Another Obama Lie: The Rich Don't Pay Less Taxes

• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;931323 wrote:It's hard to tell what you are talking about, your always all over the place. The original subject of this thread is about the "rich" paying their fair share of the tax burden. That's what my post is about. What the hell do you think it is "enlightened" one? You kill me with some of the **** that you say on here. Typical know-it-all.

  Wait...so you just decided to insert yourself into the conversation with some super-funny crack about my "declaring victory" without even reading the conversation? Color me shocked. :rolleyes:
  
  The original topic of the thread was Obama's original mis-statement/lie/whatever that "the middle class pay a higher income tax rate than the rich." That was completely debunked early on, and was followed by some epic goalpost shifting by the Buffett fanboys. Wedge claimed that the IRS data posted debunking said claim was bogus because it failed to include capital gains. When I asked for proof of said claim, he claimed that the chart itself said they weren't included. This too is false, and I called him again on it with my comment on his rhetorical ass-kicking.
  
  At this point, you decide to show up...again manifesting your semi-pathological need to engage me, using small-minded pictures and media because you lack the cranial firepower to use big boy words.
  
  That's it in a nutshell. I've saved you the trouble of having to go back and actually read. You can thank me later.
• Footwedge

  fish82;931531 wrote:Wait...so you just decided to insert yourself into the conversation with some super-funny crack about my "declaring victory" without even reading the conversation? Color me shocked. :rolleyes:
  
  The original topic of the thread was Obama's original mis-statement/lie/whatever that "the middle class pay a higher income tax rate than the rich." That was completely debunked early on, and was followed by some epic goalpost shifting by the Buffett fanboys. Wedge claimed that the IRS data posted debunking said claim was bogus because it failed to include capital gains. When I asked for proof of said claim, he claimed that the chart itself said they weren't included. This too is false, and I called him again on it with my comment on his rhetorical ass-kicking.
  
  At this point, you decide to show up...again manifesting your semi-pathological need to engage me, using small-minded pictures and media because you lack the cranial firepower to use big boy words.
  
  That's it in a nutshell. I've saved you the trouble of having to go back and actually read. You can thank me later.

  Here ya go Fishy. If the highest 400 earners in the US pay 16% and change in income tax...and people that earn between 1 mil and 5 mil pay 24% and change, would it be fair to say that we have a regressive tax structure at the top? Hmmm?
  
  Now whose ass is actually being kicked? That popping sound is my "foot wedged" in your back crevice getting dislodged.
  
  And I'll be waiting for Gut to to misquote me once again.
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2010/09/23/the-very-rich-are-different-they-pay-a-lower-tax-rate/
• gut

  Footwedge;932024 wrote:Here ya go Fishy. If the highest 400 earners in the US pay 16% and change in income tax...and people that earn between 1 mil and 5 mil pay 24% and change, would it be fair to say that we have a regressive tax structure at the top? Hmmm?

  The tax STRUCTURE is a combination of flat and progressive taxes, so you continue to be incredible wrong and ignorant about the system being regressive. You apparently lack the inability to comprehend that the distribution of income between the types matters.
  
  A) Two people with no capital gains, one makes $100k in ordinary income, one makes $1M in ordinary income - who has the higher marginal and effective rate?
  B) Two people with no ordinary income, one makes $100k in capital gains, one makes $1M in capital gains - who has the higher marginal and effective rate?
  
  The millionaire pays the same tax as you on another dollar of capital gain, and he pays MORE than you on another dollar of ordinary income. In either case, on his next dollar of income he pays AT LEAST as much as you do. So how is the system regressive again, at the top or otherwise?
  
  And I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of where I've misquoted you. I'll be waiting for you to confuse and misquote yourself again.
• Footwedge

  gut;932042 wrote:The tax STRUCTURE is a combination of flat and progressive taxes, so you continue to be incredible wrong and ignorant about the system being regressive. You apparently lack the inability to comprehend that the distribution of income between the types matters.
  
  A) Two people with no capital gains, one makes $100k in ordinary income, one makes $1M in ordinary income - who has the higher marginal and effective rate?
  B) Two people with no ordinary income, one makes $100k in capital gains, one makes $1M in capital gains - who has the higher marginal and effective rate?
  
