TenuredVulture wrote:Except that the Bush tax cuts (ones that McCain will keep) are going to eliminate it altogether. Which means that the poor will be paying an increasing share of federal revenue.

The Bush tax cuts have resulted with the poor paying a smaller share of Federal revenue. Explain to me why they will suddenly turn around and result in them paying more. What you're saying is counter to what happened.

I am arguing that cherry picking income tax to show the rich pay more tax is misleading. You need to look at the total tax picture, including Social Security, which is a tax. It's a tax dedicated to a specific purpose to be sure, but the money you pay now isn't going into some account with your name on it, it goes to pay for gas for grandma and grandpa's RV.

And I'm arguing that if you feel social security tax isn't right then fix that.

There are other taxes involved, many of which are regressive. State and local taxes are notable examples. And since the feds impose unfunded mandates on states, they are relevant, from the perspective of the taxpayer, especially since federalism, a basic policy of the federal government since Reagan, has shifted much of the burden of providing services to states.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. State and local taxes are flat, not regressive. Sales tax actually is progressive, because items purchased by the rich, yachts, sports cars, hotel stays, are taxed at a higher rate than items purchased by the poor.

TenuredVulture wrote:Federal income tax only makes up about 50% of federal revenue. Include sub-national taxes, the percentage declines.

The Bush tax cuts have resulted in rich people paying more income tax. It sounds like that already works. When the tax rates were as high as what Obama wants rich people to pay, the wealthy paid 19% of income tax, compared with 41% now.

Laexile wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Except that the Bush tax cuts (ones that McCain will keep) are going to eliminate it altogether. Which means that the poor will be paying an increasing share of federal revenue.

The Bush tax cuts have resulted with the poor paying a smaller share of Federal revenue. Explain to me why they will suddenly turn around and result in them paying more. What you're saying is counter to what happened.

I am arguing that cherry picking income tax to show the rich pay more tax is misleading. You need to look at the total tax picture, including Social Security, which is a tax. It's a tax dedicated to a specific purpose to be sure, but the money you pay now isn't going into some account with your name on it, it goes to pay for gas for grandma and grandpa's RV.

And I'm arguing that if you feel social security tax isn't right then fix that.

There are other taxes involved, many of which are regressive. State and local taxes are notable examples. And since the feds impose unfunded mandates on states, they are relevant, from the perspective of the taxpayer, especially since federalism, a basic policy of the federal government since Reagan, has shifted much of the burden of providing services to states.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. State and local taxes are flat, not regressive. Sales tax actually is progressive, because items purchased by the rich, yachts, sports cars, hotel stays, are taxed at a higher rate than items purchased by the poor.

TenuredVulture wrote:Federal income tax only makes up about 50% of federal revenue. Include sub-national taxes, the percentage declines.

The Bush tax cuts have resulted in rich people paying more income tax. It sounds like that already works. When the tax rates were as high as what Obama wants rich people to pay, the wealthy paid 19% of income tax, compared with 41% now.

Look, cite your WSJ article, cribbed from a Heritage Foundation study all you want. Not considering all sources of federal revenue is misleading. Maybe rich people provide a higher proportion of revenue from federal income taxes than they did before the Bush tax cuts. That statement is narrowly correct, but it only accounts for about half of the federal revenue stream, and it says nothing at all about state and local taxes.

You also conflate two separate statistics--where the revenue comes from and how much different people pay. The fact that rich people pay more into the total revenue by itself does not demonstrate the progressiveness or regressiveness of the tax system.

The idea that sales taxes are progressive is just ridiculous. No rich person with half a brain ever paid sales tax on a yacht. Go to any marina, and you'll find those yachts are registered in places like Delaware, which don't. have a sales tax. Overall, state and local taxes are regressive, there's really no debate on that issue. As states have had to increase revenue, those tax systems have become more regressive. And one reason those states are having to raise this revenue is because federalism has shifted increasing responsibilities to states. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit into Bill O'Reilly sound bite, but the reality is more complex.

