Tax Rant

[CID1990]

The ACA will help to take care of that little problem for you

the left loves to lament the demise of the middle class but the latest and most ambitious piece of social spending since the great depression is landing squarely on their backs

Well, the money has to come from somewhere and it wouldn't be right to expect the ruling class to contribute since they got theirs already.

Can you explain why the ACA, which was ramrodded through by Democrats with majorities in both houses, is 100% funded by the middle class?

The party of the little guy- in possession of the oval office, the house and the senate... passes the biggest stone on the backs of the middle class in the history of this country... how can this be?

[CID1990]

The problem is when the tax code becomes progressive and when it stops being progressive. I have what I consider a middle class income. yes it is above the medians and the means but it is prettty much middle class. If you count everything, STate fed, and SS. I paid 31% of my income in income taxes. If you add in my employer paid required expenditures the number goes to close to 40%. That doesn't include taxes not based on income. Now you can say 40% isn't that bad and I will say .

Now for the problem with that drop my salary some add a couple of kids which I have I just don't have the tax deduction for and with not to big of a drop that percentage gets closer and closer to zero. So in other words for a large portion of the population the tax rate is state and social security only and then it zooms to my rate and even higher as the fed marginal rates increase.

On the other side of the spectrum, which pertains mostly to the very rich the tax rate drops significantly due to lower capital gain rates ( I understand all the arguments for it). So you have a cliff to climb over in the middle income groups and then when you hit some of the higher income groups, progressivity goes totally away.

which is why some of the ideas put forward to flatten but at least keep the code somewhat progressive are good ones. Lower the rates, eliminate deductions and, the part a lot won't like, change the capital gain rates. It only works though if the highest margin income tax is a lot less than now. Taxes capital gains at 40% would be detrimental. Taxing it at 25% maybe even 30% seems much less egregious.

I think income taxes are barking up the wrong tree; inherited wealth should be taxed at a higher rate than income.

Ah. Inherited wealth

It is a scourge in this country

as common as cocaine, right?

confiscate it all and it doesn't supply the trillions of dollars this government needs EACH YEAR.

[Chizzang]

I still can't figure out why inherited wealth should be taxed at all..?
Wasn't it taxed when it was earned originally - unless I'm missing something

[Ivytalk]

I still can't figure out why inherited wealth should be taxed at all..?
Wasn't it taxed when it was earned originally - unless I'm missing something

Exactly! Chizzang FTW!

[Chizzang]

I still can't figure out why inherited wealth should be taxed at all..?
Wasn't it taxed when it was earned originally - unless I'm missing something

Exactly! Chizzang FTW!

I'm open to the idea there's something I don't know about this topic...
But regular old common sense should win out - when in doubt - you know..?

I'm still waiting for the: It needs to be taxed because __________ !
and have that answer actually make sense - which it hasn't yet...
and "Because we need the money" is NOT the correct answer

[Ivytalk]

Exactly! Chizzang FTW!

I'm open to the idea there's something I don't know about this topic...
But regular old common sense should win out - when in doubt - you know..?

I'm still waiting for the: It needs to be taxed because __________ !
and have that answer actually make sense - which it hasn't yet...
and "Because we need the money" is NOT the correct answer

Of course you're correct, Chizzy: the inherited money has already been taxed at least once as ordinary income, and twice in the case of dividends.

[YoUDeeMan]

I still can't figure out why inherited wealth should be taxed at all..?
Wasn't it taxed when it was earned originally - unless I'm missing something

If you lived on an estate valued at $50MM at the time of your death, and you bought it for only $10MM, then the $40MM difference hasn't been taxed.

[AZGrizFan]

I still can't figure out why inherited wealth should be taxed at all..?
Wasn't it taxed when it was earned originally - unless I'm missing something

If you lived on an estate valued at $50MM at the time of your death, and you bought it for only $10MM, then the $40MM difference hasn't been taxed.

So? "Because they need the money" still isn't an acceptable answer to that "unrealized" gain either.

[Chizzang]

I still can't figure out why inherited wealth should be taxed at all..?
Wasn't it taxed when it was earned originally - unless I'm missing something

If you lived on an estate valued at $50MM at the time of your death, and you bought it for only $10MM, then the $40MM difference hasn't been taxed.

So wait..
But if you sell the estate (your only way of actualizing that dough) then you will be taxed (right?)
Until then - it's just hypothetical value - again I'm sure there is something I'm not understanding

[AZGrizFan]

If you lived on an estate valued at $50MM at the time of your death, and you bought it for only $10MM, then the $40MM difference hasn't been taxed.

So wait..
But if you sell the estate (your only way of actualizing that dough) then you will be taxed (right?)

Yes. But if you DIE, whoever inherits that estate almost CERTAINLY will have to sell it just to pay the tax bill.

[Chizzang]

So wait..
But if you sell the estate (your only way of actualizing that dough) then you will be taxed (right?)

