Wyden's Flat Tax
Paul J. Berg
News Article from The (Portland) Oregonian - July 23, 2007
Since United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced a plan 18
months ago to overhaul the federal tax code, he has implored President
Bush to team up with him on tax reform, as President Reagan did with
lawmakers in 1986.
Each time he makes his pitch, Wyden said, Bush replies along the lines
of "Great. Yeah. Good idea. Glad you're doing it." But outside of those
brief conversations, nobody in the White House or Treasury Department
follows up, the Oregon Democrat says.
Wyden's proposal to replace the 1.4-million-word tax code with a simpler
system is the most ambitious bill of his 26-year congressional career.
It would fundamentally change the U.S. economy and shake up nearly every
special interest in Washington. But Wyden acknowledged that, without
Bush's support, his bill doesn't stand a chance until at least the next
presidential administration.
The Wyden plan would reduce the six-bracket income tax system to three.
And all income -- including wages, capital gains and dividends -- would
be taxed at the same rates. The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
Wyden doesn't have Senate co-sponsors for his Fair Flat Tax Act, but
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, the House Democratic Caucus chairman,
has backed the bill. Wyden is using every opportunity from his perch on
the powerful Senate Finance Committee to promote the plan.
Eventually, Wyden says, something has to change. "I expect to be
bringing it up again and again," he said.
Wyden is building momentum as advocates on the left and right say the
tax code is riddled with preferences, loopholes and bureaucracy. In
December, a coalition of groups including the American Conservative
Union and the Progressive Policy Institute signed a letter calling for
reform similar to the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Earlier this month, conservative columnist George Will called Wyden the
"Senate's Sisyphus, determined to roll the boulder of tax reform up
Capitol Hill yet again."
Scott Hodge, president of The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group that
studies tax policy issues, notes that Wyden "has tried to reach out to a
broad spectrum of groups from both the left and right and the center to
work with him to advance fundamental tax reform. He should be given
great credit for putting a plan on the table, even if it's something not
everyone will support wholeheartedly. At least it's something that can
begin the discussion."
In recent hearings about contentious tax issues, Wyden stepped back to
promote his plan while other legislators and experts obsessed about
technical details.
Case in point: a hearing earlier this month about "carried interest," a
provision in the tax code that allows venture capitalists and private
equity managers to pay the lower capital gains rate on a portion of
their compensation. The discussion between senators and policy wonks
focused on whether it was fair to close that loophole and require them
to pay the income tax rate.
That is, until Wyden spoke up.
Just junk the whole tax code and start from scratch, Wyden suggested.
"This is a textbook case for why it is time to drain the tax swamp," he
told the lobbyist-filled room. "Knowledgeable people cannot even agree
on a problem, let alone a remedy."
Wyden proceeded to ask each witness whether it would be simpler to
return to the principles of the 1986 reform.
"It would be simpler," responded Peter Orszag, director of the
Congressional Budget Office. "There are obviously other considerations
also."
Orszag didn't elaborate, but "other considerations" would include
scrapping many tax loopholes that benefit both individuals and companies
as well as dealing with a changed political atmosphere.
"In 1986, you had clearly some different dynamics on Capitol Hill, maybe
a little willingness," said Hodge of The Tax Foundation. "Today, things
are very different. They're extremely partisan, very fractured."
Particularly objectionable to some groups is a provision in Wyden's
legislation that would tax income from investments at the same rate as
income from labor.
"Labor income usually goes into producing wealth income," said Pete
Sepp, vice president for communications at the National Taxpayers Union.
"Taxing it at the same rate amounts to a double tax."
But Sepp praised Wyden for raising the tax reform issue as well as
including provisions such as elimination of the alternative minimum tax.
"He has a lot in common with (Sen.) Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in that he
has a set of principles that he feels need to get an airing in
Congress," Sepp said. "I think that's admirable. We will likely fight
like cats and dogs on the floor of the Senate over what's hammered out,
but he deserves a great deal of credit for raising the issue."
Wyden's plan might be too sweeping for some.
His "heart is in the right place," said Mark Gergen, a University of
Texas tax law professor who testified at the hearing.
"It's good on goals and big principle, and not very impressive on
execution," Gergen said. "I don't want to fault him for that because
it's important to get the ball moving in the right direction and then
get the details worked out."
Wyden says he will use every hearing on tax policy to make the point
that the tax code must become simpler, not more complex.
Though his other ambitious legislation -- to create a universal health
care system -- has the support of some Democrats and Republicans in the
House and Senate, Wyden remains a lonely soldier in the tax reform
fight.
He says he believes that will change.
"I think Republicans in the Congress have sensed the disinterest of the
administration," Wyden said. "We're having some discussions. I'm very
hopeful that we'll see Republicans in the Senate pick up on this."
Some of that interest was on display at a recent hearing. After Wyden
questioned the panelists about the need for a simpler tax code, it was
Sen. Jim Bunning's turn to ask questions.
The Kentucky Republican has little in common politically with Wyden. But
Bunning began with a question for Wyden, not the panelists.
"Every time we change one tax rule, we change the tax code," Bunning
said. "We've added how many thousands of pages since that time, Ron?"
"The experts say there have been 14,000 changes, three for every working
day," Wyden replied.
"Thank you very much," Bunning said.
`
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote
> News Article from The (Portland) Oregonian - July 23, 2007
> Since United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced a plan 18
> months ago to overhaul the federal tax code, he has implored President
> Bush to team up with him on tax reform, as President Reagan did with
> lawmakers in 1986.
> The Wyden plan would reduce the six-bracket income tax system to three.
> And all income -- including wages, capital gains and dividends -- would
> be taxed at the same rates. The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
> Earlier this month, conservative columnist George Will called Wyden the
> "Senate's Sisyphus, determined to roll the boulder of tax reform up
> Capitol Hill yet again."
> Wyden's plan might be too sweeping for some.
> "The experts say there have been 14,000 changes, three for every working
> day," Wyden replied.
I like what I've seen of Wyden's plan so far. It won't see the light of day
till 2009 or 2010 though.
And, as George Will's article said, 20 years and 14,000 Congressional
changes later, it'll be just as screwed up as what we have today.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Richard Macdonald
news:8444-46A...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
>
> The Wyden plan would reduce the six-bracket income tax system to three.
> And all income -- including wages, capital gains and dividends -- would
> be taxed at the same rates. The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
Nice idea to have the same rete for all types of income,
but only is you can index the capital basis for inflation.
For example, I have 800sh of AT&T whish was origionally
200sh of SBC purchased in 1991 for ~11,800. This amount
adjusted the to current by the CPI-U is about ~24,600.
Without some consideration for the effects of inflation, a single
rate for all types of capital gain will stifle long term investment.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
Be thankful we're not getting all
the government we're paying for.
-- Will Rogers
A. Stump
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ew2pi.3178$7w.1573@trnddc05...
> "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:8444-46A...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>> The Wyden plan would reduce the six-bracket income tax system to three.
>> And all income -- including wages, capital gains and dividends -- would
>> be taxed at the same rates. The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
>> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
>
>
> Nice idea to have the same rete for all types of income,
> but only is you can index the capital basis for inflation.
>
> For example, I have 800sh of AT&T whish was origionally
> 200sh of SBC purchased in 1991 for ~11,800. This amount
> adjusted the to current by the CPI-U is about ~24,600.
>
> Without some consideration for the effects of inflation, a single
> rate for all types of capital gain will stifle long term investment.
And so the slippery slope would begin. How about EXCLUDing dividends
completely from taxation? Dividends have already been taxed at the
corporate level, why tax them again? The trend in most of the world seems
to be to reduce the tax on capital (Cap Gains). Rather than talking about
raising them (or returning them to their prior level ... whichever spin you
are more comfortable with) why not just exclude them too? Oh yeah.... the
rich get richer... cann't let that happen ...gotta deal with that. Let's
overlook the FACT that an increasing amount <rich income classes are
reporting more and more Cap Gains and Dividends.