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf

tenured vulture is clearly not following quote war rules. shape up.

uncle milt wrote:tenured vulture is clearly not following quote war rules. shape up.

Fuck the rules.

Social security is supposed to be money the government is setting aside for your retirement. It doesn't go to pay for government services.

No. It is a complete and utter money transfer. Taxes received now are paid out to other people now. You are simply assigned a benefit amount based on years worked and at a certain amount of money. You are not 'saving' anything, and they aren't 'saving' anything for you. It is a social welfare program, and has little to do with 'savings'.

TenuredVulture wrote:Look, cite your WSJ article, cribbed from a Heritage Foundation study all you want.

I don't have this Heritage Foundation study. Can you provide it? I was using statistics given out by the IRS, not something a private organization provided.

Not considering all sources of federal revenue is misleading. Maybe rich people provide a higher proportion of revenue from federal income taxes than they did before the Bush tax cuts. That statement is narrowly correct, but it only accounts for about half of the federal revenue stream, and it says nothing at all about state and local taxes.

You seem to want to look at the entire tax structure and overhaul it. You're making an argument that is outside the scope of what I've been talking about. If you feel taxes outside the Federal Income tax require an overhaul, fine. They may. The question is whether the Federal Income tax system requires one and whether more or less revenue will be produced by raising taxes on the wealthy. We know more was produced by lowering them.

You also conflate two separate statistics--where the revenue comes from and how much different people pay. The fact that rich people pay more into the total revenue by itself does not demonstrate the progressiveness or regressiveness of the tax system.

No, you're bringing in a new topic, the percentage of overall income people pay in taxes. That was not something I was talking about.

The idea that sales taxes are progressive is just ridiculous. No rich person with half a brain ever paid sales tax on a yacht. Go to any marina, and you'll find those yachts are registered in places like Delaware, which don't. have a sales tax.

There are Federal taxes on the purchase of luxury goods. I don't think you can avoid them by registering your boat in Delaware.

Overall, state and local taxes are regressive, there's really no debate on that issue.

It depends how you define regressive. You're defining it as paying a higher percentage of personal income. I'm defining as paying a higher tax rate. That's how Webster defines it. American Heritage defines it your way. Your study only looks at state and local taxes, not accounting for Federal income tax. Some lower income pay a greater percentage of their income than the people at the very top. That certainly warrants debate if it's a question of "fairness." Although I doubt you can tax the rich high enough to make it equal without destroying the economy.

Since Barack Obama and the Democrats don't control state taxes, that isn't an issue for them. They've said the rich aren't paying their fair share of Federal income tax. You can obscure that argument by bringing in other taxes, but the question remains. Are they paying their fair share?

Do you have a picture in your house of your head taped over McCain's wife's head?

Laexile wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Look, cite your WSJ article, cribbed from a Heritage Foundation study all you want.

I don't have this Heritage Foundation study. Can you provide it? I was using statistics given out by the IRS, not something a private organization provided.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed031207b.cfm

Laexile wrote:

Not considering all sources of federal revenue is misleading. Maybe rich people provide a higher proportion of revenue from federal income taxes than they did before the Bush tax cuts. That statement is narrowly correct, but it only accounts for about half of the federal revenue stream, and it says nothing at all about state and local taxes.

You seem to want to look at the entire tax structure and overhaul it. You're making an argument that is outside the scope of what I've been talking about. If you feel taxes outside the Federal Income tax require an overhaul, fine. They may. The question is whether the Federal Income tax system requires one and whether more or less revenue will be produced by raising taxes on the wealthy. We know more was produced by lowering them.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that income taxes are only a subset of all taxes paid by Americans. Less than half, in fact. The inference you can draw from that is that just because the rich pay a higher proportion of current income taxes, it does not follow when the total tax picture is taken into account, and it's misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst to maintain that relation.

Laexile wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:You also conflate two separate statistics--where the revenue comes from and how much different people pay. The fact that rich people pay more into the total revenue by itself does not demonstrate the progressiveness or regressiveness of the tax system.

