Did Bush "redistribute the wealth" up in his tax system?

[TheresNoMoney]

The top 5% of income earners pay 50% of all taxes.  That's not fair share enough for you?

The top 5% own over 2/3 (66%)f the nation's wealth. They are making out like bandits, they do not pay their fair share.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A truly fair progressive tax system would tax all classes at roughly their share of the nation's income/wealth.

So if the top 5% in America own 90% of the nation's wealth, then they should pay roughly 90% of the nation's tax burden.

The top 5% pay much less in federal taxes than their share of the nation's wealth.

But, we already have a progressive income tax, so how are they getting out of that?

I think he's talking about wealth, as opposed to earned income.

[Ronnie]

The top 5% of income earners pay 50% of all taxes.  That's not fair share enough for you?

The top 5% own over 2/3 (66%)f the nation's wealth. They are making out like bandits, they do not pay their fair share.

Do you not realize that these are the people that create jobs in America?  You consider these people bandits?

[TheresNoMoney]

But, we already have a progressive income tax, so how are they getting out of that?

Again, I don't understand what you mean by this sentence. Getting out of what?

[Torie]

I understand your point, but the idea is that he's decreasing the amount of redistribution.  

But the truth is that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes in the first place. So what is this redistribution that you talk about? 

Unless you mean redistribution of the wealth going up to the wealthiest few percent?

What is "fair" is the max tax rate that one can get away with, without causing capital and producers to go away, or in the latter case, switch to the beach mode. That as time goes on,will be the Golden Mean. And to finance socialism for an aging population, there will need to be an OPEC of redistribution set up, to try to avoid capital and corporeal flight, if the industrial democracies decide redistribution needs to be put on steroids. All  these damn geerzers everywhere just screw things up so much. Maybe the Native Americans had it right. When you ceased to be a producer, it was time to go up to the mountain top - one last time -  to be closer to the Great Spirit - one last time.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No. Income taxes are not the only taxes people pay. Income tax happens to be the most progressive. Lower income people pay a far higher percent of Social Security, Medicare, Sales, Property, etc. taxes.

Obama proposes huge amounts of new taxes in fields such as corporal taxes, capital gains taxes, and most of the ones you listed.  Hiking corporal and capital gains taxes result in no other than lost jobs.  Case and point.

When Obama says "tax the rich and give to the middle class (ie. wealth redistribution)", I feel as if he is referring to income taxes.  No?

You are not removing wealth from the system, but redistributing it slightly.  That tax increase on the rich will go to paying for tax cuts for the poor and middle class.  They will have more money in their pockets which will drive up demand.

Also, the money that the rich are paying in will have higher returns if we invest it in our infrastructure, health care, or education system... rather than sitting in a bank account or going to create jobs in a different country.

What the Republicans have done is basically take the system for granted and have finagled it in a way that benefits the wealthy in the short term.  They are neglecting our roads, schools, and our health and our childrens' future for the benefit of the wealthy.

If Obama taxes the wealthy at a higher rate and uses that money to:

Give grants to entrepreneurs who want to start a business
Invest in our roads and public transit to improve efficiency in getting our products to the markplace
Invest in our schools to prepare students to be innovative and more productive in the global economy
Invest in our health care system so that we are a healthier, and thus more productive populace

Then you are actually benefiting the economy.

Now if he takes that extra money and uses it to pay interest on the debt, start wars, and give it as a tax break to companies that are cutting jobs in America and creating them elsewhere, then we are undermining the well being of our country.


This is common sense.  No nation in the world that doesn't invest large amounts of money into education, infrastructure, research, and healthcare is prosperous.  I know Republicans would like to think otherwise.. but it simply is not the case.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"Socialism" is judged by the overall tax rate

...

[Alcon]

But, we already have a progressive income tax, so how are they getting out of that?

Again, I don't understand what you mean by this sentence. Getting out of what?

We have higher tax brackets for the wealthy, nein?  So, what in turn, causes them to pay a low percentage of their income?

Maybe the Native Americans had it right. When you ceased to be a producer, it was time to go up to the mountain top - one last time -  to be closer to the Great Spirit - one last time.

I'm guessing that was a Hopewell tradition.  

[TheresNoMoney]

Do you not realize that these are the people that create jobs in America?  You consider these people bandits?

Don't twist my words, I said they're making out like bandits.

I am saying that they should pay their fair share. If the top 5% account for 2/3 of the nation's income, then they should be paying 2/3 of the nation's tax burden. I don't understand why anyone would think that's unfair.

I'm trying to find some exact stats/figures to back up my arguments but the data is hard to find.

[Alcon]

"Socialism" is judged by the overall tax rate

...

Yeah, man, I know (I even said it was a ridiculous definition) but that's what this bullcrap is based on.

I don't think for a moment that a more progressive tax is socialism, but that seems to be the founding assumption of the argument.  Unless I miss something.

I put it in quotes, what more do you want?

[TheresNoMoney]

We have higher tax brackets for the wealthy, nein?  So, what in turn, causes them to pay a low percentage of their income?

I don't have an exact answer for you, but part of it is because we have such a low capital gains tax and that's where the rich make much of their money (stocks, real estate, etc.) 

[Ban my account ffs!]

But, we already have a progressive income tax, so how are they getting out of that?

Again, I don't understand what you mean by this sentence. Getting out of what?

