The Case for Progressive Taxation

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by gary5912

why would you go to shit hole like Mexico, good luck

Puerto Vallarta is no shit hole, I've been many times, I can see why many people choose to live there upon retirement.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Please provide the source of your chart. It does not match my chart. Link to my chart:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal...tax-dollars-go

As you can see in my chart, 10 percent of the budget is spent on entitlement programs or safety net programs, such as food stamps and welfare. Social security is not welfare. Medical care is not welfare. I agree too much is spent on medical care and that it can be reformed and/or lowered. Too many states have chosen not to expand Medicaid and that is one reason it is higher. It drives up the cost. We need a universal plan such as Europe has. Cut out the middle man and insurance subsidiaries and this would save a great deal.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SassySue

Please provide the source of your chart. It does not match my chart. Link to my chart:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal...tax-dollars-go

Dear Democrat Party Operative,

Please note that the source of Hankering's chart is the Office of Management and Budget. It's printed on the graphic.

Also please note from YOUR article that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, marketplace subsidies, safety net programs, and benefits for federal retirees (i.e. entitlements) add up to 67% of the budget. Please note that similar items in I B Hankering's chart add up to 62% of the budget.

Originally Posted by SassySue

Show me proof that we spend most of the current budget on entitlements and I will believe you.

You've provided the proof we spend the majority of the current budget on entitlements.

Entitlement is defined as the fact of having a right to something. You can argue whether or not it's welfare when someone pulls out 3 times as much in inflation adjusted dollars from social security as he put in. But either way it's an entitlement.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Dear Democrat Party Operative,

Please note from YOUR article that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, marketplace subsidies, safety net programs, and benefits for federal retirees (i.e. entitlements) add up to 67% of the budget. Please note that similar items in I B Hankering's chart add up to 62% of the budget.

You've provided the proof we spend the majority of the current budget on entitlements.

+1

Defense spending went down 3% since 2012!

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I should point out that social security is not part of the budget. I question that chart lumps it as an entitlement.

No matter how you cut it -- "on budget" or "off budget" -- annual disbursements for Social Security are funded by taxation on personal income.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by Tiny

??? My post was all about your statement, first that taxes are the lowest they've been during the history of our country and later that they're the lowest they've been in a while. The link I provided shows total government revenues from all taxes and fees. If by "taxes" you mean specifically "income taxes" and wish to exclude the others, then look at the blue curve in Chart 3.23 and you'll see total income taxes, state plus federal, as a % of GDP are about as high as they've ever been. You're the one making rationalizations based on your ideology. You zero in on the statutory, marginal federal rate and completely ignore what % of their income people actually pay when it suits your purposes, as it does for personal income tax. On the other hand, when it suits your purposes to focus on the effective tax rate, as it does for corporations, you change your story. And you apparently refuse to acknowledge that the top rates on personal income went up under Obama effective January 1, 2013.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

That blue curve you are referring to are government revenues, not income taxes. I know what I am talking about and so do you. You are just trying to make me look stupid. Definition of government revenues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_revenue

Most intelligent people know income taxes have gone down over the decades since they began in early history. So don't use complicated and confusing terminology to confuse me or other people on this board. Government revenues are not the same thing as income taxes.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1

Defense spending went down 3% since 2012!





No matter how you cut it -- "on budget" or "off budget" -- annual disbursements for Social Security are funded by taxation on personal income.

Yes, I know that we have cut the budget on defense and I think that's great. Social security can be completely funded through payroll deductions. The reason it's in default right now is because we borrowed from it for the wars and tax cuts. I don't think Obamacare is a good thing so that is something we agree on. I think a cheaper way would be to cut out the insurance companies and have a national universal healthcare plan. The states that don't have expanded Medicaid are actually losing money. They pay for it with higher property taxes. There is a lot of waste and fraud going on in the hospitals and with Medicaid and Medicare that can be eliminated also.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Dear Democrat Party Operative,

Please note that the source of Hankering's chart is the Office of Management and Budget. It's printed on the graphic.

Also please note from YOUR article that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, marketplace subsidies, safety net programs, and benefits for federal retirees (i.e. entitlements) add up to 67% of the budget. Please note that similar items in I B Hankering's chart add up to 62% of the budget.



You've provided the proof we spend the majority of the current budget on entitlements.

Entitlement is defined as the fact of having a right to something. You can argue whether or not it's welfare when someone pulls out 3 times as much in inflation adjusted dollars from social security as he put in. But either way it's an entitlement.