No, you're bringing in a new topic, the percentage of overall income people pay in taxes. That was not something I was talking about.

Of course you don't want to talk about it, since it undercuts the idea being pushed by the right that the rich pay all the taxes and the lower income don't pay any.

Laexile wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The idea that sales taxes are progressive is just ridiculous. No rich person with half a brain ever paid sales tax on a yacht. Go to any marina, and you'll find those yachts are registered in places like Delaware, which don't. have a sales tax.

There are Federal taxes on the purchase of luxury goods. I don't think you can avoid them by registering your boat in Delaware.

There is no luxury tax. It expired sometime during the nineties.

Laexile wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Overall, state and local taxes are regressive, there's really no debate on that issue.

It depends how you define regressive. You're defining it as paying a higher percentage of personal income. I'm defining as paying a higher tax rate. That's how Webster defines it. American Heritage defines it your way. Your study only looks at state and local taxes, not accounting for Federal income tax. Some lower income pay a greater percentage of their income than the people at the very top. That certainly warrants debate if it's a question of "fairness." Although I doubt you can tax the rich high enough to make it equal without destroying the economy.

Since Barack Obama and the Democrats don't control state taxes, that isn't an issue for them. They've said the rich aren't paying their fair share of Federal income tax. You can obscure that argument by bringing in other taxes, but the question remains. Are they paying their fair share?

Your sales and property tax rates have nothing to do with income. The Merriam-Webster definition you cite isn't relevant.

I have no idea what you mean by "taxing the rich high enough to make it equal without destroying the economy." Finally, the federal budget does have an impact on state and local taxes, in at least ways. First, unfunded mandates cost states and local governments money. Second, the process of devolution has shifted more and more programs to states. Right wingers will also point to failure to enforce immigration laws as another factor. So, states have had to increase spending, and since they cannot run deficits, they have had to raise taxes to make up for the difference.

By the way, anyone can slap "webster" on their dictionary--the trademark lapsed.

PHAN PWNED

The Dude wrote:Do you have a picture in your house of your head taped over McCain's wife's head?

awwww shucky ducky

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ieHwOm4ljA[/youtube]

Woddy, nine minutes is a long time for me. Is the gist of the video that John McCain supported the war in Iraq?

Yes Paul. And some of his statements in support of the war look almost as dumb in retrospect as some of Obama's statements against the surge.

The gist of Obama on the surge. He was right to oppose the surge, because it didn't work. While the troops did a great job, there is reduced violence due to the awakening and Sadr laying down arms. Both of these things might have happened without the surge. While he has built his campaign on hindsight and the crystal ball of opposing the war, no one had a crystal ball about the surge. The surge failed because we spent money on war that we needed at home and put our troops in danger. Even though the surge failed in Iraq, we need a surge in Afghanistan where we spend more money and put our troops in danger. The surge will work in Afghanistan.

Laexile wrote:The gist of Obama on the surge. He was right to oppose the surge, because it didn't work. While the troops did a great job, there is reduced violence due to the awakening and Sadr laying down arms. Both of these things might have happened without the surge. While he has built his campaign on hindsight and the crystal ball of opposing the war, no one had a crystal ball about the surge. The surge failed because we spent money on war that we needed at home and put our troops in danger. Even though the surge failed in Iraq, we need a surge in Afghanistan where we spend more money and put our troops in danger. The surge will work in Afghanistan.

Isn't the actual argument that if we're gonna spend the money and lives, it's better to do so in Afghanistan, where the terrorists actually are, therefore effectively lessening the time needed to stay at war overseas?

How come Asians have the market on ping pong but no good tennis players?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:How come Asians have the market on ping pong but only one formerly good tennis player?

michael chang was american.

I really, really wish you guys had nominated Edwards.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sen_john_edwards_caught_with_mistress_and_love_child_in_la_hotel/celebrity/65193

jerseyhoya wrote:I really, really wish you guys had nominated Edwards.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sen_john_edwards_caught_with_mistress_and_love_child_in_la_hotel/celebrity/65193

So outlets other than the National Enquirer would pick that story up?