>
Scratch
> "Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Ew2pi.3178$7w.1573@trnddc05...
>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:8444-46A...@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
>>> The Wyden plan would reduce the six-bracket income tax system to three.
>>> And all income -- including wages, capital gains and dividends -- would
>>> be taxed at the same rates. The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
>>> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
>>
>> Nice idea to have the same rete for all types of income,
>> but only is you can index the capital basis for inflation.
>>
>> For example, I have 800sh of AT&T whish was origionally
>> 200sh of SBC purchased in 1991 for ~11,800. This amount
>> adjusted the to current by the CPI-U is about ~24,600.
>>
>> Without some consideration for the effects of inflation, a single
>> rate for all types of capital gain will stifle long term investment.
>
>
> And so the slippery slope would begin. How about EXCLUDing dividends
> completely from taxation? Dividends have already been taxed at the
> corporate level, why tax them again? The trend in most of the world seems
> to be to reduce the tax on capital (Cap Gains). Rather than talking about
> raising them (or returning them to their prior level ... whichever spin you
> are more comfortable with) why not just exclude them too? Oh yeah.... the
> rich get richer...
So really, your just a whiner. You complain about the rich yet do
nothing to get rich yourself. You don't like people that do the right
thing, get a good education, make good decesion and profit as a result.
Bet you have no problem with Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Micheal Moore
e.t.c. thought, right?
A. Stump
"Scratch" <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:99-dnemm48e7JDnb...@comcast.com...
Not whining my friend, just observing the political reality of the day. I
got a good education, created my own business and retired quite comfortable
at age 50. Kennedy and Kerry are leaches. Moore, on the other hand, knows
how to use the system to acheive is goals. I think his messages are all
full of shit, but I respect the fact that he knows how to sell shit to the
masses.
My point was, while I agree with a flat tax, the discussion never seems to
go for more that two sentences before we start the process of adding
exceptions and reintroducing the complexities we are trying to eliminate.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote
> Without some consideration for the effects of inflation, a single
> rate for all types of capital gain will stifle long term investment.
And the butchering begins.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Scratch" <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote
> A. Stump wrote:
>> And so the slippery slope would begin. Oh yeah.... the rich get
>> richer...
>
>
> So really, your just a whiner. You complain about
> the rich yet do nothing to get rich yourself.
I think the general population has the word "rich" confused with "high
income", as someone can be "rich" - which means wealthy - and have very
little current income. And someone who earns quite a lot can, quite easily,
spend it all with little of it invested in assets.
Would the fact that the standard deduction is quite high under Wyman's plan
help? $30,000 or more for MFJ, $15,000 or more for all others. Doesn't
matter if it's from wages, dividends, retirement, capital gains, etc. That
seems to go a long way toward easing the tax burden on low income people
(even those with high net worth).
Scratch
k, but how do you PREVENT the hording of capital in this country "IF"
you tax the hell out of gain? I mean, what is the incentive to invest in
this country?
Scratch
If the left, was all that concerned with helping the poor, then stop
taxing minimum wage earners and lower the tax load on gas at the pump
e.t.c. They aren't. They just cry a lot to get those less fortunate to
vote to keep them in power and throw a bone to them once in awhile in
the form of another socialist program. I hope one day they will wake up
and say oh hell no! No more and they too can become good capitalists.
Don Homuth
<Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>If the left, was all that concerned with helping the poor, then stop
>taxing minimum wage earners
As a general rule, they aren't taxed much. Indeed, the Wingnut Whine
on the matter seems to be precisely that -- that The Rich are taxed
much more while the Minimum Wage types aren't taxed hardly at all.
>... and lower the tax load on gas at the pump
>e.t.c.
How do You plan to pay for roads, Scratch?
There is no Tax on gasoline. If you don't use it on the road, you
don't have to pay a tax on it. That's a fact, btw. Farmers pay No
tax on gasoline purchases, nor does any (hallowed) Private Sector
entity that uses fuel off-road.
But if you want roads in the first place, they involve Costs. Costs
are Real and will and must be paid. Iron Rule everywhere -- I didn't
make it up.
Shall we put the costs of roads on your property taxes instead? They
did that in my local county last year, after all -- about $29 million
worth. Now all property owners, even those who don't drive, pay for
the county paved roads.
Is that more or less Fair than having those who drive on the roads pay
for them?
>They aren't. They just cry a lot to get those less fortunate to
>vote to keep them in power and throw a bone to them once in awhile in
>the form of another socialist program.
Keeping this discussion properly focused, do You consider road
construction and maintenance a Socialist program?
> I hope one day they will wake up
>and say oh hell no! No more and they too can become good capitalists.
How do You want to pay for roads, Scratch? You've had the chance to
answer that question for some weeks now.
Got any answers?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Scratch" <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote
> Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
>> I think the general population has the word "rich" confused with "high
>> income", as someone can be "rich" - which means wealthy - and have very
>> little current income. And someone who earns quite a lot can, quite
>> easily, spend it all with little of it invested in assets.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would the fact that the standard deduction is quite high under Wyman's
>> plan help? $30,000 or more for MFJ, $15,000 or more for all others.
>> Doesn't matter if it's from wages, dividends, retirement, capital gains,
>> etc. That seems to go a long way toward easing the tax burden on low
>> income people (even those with high net worth).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> If the left, was all that concerned with helping the
> poor, then stop taxing minimum wage earners
> and lower the tax load on gas at the pump e.t.c.
You are using "poor" interchangably for "low income" which isn't always the
case.
Decide who you want to help, either "poor" people or "low income" people,
and stick to it.
Income tax and gas tax are two different animals. Any change in the income
tax (even the elimination of it) would have little to no impact on taxes on
fuel.
The current income tax mess has tax breaks for "minimum wage" earners in the
form of Earned Income Tax Credits. Apparently eliminated in Wyman's plan,
although some form of it could see itself through in a final bill.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote
> Shall we put the costs of roads on your property taxes instead? They
> did that in my local county last year, after all -- about $29 million
> worth. Now all property owners, even those who don't drive, pay for
> the county paved roads.
>
> Is that more or less Fair than having those who drive on the roads pay
> for them?
To a degree, the better the road that fronts your property, the higher your
property values will be, and in some cases, paved roads bring lower
insurance bills on your house (something about dirt roads and fire trucks).
Don Homuth
If you wish, I will provide a URL that discusses precisely that.
However....
Which is the more Fair solution to the question of how to finance
roads? Should they be financed by property taxes (remembering that
Everyone pays them in one form or another) or by those who demand and
use roads?
(And fwiw, the same sort of argument you pose above works for schools
and other sorts of public infrastructure and services as well.)
If you want the URL, let me know.
Scratch
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:36:31 -0700, Scratch
> <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>
>
>> If the left, was all that concerned with helping the poor, then stop
>> taxing minimum wage earners
>
> As a general rule, they aren't taxed much.
honu, Psssttt..., they don't make much so everything they make is important.
Indeed, the Wingnut Whine
> on the matter seems to be precisely that -- that The Rich are taxed
> much more while the Minimum Wage types aren't taxed hardly at all.
>
>> ... and lower the tax load on gas at the pump
>> e.t.c.
>
> How do You plan to pay for roads, Scratch?
It don't cost as much as your sucking per gal at the pump to put in a
shitty patch or another un-used bicycle lane.
>
> There is no Tax on gasoline. If you don't use it on the road, you
> don't have to pay a tax on it. That's a fact, btw. Farmers pay No
> tax on gasoline purchases, nor does any (hallowed) Private Sector
> entity that uses fuel off-road.
>
> But if you want roads in the first place, they involve Costs. Costs
> are Real and will and must be paid. Iron Rule everywhere -- I didn't
> make it up.
>
> Shall we put the costs of roads on your property taxes instead? They
> did that in my local county last year, after all -- about $29 million
> worth. Now all property owners, even those who don't drive, pay for
> the county paved roads.
