Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes

[RangerM]

Ranger,

One of the problems quoting a etremely partisan source like American thinker, Heritage foundation, Move on, huffpo, the blaze etc is that they intentionally leave stuff out. Its completely disingenuous.

I felt compelled to attribute American Thinker, since that is how I became aware of the CBO report. (also attributed within the quote, as a link)

 

I will accept an article from an "extremely partisan" source, if the origin is non-partisan. If the graph (and the article it came from) were linked on the Huffington Post, I'd have no problem linking it.

 

Interpretations can be ignored, but hard data is more difficult

Take the point about the 81 tax cuts. While they suggest after it became fully active that rates went up. It would appear that way would it not, just looking at the picture?

 

Can you tell me what is wrong with that? Honestly?

Since the graph represents only the average rates of the five quintiles, I can only surmise that the answer to "what is the cutoff of a particular quintile" must have changed. Also, the 1981 tax cuts didn't take effect until October of that year. I honestly don't remember if they were retroactive or not.

So did the American thinker article tell the truth or perhaps not? You tell me.

Again, my interest in the American Thinker's contribution is limited to the graph provided by the CBO. It pretty much establishes that the highest quintile of earners is now, and has been for the past 40 years, paying the highest tax rate of all quintiles.

Federal taxes only tell part of the story - which varies state by state. How about the rest of the story?

For you and I to compare ourselves at the State level is meaningless, because there is no common basis for comparison. Only at the Federal level are we reasonably comparable.

 

The only way that our respective States come into play is whether or not you itemize and deduct your State taxes from your income. If you pay higher State taxes than I do (and you itemize), you get to deduct more from your Federal tax return than I do, possibly reducing your Federal tax rate to below mine even though I may make the same or less than you.

[akirby]

What is relevant is whether or not the things government provides benefit the rich more than me? Not that they helped them get rich, but helped them get more after they were rich.

 

That was not even remotely the question. That's how you slanted your answers because that's your agenda.

 

The purpose of federal taxes is to pay for the federal government - people, infrastructure, etc. It's no different than your local city or county government. You pay property taxes and they provide roads, sewers, water, courts, jails and all the people to go with it.

 

Let's say everyone in the U.S. suddenly became millionaires overnight. Would the cost of the Federal Government go up? Of course not - they're providing the same services. The same would be true if everyone suddenly made only $20K.

 

It has nothing to do with who benefits - it has to do with the cost of providing a service.

 

Does the trash truck charge more for trash pickup based on your salary? Of course not, because their cost is the same. It cost the federal government the same for a Congressman (or woman) whether they're from Mississippi or New York.

[Imawhosure]

That was not even remotely the question. That's how you slanted your answers because that's your agenda.

 

The purpose of federal taxes is to pay for the federal government - people, infrastructure, etc. It's no different than your local city or county government. You pay property taxes and they provide roads, sewers, water, courts, jails and all the people to go with it.

 

Let's say everyone in the U.S. suddenly became millionaires overnight. Would the cost of the Federal Government go up? Of course not - they're providing the same services. The same would be true if everyone suddenly made only $20K.

 

It has nothing to do with who benefits - it has to do with the cost of providing a service.

 

Does the trash truck charge more for trash pickup based on your salary? Of course not, because their cost is the same. It cost the federal government the same for a Congressman (or woman) whether they're from Mississippi or New York.

 

Akirby, you are correct, Daddy is the wrong as usual. He is the zealot who can't stand that his guys are T-O-A-S-T, and keeps trying to spin his guys way out of it. He is spinning so fast, he looks like a top if truth be told.

 

We should all really have pity on him-) 24 months from now when things are economically better, it will be the death knell for liberalism for at least 15years.

 

By that time, he will probably grow up and become a conservative. Lord have Mercy!

[akirby]

Everything you post here is biased beyond belief to meet your ideology, so don't come after me. Get the plank out of your eye before the speck in mine.n

 

And if these lousy anecdotal discussions count as serious thinking for you, then its a waste of time. The lowest common denominator thinking that you do isn't very good.

