Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
THE MATRIX

Americans agree: The rich should pay higher

338 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Br Cornelius

I'm sure tax deductions play a major role across the board, but I believe what we see in the case of the bottom 50% is the fact that many of these people receive tax "credits" although they pay no taxes, so they are in fact receiving gifts from the government in the form of wealth redistribution.

:tu:

The rich make their money from the less rich, a certain amount of redistribution is simply balancing the books a little :tu:

Its called skimming the profits, and the banks are the ultimate example of skimming without contributing.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

The rich make their money from the less rich, a certain amount of redistribution is simply balancing the books a little :tu:

Its called skimming the profits, and the banks are the ultimate example of skimming without contributing.

Br Cornelius

I'm sure some of that happens, as I'm sure there is some level of workers stealing everything from product to office equipment, but for the most part the rich get rich because they invest in good business and good ideas.

The rich man made his money from providing goods and services others want or need. In providing these services, they provide employment for others.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I'm sure some of that happens, as I'm sure there is some level of workers stealing everything from product to office equipment, but for the most part the rich get rich because they invest in good business and good ideas.

Do you think that the CEO of any company is 10,000x as productive as the office janitor, or do you think that they all contribute the the wealth of the company and deserve an equitable share in the proceeds. Do you think the CEO could make a penny by himself ?

On top of this, the CEO can only operate his company because the Government picks up most of the bills for the infrastructure on which the company depends to operate. It is the specific duty of the company to externalise as much of its cost base as possible, the Government realises this and is obliged to recover as much of its cost as possible via TAXES.

The incentive's are stacked in the bosses favour because he has the most influence on policy makers (via lobbying and paying for elections).

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Do you think that the CEO of any company is 10,000x as productive as the office janitor, or do you think that they all contribute the the wealth of the company and deserve an equitable share in the proceeds. Do you think the CEO could make a penny by himself ?

Do you think the quarterback on a pro football team can win the game by himself? Why does he get paid more than the guy who picks up the towels? Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

I'm sure tax deductions play a major role across the board, but I believe what we see in the case of the bottom 50% is the fact that many of these people receive tax "credits" although they pay no taxes, so they are in fact receiving gifts from the government in the form of wealth redistribution.

I'm not entirely sure I understand - in the UK, a tax credit would just increase you personal allowance before tax was due - what kind of things do they receive tax credits for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike

A flat rate tax with a large exemption band, say, the first $50,000 tax-free, would also work.

One of the problems with a graduated system is that it can be used punitively by government - for example, in the UK, during the seventies, the top tax rates were set at 83% for income above £20,000. That's something which wouldn't happen with a flat tax rate.

I think that flat tax rate with a exemption band is the perfect solution. I would support that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

I'm not entirely sure I understand - in the UK, a tax credit would just increase you personal allowance before tax was due - what kind of things do they receive tax credits for?

The government can issue tax credits, basically give you some of your own money that you worked to earn back, and make it seem like it's some magnanimous gift, during particular circumstances. However, in the last few years people who actually pay no income taxes have also received these tax credits, which given the fact they had paid no taxes was the government giving them the money someone else worked hard to earn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

The government can issue tax credits, basically give you some of your own money that you worked to earn back, and make it seem like it's some magnanimous gift, during particular circumstances. However, in the last few years people who actually pay no income taxes have also received these tax credits, which given the fact they had paid no taxes was the government giving them the money someone else worked hard to earn.

You make it sound so much like these people worked long, hard days in a factory or in the sun to make that money. Let's not forget that the tax credits that have been handed out lately go to the richest owners and CEO's of companies who made money not by working for it but by shifting employment outside the US, paying slave wages in sweatshops in China and then selling their companies products at a markup of 10,000% to gullible consumers in the US...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Do you think the quarterback on a pro football team can win the game by himself? Why does he get paid more than the guy who picks up the towels?

Its a question of degree's. Is the CEO really worth $1billion a year, or is that just a drain on the company resources which would better serve to improve the company and its workforce.

I personally do not think the CEO of any company is worth 10,000x that of any other company employee. It encourages asset stripping of the company.