I don't consider social security an entitlement. I have paid into the system for it. As well as Medicare. I paid for it with payroll deductions when I was working. I worked my entire life up until now. I think most Americans feel the same way about social security. I'll bet most Americans feel the same way about unemployment and other social safety nets like food stamps. They feel that's what they pay taxes for. We also pay sales taxes. Don't forget about that. When we don't have money to spend, everyone loses, even large corporations like Walmart. The economy won't be as robust because we don't have the money to spend. When we don't have extra money to spend, large corporations don't reap the large profits like a robust economy would otherwise reap. Keeping wages stagnant, sending jobs overseas, and cutting backing on safety nets when jobs are scarce is not going to help the economy in my opinion. It's only going to make it worse.

[Tiny]

Dear Democrat Party Operative,

Originally Posted by SassySue

That blue curve you are referring to are government revenues, not income taxes.

WTF? Yes, the blue curve is government revenues FROM INCOME TAXES AS A % OF GDP. That's exactly the same as income taxes as % of GDP. There's no difference.

Originally Posted by SassySue

Most intelligent people know income taxes have gone down over the decades since they began in early history. So don't use complicated and confusing terminology to confuse me or other people on this board. Government revenues are not the same thing as income taxes.

So are you an idiot or a hyper-partisan liar? I suspect it's the later. I've said it before, your type wants to keep people poor and dependent on government. That's your constituency, and if people realize that's your game and pull themselves up by their bootstraps then you'll lose their votes. I'm just damn glad you people don't control all three branches of government at the state and federal level, or we'd be living in something like Orwell's 1984. At least that's the kind of nonsense you've been posting here.

[CuteOldGuy]

People who are dependent on government generally vote Democrat. It benefits the Democrats to keep them dependent. Dependent voters are dependable voters. Libertarians want to help those people get off government aid and become self sufficient, productive members of society. Democrats have made poverty a generational way of life. They use tax money to build a voter base. Once people get out of poverty, they will often change parties. Democrats don't want that. So the spiral continues.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SassySue

The social security trust fund had a surplus until Bush took office. He borrowed from it to cover the wars and tax cuts for the rich. Not true; lib-retard lie.

Just to put your point in perspective, here's where our tax dollars actually go, and only 10% go to entitlements or safety net programs!
Not true; see your own cite.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal...tax-dollars-go

Originally Posted by SassySue

Ten percent of the budget is currently spent on safety net entitlements. Not true; see your own cite.

And maybe we wouldn't have all the debt if Bush hadn't gone to Iraq for no reason at all. And you'd be the looney-tune lib-retard that'd be perfectly happy to let bin Laden keep bombing American high-rises and killing thousands of American citizens any time he wanted at a cost of of $2 trillion a pop.

Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion. (source)

Originally Posted by SassySue

Please provide the source of your chart. The source, btw, is Zerohedge, one of the sites you cite. It does not match my chart.It was 2013; yours is a projection for 2017. Link to my chart:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal...tax-dollars-go

As you can see in my chart, 10 percent of the budget is spent on entitlement programs or safety net programs, such as food stamps and welfare. Not true; that's a lib-retard lie. Social security is not welfare. Not true; it is a social welfare program funded by taxes on income. Medical care is not welfare. Not true; it is a social welfare program funded by taxes on income.

Originally Posted by SassySue

The reason it's in default right now is because we borrowed from it for the wars and tax cuts. Not true; that's a lib-retard lie.

Originally Posted by SassySue

I don't consider social security an entitlement. It's a social welfare program funded by taxation on personal income. As well as Medicare. It's a social welfare program funded by taxation on personal income. I paid for it with payroll deductions when I was working. I worked my entire life up until now. I think most Americans feel the same way about social security. I'll bet most Americans feel the same way about unemployment and other social safety nets like food stamps. They feel that's what they pay taxes for. We also pay sales taxes. Don't forget about that. When we don't have money to spend, everyone loses, even large corporations like Walmart. The economy won't be as robust because we don't have the money to spend. When we don't have extra money to spend, large corporations don't reap the large profits like a robust economy would otherwise reap. Keeping wages stagnant, sending jobs overseas, and cutting backing on safety nets when jobs are scarce is not going to help the economy in my opinion. It's only going to make it worse. But you'd be the lib-retard voter supporting politicians that permit "overseas" workers coming here unfettered to collect paychecks in lieu of American workers, and letting those "overseas" workers export their paychecks to be spent in "overseas" markets that don't employ or benefit American workers.