>
> Is that more or less Fair than having those who drive on the roads pay
> for them?
>
>> They aren't. They just cry a lot to get those less fortunate to
>> vote to keep them in power and throw a bone to them once in awhile in
>> the form of another socialist program.
>
> Keeping this discussion properly focused, do You consider road
> construction and maintenance a Socialist program?
LOL There are services that are required and there are others that are
not. Hey I know, why not utilize the labor force in the jails and
prisons. You know, Payback? Oh, wait can't do that it would piss the
unions off and and after all can't violate a mans rights, right?
>
>> I hope one day they will wake up
>> and say oh hell no! No more and they too can become good capitalists.
>
> How do You want to pay for roads, Scratch? You've had the chance to
> answer that question for some weeks now.
>
> Got any answers?
Read above for comprehension. ^^^^
YOU got any answers besides business as usual for the left?
Paul Maffia
> If the left, was all that concerned with helping the poor, then stop
> taxing minimum wage earners and lower the tax load on gas at the pump
> e.t.c.
Minimum wge earners pay virtually no income tax. A large percentage of them,
in effect, benefit from a negative income tax called something else like low
income credits.
Lowering the tax at the gas pump might well be worth considering except for
the fact some other tax would have to be increased to make up for that loss
of revenue if our already poorly maintained roads were to continued to be
maintained at current levels.
> They aren't. They just cry a lot to get those less fortunate to vote to
> keep them in power and throw a bone to them once in awhile in the form of
> another socialist program. I hope one day they will wake up and say oh
> hell no! No more and they too can become good capitalists.
That is not just something done by those on the left.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote
> "Scratch" <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote
>> If the left, was all that concerned with helping the poor, then stop
>> taxing minimum wage earners and lower the tax load on gas at the pump
>> e.t.c.
>
> Minimum wge earners pay virtually no income tax. A large percentage of
> them, in effect, benefit from a negative income tax called something else
> like low income credits.
>
> Lowering the tax at the gas pump might well be worth considering except
> for the fact some other tax would have to be increased to make up for that
> loss of revenue if our already poorly maintained roads were to continued
> to be maintained at current levels.
Road repairs, maintenance and construction cost exceedingly more than the
total of gas taxes (federal and state) collected. That extra expense is
covered from general revenues from all sources (local, county, state and
federal).
Eliminating the fuel tax will only add to that disparity.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote
>>To a degree, the better the road that fronts your property, the higher
>>your
>>property values will be, and in some cases, paved roads bring lower
>>insurance bills on your house (something about dirt roads and fire
>>trucks).
>
> If you wish, I will provide a URL that discusses precisely that.
Do you really need a URL to know that the value of a tract of land fronted
on a one lane dirt road is less than that same tract of land next to a paved
highway?
As far as insurance savings, if any can be obtained, talk to your insurance
agent about coverage of property only accessable by a dirt road. Get back
to me after he quits laughing.
> Which is the more Fair solution to the question of how to finance
> roads? Should they be financed by property taxes (remembering that
> Everyone pays them in one form or another) or by those who demand and
> use roads?
The costs of maintenance, repairs, upgrades, and new construction are not
fully covered with revenues from a gas tax. And yes, I've been down this
road (pun intended) before:
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm
Table 2 shows the percentage distribution of the gasoline tax among the
different uses, including amounts used for general revenues and deficit
reduction.
http://www.artba.org/pdf/040207_Analysis_2006_DOT_Needs_Report.pdf
Analysis of 2006 Conditions and Performance Report 2
© 2007 American Road and Transportation Builders Association
It assumes the goal for the next surface transportation bill should be a
level of highway investment that, at minimum, stabilizes highway congestion
and prevents it from worsening. This goal would require an annual investment
of $89.7 billion, according to the report, $11 billion more than the
report's "maintain conditions" scenario. Most of the additional investment
would be for new capacity. An even better
objective would be to improve conditions, which would require even more
investment.
It uses a widely-accepted measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index, to
convert the investment requirements into actual dollars.
It assumes the federal share of highway capital outlays will remain at its
historic level of 43 percent, plus a margin for administration, research,
and other non-construction expenditures.
Applying these adjustments to the 2006 report, ARTBA calculates that federal
highway funding
in the next surface transportation bill would have to be $54.5 billion, at
minimum, in FY 2010 and grow to $61.5 billion by 2015. This would maintain
both physical conditions and operating performance. Improving conditions
would require even greater federal investment.
Projected Highway Account revenues range from $37.4 billion in FY 2010 to
$40.5 billion in FY 2015. There is thus an annual funding gap averaging $19
billion. This is shown in Figure 1.
Future costs = $54 - 61 BILLION
Future revenues = $37 - 40 Billion
Future shortfall = $17 - 21 Billion
Guess where the shortfall gets paid from.
Paul Thomas
"Scratch" <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote
> k, but how do you PREVENT the hording of capital
> in this country "IF" you tax the hell out of gain? I mean,
> what is the incentive to invest in this country?
If the after-tax return is great enough to over ride your opportunity costs,
then you'll invest. Otherwise you'll stuff mattresses with your dough.
Steven
> "Scratch" <Larry_Tig...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote
I'd rather spend dough on a used mattress. After 12 years I can't
afford another new one.
Scratch
12 years? Ouch! I just bought a pillow top on sale at Wicks for $1,000
about a month ago.
Steven
wrote:
440.00 for a Serta Perfect Sleeper "Opal" set. It was a good buy for
the money.
Lobby Dosser
> The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
Too long. Should be no more than a postcard.
Richard Macdonald
news:bHhpi.1088$Ok5.12@trndny02...
Be wary of what you ask for, some of the greatest
curses are answered prayers; remember
"what did you make, and send it in"
WILL easily fit on a post card.
Steven
has as much chance each time as Curt's weed fantasies.
At 41 years I am well aware of all this. It's a non issue.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote
You can't fit enough information on a postcard to identify the taxpayer,
address and signature, let alone any types of income or tax due.
Actually the 1913 form and instructions fit on 4 pages.....
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/1913.pdf
......we could get it down to that for most taxpayers.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Steven" <thisjukebo...@yahoo.com> wrote
> At 41 years I am well aware of all this. It's a non issue.
Straining on the pot?
Or weed fantasies?
forbi...@msn.com
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:11:10 -0400, "Paul Thomas, CPA"
>
A gasoline tax doesn't fund the roads based upon who uses them.
A road that isn't heavily used costs as much to build as one
heavily used.
As long as roads are a capital expense then asking the
land owners, based upon access points, to pay for their
construction and any mantenance not caused by wear is
appropriate since the land owners are the primary benificiary
of the roads' existence. The wear and tear that is caused
by use should be paid for by the users.
My preference would be to track usage by access points and
type of usage and make all roads toll roads whose fees are
what the market would bear, collected by a trusted party,
with distribution to the private owners who handle all
construction and maintenance costs and recieve deidentified
information about usage to help them make appropriate
investment choices.
As long as roads are handled as a public good there will
be free riders. Issues of fairness are just one party or
another wanting to be the free rider. Those who are asked
to pay should make the decisions about what roads to build
and maintain.
Don Homuth
<paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote
>>>To a degree, the better the road that fronts your property, the higher
>>>your
>>>property values will be, and in some cases, paved roads bring lower
>>>insurance bills on your house (something about dirt roads and fire
>>>trucks).
>>
>> If you wish, I will provide a URL that discusses precisely that.
>
>
>Do you really need a URL to know that the value of a tract of land fronted
>on a one lane dirt road is less than that same tract of land next to a paved
>highway?