  The millionaire pays the same tax as you on another dollar of capital gain, and he pays MORE than you on another dollar of ordinary income. In either case, on his next dollar of income he pays AT LEAST as much as you do. So how is the system regressive again, at the top or otherwise?
  
  And I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of where I've misquoted you. I'll be waiting for you to confuse and misquote yourself again.

  Babble. Garbage in...garbage out. Let me ask you...like I asked Fishy. Real world in the US....not your hokey pokey hypotheticals whereby people don't use Capital Gains to reduce their tax liability.
  
  The top 400 earners in the US....according to the IRS...pay 16.8% in income tax. People that make 1-5 million, according to the IRS, pay 24%. In the real world....in our United States...this is reality....according to the IRS.
  
  And yet you want to tell me that there is no regressive tax structure at the high end? Um...OK Gut. Whatever you say.
• gut

  Footwedge;932048 wrote:Babble. Garbage in...garbage out.

  In other words, as you've demonstrated multiple times, the understanding and grasp of the concepts is well over your head so you dismiss the facts. I believe that's a necessary attribute for remaining ignorant.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;932061 wrote:In other words, as you've demonstrated multiple times, the understanding and grasp of the concepts is well over your head so you dismiss the facts. I believe that's a necessary attribute for remaining ignorant.

  Is this "
  The top 400 earners in the US....according to the IRS...pay 16.8% in income tax. People that make 1-5 million, according to the IRS, pay 24%. In the real world....in our United States...this is reality....according to the IRS." true?
• gut

  I Wear Pants;932067 wrote:Is this "
  The top 400 earners in the US....according to the IRS...pay 16.8% in income tax. People that make 1-5 million, according to the IRS, pay 24%. In the real world....in our United States...this is reality....according to the IRS." true?

  Yes, but it doesn't prove his point and he doesn't understand that. Where in the tax code does a millionaire pay a lower marginal rate on an additional $1 of income than someone with $100 in earnings? Because that's what it means to be regressive, and the income tax is not regressive, at any end, because the components are not regressive at any end (save FICA, which is more or less a forced savings plan).
  
  And has been pointed out multiple times, dividends/investment income are subject to double (sometimes triple) taxation, so the rate is not really 15% but more like 37%. That's always been the argument for a flat and lower rate on capital gains, but the liberal media wants to obfuscate the facts to push an agenda.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Don't understand why people don't get this, I finished our taxes this afternoon so it is fresh in my mind.
  
  We aren't rich, if we were we'd have a larger percentage of income in dividends - since we aren't only about 2% of our income comes from dividends, and it is true that it is typically taxed at 15% which saves us some since our overall rate is higher than that, but two things:
  
  1) The dividend comes from previously taxed money - the corporation paid the tax before it even gets to the 15% level.
  
  2) The dividend is still counted as AGI, which can bone people with respect to certain deductions, for example as it did us since this is the first time we've ever qualified for the medical deduction as unfortunately my wife had a lot of expenses in '10.
  
  I don't have stats, but I'm guessing we're not in the 1% of all earners but easily in the top 5%, and I can't imagine anyone claiming that we don't pay enough in taxes if they looked at our return. Our effective federal/state/property/RE/FICA is well above the 33% level, although not quite 40%. And that's with an exceptional year of medical deductions. With Obama's plan "rich" people like us would pay even more, while people who already pay little or nothing get more redistributed to them. At least the Senate's plan understands that a "millionaire's tax" should tax millionaires. Not people who are moderately high earners who get the supermajority of their income from real work and not passive gains.
• fish82

  

  Footwedge;932024 wrote:Here ya go Fishy. If the highest 400 earners in the US pay 16% and change in income tax...and people that earn between 1 mil and 5 mil pay 24% and change, would it be fair to say that we have a regressive tax structure at the top? Hmmm?
  
  Now whose ass is actually being kicked? That popping sound is my "foot wedged" in your back crevice getting dislodged.
  
