The left's need for more taxes -

[wmspringer]

Even though you're trolling, I'll go ahead and respond.

[ QUOTE ]

First off let’s get one thing straight – the reason that most of the tax cuts go to the upper income groups is because the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes


[/ QUOTE ]

Very good. Now tell us how much of the money they have.
To take an extreme example, if out of 10 people I made 95% of the money but paid 90% of the taxes, your argument would imply I'm overpaying (the top 10% are paying 90%!) when I'd actually be underpaying. The one statistic you'll never see republicans mentioning is total taxes paid (federal income tax, state income tax, social security, etc) as a percentage of all income (both wages and investments). (In other words, the one that actually matters)



[ QUOTE ]
1: If Buffett and the other limo liberals think they taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, above you quoted him as saying he DOES....so I guess that invalidates your question. However, a few civic-minded people can't make up for all the others.

[ QUOTE ]

2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction.


[/ QUOTE ]

See above

[ QUOTE ]

3: Instead of setting up charities why don’t they give their money to the government and let it decide the best way to spend it?


[/ QUOTE ]
umm, because the current administration will just give it back to the ultra-rich?

[ QUOTE ]
4: (slightly off topic) Why is it that most limo liberals like Buffett and Kennedy are against school vouchers yet they sponsor scholarships (poor people need not apply) to elitist universities for the well heeled?


[/ QUOTE ]

Since I suspect this isn't even true, I won't bother responding

[slamdunkpro]

First – Thank you for actually responding and trying to answer the questions.Even though you threw a barb in [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] )

Now – it’s hammer time [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img][img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img][img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
To take an extreme example, if out of 10 people I made 95% of the money but paid 90% of the taxes, your argument would imply I'm overpaying (the top 10% are paying 90%!) when I'd actually be underpaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said overpaying anywhere – I just stated a documented fact.

Take your example; the top 10% are paying 90% of the taxes while the remaining 90% are paying 10% or 1.111 % each. If you make 95% of the money and the money pool is $10,000, then each of the others made $555 and change. Let’s say the minimum standard of living is $200 and the tax rate is 23% for you and 5% for the little guys with no deductions. Your tax bill is $2185 and theirs is $27.75 each. Do the math and you’ll see that it’s within a couple of dollars of 90/10. Now we have a tax cut of 2% across the board. The little guys get a refund of 55 cents or 5% of the 27.75 they paid in tax and you get a refund of $43.70. Is that 78 times larger than the little guy’s refund? – yes, Was your tax bill 78 times larger? YES Are you still paying 90% of the taxes? Yes.

Should the little guy get a larger break rate than you? Yes. Should they get a refund that is more than $27.75? No, because that’s all they paid. More is a handout or Wealth redistribution.


[ QUOTE ]
The one statistic you'll never see republicans mentioning is total taxes paid (federal income tax, state income tax, social security, etc) as a percentage of all income (both wages and investments). (In other words, the one that actually matters)

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the CBO the real $ amounts match the percentages.

1. [ QUOTE ]
Hmm, above you quoted him as saying he DOES....so I guess that invalidates your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-answer. He says he pays what he pays but should pay more – why doesn’t he.?

[ QUOTE ]
However, a few civic-minded people can't make up for all the others.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m not asking them to make up for everyone else – just lead by example.

2. – Non- Answer. It’s a different question

Why does he need a law? Is he so undisciplined that he can only do it if forced? Why not just write the check?

3. [ QUOTE ]
umm, because the current administration will just give it back to the ultra-rich

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey! An answer! Even if it is rhetoric. First, they are the ultra rich. Second, If I accept your answer as non-rhetoric, then why didn’t they do this when Clinton was in office, or during Carter’s fiscal crisis? Or LBJ’s? They’ve had this money for a long time. (Gates is excused from LBJ and Carter, but not Clinton)

4. [ QUOTE ]
Since I suspect this isn't even true, I won't bother responding

[/ QUOTE ]

Aww, a cop-out non-answer. I did the research before asking the question – do a little and you’ll find numerous Buffett and Kennedy foundations that award scholarships to places like Harvard, MIT, Yale, Wharton, and (I have to be fair and credit the Kennedy’s on this one) Grambling.