The discussion is not properly focused on the current value of the
land, but on the tax expenditure that raised its value. Which is, for
some of the Wingnuts hereon, counter-intuitive altogether.
forbi...@msn.com
wrote:
> "Scratch" <Larry_Tig...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote
What do you think of a wealth tax? It seems to me that defense
is related to wealth rather than income. Why should those whose
investments don't do very well pay less that those whose investments
do quite well? Removing wealth from the productive to help the
non-productive doesn't make much sense if the goal is to increase
productivity.
We are a society. There are both economic reasons and ethical/moral
reasons to help those who need help. The ethical/moral reasons are
hard to quantify and are best left to some marketplace of ideals.
The economic reasons are due to the fact that it's easier and cheaper
to destroy than to build so one balances the maintenance costs as
necessary to maximize return on investment.
Don Homuth
<Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:36:31 -0700, Scratch
>> <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If the left, was all that concerned with helping the poor, then stop
>>> taxing minimum wage earners
>>
>> As a general rule, they aren't taxed much.
>
>honu, Psssttt..., they don't make much so everything they make is important.
As a general rule, minimum wage earners aren't taxed much - if at all.
>> How do You plan to pay for roads, Scratch?
>
>It don't cost as much as your sucking per gal at the pump to put in a
>shitty patch or another un-used bicycle lane.
Patching isn't road construction, nor is it things like resurfacing --
slurry seal, etc -- which is a Lot more expensive. As for the
"bicycle lanes" hereabouts those are called Shoulders. They are
necessary if you put a new surface layer on the road. Put another 2-6
inches on the road surface, and in order to stabilize that surface you
need to extend the shoulders wider -- else the road surface break up
prematurely.
Don't know a helluva lot about road construction, do ya?
Once you extend the shoulders, the striping is inexpensive, and
posting them so bikes can ride on them is merely a convenience.
>> Keeping this discussion properly focused, do You consider road
>> construction and maintenance a Socialist program?
>
>
>LOL There are services that are required and there are others that are
>not. Hey I know, why not utilize the labor force in the jails and
>prisons. You know, Payback? Oh, wait can't do that it would piss the
>unions off and and after all can't violate a mans rights, right?
I invite you once again to answer the question posed above.
>>> I hope one day they will wake up
>>> and say oh hell no! No more and they too can become good capitalists.
>>
>> How do You want to pay for roads, Scratch? You've had the chance to
>> answer that question for some weeks now.
>>
>> Got any answers?
>
>Read above for comprehension. ^^^^
Still doesn't answer the question, does it?
>YOU got any answers besides business as usual for the left?
Roads will be paid for, at least in part, by the user fees on gasoline
set aside for precisely that purpose. Problem is, the costs of road
maintenance and construction has outstripped the revenue available
from the user fees.
Since you seem quite intent on Not coming up with a way to pay for the
costs of roads, the "solution" would seem to be to raise the user fee
on fuels used for over-the-road transportation to cover more of the
costs of road maintenance.
Which is not something unique to The Left. It's simply good bidniss
practice to maintain a public capital infrastructure properly. Not to
do so is to let the roads go completely to hell, thereby increasing
the costs of transportation to drivers of various sorts.
Where I come from, that's considered Gubmint Waste.
Paul Thomas, CPA
<forbi...@msn.com> wrote
> A gasoline tax doesn't fund the roads based upon
> who uses them. A road that isn't heavily used
> costs as much to build as one heavily used.
The actual construction of the road differs with expected usage. So a
residential road has less base courses than an interstate highway, and
therefore costs less per foot to build. Also, slope grades are different,
meaning less right-of-way to buy and less grading (fill or cut).
But otherwise, yes, a road with 30 vehicle trips per day costs the same as a
road with 300 vehicle trips per day. It's only when you get into speed and
weight that you see cost differences.
> Issues of fairness are just one party or
> another wanting to be the free rider.
I like that statement.
Don Homuth
>A gasoline tax doesn't fund the roads based upon who uses them.
Sure it does! Buy fuel for your vehicle, and you pay for roads.
>A road that isn't heavily used costs as much to build as one
>heavily used.
Heh! Do you want the fee to pay only for Specific Roads? That will
require a technology investment that would be decades to pay for
itself. And it's not necessary.
A user fee that pays for Roads generally works just fine.
>As long as roads are a capital expense then asking the
>land owners, based upon access points, to pay for their
>construction and any mantenance not caused by wear is
>appropriate since the land owners are the primary benificiary
>of the roads' existence. The wear and tear that is caused
>by use should be paid for by the users.
Oh no -- landowners are Not the primary beneficiary of roads. Vehicle
operators are. Though it's quite true that property owners get some
of the residual value, it's also quite true that they hardly get All
of it.
Indeed, for things like major highways, a piece of property located on
it will, for some uses, find its overall value declines rather than
goes up, because of things like air pollution and noise.
>My preference would be to track usage by access points and
>type of usage and make all roads toll roads whose fees are
>what the market would bear, collected by a trusted party,
>with distribution to the private owners who handle all
>construction and maintenance costs and recieve deidentified
>information about usage to help them make appropriate
>investment choices.
Save that the overall cost of administration of such a thing would be
more than the revenue that is got from the idea.
Which is, just by itself, unworkable -- especially as regards the
Trusted Party discussion.
>As long as roads are handled as a public good there will
>be free riders. Issues of fairness are just one party or
>another wanting to be the free rider. Those who are asked
>to pay should make the decisions about what roads to build
>and maintain.
Vehicle operators, straight up.
But they should pay more than they are at the moment, because at the
moment they are being subsidized by those who made the initial capital
investment in the first place.
Don Homuth
<paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
><forbi...@msn.com> wrote
>> A gasoline tax doesn't fund the roads based upon
>> who uses them. A road that isn't heavily used
>> costs as much to build as one heavily used.
>
>
>
>The actual construction of the road differs with expected usage. So a
>residential road has less base courses than an interstate highway, and
>therefore costs less per foot to build. Also, slope grades are different,
>meaning less right-of-way to buy and less grading (fill or cut).
>
>But otherwise, yes, a road with 30 vehicle trips per day costs the same as a
>road with 300 vehicle trips per day. It's only when you get into speed and
>weight that you see cost differences.
Well, no -- that is not the case. A difference of 10x in vehicle
traffic requires a heavier road construction, ntm the difference in
vehicle weights, which will be a concomitant of the heavier traffic
use.
Road wear is a function of vehicle weight and miles traveled.
Increase either, and you increase road wear. Increase both, and you
increase road wear.
Indeed, increase vehicle weight and even decrease miles traveled, and
you increase road wear -- but perhaps not Surface wear.
Surface wear is but one sort of road wear. It's the one most folks
see and understand. But the layers underneath are the ones that heavy
traffic impacts more, and which are not surprisingly the more
expensive to fix as well.
Paul Thomas, CPA
<forbi...@msn.com> wrote
> What do you think of a wealth tax? It seems to me that
> defense is related to wealth rather than income. Why
> should those whose investments don't do very well pay
> less that those whose investments do quite well?
> Removing wealth from the productive to help the
> non-productive doesn't make much sense if the
> goal is to increase productivity.
Why should the source of the income determine the tax rate?
But if you wanted to give breaks for things like capital investments (and
the resulting gains), then following the lead of some states (South Carolina
is one) that only tax a percentage (56% in SC) of the total gain.
> We are a society. There are both economic reasons
> and ethical/moral reasons to help those who need help.
Then do so outside of the tax laws through social programs, either ran in
part or in whole by the government or charitable groups.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote
> Well, no -- that is not the case. A difference of 10x in vehicle
> traffic requires a heavier road construction, ntm the difference in
> vehicle weights, which will be a concomitant of the heavier traffic
> use.
Yeah, but I doubt the cul-de-sac in my neighborhood is built under less
exacting standards than one of the more traveled interior roads. And there
is a major difference in road usage, trust me.
The point I was making I guess is that there is some minimum standard for
road construction even if it's a driveway that sees 4-6 trips per day or a
dead-end that might not see any more than that.