We have higher tax brackets for the wealthy, nein?  So, what in turn, causes them to pay a low percentage of their income?

Maybe the Native Americans had it right. When you ceased to be a producer, it was time to go up to the mountain top - one last time -  to be closer to the Great Spirit - one last time.

I'm guessing that was a Hopewell tradition.  

I know that nearly every state has a net regressive tax policy once state income, sales, and property taxes are figured in.

Once you add the federal income tax on, it is much less progressive.

I agree that if the top 5% control 60% of the nation's wealth, they should pay 60% of the tax burden.

[A18]

Then you support repeal of all existing taxes, and the imposition of a proportionate wealth tax. Curious; what would you like the rate to be?

Anyway, the answer to the question is of course "no."

[Torie]

We have higher tax brackets for the wealthy, nein?  So, what in turn, causes them to pay a low percentage of their income?

I don't have an exact answer for you, but part of it is because we have such a low capital gains tax and that's where the rich make much of their money (stocks, real estate, etc.) 

Germany I think has a zero capital gains rate. Taxing capital gains punitively is a great way to send capital elsewhere. Do you think I will sell my appreciated assets while living in California?  Please! I love those San Juan islands in Washington state.

If you have serious money, you just move to the Bahamas or somewhere and renounce your citizenship. John Templeton did that. Do a google on him. He said he did it to find a more Christian environment. I am more cynical. The other option is to set up a foundation. After your first ten million, money is more about power anyway.

[TheresNoMoney]

Then you support repeal of all existing taxes, and the imposition of a proportionate wealth tax.

No. I just think the federal tax system should be weighted more fairly to more accurately reflect each bracket's share of the wealth.

[A18]

Why just arbitrarily-defined "brackets"? Why not each individual's share of "the wealth"?

[TheresNoMoney]

Why just arbitrarily-defined "brackets"? Why not each individual's share of "the wealth"?

I think that would be impossible.

[Torie]

I understand your point, but the idea is that he's decreasing the amount of redistribution.  

But the truth is that the wealthy pay less than their fair share of taxes in the first place. So what is this redistribution that you talk about? 

Unless you mean redistribution of the wealth going up to the wealthiest few percent?

The top 5% of income earners pay 50% of all taxes.  That's not fair share enough for you?

That statistic doesn't seem inherently very helpful to me, because it doesn't tell you what % of their income they're paying.

I pay about 40% of my earned income in state and federal taxes, before factoring in sales and property taxes. The marginal rate is maybe 43%. I know because I do my own taxes on turbo tax. It will be less under Obama. Count on it. I can adjust.

[Mr. Morden]

I think Scoonie's assertion that the federal tax burden is regressive is right or wrong depending on two questions:

1) How do you count corporate taxes?  They are ultimately paid by the owners of corporations...the owners of capital....but they're not really paid on personal income as such.  So how they should count in this comparison is murky.  That issue is kind of mentioned in passing in this article:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php

2) Should you count payroll taxes (for SS and Medicare) or not?  Payroll taxes are of course regressive because only the first X number of dollars you make are subject to the tax.  Everything above the limit is untaxed.  But a lot of people don't think payroll taxes should be counted as regular taxes, but rather as "contributions to your retirement".  (And of course, if you're talking about who's paying a "fair share", there's also the issue that in terms of SS and Medicare *benefits*, the rich are going to get back a much smaller percentage of their income in benefits once they retire, relative to how much they paid in taxes when they were working.)

It should also be noted that many of the people who want to count payroll taxes as "premiums" rather than taxes are people on the left who want to preserve the political viability of the system.  Lifting the cap on payroll taxes and means testing benefits would make entitlements sufficiently redistributive that political support for them might dry up, as explained here:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34031.html

Anyway, why is this thread in the 2008 presidential election forum again?  I know it's relevant to the issues in the campaign, but couldn't the same be said of just about any topic in US General Discussion?

[Torie]

One thing nobody seems to be able to get a handle on, is how much of corporate taxes are a sales tax in the sense of passed on in the form of higher prices, and how much are a tax on capital and reduce  after tax returns on capital? I suspect in a global economy with many places having very low corporate tax rates, it is more and more a regressive sales tax. Does anyone have a really good article on this conundrum? Last time I looked, is was a black hole of the unknown, with no good metric to really know.

Of course the other issue, is how much money will run to the bottom, and find a safe place to operate a corporation, with minimal tax, and minimizing the US sourced income subject to a US corporate tax. I suspect we are close to a tipping point, that will induce big profitable corporations to be based elsewhere, to minimize the US tax.

[TheGlobalizer]

No, he was ending its redistribution in the future.  Your theory doesn't really make sense unless it was a retroactive tax cut.

[TheGlobalizer]

FWIW, if we want to have a capacity-based taxation system, let's tax consumption, not income.

[TheresNoMoney]

FWIW, if we want to have a capacity-based taxation system, let's tax consumption, not income.

A consumption tax discourages spending. Generally not a good idea for a healthy economy.

I really an income tax is the fairest and most sensible form of tax a government can impose.

[TheGlobalizer]

FWIW, if we want to have a capacity-based taxation system, let's tax consumption, not income.

A consumption tax discourages spending. Generally not a good idea for a healthy economy.

I really an income tax is the fairest and most sensible form of tax a government can impose.

Yeah, because our debt-based society is doing fan-effing-tastic right now, eh?