 

If it's so biased then why is everyone except you agreeing with it, including the other liberals?

 

I make it simple because it is simple. Taxes exist to fund government services. Period. That includes social programs, military, foreign aid, infrastructure, Congress, the judicial system, etc. etc. etc.

 

The fact that politicians have used taxes to shape social and economic changes (tax deductions for mortgage interest e.g.) doesn't change that fact. It just means they've perverted the system to do what they think is right(earned income tax credits/redistribution of income/etc/) or for parochial reasons (to support their city/state/local business/etc). The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is how they want to spend the money.

 

I am biased - I'd like everyone to keep the money they earn and only pay for what's absolutely necessary.

[xr7g428]

The concept of tax increases negating investment is one that the Tax Policy Center and others have basically suggested is minimal and due to the reality that most of the investment does not come from private Americans, but wealthy foreigners, Pension funds and corporations there is no worry that, say a increase on dividends to Reagan levels would diminish investment.

 

So you want to go on record saying that most investment money comes from overseas?

 

And that return on investment, is not a factor in how much people are willing to invest?

 

Really?

[xr7g428]

Then clarify your position. Stop being an ass. What does this mean?

 

most of the investment does not come from private Americans, but wealthy foreigners, Pension funds and corporations

 

It sounds like you are saying that most investment DOES NOT come from private Americans, but from wealthy foreigners. Who owns the pension funds and corporations?

 

And then there is this:

 

there is no worry that, say a (tax) increase on dividends to Reagan levels would diminish investment.

 

An increase in the tax rate is a decrease in the return on investment. Do you dispute this?

 

What part of this is deceptive?

[Mark B. Morrow]

Then clarify your position. Stop being an ass. What does this mean?

 

 

 

It sounds like you are saying that most investment DOES NOT come from private Americans, but from wealthy foreigners. Who owns the pension funds and corporations?

 

And then there is this:

 

 

 

An increase in the tax rate is a decrease in the return on investment. Do you dispute this?

 

What part of this is deceptive?

 

 

Actually it has nothing to do with return on investment. It has to do with tax rate on the income. People will still invest in things that make money regardless of the tax rate. The tax rate applies to similarly situated investors and investments.

 

"Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

 

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain." Warren Buffett

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&seid=auto

[xr7g428]

I work with investors every day and I have NEVER seen one that did not take into consideration the effect of taxes on the ultimate return on investment.

 

I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that TAX free municipal bonds have smaller discounts, than bonds of similar risk, because of the lower tax impact. Every one knows this.

 

Warren Buffett is not telling the whole truth. We know what the facts are. If taxes were inconsequential we would not even have the discussion. Only an idiot would fail to consider taking an investment that was taxed heavily compared to one that was not, given equal risk..

 

What Buffett is implying correctly, is that where the return is great enough, the tax rate becomes less critical. What this means is that in the face of higher taxes, you can only make investments that produce a high rate of return. This means that to create a new job, you need for that new employe to be hugely profitable to be justified. If the tax rate is reduced, then the amount of return needed is also reduced. The bar is lower and the likelihood of that new job goes up.

 

Your guys have no clue about business. The economy demonstrates this emphatically. Look around you and witness the results of your policy choices: a double dip recession just based on the threat of what you fools want to do. Even Obama has moments of lucidity where he says that this no time to increase taxes. Wake up! Please no more stupid nonsensical feel-good silliness. The country simply cannot sustain this level of insanity much longer. Business is not afraid of the Tea Party, but they are terrified of the current administration.

 

We need more revenue, and less spending. The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that there are too few taxpayers. When you put people back to work, they stop consuming tax dollars and start paying them in. Right now the percentage of employed is the lowest it has ever been since WWII. IT is the economy stupid. What kind of judgement is it that thinks that raising taxes is a better thing than increasing employment? Do you people really believe that you can sell that?