.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Dear Democrat Party Operative,



WTF? Yes, the blue curve is government revenues FROM INCOME TAXES AS A % OF GDP. That's exactly the same as income taxes as % of GDP. There's no difference.



So are you an idiot or a hyper-partisan liar? I suspect it's the later. I've said it before, your type wants to keep people poor and dependent on government. That's your constituency, and if people realize that's your game and pull themselves up by their bootstraps then you'll lose their votes. I'm just damn glad you people don't control all three branches of government at the state and federal level, or we'd be living in something like Orwell's 1984. At least that's the kind of nonsense you've been posting here.

I'm not any such thing. I just don't agree with your ideology that's all. I don't consider myself dependent on the government either. I just feel I've paid my dues and now I am reaping the rewards. I paid a lot of taxes, including inheritance taxes! I don't receive hardly any social security. It's a very modest amount and barely above the poverty level. That's why I'm retiring in Mexico. I don't really think the chart in your post reflects an accurate definition of the tax rates over the years, so here is another one I found. It's rather hard to read and it states revenues of gross domestic product, so it seems confusing to me. This chart is more clear cut. Are you saying that all the people who had payroll deductions taken from their paycheck for social security should not be able to collect on it?

Compare tax rates of past presidents, including Obama:

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

If you go way back, rate goes up and down, and then finally levels off, but it's still lower than it has been in the past. Of course, it depends on how far back you are going. In the 1920's yes, it was on 7% or so. I believed it peaked in the 1950's, then went consistently down from that time on, and pretty much leveled off. Obama may have raised it a bit to help with the deficit, but I don't think it amounted to much. He mostly raised taxes on people making over $400,000 per year I believe. Look how Obama raised taxes or not. . .

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/4...d-In-One-Chart

[ftime]

OK. Obviously this conversation is too complicated for this forum. I would just like to state some facts.

I have paid the maximum SS taxes for social security for 25+ years. I realize that I am subsidising people that get much more than I will. I also realize that I have paid more for medicare (as that doesn't end with maxing out SS).

My last year of full time employment, I claimed $638,000+. In that year I paid an overall rate (not marginal) of 24% in FICT. I did nothing out of the ordinary other than defer some income. I was audited, not the first time, and the Federal government gave me back $168. Spent it on a bottle of wine.

I live in the city of Houston. My last year in my house, I paid $1600 a month in property taxes. Given there is no state taxes, I could afford it. Property taxes take a much bigger % bite out of lower income people than me.

Without a doubt that lower taxes create jobs is ridiculous. They create larger profits. I believe it is called trickle down economics.

Having lived most of my adult life as affluent, I have been lucky. While there have been some good points made, the simple fact is that the current tax system is clearly on the side of the wealthy. My deductions have been phased out because of how much I make. I am fully taxed on Social Security which is a very small amount of my income. As I should be.

One final word on Corporate taxes. Specifically profits earned outside the US. In most cases there are tax credits for taxes paid to foreign countries. A company would only pay the incremental difference in taxes. The GOP aka Ryan tax plan wants 0% taxes paid for those profits. Reducing Corporate tax rate to 20% as called for in Ryan's proposal won't bring a single job back to the US. We are no longer a manufacturing economy. Those jobs are gone forever, regardless of tax rates. They are performed by robots or by workers who are paid a wage that a US worker would receive. We are a service economy.

Medicine and the pharmaceutical industry as a for profit entity won't work. Keep in mind that most doctors/hospitals are owned by for profit corporations that inflate prices well beyond what is required to pay doctors and fund research on drugs. I bring this up because this is such a large amount paid for Medicare and Medicaid.

Arguing marginal % doesn't make sense. Except for political reasons.

[SassySue]

Originally Posted by ftime

OK. Obviously this conversation is too complicated for this forum. I would just like to state some facts.

I have paid the maximum SS taxes for social security for 25+ years. I realize that I am subsidising people that get much more than I will. I also realize that I have paid more for medicare (as that doesn't end with maxing out SS).

My last year of full time employment, I claimed $638,000+. In that year I paid an overall rate (not marginal) of 24% in FICT. I did nothing out of the ordinary other than defer some income. I was audited, not the first time, and the Federal government gave me back $168. Spent it on a bottle of wine.

I live in the city of Houston. My last year in my house, I paid $1600 a month in property taxes. Given there is no state taxes, I could afford it. Property taxes take a much bigger % bite out of lower income people than me.