The most stable and happy countries in the world also agree that this is not an equitable and fair way to manage resources. I think the proof of the opposite is the example which America is setting, a country on the verge of some sort of civil war.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

The government can issue tax credits, basically give you some of your own money that you worked to earn back, and make it seem like it's some magnanimous gift, during particular circumstances. However, in the last few years people who actually pay no income taxes have also received these tax credits, which given the fact they had paid no taxes was the government giving them the money someone else worked hard to earn.

So, in effect, they're a subsidy.

Here in the UK, we have child benefit, which is a subsidy from the government for those people who have children which is paid directly into a person's bank account.

Are the tax credits there given for something similar? What was the thinking behind making them part of the tax system? Was it done for political reasons, as it would have been too hard to get a particular subsidy signed off in both houses, or was it just easier to administrate through the current tax system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

You make it sound so much like these people worked long, hard days in a factory or in the sun to make that money. Let's not forget that the tax credits that have been handed out lately go to the richest owners and CEO's of companies who made money not by working for it but by shifting employment outside the US, paying slave wages in sweatshops in China and then selling their companies products at a markup of 10,000% to gullible consumers in the US...

I'm neither a CEO or a rich owner and I got a tax credit, and I did work hard for my money, not out in the sun but by developing processes and systems to improve the quality of life of my employees and reduce cost to the company which then got passed on to consumers in reduced prices.

The people in the bottom 50% who got "tax credits" although they had not actually paid taxes are also very obviously not CEO or rich owners.

Its a question of degree's. Is the CEO really worth $1billion a year, or is that just a drain on the company resources which would better serve to improve the company and its workforce.

Nice try. Answer the question, please: Do you think the quarterback on a pro football team can win the game by himself? Why does he get paid more than the guy who picks up the towels? Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

I'm neither a CEO or a rich owner and I got a tax credit, and I did work hard for my money, not out in the sun but by developing processes and systems to improve the quality of life of my employees and reduce cost to the company which then got passed on to consumers in reduced prices.

Nice try. Answer the question, please: Do you think the quarterback on a pro football team can win the game by himself? Why does he get paid more than the guy who picks up the towels?

And you know what? Not many people are arguing against you getting that tax cut. What the argument is about is the tax cust and credits that apply only to those people making the top 1% of wages in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I'm not entirely sure I understand - in the UK, a tax credit would just increase you personal allowance before tax was due - what kind of things do they receive tax credits for?

Tiggs, I am an IRS-Certified Tax preparer. I also have been recommend for a Tax Advocate postion in my State, California. I will serve a term of 3 years/ 300-500 volunteer hours to represent my state on suggesting and arguing for changes in Tax law based on customer feedback.

If anyone is really interested in how to go about changing things they can contact me in PM for information.

We have two types of credit here refundable, and non-refundable. Meaning non-refundable reduces AGI or Tax obligation. Refundable is gotten back in a refund.

Off the top of my head: the credits include Child Tax Credit, EIC (Earned Income Credit) and Dependent Care Credit. Make Work Pay, Health Care Credit, American Opportunity Credit (partially refundable), Adoption Credit, Education credits. etc

http://www.irs.gov/

This is the go to for any questions about the IRS and anything taxes..

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

So, in effect, they're a subsidy.

Here in the UK, we have child benefit, which is a subsidy from the government for those people who have children which is paid directly into a person's bank account.

Are the tax credits there given for something similar? What was the thinking behind making them part of the tax system? Was it done for political reasons, as it would have been too hard to get a particular subsidy signed off in both houses, or was it just easier to administrate through the current tax system?

Not quite. There is a child credit that you apply for at the time you file your annual income tax. You then discount this from whatever taxes you were supposed to pay based on your tax level. For example, say given my family's income we're supposed to pay 25%. But as I file my taxes I deduct a credit for each of my children under the age of 17, which can equal around $1,000 per child. So once I've processed all the deductions I end up paying 22.5% instead of 25%.

These tax credits I'm talking about were issued as checks from the government to the tax payer. However, people who had paid no taxes also received these "tax credits."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

And you know what? Not many people are arguing against you getting that tax cut. What the argument is about is the tax cust and credits that apply only to those people making the top 1% of wages in this country.

Oh, you mean the ones who are already paying 38% of the total taxes collected, although they only made 20% of the total wealth?

Now, why isn't anyone upset that people who paid no taxes got "tax credits?"