 

Do yourself a favor: stop talking increasing taxes, and start talking increasing the number of taxpayers. Your people have turned the middle class against a group of people they think are over indulged, over privileged, and over paid, but it is not the rich, it is: EVERY ONE IN GOVERNMENT. That class warfare, redistribution of wealth thing is not working for any one, not the middle class, and certainly not for Obama. I thought he was supposed to be pretty smart...

Edited October 2, 2011 by xr7g428

[RangerM]

Buffett is a value investor. He has long lamented short term gains, and advocated for a 100% tax rate on gains realized in less than a year. I don't recall if he's ever advocated that capital gains rates be equal to income tax rates, but I do know he takes taxes into account before making an investment.

 

Risk vs. Reward is always the consideration.

 

However, when he says "I have yet to see anyone.....shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain" this is being a little evasive, because it's not that people shy away from investments, they alter the types of investments they're willing to make.

 

Don't think so? Read his 1981 letter to the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

 

In his 1979 letter he even referred to the combination of inflation and Capital Gains tax as an "investors misery index".

Edited October 2, 2011 by RangerM

[jpd80]

What we sometimes lose sight of is that in order to pay capital gains tax, you have to be making a profit,

it's a part of life to be taxed on profit, and also claim deductions on losses.

[partsisparts]

I work with investors every day and I have NEVER seen one that did not take into consideration the effect of taxes on the ultimate return on investment.

 

I have pointed out to you, repeatedly, that TAX free municipal bonds have smaller discounts, than bonds of similar risk, because of the lower tax impact. Every one knows this.

 

Warren Buffett is not telling the whole truth. We know what the facts are. If taxes were inconsequential we would not even have the discussion. Only an idiot would fail to consider taking an investment that was taxed heavily compared to one that was not, given equal risk..

 

What Buffett is implying correctly, is that where the return is great enough, the tax rate becomes less critical. What this means is that in the face of higher taxes, you can only make investments that produce a high rate of return. This means that to create a new job, you need for that new employe to be hugely profitable to be justified. If the tax rate is reduced, then the amount of return needed is also reduced. The bar is lower and the likelihood of that new job goes up.

 

Your guys have no clue about business. The economy demonstrates this emphatically. Look around you and witness the results of your policy choices: a double dip recession just based on the threat of what you fools want to do. Even Obama has moments of lucidity where he says that this no time to increase taxes. Wake up! Please no more stupid nonsensical feel-good silliness. The country simply cannot sustain this level of insanity much longer. Business is not afraid of the Tea Party, but they are terrified of the current administration.

 

We need more revenue, and less spending. The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that there are too few taxpayers. When you put people back to work, they stop consuming tax dollars and start paying them in. Right now the percentage of employed is the lowest it has ever been since WWII. IT is the economy stupid. What kind of judgement is it that thinks that raising taxes is a better thing than increasing employment? Do you people really believe that you can sell that?

 

Do yourself a favor: stop talking increasing taxes, and start talking increasing the number of taxpayers. Your people have turned the middle class against a group of people they think are over indulged, over privileged, and over paid, but it is not the rich, it is: EVERY ONE IN GOVERNMENT. That class warfare, redistribution of wealth thing is not working for any one, not the middle class, and certainly not for Obama. I thought he was supposed to be pretty smart...

If tax cuts create jobs, then why were there only 3 million jobs created during the GW Bush presidency?

Edited October 2, 2011 by partsisparts

[TomServo92]

If tax cuts create jobs, then why were there only 200,000 jobs created during the GW Bush presidency?

 

The number was actually closer to 3 million.

 

Source

[partsisparts]

The number was actually closer to 3 million.

 

Source

You are right, my memory is not as good as it used to be. I will correct it.

[FiredMotorCompany]

You are right, my memory is not as good as it used to be. I will correct it.

 

 

Respects to the man willing to acknowledge an error, own up to it and correct it.

 

I may disagree with your politics, but you have shown admirable personal character.

[partsisparts]

From Yahoo Finance:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Tax-hikes-and-jobs-The-whole-cnnm-4010203059.html?x=0

 

Quote:

Raise taxes on the rich, and you'll put the nation's "job creators" at risk.