  And I'll be waiting for Gut to to misquote me once again.
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2010/09/23/the-very-rich-are-different-they-pay-a-lower-tax-rate/

  You're talking about a completely different subject again. So no...actually your foot is nowhere near my crevice. Still waiting on you to justify your claim that capital gains aren't included in IRS data though.
  
  But if you think taxing the Top 400 will do anything to help our fiscal situation other than give the Bolsheviks a warm-n-fuzzy, knock yourself out...even though they're currently paying double the average rate of the "middle class," and that money has already been taxed more than once.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;932104 wrote:Yes, but it doesn't prove his point and he doesn't understand that. Where in the tax code does a millionaire pay a lower marginal rate on an additional $1 of income than someone with $100 in earnings? Because that's what it means to be regressive, and the income tax is not regressive, at any end, because the components are not regressive at any end (save FICA, which is more or less a forced savings plan).
  
  And has been pointed out multiple times, dividends/investment income are subject to double (sometimes triple) taxation, so the rate is not really 15% but more like 37%. That's always been the argument for a flat and lower rate on capital gains, but the liberal media wants to obfuscate the facts to push an agenda.

  Ok.
• jhay78

  

  fish82;931531 wrote:Wait...so you just decided to insert yourself into the conversation with some super-funny crack about my "declaring victory" without even reading the conversation? Color me shocked. :rolleyes:
  
  The original topic of the thread was Obama's original mis-statement/lie/whatever that "the middle class pay a higher income tax rate than the rich." That was completely debunked early on, and was followed by some epic goalpost shifting by the Buffett fanboys. Wedge claimed that the IRS data posted debunking said claim was bogus because it failed to include capital gains. When I asked for proof of said claim, he claimed that the chart itself said they weren't included. This too is false, and I called him again on it with my comment on his rhetorical ass-kicking.
  
  At this point, you decide to show up...again manifesting your semi-pathological need to engage me, using small-minded pictures and media because you lack the cranial firepower to use big boy words.
  
  That's it in a nutshell. I've saved you the trouble of having to go back and actually read. You can thank me later.

  I wish I could rep that, cause it was both a good summary of this thread and extremely hilarious.
• jmog

  Manhattan Buckeye;932107 wrote:Don't understand why people don't get this, I finished our taxes this afternoon so it is fresh in my mind.
  
  We aren't rich, if we were we'd have a larger percentage of income in dividends - since we aren't only about 2% of our income comes from dividends, and it is true that it is typically taxed at 15% which saves us some since our overall rate is higher than that, but two things:
  
  1) The dividend comes from previously taxed money - the corporation paid the tax before it even gets to the 15% level.
  
  2) The dividend is still counted as AGI, which can bone people with respect to certain deductions, for example as it did us since this is the first time we've ever qualified for the medical deduction as unfortunately my wife had a lot of expenses in '10.
  
  I don't have stats, but I'm guessing we're not in the 1% of all earners but easily in the top 5%, and I can't imagine anyone claiming that we don't pay enough in taxes if they looked at our return. Our effective federal/state/property/RE/FICA is well above the 33% level, although not quite 40%. And that's with an exceptional year of medical deductions. With Obama's plan "rich" people like us would pay even more, while people who already pay little or nothing get more redistributed to them. At least the Senate's plan understands that a "millionaire's tax" should tax millionaires. Not people who are moderately high earners who get the supermajority of their income from real work and not passive gains.

  MB please don't bring facts into this ideological argument, it will confuse some people.
  
  Most people do not understand that Capital Gains is "only" taxed as a flat tax due to the fact that the investment money was already taxed one time, either the corporation or the individual has already paid tax on that money once. They are then taxed again on any gains it has, at a flat rate.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Hmmm... Warren Buffett is a tax cheat - http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/buffett-irs-back-taxes/2011/09/01/id/409520
  
  No WONDER Barry loves him. He's JUST LIKE Geithner!!
  