Yes. But if you DIE, whoever inherits that estate almost CERTAINLY will have to sell it just to pay the tax bill.

I can't see this making sense... I keep hoping there's something I'm missing

[Ivytalk]

I still can't figure out why inherited wealth should be taxed at all..?
Wasn't it taxed when it was earned originally - unless I'm missing something

If you lived on an estate valued at $50MM at the time of your death, and you bought it for only $10MM, then the $40MM difference hasn't been taxed.

But if you bequeath that property to someone, as I understand the tax law, your heir will get a "stepped-up basis" equal to the value of the property on the date of your death. The $40 million difference is not taxed to the heir when he/she inherits the property. If the heir later sells the property, he/she will only be taxed if the sale price exceeds $50 million. Capisce? Danefan understands this better than I do.

[AZGrizFan]

If you lived on an estate valued at $50MM at the time of your death, and you bought it for only $10MM, then the $40MM difference hasn't been taxed.

But if you bequeath that property to someone, as I understand the tax law, your heir will get a "stepped-up basis" equal to the value of the property on the date of your death. The $40 million difference is not taxed to the heir when he/she inherits the property. If the heir later sells the property, he/she will only be taxed if the sale price exceeds $50 million. Capisce? Danefan understands this better than I do.

Then why do so many farms and businesses and estates get sold to pay the inheritance tax?

[houndawg]

I think income taxes are barking up the wrong tree; inherited wealth should be taxed at a higher rate than income.

Ah. Inherited wealth

It is a scourge in this country

as common as cocaine, right?

confiscate it all and it doesn't supply the trillions of dollars this government needs EACH YEAR.

...is somebody experiencing that not-so-fresh feeling?

[houndawg]

Exactly! Chizzang FTW!

I'm open to the idea there's something I don't know about this topic...
But regular old common sense should win out - when in doubt - you know..?

I'm still waiting for the: It needs to be taxed because __________ !
and have that answer actually make sense - which it hasn't yet...
and "Because we need the money" is NOT the correct answer

It needs to be taxed because freedom isn't free.

[CID1990]

Ah. Inherited wealth

It is a scourge in this country

as common as cocaine, right?

confiscate it all and it doesn't supply the trillions of dollars this government needs EACH YEAR.

...is somebody experiencing that not-so-fresh feeling?

Nope.

I'm simply saying that your economic populism, i.e.: rich people who inherited their money are entitled to less of it than those who earned it, although nice red meat for the jealous class (which apparently is heavily represented in the upper middle class midwestern old fart set), is not the answer.

This government cannot survive on less than what? 3.8 TRILLION dollars per year? (and that's JUST the budget alone) ridiculous.

SO how much money do you think we should be confiscating from people to feed this obscene spending machine? According to HuffPo, the top 1 percent will pay 30% of all taxes for the 2013 year. That means the richest of the rich... (you can't just be a millionaire and get into the one percent club, Bubba). How much more of the burden should they be carrying?

Maybe the government should be a better steward of YOUR money, Houndawg, smallish percentage that it is

[houndawg]

...is somebody experiencing that not-so-fresh feeling?

Nope.

I'm simply saying that your economic populism, i.e.: rich people who inherited their money are entitled to less of it than those who earned it, although nice red meat for the jealous class (which apparently is heavily represented in the upper middle class midwestern old fart set), is not the answer.

This government cannot survive on less than what? 3.8 TRILLION dollars per year? (and that's JUST the budget alone) ridiculous.

SO how much money do you think we should be confiscating from people to feed this obscene spending machine? According to HuffPo, the top 1 percent will pay 30% of all taxes for the 2013 year. That means the richest of the rich... (you can't just be a millionaire and get into the one percent club, Bubba). How much more of the burden should they be carrying?

Maybe the government should be a better steward of YOUR money, Houndawg, smallish percentage that it is

Who said it was "the answer"?

I said that money made from inherited wealth should be taxed at a higher rate than money worked for and you're wringing your hands and getting histrionic and whimpering about the jealous class and calling me a low wage earner.

Do you have any idea how badly my feelings are hurt?

[kalm]

I'm open to the idea there's something I don't know about this topic...
But regular old common sense should win out - when in doubt - you know..?

I'm still waiting for the: It needs to be taxed because __________ !
and have that answer actually make sense - which it hasn't yet...
and "Because we need the money" is NOT the correct answer

Of course you're correct, Chizzy: the inherited money has already been taxed at least once as ordinary income, and twice in the case of dividends.

Doesn't sound like all of it has been taxed.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/6-17-05tax.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I get why people are agin it, but it does help pay the bills and encourages a system more based on meritocracy.

[kalm]

...is somebody experiencing that not-so-fresh feeling?

Nope.

I'm simply saying that your economic populism, i.e.: rich people who inherited their money are entitled to less of it than those who earned it, although nice red meat for the jealous class (which apparently is heavily represented in the upper middle class midwestern old fart set), is not the answer.