 

It's a ubiquitous Republican talking point: Congress must keep the top two rates at 33% and 35% -- instead of 36% and 39.6% as President Obama wants.

 

The argument: Many small businesses file taxes under the individual tax code.

 

But while that argument makes for a good bumper sticker, it's a misleading simplification of a complex policy issue.

 

"The Republican claim that this is a tax increase on a large fraction of employers is just not true," said Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the Urban Institute.

 

In sharp contrast to the rhetoric, current data suggests small businesses don't create an outsized number of jobs, very few small business owners fall into the top two tax brackets, and tax cuts for small businesses are ineffective stimulus measures.

 

Relatively few small businesses would be affected: Extending the tax cuts for top earners for another decade would come at a significant cost -- nearly $1 trillion in added debt over a decade.

 

But small businesses wouldn't see much of that cash.

 

Only 2.5% to 3.5% of small businesses would be affected by an increase in those two rates, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

[xr7g428]

Apparently the writer of the CNN article is confused.

 

He says this:

 

In sharp contrast to the rhetoric, current data suggests small businesses don't create an outsized number of jobs,

 

And then contradicts his own statements here:

 

Of course, small businesses do create a lot of jobs

startups -- drive most of the job growth.

 

Virtually all small business are either sole proprietorships, partnerships, or LLC.s In every case the income flows from the business directly to the owners and is taxed as part of the owners income. LLC's file a tax return, but no taxes are paid by the LLC. The idea that small business have no employees is an obvious fiction. There may be only a single employee, the self employed person, but ALL business have employees..

 

From the Small Business Administration:

 

Small firms:

 

Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

 

Employ just over half of all private sector employees.

 

Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.

 

Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

 

Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

 

Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).

 

Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.

 

Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.

 

Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

 

 

Here is some common sense advice: Stop talking about how taking more in taxes, and start talking about creating more tax payers. The problem is simple: too much spending, and too few tax payers. Put the unemployed back to work and you help fix both problems.

[Ron W.]

Here is some common sense advice: Stop talking about how taking more in taxes, and start talking about creating more tax payers. The problem is simple: too much spending, and too few tax payers. Put the unemployed back to work and you help fix both problems.

 

 

Agreed 100%

[xr7g428]

Dad, For your benefit:

 

Do yourself a favor: stop talking increasing taxes, and start talking increasing the number of taxpayers. Your people have turned the middle class against a group of people they think are over indulged, over privileged, and over paid, but it is not the rich, it is: EVERY ONE IN GOVERNMENT. That class warfare, redistribution of wealth thing is not working for any one, not the middle class, and certainly not for Obama. I thought he was supposed to be pretty smart...

 

Read it again. and again if you need to... Raising taxes is a pretty weak campaign strategy. Look at the approval ratings for Congress. Do you think the American people believe that they need even more money to spend?

 

Do you think the American people honestly think that the biggest problem we face, is that they didn't raise taxes? This is not a difficult concept. Do you think that the unemployed are more concerned about getting a job, or raising other peoples taxes? Also, not a difficult concept. How about those that are still working but terrified of losing their jobs, higher taxes on their boss, or unemployment? Are you beginning to get it? Could it be that raising taxes are not the most important thing for, well, every American except you and Obama?

[xr7g428]

Raising taxes to maintain employment and possibly increase it, is light years ahead of cutting spending and losing jobs.

 

Please provide examples of tax increases producing increases in employment.

 

Cutting government spending on every level results in less jobs, less wages and less consumer confidence.

 

You left out the one thing that would have made this a true statement: For government workers, cutting government spending on every level results in less jobs, less wages and less consumer confidence

 

If this were true in general, then the secret to prosperity would be increased government spending. With $14 trillion in debt, I think we can all say that this did not work as planned.

[akirby]

Please provide examples of tax increases producing increases in employment.

 

 

 

You left out the one thing that would have made this a true statement: For government workers, cutting government spending on every level results in less jobs, less wages and less consumer confidence

 

If this were true in general, then the secret to prosperity would be increased government spending. With $14 trillion in debt, I think we can all say that this did not work as planned.