Anyway – thanks for playing!

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rephrase your questions without generalizations like "the other limo liberals" and I'll do my best to answer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did, you didn't.

See earlier post.

From the ealier post
[ QUOTE ]
So in deference to you I will ask a more targeted question:

If Warren Buffett and Bill Gates Sr. really feel this way why don't they just kick it in? Why do they need a new law?


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair enough, you asked this particular question without a generalization, so I'll try to answer, even though neither one of us can get in the heads of these two.

They already do give more than their share in the form of charity, as you have said elsewhere (although you unfairly said "poor people need not apply" in regards to scholarships - tell this to my old roommate who was from a poor family). AND, the money from just a handful of rich guys is just a drop in the bucket compared to what our federal government is currently spending. Giving fewer tax breaks to ALL the ultra rich would be much more significant than just Buffett and Gates giving a few more dollars. So their time and money is probably better served trying to convince others to cut loopholes in the tax code.

We need to balance the budget. You and I (and these two) probably agree that there is too much spending, especially on entitlements. But we can't just make cuts in spending to make ends meet, we need to increase taxes too.

But I have no idea what they are thinking, and neither do you.

-ptmusic

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
To take an extreme example, if out of 10 people I made 95% of the money but paid 90% of the taxes, your argument would imply I'm overpaying (the top 10% are paying 90%!) when I'd actually be underpaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said overpaying anywhere – I just stated a documented fact.

Take your example; the top 10% are paying 90% of the taxes while the remaining 90% are paying 10% or 1.111 % each. If you make 95% of the money and the money pool is $10,000, then each of the others made $555 and change. Let’s say the minimum standard of living is $200 and the tax rate is 23% for you and 5% for the little guys with no deductions. Your tax bill is $2185 and theirs is $27.75 each. Do the math and you’ll see that it’s within a couple of dollars of 90/10. Now we have a tax cut of 2% across the board. The little guys get a refund of 55 cents or 5% of the 27.75 they paid in tax and you get a refund of $43.70. Is that 78 times larger than the little guy’s refund? – yes, Was your tax bill 78 times larger? YES Are you still paying 90% of the taxes? Yes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. What do you say we repeal all of the tax cuts since Bush took office and replace then with a flat percent decrease for everyone. No? Didn't think so.

And again, keep in mind that the middle class often pays as much in social security and medicare taxes as they do in income taxes. So, since the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in SS than the rich do (because of the cap), cutting everyone's income tax by 1% is a proportionately bigger cut for the rich.



[ QUOTE ]
3. [ QUOTE ]
umm, because the current administration will just give it back to the ultra-rich

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey! An answer! Even if it is rhetoric. First, they are the ultra rich. Second, If I accept your answer as non-rhetoric, then why didn’t they do this when Clinton was in office, or during Carter’s fiscal crisis? Or LBJ’s? They’ve had this money for a long time. (Gates is excused from LBJ and Carter, but not Clinton)


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall Clinton making tax cuts targeted at the super-rich. (For that matter, Clinton was getting rid of the debt rather than trying to double it)

[ QUOTE ]

4. [ QUOTE ]
Since I suspect this isn't even true, I won't bother responding

[/ QUOTE ]

Aww, a cop-out non-answer. I did the research before asking the question – do a little and you’ll find numerous Buffett and Kennedy foundations that award scholarships to places like Harvard, MIT, Yale, Wharton, and (I have to be fair and credit the Kennedy’s on this one) Grambling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great! Point me to one...I'd like to go to MIT.
Oh wait...you said they're only available to the rich. Be sure to point me to the minimum income requirements also.

[andyfox]

What percent of total income does the top 20% have? And what percent of their reported income do they pay overall in taxes? The richest 15 percent control nearly all of the financial assets of the country.

I can't answer your question for Mr. Buffet.

[andyfox]

The richest 1% earned 21 percent of all reported income in the year 2000. The richest 400 earned over 1 percent of all income. Therefore their percentage of the total dollars paid in taxes for the rich and superrich will be quite high. In fact, in 2000, the richest 1% paid more than 37 percent of individual federal income taxes.

However, when all federal taxes are considered, the top 1 percent's share drops to about 25 percent. If you tally up the economic benefits to the top 1 percent that do not show up in income statistics, then the richest 1 percent are taxed more lightly than the middle class.