Without a doubt that lower taxes create jobs is ridiculous. They create larger profits. I believe it is called trickle down economics.

Having lived most of my adult life as affluent, I have been lucky. While there have been some good points made, the simple fact is that the current tax system is clearly on the side of the wealthy. My deductions have been phased out because of how much I make. I am fully taxed on Social Security which is a very small amount of my income. As I should be.

One final word on Corporate taxes. Specifically profits earned outside the US. In most cases there are tax credits for taxes paid to foreign countries. A company would only pay the incremental difference in taxes. The GOP aka Ryan tax plan wants 0% taxes paid for those profits. Reducing Corporate tax rate to 20% as called for in Ryan's proposal won't bring a single job back to the US. We are no longer a manufacturing economy. Those jobs are gone forever, regardless of tax rates. They are performed by robots or by workers who are paid a wage that a US worker would receive. We are a service economy.

Medicine and the pharmaceutical industry as a for profit entity won't work. Keep in mind that most doctors/hospitals are owned by for profit corporations that inflate prices well beyond what is required to pay doctors and fund research on drugs. I bring this up because this is such a large amount paid for Medicare and Medicaid.

Arguing marginal % doesn't make sense. Except for political reasons.

Thanks for your post. This is what I have been trying to emphasize in my posts and why the gap between the rich and the poor is widening in our economy. Actually when I went back and looked at the tax chart in my last post, taxes actually have continually gone down since each president from the 1920's on. Here's another chart. I don't know where the chart from Tiny came from, but this is another one I found and it match's my chart also. Maximum rates were much higher than 7% in 1920. The economy was actually booming at that time. Here is the chart I am referring to:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stati...tax-parameters

I am not saying that taxes should be raised anymore than they are right now, just that I believe in progressive taxation. I think it works for the whole of society. If I made a lot of money, I sure wouldn't mind paying my fair share and I give you my word on that. I think it all boils down to greed, especially corporate greed.

[Yssup Rider]

Well at least we got to see IBIdiot's ugly meltdown...

[Tiny]

Dear Democrat Party Operative,

The three articles you trotted out do not acknowledge that Obama increased the marginal, statutory income tax rate on upper income earners by an additional 3.8 percentage points, in addition to the 4.6 percentage point increase in 2013 that they do acknowledge. This is because you and your hyper-partisan fellow travelers, like the ones who wrote the articles, live in an Orwellian world where if you call tax on income a "Medicare Surtax" or an "Investment Tax", then it's not an income tax. At least you're making some progress, and recognizing the rate increased from 35% to 39.6%, before the additional 3.8% surtax that takes the total to 43.4%. You still don't appear to recognize that total income taxes as % of GDP (personal, corporate, federal, state) are about as high as they've ever been except for a spike at the start of World War II. I say "as % of GDP" to be fair, not to try to confuse. If you don't adjust for inflation and growth or look at the number as a % of GDP, income taxes are way, way higher than they've been in the past.

Dear ftime,

You believe that lower taxes on business will not provide jobs or increase wages. And you believe that, if U.S. multinationals were able to bring money back to the USA tax free or by paying tax at low rates, that wouldn't provide jobs or increase wages. I don't think people, including most economists, agree with you. At least other countries don't, who have cut their income tax rates on business and who use territorial systems of taxation, where they don't tax their multinationals on foreign profits.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me. You decrease the business taxes and most of the increase in after tax profit will not end up as dividends in the pockets of the business owners. Some will be re-invested in the business, resulting in more jobs. Because there's competition for labor and in selling, and because competitors are also paying lower taxes, some will end up in higher wages and some will result in consumers paying less for services and products. The same arguments apply to multinationals bringing their money back to the USA.

I don't mean to imply that dividends or profits distributed to owners are a bad thing. That's why people start and run businesses, and much of the amounts distributed are re-invested in ways that help the economy. Just that when you look at the revenues generated by a medium sized or large business, only a very small part ends up in the pockets of the owers.

You appear to say healthcare and the pharmaceutical industries should be nationalized. Is that right? While I think crony capitalism in both is out of control and has pushed costs to ridiculous levels, I'd prefer other ways of fixing the problem. And, agreed, arguing marginal doesn't make sense, but realize that many taxpayers who don't have political pull or the money to pay for high priced accountants and lawyers will be stuck paying those rates at the margin, unless we fix the tax system. I'm sure you must have retired and paid the 24% effective rate before Obama raised taxes. Either that or you had capital gains, maybe a one-time thing associated with your retirement