Also, as vehicles become more fuel efficient, including the electric and
hybrid vehicles, any fuel tax will decline, yet the road usage remains the
same. The fact that a vehicle that doesn't use fuel wears the same on the
roads as a fuel burning vehicle of the same weight doesn't ring with these
guys.
Scratch
To true! Seems they always want to punish those that are successful,
well educated and employee a lot of people and keep the wheels of
democracy turning. What bothers me is that they are teaching the
children in school that to be successful and rich, unless your on the
left your a bad, bad person. Not real bright.
So why should the kids even bother just vote for more socialist programs
to keep the Marxists in office and like children, they will continue
to have someone do what they no longer have the ambition to do.
Paul J. Berg
`
The first federal income tax return I ever prepared was my own. I was
14 years old and had a summer job at a carwash. The tax year was
1965, and the tax form I used was on what commonly known then as an
"IBM card". If memory serves me right, the card measured about 3 by 7
inches.
I also did some strawberry picking that summer and didn't report that
income. At the time, I didn't know I was required to do so and had
not kept track of the amount earned anyhow. I not too worried about
it now however, the statute of limitations has long since ran out,
plus adding the amount to my income the tax lability would still have
been zero. I only filed a tax return that year for a refund of the
income tax withholding from the carwash job.
`
Don Homuth
<paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote
>> Well, no -- that is not the case. A difference of 10x in vehicle
>> traffic requires a heavier road construction, ntm the difference in
>> vehicle weights, which will be a concomitant of the heavier traffic
>> use.
>
>
>
>Yeah, but I doubt the cul-de-sac in my neighborhood is built under less
>exacting standards than one of the more traveled interior roads.
Without question, it is. What you will find ftmp is that the
underlayment layers are Less structurally strong than are the ones on
the more traveled roads.
> And there
>is a major difference in road usage, trust me.
There is. I do. It's not important.
>The point I was making I guess is that there is some minimum standard for
>road construction even if it's a driveway that sees 4-6 trips per day or a
>dead-end that might not see any more than that.
There is a minimum standard within cities for intra-urban roadways,
Unless they are more heavily traveled and really amount to major
thoroughfares.
Developers fought hard for those sorts of codes.
Dunno how your county works, but hereabouts if a developer puts
together a subdivision within the UGB, it must meet city codes else
the city will not accept the streets for future maintenance. Same
thing with county roads -- it must be done to county standards, else
the county will not accept it for future maintenance either.
Which puts some developers crossways with the local political
subdivisions, sometimes, but them's the breaks.
Fiscally, though, those roads and streets are Not paid for by the fuel
user fee. They are part of the cost of development, and are
thereafter built in to the cost of the lots and/or houses sold within
the development.
Once the city or county accepts them, though, they thereafter become
the gubmental responsibility to maintain and/or resurface and/or
replace thereafter.
>Also, as vehicles become more fuel efficient, including the electric and
>hybrid vehicles, any fuel tax will decline, yet the road usage remains the
>same.
And as the techology improves, we will move away from the gasoline
user fee to some version of the weigh/mile fee now charged to
over-the-road trucks -- much to their current discomfiture. That is
Precisely as it ought to be, since road wear is a function of mileage
and weight more than anything else.
Heavier vehicles will be charged more per mile to use roads. It's not
necessarily a bad thing.
What will slow the implementation of that down is the cost of
implementation more than anything else. But technology tends to drive
costs down over time.
The big thing keeping the fuel user fee in place, in the meantime, is
that (a) it's already installed, and (b) it's really inexpensive to
administer. That won't last forever.
>The fact that a vehicle that doesn't use fuel wears the same on the
>roads as a fuel burning vehicle of the same weight doesn't ring with these
>guys.
Eventually you will be charged a weight/mile user fee. For the
moment, the fuel user fee is a reasonable approximation of that for
petroleum-fueled vehicles. Which also means that Temporarily the
electric cars and high-fuel mileage vehicles are ahead of the game.
But it won't last forever.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ufvba31k46k5d8nod...@4ax.com...
>
> Indeed, for things like major highways, a piece of property located on
> it will, for some uses, find its overall value declines rather than
> goes up, because of things like air pollution and noise.
>
And in the city, a house on a busy arterial sells for less than a house on a
quiet street.
Don Homuth
Ceteris paribus, that's true.
Those having problems with the idea should discuss it with a local
realtor.
Kevin the Drummer
of the thread I don't know if they've been mentioned yet.
Regarding flat taxing:
The fella that worked with Ron Reagan and subsequent administrations to
get "free trade" made policy (I wish I could remember his name, but he's
a top notch economist out of Chicago -- someone help me here) also
stipulates that taxes should be at a flat rate. Well, that's never
happened here. But, his theory has been implemented in a more pure form
in Estonia of the former Soviet Union. Their economy is going gang
busters. I think their flat tax rate is at 14%.
Regarding who pays taxes & how much:
All taxes collected amount to 18-19% of all income being taxed. It's a
year since I knew this cold, and that might include Medicare and Social
Security in addition to income tax. The bottom run of tax payers pay
about 18%. The middle class ($50k to $250k) get charged the most, in
the high 30% range. As you get over $10 million per year in income
your tax rate goes way way down. Warren Buffet (no. 2 richest person in
the USA) pays 7%. If you want to get a lot more data on where we're at
now, and the last 40-50 years of tax policy history, then read
"Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit
the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston.
One thing you'll learn from that book is that the current tax code
mainly benefits the 400 richest tax payers, or the top 0.01% (or is it
0.001% ???) of income recipients.
As for my own view on taxes:
I think that a flat tax would finally take class out of the picture.
Everyone needs to pay a fair share, and it appears from the data that
the poor are doing that, and that the middle class are subsidizing
the richer folks. Of course, with a flat tax rate I'd sure miss my
deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. But,
I'd give that up for the good of all.
Cheers.....
P.S.: Watch out for AMT folks. It's sneaking down on ya.
--
PLEASE post a SUMMARY of the answer(s) to your question(s)!
Show Windows & Gates to the exit door.
Unless otherwise noted, the statements herein reflect my personal
opinions and not those of any organization with which I may be affiliated.
Paul Maffia
news:slrnfac68i...@lwe128481.central.tektronix.net...
>I have two points to add to the discussion, and starting in the middle
> of the thread I don't know if they've been mentioned yet.
>
> All taxes collected amount to 18-19% of all income being taxed. It's a
> year since I knew this cold, and that might include Medicare and Social
> Security in addition to income tax. The bottom run of tax payers pay
> about 18%.
Wrong, to even reach 10% of your income going to Federal income taxes, you
have to be in the $50K + area. If yo add in SS taxes. the bottom rungs are
still well below 18% going to uncle. Even if you add the employerts share to
that, they will still be below hat 18%. Now if you add in state and local
taxes, especially if they made a large purchase during the year, they will
cross over the 18% threshhold.
> The middle class ($50k to $250k) get charged the most, in
> the high 30% range. As you get over $10 million per year in income
> your tax rate goes way way down. Warren Buffet (no. 2 richest person in
> the USA) pays 7%. If you want to get a lot more data on where we're at
> now, and the last 40-50 years of tax policy history, then read
> "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit
> the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston.
> One thing you'll learn from that book is that the current tax code
> mainly benefits the 400 richest tax payers, or the top 0.01% (or is it
> 0.001% ???) of income recipients.
Just remember, how much tax you pay is not dependent on how rich you are,
defining rich as the amount of your net worth ala Mr. Buffet. You can have a
very high net worth and pay very little in tax. Taxes are levied on your
income, and as Mr. Tomas has pointed out, you can have very high income and
virtually no wealth.
In other words, as rich as Mr. Buffet is, his yearly income is not all that
high. No doubt, higher than most people, but compared to other Corporate
heads, he is comparatively low paid.
And again your conclusion about who benerfits the most, could only be
considered if you measure by wealth. If you measure by income, the top 50%
income earners ($50K or more per year) pay 90-95% of all individual income
taxes collected. The top 2% about 20%.