 

Bingo. Government spending only creates long term jobs for government employees and it takes away jobs from the private sector. Give people and businesses back more of their taxes and they'll have more to spend and grow businesses.

 

I'm done with this idiot.

[RangerM]

Raising your taxes retroactively? If it can happen to them, it can happen to you.

 

Is a Retroactive Tax on the Rich Legal?

Raising taxes on the rich is clearly legal, even if it’s politically polarizing. But what about a retroactive tax on the rich? Even if it is legal, is it fair?

 

The issue is boiling over in Connecticut, where the family of a deceased multi-millionaire developer is suing the state over a retroactive estate tax that they claim is “an unconstitutional taking.”

 

According to an article in the Hartford Courant, Monty Blakemen died in April. Less than two weeks later, the state passed an estate tax that lowered the exemption to $2 million from $3.5 million. And they made it retroactive to Jan. 1.

 

Blakeman’s heirs claim then change cost them an additional $100,000 – money they could have reduced if they had a chance to plan around the new law.

 

“I thought it was very unfair to backdate it,” his son, James, told the Courant. “My father would have felt the same way. We structured our estate planning for it.”

 

The state points out that retroactive taxes are common. A 1994 Supreme Court case concluded that the Constitution’s ban on “ex-post facto laws” doesn’t apply to tax legislation. In 2010, the Senate considered a retroactive federal estate tax so the estate tax wouldn’t lapse. Similar cases to Blakeman’s on the state level have also failed.

 

Whether that holds in Connecticut remains to be seen. A Superior Court judge recently rejected a request to transfer the case to tax court, which may not bode well for the state.

 

One legislator who voted for the change said she didn’t realize it would apply to people who died after the law was passed.

[partsisparts]

It seems that taxes and regulation may not be killing business after all....

 

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/04/8143967-charts-regulation-taxes-not-to-blame

 

Quote from former Bush and Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett:

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment

 

I hope people are starting to see that the repub agenda has nothing to do with the good of the people.

[fordmantpw]

It seems that taxes and regulation may not be killing business after all....

 

http://maddowblog.ms...es-not-to-blame

 

Quote from former Bush and Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett:

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment

 

I hope people are starting to see that the repub agenda has nothing to do with the good of the people.

 

Just read the part in red, the rest doesn't matter...

[retro-man]

It seems that taxes and regulation may not be killing business after all....

 

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/04/8143967-charts-regulation-taxes-not-to-blame

 

Quote from former Bush and Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett:

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment

 

I hope people are starting to see that the repub agenda has nothing to do with the good of the people.

That's true - and the quote you cite is not the first place I have heard it. "Uncertaintly"? Puh-leeze. Look at the years between 2000 - 2008. Worst terrorist attack in our history, a couple of wars, and economic collapse. But at least we knew we had a stable tax and regulatory environment, right? Pfft.

[retro-man]

Dad, For your benefit:

 

 

 

Read it again. and again if you need to... Raising taxes is a pretty weak campaign strategy. Look at the approval ratings for Congress. Do you think the American people believe that they need even more money to spend?

 

Do you think the American people honestly think that the biggest problem we face, is that they didn't raise taxes? This is not a difficult concept. Do you think that the unemployed are more concerned about getting a job, or raising other peoples taxes? Also, not a difficult concept. How about those that are still working but terrified of losing their jobs, higher taxes on their boss, or unemployment? Are you beginning to get it? Could it be that raising taxes are not the most important thing for, well, every American except you and Obama?

The vast majority of Americans agree that we need to cut the deficit. The vast majority of Americans also agree that it needs to be done with a combination of cuts and revenue increases, whether that be closing loopholes, eliminating subsidies, or letting the Bush cuts - which proved after all to be about as useful as a screen door on a submarine - sunset like they were supposed to. Do opponents of letting these cuts sunset have a problem with doing what was promised at the outset, or is just another classic case of bait-and-switch?

 

My link

 

My link

Edited October 4, 2011 by retro-man