  How 'bout this, ol' Warren - Maybe if you and your limousine liberals paid what you ALREADY owe, we wouldn't have such a large deficit? Nah...keep sawin on that old log about your underpaid secretary. If you're gonna tell a lie...make sure you keep repeating it over and over so as that it will be taken as truth.
• Bigdogg

  fish82;931531 wrote:Wait...so you just decided to insert yourself into the conversation with some super-funny crack about my "declaring victory" without even reading the conversation? Color me shocked. :rolleyes:
  
  The original topic of the thread was Obama's original mis-statement/lie/whatever that "the middle class pay a higher income tax rate than the rich." That was completely debunked early on, and was followed by some epic goalpost shifting by the Buffett fanboys. Wedge claimed that the IRS data posted debunking said claim was bogus because it failed to include capital gains. When I asked for proof of said claim, he claimed that the chart itself said they weren't included. This too is false, and I called him again on it with my comment on his rhetorical ass-kicking.
  
  At this point, you decide to show up...again manifesting your semi-pathological need to engage me, using small-minded pictures and media because you lack the cranial firepower to use big boy words.
  
  That's it in a nutshell. I've saved you the trouble of having to go back and actually read. You can thank me later.

  I have been following along just fine. I have been waiting for your head to explode and throw your little temper tantrum. Jeanine and I have better things to do then to spend the day on a silly internet forum arguing with a bunch of right wing nut jobs. I only get on here for the entertainment factor. Here is a summary of your contributions:
  
  Post 21,34,75, 84, You attack Warren Buffett and reference stats from the far right leaning Tax foundation LOL!
  Post 85 Argue with Footwedge and attack Buffett
  Post 95 & 101 Attack Buffett, Boatshoes and misquote Obama
  Post 148 Try to prove your point by comparing apples to oranges.
  Post 157 Declare you have won your point and everyone else is stupid.
  Post 158 Offer a smart ass response when called out.
  Post 164 Agree with someone on a personal attack.
  Post 167 Declare yourself superior poster and question why anyone should dare post on a public forum.
  Post 175 Declare yourself superior in everyway to anyone who would dare suggest otherwise.
  
  I think we see a pattern here Fish. I use to work in mental health. Give me some time and I will come up with a proper diagnosis for you so you can get the help you need.
• fish82

  

  Post 189. You have an unhealthy obsession with me. Im shocked they kicked you out of the mental health field.
• BoatShoes

  In response to footwedge's earlier question to me about flat taxes:
  
  I agree that a 10% on income from any source derived (labor or capital) with no deductions or credits would be a true flat income tax because "all income earners would pay the same percentage of their income in taxes" which is required to make a tax truly "flat"
  
  Hence, why I said that the payroll taxes would be "More Flat" if the cap was removed. They wouldn't be "perfectly flat" though because income derived from capital is exempt from the payroll taxes. But they would be flat as it pertains to labor income.
• BoatShoes

  Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service determines that 25% of millionaires pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than many middle income earners.
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;933259 wrote:Hence, why I said that the payroll taxes would be "More Flat" if the cap was removed. They wouldn't be "perfectly flat" though because income derived from capital is exempt from the payroll taxes. But they would be flat as it pertains to labor income.

  I assume then that the wage earner/taxpayer would be eligible for higher benefits associated with their greater contribution to SS and that of their employer match. Fat chance, right?
  
  Oh the folly, let's give the federal government even more money to piss away instead of allowing the individual to truly save it for himself for retirement.
• jmog

  Manhattan Buckeye;932107 wrote:Don't understand why people don't get this, I finished our taxes this afternoon so it is fresh in my mind.
  
  We aren't rich, if we were we'd have a larger percentage of income in dividends - since we aren't only about 2% of our income comes from dividends, and it is true that it is typically taxed at 15% which saves us some since our overall rate is higher than that, but two things:
  
  1) The dividend comes from previously taxed money - the corporation paid the tax before it even gets to the 15% level.
  
  2) The dividend is still counted as AGI, which can bone people with respect to certain deductions, for example as it did us since this is the first time we've ever qualified for the medical deduction as unfortunately my wife had a lot of expenses in '10.
  
  I don't have stats, but I'm guessing we're not in the 1% of all earners but easily in the top 5%, and I can't imagine anyone claiming that we don't pay enough in taxes if they looked at our return. Our effective federal/state/property/RE/FICA is well above the 33% level, although not quite 40%. And that's with an exceptional year of medical deductions. With Obama's plan "rich" people like us would pay even more, while people who already pay little or nothing get more redistributed to them. At least the Senate's plan understands that a "millionaire's tax" should tax millionaires. Not people who are moderately high earners who get the supermajority of their income from real work and not passive gains.