Bill Shatzer
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>>>The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
>>>allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
>>Too long. Should be no more than a postcard.
> The first federal income tax return I ever prepared was my own. I was
> 14 years old and had a summer job at a carwash. The tax year was
> 1965, and the tax form I used was on what commonly known then as an
> "IBM card". If memory serves me right, the card measured about 3 by 7
> inches.
Pretty much the same thing is still available if you're 14-years old and
have a summer job at a car wash.
The federal form 1040EZ is 13 lines long and fits on a single sheet of
paper. Actually only 12 lines long as the refund line is unused if you
owe additional taxes and the additional tax line is unused if you've got
a refund coming.
Peace and justice,
Bob Beauchaine
> on a one lane dirt road is less than that same tract of land next to a paved
> highway?
Depends on what one values, doesn't it? Paved highways have higher
traffic and noise, and certain folks will pay a premium to avoid that.
>
> As far as insurance savings, if any can be obtained, talk to your insurance
> agent about coverage of property only accessable by a dirt road. Get back
> to me after he quits laughing.
Try again. The home I live in now was, when we bought it 18 years
ago, accessible only by dirt road for the last mile to my front door.
We never had any trouble finding insurance. The only factor that
played into the cost was our distance from the nearest fire hydrant.
The road has now been chip-sealed through an LID in which we
participate, which is a nice compromise that keeps the dust down, but
dirt roads are still commonplace in rural Washington County and
elsewhere. Our property values did not instantaneously jump when the
road was paved any more than they were depressed before.
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> What do you think of a wealth tax? It seems to me that defense
> is related to wealth rather than income. Why should those whose
> investments don't do very well pay less that those whose investments
> do quite well? Removing wealth from the productive to help the
> non-productive doesn't make much sense if the goal is to increase
> productivity.
Wealth is too easy to hide and too difficult to value.
Peace and justice,
Ockham's Razor
Bill Shatzer <bshat...@comcast.net> wrote:
This mornings NYT had a nice article on the over seas profits of US
corporations. Particularly how they try to hide those profits. You may
recall that the repub congress and Bush allowed them to bring all those
profits into the US at about a 5% tax rate because they were going to
create so many jobs.
Well, no jobs, but the profits are still here.
Those corporations making their money overseas should have to pay a
surtax on top of the corporate tax rate for money made in the US.
If the make it in Malaysia, let them spend it in Malaysia.
And that should apply to their state taxes also.
--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
Lobby Dosser
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote
>> pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>>
>>> The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
>>> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
>>
>> Too long. Should be no more than a postcard.
>
>
>
>
> You can't fit enough information on a postcard to identify the
> taxpayer, address and signature, let alone any types of income or tax
> due.
Front:
Taxpayer name, address, SS#
Back:
Total taxable income, tax owed (+or-), signature.
Pop in a prepaid envelope. Drop in mail box.
Lobby Dosser
> Eventually you will be charged a weight/mile user fee.
No, we will not. Too intrusive.
Steven
wrote:> > "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.map...@verizon.net> wrote
> >> pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>
> >>> The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
> >>> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
>
> >> Too long. Should be no more than a postcard.
>
> > You can't fit enough information on a postcard to identify the
> > taxpayer, address and signature, let alone any types of income or tax
> > due.
>
> Front:
>
> Taxpayer name, address, SS#
>
> Back:
>
> Total taxable income, tax owed (+or-), signature.
>
> Pop in a prepaid envelope. Drop in mail box.
How socialist. Quit dreaming please.
forbi...@msn.com
wrote:
We see it differently. Kids naturally think of themselves as
entitled.
This is an outcome of their situation where they don't have much
experience.
Since this media, Usenet, is meant to be a conversational media
I usually let this kind of issue go but in this particular case
I believe it is instructional.
When you write judgemental sentences such as:
What bothers me is that they are teaching the
children in school that to be successful and rich,
unless your on the left your a bad, bad person.
Not real bright.
you should take care to think long and hard about the
source of you feelings and again about the way you state
them in a public forum.
Here's why:
1. There are easy pickings in gramatical errors
such as the substitution of "your" for "you are".
"Not real bright" will come back to haunt you.
2. "Successful" implies a goal. Your prejudices
are showing when you join it to "rich" and tie
this to the clause "unless you're on the left
you're a bad person. (The use of a contraction
indicates a level of informality or laziness.)
3. Blaming others for the way third parties respond
to your beliefs makes analysis opaque, unnecessarily
so. By owning one's interaction with others one
avoids undeserved feelings of victimization. How
can one be "successful and rich" and a victim of
the judgements of others? You seem to feel an
entitlement to the nature of other's judgements
about you.
While I would like to be rich, and believe I could be if
I set my mind to it, I wouldn't feel good about myself
if I used my talents in the way I'd need to to make it
happen. I own my own feelings about me. I don't need
validation by others. I'm certainly not entitled to
validation by others.
If you don't know what's on the market and the nature
of the negotiations you won't achieve successful conclusions.
> So why should the kids even bother just vote for more socialist programs
> to keep the Marxists in office and like children, they will continue
> to have someone do what they no longer have the ambition to do.
It is easier and cheaper to tear down than to build up.
Unless one understands the motivations to build there will
be nothing to tear down. Most are forced by their situation
to take responsibility for their life even if they blame
third parties for having to do so. When one produces for
the marketplace rather than for personal consumption one
needs to know the market and the sources of economic friction.
No one can force me to produce for their consumption. I don't
measure success in wealth but in freedom. I produce for trade
because it maximizes my freedom. A governing body can modify
the market and I will adjust. This isn't a matter of fairness
but of negotiated participation in the market. There is no
entitlement.
Once one separates the goals from the means one can analyse
the systems and develop metrics for improving performance.
A good analysis will reveal if voting for specific governmental
programs improves or impedes performance. When one deals with
others as equals one improves performance.
Don Homuth
Yeah -- you will. It need not be intrusive at all. The technology
for testing that is already in the pipeline.
Scratch
LOL Go for the grammer when ya ain't got nutting?
> 2. "Successful" implies a goal. Your prejudices
> are showing when you join it to "rich" and tie
> this to the clause "unless you're on the left
> you're a bad person. (The use of a contraction
> indicates a level of informality or laziness.)
> 3. Blaming others for the way third parties respond
> to your beliefs makes analysis opaque, unnecessarily
> so. By owning one's interaction with others one
> avoids undeserved feelings of victimization. How
> can one be "successful and rich" and a victim of
> the judgements of others? You seem to feel an
> entitlement to the nature of other's judgements
> about you.
Why shucks and shazam! You sound as educated as Ward Churchill and we
all know what happened to him and how well loved he is.
>
> While I would like to be rich, and believe I could be if
> I set my mind to it, I wouldn't feel good about myself
> if I used my talents in the way I'd need to to make it
> happen. I own my own feelings about me. I don't need
> validation by others. I'm certainly not entitled to
> validation by others.
I believe you could be Rich too (and here's the qualifier) "IF" you
really wanted to. But by using a conditional statement like you just
did, tells me your not really all that interested. Could it be that what
I stated above about how you would be looked down on for being rich and
successful among your peers?
>
> If you don't know what's on the market and the nature
> of the negotiations you won't achieve successful conclusions.
>
>> So why should the kids even bother just vote for more socialist programs
>> to keep the Marxists in office and like children, they will continue
>> to have someone do what they no longer have the ambition to do.
>
> It is easier and cheaper to tear down than to build up.
Yes and the left has a very bad habit of this. Instead of inspiring the
kids showing them that almost anything is possible if they really want
it bad enough, they rather point fingers.
> Unless one understands the motivations to build there will
> be nothing to tear down. Most are forced by their situation
> to take responsibility for their life even if they blame
> third parties for having to do so. When one produces for
> the marketplace rather than for personal consumption one
> needs to know the market and the sources of economic friction.