I would love to know the breakdown of the people polled. How many of the people polled were part of the bottom 50%? How many of them are Liberal or Democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

Tiggs, I am an IRS-Certified Tax preparer. I also have been recommend for a Tax Advocate postion in my State, California. I will serve a term of 3 years/ 300-500 volunteer hours to represent my state on suggesting and arguing for changes in Tax law based on customer feedback.

If anyone is really interested in how to go about changing things they can contact me in PM for information.

Interesting. I will definitely remember that.

We have two types of credit here refundable, and non-refundable. Meaning non-refundable reduces AGI or Tax obligation. Refundable is gotten back in a refund.

Off the top of my head: the credits include Child Tax Credit, EIC (Earned Income Credit) and Dependent Care Credit. Make Work Pay, Health Care Credit, American Opportunity Credit (partially refundable), Adoption Credit, Education credits. etc

http://www.irs.gov/

This is the go to for any questions about the IRS and anything taxes..

That looks like a shedload of different credits. Do people have to apply for those prior to filling in their tax returns, or do they do that at the time they make the return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

Oh, you mean the ones who are already paying 38% of the total taxes collected, although they only made 20% of the total wealth?

Now, why isn't anyone upset that people who paid no taxes got "tax credits?"

I would love to know the breakdown of the people polled. How many of the people polled were part of the bottom 50%? How many of them are Liberal or Democrats?

I would love to know the breakdown of the reasons why so many people feel that they need to jump into the defense of the rich... Why is it that the people who would be helped by raising taxes on the rich are so willing to cut their own throats to support a group of people that would not blink twice before having companies ship employment beyond the shores of the country? What logic is that?

If the rich don't want ot pay more in taxes, let them fight that battle. They are big boys and don't need the middle class and poor to do their fighting for them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

Not quite. There is a child credit that you apply for at the time you file your annual income tax. You then discount this from whatever taxes you were supposed to pay based on your tax level. For example, say given my family's income we're supposed to pay 25%. But as I file my taxes I deduct a credit for each of my children under the age of 17, which can equal around $1,000 per child. So once I've processed all the deductions I end up paying 22.5% instead of 25%.

These tax credits I'm talking about were issued as checks from the government to the tax payer. However, people who had paid no taxes also received these "tax credits."

Do you mean the stimulus cheques? I thought those were a one-off sort of thing, or is this another cheque from the Government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Interesting. I will definitely remember that.

That looks like a shedload of different credits. Do people have to apply for those prior to filling in their tax returns, or do they do that at the time they make the return?

You qualify or not at the time of filing.

If you ever have any questions or I can be of any help feel free to PM me.

This goes for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
regeneratia

The rich in the USA or anywhere should not get a free ride. And they should not be PAID to get a free ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Do you mean the stimulus cheques? I thought those were a one-off sort of thing, or is this another cheque from the Government?

Child tax credit is a non refundable credit meaning it lowers ones AGI . A qualitfying child must be under the age of 17 at the end of the year or 16. The rules are literal when dealing with the IRS.The parent must have provided more then half of the child's support for the year and the child must be a US citizen or US national (ITIN Is allowed for Child Tax Credit) as there must be a SSN. Also in general the child will be one's dependent too, except for special circumstances. E.g.. Parents splitting the child and form 8332 will have to be filed.

It's a $1000.00 credit, it would not affect a tax obligation that much.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

I would love to know the breakdown of the reasons why so many people feel that they need to jump into the defense of the rich... Why is it that the people who would be helped by raising taxes on the rich are so willing to cut their own throats to support a group of people that would not blink twice before having companies ship employment beyond the shores of the country? What logic is that?

The logic is that the system needs to be fair for all or it can easily become unfair for all. I am all for the rich paying taxes, and for guys like who think they personally are not paying enough, I am all for them paying as much as they want, after all, the government just wants to make sure you pay the minimum you owe, they will happily accept any additional taxes you want to pay.

But when the people EARNING 20% of the wealth end up paying almost 40% of all taxes and pay at a rate of 23% while people earning almost 13% of the wealth pay less than 3% of the total taxes at a rate of less than 3%, the system is completely unfair and sets up a situation where the people getting the break on paying taxes will happily back up a government which will give them money and take it from those who earn it.

If the rich don't want ot pay more in taxes, let them fight that battle. They are big boys and don't need the middle class and poor to do their fighting for them...