  BoatShoes;933263 wrote:Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service determines that 25% of millionaires pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than many middle income earners.
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html

  Its not that hard to understand Boat, MB explained it above.
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;933263 wrote:Non-Partisan Congressional Research Service determines that 25% of millionaires pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than many middle income earners.
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html

  Taxes - plural? Idiots trying to make a point that fails under any analysis done by people interested in the facts instead.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;933337 wrote:Its not that hard to understand Boat, MB explained it above.

  Your point is that because corporations pay a tax on income, that once that income is earned to individual shareholders whether through a qualified dividend or a sale of stock, that the shareholders income has in fact been taxed at the high corporate rate and then again at the low rate for capital gains.
  
  But, there are many U.S. corporations who pay very little tax. As high as 42% pay 0 in U.S. federal income taxes. Like I've said before, the U.S. corporate tax is a poor revenue raiser.
  
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
  
  Thus, if 25% of millionaires pay less tax than middle income earners...your claim that because their corporations from which they receive their passive income are taxed mitigates the fact that they transfer a lower percentage of the income than middle income earners to the government, does not hold water. It is relatively easy to alleviate or eliminate the entity level tax and most corporations do. A double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich can be whipped up in no time.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;933343 wrote:Taxes - plural? Idiots trying to make a point that fails under any analysis done by people interested in the facts instead.

  Such kind words. My poor grammar mistakes on the internetz aside, it seems that you are not interested in the facts. There are lot of millionaires earning income in capital gains, even taking into account entity-level taxation, that pay lower average tax rates than middle class americans who earn income through their labor and certainly high earners like MB.
  
  It's happening. Plain and simple. You want to go ahead and say it's perfectly fine and shouldn't be used to justify class warfare rhetoric or bigger government, that's another story.
• QuakerOats

  So 'millionaires' should pay twice (at least), first on the income they earned and on which they paid ordinary income taxes, and then when they re-invest that net amount and earn a capital gain, they should pay more ordinary income tax ........ sure why not. Hell, just send it all in and go apply for food stamps with the other 47 million people and have all the time in the world to go occupy Wall St.
• gut

  "and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries."
  
  Well, there's yer problem.
  
  The US has among the highest corporate tax rates among OECD countries, whether you use top marginal rates or average effective rates. It's no wonder corporations use LEGAL strategies to shift income to lower tax countries. That should also be a huge red flag against raising corporate rates further as it really is not difficult to change the legal domicile of a corporation. You also see this before the fact, with many shell/holding companies domiciled off-shore specifically for that reason.
  
  And, gee, all that foreign income that isn't being taxed...Again, the short-sighted tax collectors are wondering how to squeeze the turnip as opposed to maybe creating a business environment that would attract those corporations HERE. It's further complicated by the fact that in most cases those corporations pay local taxes, and double taxation of corporate profits is exactly the sort of thing that can cause your companies to go somewhere else.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;933375 wrote:Your point is that because corporations pay a tax on income, that once that income is earned to individual shareholders whether through a qualified dividend or a sale of stock, that the shareholders income has in fact been taxed at the high corporate rate and then again at the low rate for capital gains.
  
  But, there are many U.S. corporations who pay very little tax. As high as 42% pay 0 in U.S. federal income taxes. Like I've said before, the U.S. corporate tax is a poor revenue raiser.
  
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
  
  Thus, if 25% of millionaires pay less tax than middle income earners...your claim that because their corporations from which they receive their passive income are taxed mitigates the fact that they transfer a lower percentage of the income than middle income earners to the government, does not hold water. It is relatively easy to alleviate or eliminate the entity level tax and most corporations do. A double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich can be whipped up in no time.

  Easy fix...lower corporate rates but eliminate many (if not all) of corporate deductions. Then all corporations (assuming they are profiting in the top "1%") pay the same "flat" tax.
  
  
  That fixes your concern and still makes our statement that capital gains are taxed twice definitely true.