This government cannot survive on less than what? 3.8 TRILLION dollars per year? (and that's JUST the budget alone) ridiculous.

SO how much money do you think we should be confiscating from people to feed this obscene spending machine? According to HuffPo, the top 1 percent will pay 30% of all taxes for the 2013 year. That means the richest of the rich... (you can't just be a millionaire and get into the one percent club, Bubba). How much more of the burden should they be carrying?

Maybe the government should be a better steward of YOUR money, Houndawg, smallish percentage that it is

That 1% determines a butt load of the economic policy in this country and continues to do exponentially better than all the rest. If they were truly concerned about their share of the taxes, they would pay more.

[houndawg]

Nope.

I'm simply saying that your economic populism, i.e.: rich people who inherited their money are entitled to less of it than those who earned it, although nice red meat for the jealous class (which apparently is heavily represented in the upper middle class midwestern old fart set), is not the answer.

This government cannot survive on less than what? 3.8 TRILLION dollars per year? (and that's JUST the budget alone) ridiculous.

SO how much money do you think we should be confiscating from people to feed this obscene spending machine? According to HuffPo, the top 1 percent will pay 30% of all taxes for the 2013 year. That means the richest of the rich... (you can't just be a millionaire and get into the one percent club, Bubba). How much more of the burden should they be carrying?

Maybe the government should be a better steward of YOUR money, Houndawg, smallish percentage that it is

That 1% determines a butt load of the economic policy in this country and continues to do exponentially better than all the rest. If they were truly concerned about their share of the taxes, they would pay more.

They get to call the shots, they get to make the rules; you'd think they'd shut up and pay and try to keep attention focused elsewhere.

[CID1990]

That 1% determines a butt load of the economic policy in this country and continues to do exponentially better than all the rest. If they were truly concerned about their share of the taxes, they would pay more.

They get to call the shots, they get to make the rules; you'd think they'd shut up and pay and try to keep attention focused elsewhere.

lol look at you two nancies circle jerking each other

try not to get any on ya

hey btw Houndogg i didnt call you a low wage earner

[Ibanez]

Ok my household had about $33,000 in Federal taxes in 2013. You know the thing about people on average paying more in Federal taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing? I'm pretty sure that applies to my household.

So I'm looking at the Excel file available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. You can get it by clicking on the "Supplemental Data" link to the right. As far as I can tell my household probably falls near the lower end of the top quintile. I know that my overall Federal tax rate was about 22%. I can see that in 2010 the overall effective rate for all Federal taxes was 18.5%.

But once again the data show that the majority of the people in the United States are parasites. The bottom 60% of the population contributes 13% in total Federal taxes and the bottom 40% contributes 4%.

"Progressive" taxation is one of the most immoral things that ever happened to human civilization. It created a paradigm by which the unsuccessful suck the blood of the successful. You can try to candy coat it all you want but that's what it did.

Poorer people aren't paying much in taxes? Hmmmm.

[Ibanez]

I know that's tongue in cheek but the reality is this: Most of the middle class of the United States is in the "net drain" category. If you consider the middle class to be the 20th through the 80th percentile the "average" tax rate for the 2nd and 3rd quintiles is lower than the overall average tax rate while that for the 4th quintile (80th percentile to 90th percentile) is higher. So MOST of the middle class is getting to ride along while paying less than their share.

Thank the red states John, that's where your parasites are holed up. Bugs me that I have to subsidize some inbred halfwit squatting in a trailer ona flood plain in Georgia too.


Blue States - support red states with taxes paid from earnings on honest labor.

Red States - whine about black President and intrusive guvmint while standing in line at unemployment office waiting for government handout.

Oh for fucks sake....

[YoUDeeMan]

Ok my household had about $33,000 in Federal taxes in 2013. You know the thing about people on average paying more in Federal taxes than they spend on food, clothing, and housing? I'm pretty sure that applies to my household.

So I'm looking at the Excel file available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. You can get it by clicking on the "Supplemental Data" link to the right. As far as I can tell my household probably falls near the lower end of the top quintile. I know that my overall Federal tax rate was about 22%. I can see that in 2010 the overall effective rate for all Federal taxes was 18.5%.

But once again the data show that the majority of the people in the United States are parasites. The bottom 60% of the population contributes 13% in total Federal taxes and the bottom 40% contributes 4%.

"Progressive" taxation is one of the most immoral things that ever happened to human civilization. It created a paradigm by which the unsuccessful suck the blood of the successful. You can try to candy coat it all you want but that's what it did.

Poorer people aren't paying much in taxes? Hmmmm.

JSO is correct. What's your, "Hmmmm" about?

[Ibanez]

Poorer people aren't paying much in taxes? Hmmmm.

JSO is correct. What's your, "Hmmmm" about?

I know he's correct, it's common sense. Is he really shocked that people that' don't make much money don't pay much in taxes? Maybe they don't pay much in taxes b/c they need the money more. That's just me.