The rich are paying taxes and it seems the majority of them do not have a problem paying them, but do seem to perceive that maybe, potentially, possibly, when seen in a particular light, the system is somewhat unfair.

Do you mean the stimulus cheques? I thought those were a one-off sort of thing, or is this another cheque from the Government?

The stimulus checks are part, yes, they were supposed to be tax credits.

The rich in the USA or anywhere should not get a free ride. And they should not be PAID to get a free ride.

Free ride? The top 1% of wage earners already pay close to 40% of all taxes collected while the bottom 50% of wage earners paid less than 3%. Seems like "the poor" are getting the free ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I'm neither a CEO or a rich owner and I got a tax credit, and I did work hard for my money, not out in the sun but by developing processes and systems to improve the quality of life of my employees and reduce cost to the company which then got passed on to consumers in reduced prices.

The people in the bottom 50% who got "tax credits" although they had not actually paid taxes are also very obviously not CEO or rich owners.

Nice try. Answer the question, please: Do you think the quarterback on a pro football team can win the game by himself? Why does he get paid more than the guy who picks up the towels?

The answer to your question is that no the quarterback doesn't do it all himself and he is generally overpaid for what he does. He is part of a team, and because of his roll he deserves a bigger cut - but only by a reasonable margin.

Its about teams not stars - America has lost sight of that and is suffering as a consequence.

As a Christian I would have thought you would have understood all this, or are you of the Calvanist flavour.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

The logic is that the system needs to be fair for all or it can easily become unfair for all. I am all for the rich paying taxes, and for guys like who think they personally are not paying enough, I am all for them paying as much as they want, after all, the government just wants to make sure you pay the minimum you owe, they will happily accept any additional taxes you want to pay.

But when the people EARNING 20% of the wealth end up paying almost 40% of all taxes and pay at a rate of 23% while people earning almost 13% of the wealth pay less than 3% of the total taxes at a rate of less than 3%, the system is completely unfair and sets up a situation where the people getting the break on paying taxes will happily back up a government which will give them money and take it from those who earn it.

The rich are paying taxes and it seems the majority of them do not have a problem paying them, but do seem to perceive that maybe, potentially, possibly, when seen in a particular light, the system is somewhat unfair.

The stimulus checks are part, yes, they were supposed to be tax credits.

Free ride? The top 1% of wage earners already pay close to 40% of all taxes collected while the bottom 50% of wage earners paid less than 3%. Seems like "the poor" are getting the free ride.

Iamson probably has no idea on the Sch C.

Do you have any idea the write offs available for a buisness owner, corporation, 1099?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wookietim

The logic is that the system needs to be fair for all or it can easily become unfair for all. I am all for the rich paying taxes, and for guys like who think they personally are not paying enough, I am all for them paying as much as they want, after all, the government just wants to make sure you pay the minimum you owe, they will happily accept any additional taxes you want to pay.

Except right now that is not fair. The rich are directing the non-rich to fight for them rather than fighting on their own behalf. That is not fair.

And I will remind you - the fact that the govt is asking those that have benefited the most from the country to pay the most does not seem inherently unfair to me.

But when the people EARNING 20% of the wealth end up paying almost 40% of all taxes and pay at a rate of 23% while people earning almost 13% of the wealth pay less than 3% of the total taxes at a rate of less than 3%, the system is completely unfair and sets up a situation where the people getting the break on paying taxes will happily back up a government which will give them money and take it from those who earn it.

And the fact that the top 1% earners in the country hold onto almost 90% of the money does not seem at all out of whack to you? And then saying "Heck, let them have more - we can pay for that by taking things away from the rest of the people" doesn't seem even more out of whack?

The rich are paying taxes and it seems the majority of them do not have a problem paying them, but do seem to perceive that maybe, potentially, possibly, when seen in a particular light, the system is somewhat unfair.

Again - why is it that the rich expect to get perks in the form of tax cuts/credits and expect the middle class and poor to pay for it in the form of lowered social services?

Free ride? The top 1% of wage earners already pay close to 40% of all taxes collected while the bottom 50% of wage earners paid less than 3%. Seems like "the poor" are getting the free ride.

And those top wage earners hold 90% of the wealth in the country. 1% of the country holds 90% of the wealth. That is unfair - asking them to pay for the privilege of being wildly more wealthy than every other person is not unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.