[andyfox]

"the reason that most of the tax cuts go to the upper income groups is because the top 20% of the wage earners pay 78% of the taxes"

Mathematically, yes. But operationally, no. The tax cuts could easily have been structured so that the upper income groups got a smaller percentage of the tax cuts. It was a political decision.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct. What do you say we repeal all of the tax cuts since Bush took office and replace then with a flat percent decrease for everyone. No? Didn't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try but this isn’t about Bush. This is about ultra-Rich Democrats who claim they want to pay more taxes. (BTW Bush cut taxes at every income level

[ QUOTE ]
And again, keep in mind that the middle class often pays as much in social security and medicare taxes as they do in income taxes. So, since the middle class pays a higher percentage of their income in SS than the rich do (because of the cap), cutting everyone's income tax by 1% is a proportionately bigger cut for the rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are sooooo correct! Social Security and Medicare are 2 of the most regressive taxes and the two largest socialist programs out there. Please remember that these are both Democrat programs and that the Republican have been trying to put forth alternatives to Social Security for the last 12 years. Who’s been blocking Social Security reform? Democrats

But I digress: This isn’t about Social Security or Medicare. This is about ultra-Rich Democrats who claim they want to pay more taxes.

Again, (in case you forgot)

1. If Buffett and the other limo liberals think their taxes are too low why don’t they set an example and pay more?

2: Why do they have to wait for a law? There’s nothing that says you have to take every deduction.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall Clinton making tax cuts targeted at the super-rich. (For that matter, Clinton was getting rid of the debt rather than trying to double it)

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn’t, He raised taxes. But the point was in response to an earlier post that the Buffett & company don’t want to send money to the Fed now because the eeevil Bush administration will just give it to the Ultra-Rich.

I responded with the question asking if not now then why didn’t they do it when a Democrat (Clinton) was in office?

[ QUOTE ]
Great! Point me to one...I'd like to go to MIT.
Oh wait...you said they're only available to the rich. Be sure to point me to the minimum income requirements also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look them up yourself it only took me 10 minutes to find a half dozen.

Once again – No Answers – Just diversion and retoric

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
They already do give more than their share in the form of charity, as you have said elsewhere

[/ QUOTE ]

The question isn’t about charity. Both Buffett and Gates (and the Kennedys and others) have impressive philanthropic records.

The question is that since both of them keep shooting their mouths off in the press about wanting to pay higher taxes; why don’t they just do it? Why do they need a law?


[ QUOTE ]
(although you unfairly said "poor people need not apply" in regards to scholarships - tell this to my old roommate who was from a poor family)

[/ QUOTE ]

OK the Poor people bit may have been a little over the top, but most of the scholarships I found that were directly from the families were for students of expensive prep schools like Sidwell. I’ll admit I didn’t spend a lot of time looking them up I just looked at the first dozen or so.

[ QUOTE ]
Giving fewer tax breaks to ALL the ultra rich would be much more significant than just Buffett and Gates giving a few more dollars. So their time and money is probably better served trying to convince others to cut loopholes in the tax code

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I’ll accept that as the first legitimate non-rhetoric answer to question 1. I think it’s misguided but it’s a good answer with one caveat: Gates said the Uber-Rich guys should kick in a third of their net worth. 30 billion would not be insignificant. And I’m back to if he feels that way – then lead the way – Write the Check, or shut the hell up!

[ QUOTE ]
We need to balance the budget. You and I (and these two) probably agree that there is too much spending, especially on entitlements. But we can't just make cuts in spending to make ends meet, we need to increase taxes too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m going to change one little word and say yes: We need to balance the budget. You and I (and these two) probably agree that there is too much spending, especially on entitlements. But we can't just make cuts in spending to make ends meet, we need to increase revenue too.

There are 2 ways to do this A: Raise taxes: or B: Decrease taxes to increase capital for spending on business which creates jobs which increases the tax base which means more people paying taxes, witch means more revenue. Guess which party likes which answer?

C’mon, you’re pretty good – take a shot at the other 3.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
What percent of total income does the top 20% have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it matter? They still pay 78% of the Federal Tax Burden and 85% of all taxes.