>
> No one can force me to produce for their consumption. I don't
> measure success in wealth but in freedom.
Psssttt...., with wealth comes new found freedoms. Also the
responsibility to do good. Can't have one without the other or it will
soon crumble like a house of sand.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Scratch" <Larry_...@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote
> Psssttt...., with wealth comes new found freedoms.
> Also the responsibility to do good. Can't have one
> without the other or it will soon crumble like a house
> of sand.
As seen in the likes of Vick and the hoard of celebs that are being pummeled
in the press, the legal courts, and the court of public opinion for their
errant ways.
Kevin the Drummer
> "Kevin the Drummer" <nob...@tek.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnfac68i...@lwe128481.central.tektronix.net...
> >
> > taxed. It's a year since I knew this cold, and that might
> > include Medicare and Social Security in addition to income
> > tax. The bottom run of tax payers pay about 18%.
>
> Wrong, to even reach 10% of your income going to Federal income
> taxes. the bottom rungs are still well below 18% going to
> uncle. Even if you add the employerts share to that, they will
> still be below hat 18%. Now if you add in state and local
> taxes, especially if they made a large purchase during the
> year, they will cross over the 18% threshhold.
So, my recollection that the 18% might include Medicare and
Social Security, and your statement would seem to indicate that
those would be included. I wish I had that book with me, but I
returned it to the library. It had all the figures, most from
government reports, and it had a good bibliography so the facts
can be checked. Once again, the book is "Perfectly Legal: The
Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich
and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston. The author
earned two Pulitzer prizes writing about the tax system. More
info here:
> > The middle class ($50k to $250k) get charged the most, in
> > the high 30% range. As you get over $10 million per year in income
> > your tax rate goes way way down. Warren Buffet (no. 2 richest person in
> > the USA) pays 7%. If you want to get a lot more data on where we're at
> > now, and the last 40-50 years of tax policy history, then read
> > "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit
> > the Super Rich -- and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston.
> > One thing you'll learn from that book is that the current tax code
> > mainly benefits the 400 richest tax payers, or the top 0.01% (or is it
> > 0.001% ???) of income recipients.
>
> Just remember, how much tax you pay is not dependent on how rich you are,
> defining rich as the amount of your net worth ala Mr. Buffet. You can have a
> very high net worth and pay very little in tax. Taxes are levied on your
> income, and as Mr. Tomas has pointed out, you can have very high income and
> virtually no wealth.
Yes, I know that.
> In other words, as rich as Mr. Buffet is, his yearly income is not all that
> high. No doubt, higher than most people, but compared to other Corporate
> heads, he is comparatively low paid.
I don't have a clue as to where he ranks in terms of pay. But, I
did hear him say that his tax rate is 7%. I also heard him say
that the receptionist in the building where he works has a tax
rate of 17%. As I recall he said these things in 2001 or 2002 on
the Charlie Rose show.
> And again your conclusion about who benerfits the most, could only be
> considered if you measure by wealth. If you measure by income, the top 50%
> income earners ($50K or more per year) pay 90-95% of all individual income
> taxes collected. The top 2% about 20%.
It's probably true that the aggregate of the most wealthy pay the
lions share of the taxes in this country. But, it's also true
that as a percentage of their INCOME they pay less than an equal
share.
Cheers....
Bob Beauchaine
wrote:
> I believe you could be Rich too (and here's the qualifier) "IF" you
> really wanted to. But by using a conditional statement like you just
> did, tells me your not really all that interested. Could it be that what
> I stated above about how you would be looked down on for being rich and
> successful among your peers?
Are you under yet another false assumption that everyone is motivated
by money, Scratch? The Gandhis of the world notwithstanding, very few
people want to be poor. That in no way implies that everyone desires
to be rich.
What would Jesus have to say about that? Oh, that's right, we already
know.
> > It is easier and cheaper to tear down than to build up.
>
> Yes and the left has a very bad habit of this. Instead of inspiring the
> kids showing them that almost anything is possible if they really want
> it bad enough, they rather point fingers.
This from the single most persistent finger pointer in all of
or.politics.
When have you EVER in the last year posted something positive and
affirming in this forum? Your hypocrisy here is legendary,
overshadowed only by the profound ignorance which you gleefully
display on a whim.
The only job you seem qualified for here is petulant whiner. Or
village idiot. Often both.
Paul Thomas, CPA
> pay the lions share of the taxes in this country. But, it's
> also true that as a percentage of their INCOME they pay
> less than an equal share.
This data is a little old, butI bet it still holds true today (within a
tollerable margin of error).
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income
taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn
about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United
States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of
the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
Paul Thomas, CPA
> Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to
> Benefit the Super Rich and Cheat Everybody
> Else" by David Cay Johnston. The author
> earned two Pulitzer prizes writing about the
> tax system.
Yes, we know David, and some of us are named in his book.
It probably doesn't matter what tax system is used, someone will feel
jilted, used, abused, cheated, lied to, stolen from, etc and so
on.........while those who are gaming and cheating the system today, won't
become saints under a different program, they'll just have to change the way
they game and cheat the system.
There will be inequities under any tax structure. That's a fact that can't
be legislated away, although you can change who the inequities fall upon
from time to time.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:pzKpi.452$ij...@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure". - Samuel Clemens (alias Mark Twain)
Scratch
what part of my words did you not comprehend? Here it is read real slow
and see if you can pull any good from it.
Whooossshhh....
Scratch
> On Jul 25, 7:25 am, Scratch <Larry_Tig...@lefites.aretraitors.nut>
> wrote:
>
>> I believe you could be Rich too (and here's the qualifier) "IF" you
>> really wanted to. But by using a conditional statement like you just
>> did, tells me your not really all that interested. Could it be that what
>> I stated above about how you would be looked down on for being rich and
>> successful among your peers?
>
> Are you under yet another false assumption that everyone is motivated
> by money, Scratch?
No, some are useful Stalinist like yourself.
Scratch
is ted kennedy, john kerry, michael moore anywhere in that group?
Paul Thomas, CPA
I found this interesting:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr12.cfm
The focus of this paper is the benefits received and taxes paid by
households headed by persons without a high school diploma. (Throughout the
paper, these households are also called low-skill households.) In 2004,
there were 17.7 million such households in the U.S.
Overall, households headed by persons without a high school diploma (or
low-skill households) received $32,138 per household in immediate government
benefits and services in FY 2004, including direct benefits, means-tested
benefits, education, and population-based services. Total benefits rose to
$43,084 if public goods and the cost of interest and other financial
obligations are added.
By contrast, low-skill households paid only $9,689 in taxes. Thus, low-skill
households received at least three dollars in benefits and services for each
dollar in taxes paid. If the costs of public goods and past financial
obligations are added, the ratio rises to four to one.
Just a note: There were approximately 113.3 million households in 2004, so
the study above is talking about the bottom 15% of the population of
families.
And here too:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1111.html
.....before accounting for refundable tax credits, the bottom 20 percent
taxpayers shouldered 0.2 percent of the income tax burden while the top 20
percent of taxpayers paid roughly 79 percent. After receiving more than $28
billion in refundable credits, the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers is found
to receive more than they pay, while the burden on the top 20 percent
increased to nearly 84 percent. The chart also shows that the refundable
credits reduce the tax burden for the second quintile to almost zero while
increasing the tax burden for the third and fourth quintiles—though less
dramatically than for the top income group.
Broadly speaking, the 42.5 million non-payers are:
Low-income: 97 percent earn less than $40,000 annually;
Young: 36 percent are younger than age 25 and 56 percent are younger than
age 35;
Women and Unmarried: 54 percent are single women or female-headed
households;
Part-Time Workers: 42 percent work part-time while just 20 percent work
full-time but less than 50 weeks a year;
Benefit from Tax Credits: 34 percent claim the EITC while 50 percent claim
the child credit.
