxes, but those are exceptions. When you go to Target/Walmart, you dont pay national sales tax.

 

So the other taxes don't count, just because of their classification. Gotcha.

[Soxbadger]

And taxes that the US taxpayer pays too. Those aren't the only two taxes that rich people pay.

 

Im not disagreeing at all. Im just saying that the article is misleading. Its only 2 factors, it does not give the overall numbers of the entire tax burden.

 

I dont know if the US burden is higher or lower, I do know that this article does not answer the question. But instead selectively takes 2 taxes and states the US is higher.

 

/shrugs

 

Acting like this is new is a joke. The study is 4 years old, its been hammered to death. I cant believe that this is new to anyone.

[bmags]

The top 10% are paying 45% of taxes. 47% pay nothing at all. The system is not progressive. That makes absolute sense to me.

 

47% pay no income taxes at all. Not no taxes.

[southsider2k5]

You are trying to make a slight-of-hand with the terms and, of course, with the "nothing at all" claim. "Percentage of taxes paid" and "tax rates" are not the same thing. Percentage of taxes paid is a function of both tax rates and income distribution.

 

The P-S paper is talking about total tax progressivity. The article you quoted is talking about total taxes collected. Yet you still intentionally and knowingly used the misleading "47% don't pay any taxes! (of one very specific type of tax, to the exclusion of all other taxes)" line. Of course things won't make sense when you're being intentionally dishonest.

 

Of course this thread would have about five posts in it if that weren't the case.