In addition to these non-paying filers, roughly 15 million individuals and
families earned some income in 2004 but not enough to be required to file a
tax return. When these non-filers are added to the non-payers, they add up
to 57.5 million income-earning households (sometimes referred to as tax
units) who paid no income taxes last year.
Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return
often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these
income-producing households are counted, roughly 120 million Americans—40
percent of the U.S. population—are outside of the federal income tax system.
While some may applaud the fact that millions of low- and middle-income
families pay no income taxes, there is a threat to the fabric of our
democracy when so many Americans are not only disconnected from the costs of
government but are net consumers of government benefits. The conditions are
ripe for social conflict if these voters begin to demand more government
benefits because they know others will bear the costs.
The Tax Foundation's 2005 Annual Survey of U.S. Attitudes on Tax and Wealth
found that 59 percent of American adults said it is unfair that 42.5 million
Americans pay no federal income taxes after deductions and credits, and that
everyone should be required to pay some minimum amount to fund government.
Ockham's Razor
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn
> about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United
> States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
You have a wonderful way of not talking about sheltered income of the
wealthy.
For poorer folks, the numbers are absolutely true as they have no way to
shelter income. For the wealthy the numbers reflect only what they
report as income and tax.
Apples and oranges.
John Galt
"Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-1EBBE4...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <pzKpi.452$ij...@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
> "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn
>> about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United
>> States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
>
> You have a wonderful way of not talking about sheltered income of the
> wealthy.
>
> For poorer folks, the numbers are absolutely true as they have no way to
> shelter income. For the wealthy the numbers reflect only what they
> report as income and tax.
>
> Apples and oranges.
Indeed? How are these people sheltering this income?
Income cannot be "sheltered" by anyone receiving wage, dividend, or interest
from financial brokers, as all that is reported on W-something forms.
Ergo, your concern must be limited to people who are "wealthy" from other
ventures. What ventures would those be?
JG
Richard Macdonald
news:13affr6...@corp.supernews.com...
The largest source of "sheltered" income is from Municipal Bonds which
allow various state and local governments to borrow money at below
market rates, which is in effect an invisible tax on the interest of the
discount from commercial rates. Of course Muni's are usually a long term
investment and not suitable for lower tax rate investors as its rate
discount
is greater than the tax burden.
John Galt
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nIPpi.8525$Ub7.8247@trnddc04...
> "John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:13affr6...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote in message
>> news:Mencken-1EBBE4...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> In article <pzKpi.452$ij...@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn
>>>> about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United
>>>> States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
>>>
>>> You have a wonderful way of not talking about sheltered income of the
>>> wealthy.
>>>
>>> For poorer folks, the numbers are absolutely true as they have no way to
>>> shelter income. For the wealthy the numbers reflect only what they
>>> report as income and tax.
>>>
>>> Apples and oranges.
>>
>> Indeed? How are these people sheltering this income?
>>
>> Income cannot be "sheltered" by anyone receiving wage, dividend, or
>> interest from financial brokers, as all that is reported on W-something
>> forms.
>>
>> Ergo, your concern must be limited to people who are "wealthy" from other
>> ventures. What ventures would those be?
>
> The largest source of "sheltered" income is from Municipal Bonds
The tax-free status of municipal bonds is has been ruled upon by the SCOTUS
and all Americans are able to benefit by them at precisely the same interest
rate? How is this unfair? Are you suggesting that the rich should somehow
not have access to a constitutionally-protected investment? Further, are you
suggesting that there are a large number of Americans who are wealthy
because of Muni investment? (They don't pay that much.)
This is hardly a "shelter" as it is normally understood.
JG
lein
> `
> News Article from The (Portland) Oregonian - July 23, 2007
>
> Since United States Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) introduced a plan 18
> months ago to overhaul the federal tax code, he has implored President
> Bush to team up with him on tax reform, as President Reagan did with
> lawmakers in 1986.
>
> Each time he makes his pitch, Wyden said, Bush replies along the lines
> of "Great. Yeah. Good idea. Glad you're doing it." But outside of those
> brief conversations, nobody in the White House or Treasury Department
> follows up, the Oregon Democrat says.
>
> Wyden's proposal to replace the 1.4-million-word tax code with a simpler
> system is the most ambitious bill of his 26-year congressional career.
> It would fundamentally change the U.S. economy and shake up nearly every
> special interest in Washington. But Wyden acknowledged that, without
> Bush's support, his bill doesn't stand a chance until at least the next
> presidential administration.
>
> The Wyden plan would reduce the six-bracket income tax system to three.
> And all income -- including wages, capital gains and dividends -- would
> be taxed at the same rates. The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
> allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
That's not a flat tax. Does Wyden actually call this a flat tax?
lein
wrote:
> pjb...@webtv.net (Paul J. Berg) wrote:
>
> > The plan would eliminate many tax loopholes,
> > allowing for a one-page 1040 form.
>
None at all would work for me, the merchants can mail in the postcard
for the national sales tax.
Paul Maffia
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:13af8oh...@corp.supernews.com...
So let's see any authoritative figures that dispute Mr. Thomas figures who
happened to quote actual data. Now some others at least confined themselves
to interpreting given data in a manner more favorable to their stance, but
the did not dispute the figures.
You on the other hand, don't like the figures so you moronically attempt to
cast doubt on them with no data to back up your claim.
Paul Maffia
attempt to give himself credibility, boldly steps forward to put his foot in
his mouth.
"Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-1EBBE4...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn
>> about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United
>> States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
>
> You have a wonderful way of not talking about sheltered income of the
> wealthy.
>
> For poorer folks, the numbers are absolutely true as they have no way to
> shelter income. For the wealthy the numbers reflect only what they
> report as income and tax.
And as Mr. Thomas has shown in another post, the poorer folks, representing
40+% of the population pay no Federal Income Tax whatsoever. They have no
need to shelter their income, they don't pay any income taxes on their
income.
By using "Ockham's Razor" to identify yourself you are implying you have
some superior level of intelligence but you proceed to demonstrate a vastly
inferior level.
Kevin the Drummer
> > Once again, the book is "Perfectly Legal: The
> > Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to
> > Benefit the Super Rich and Cheat Everybody
> > Else" by David Cay Johnston. The author
> > earned two Pulitzer prizes writing about the
> > tax system.
>
> Yes, we know David, and some of us are named in his book.
>
> It probably doesn't matter what tax system is used, someone will feel
> jilted, used, abused, cheated, lied to, stolen from, etc and so
> on.........while those who are gaming and cheating the system today, won't
> become saints under a different program, they'll just have to change the way
> they game and cheat the system.
I can't imagine a time when that wasn't true.
> There will be inequities under any tax structure. That's a fact that can't
> be legislated away, although you can change who the inequities fall upon
> from time to time.
I think that's where AMT came from in the mid-1960s.
Kevin the Drummer
> tollerable margin of error).
>
>
> http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
> An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
> The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
> The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
>
> Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income
> taxes.
>
> The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn
> about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United
> States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
>
> Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of
> the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
That appears to say which income groups pay what proportion of taxes.
It leaves out how much each income group pays as a percentage of their
income, which is a required part of the equation to evaluate how a flat
tax rate (oh yeah, that's our topic :) would affect the various income
groups. Is the tax as a percentage of income question answered on that
website? I suppose I should just go look. Cheers....
Kevin the Drummer
Me too.
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr12.cfm
>
> The focus of this paper is the benefits received and taxes paid by
> households headed by persons without a high school diploma. (Throughout the
> paper, these households are also called low-skill households.) In 2004,
> there were 17.7 million such households in the U.S.
>
> Overall, households headed by persons without a high school diploma (or
> low-skill households) received $32,138 per household in immediate government
> benefits and services in FY 2004, including direct benefits, means-tested
> benefits, education, and population-based services. Total benefits rose to
> $43,084 if public goods and the cost of interest and other financial
> obligations are added.
Do you have any method to propose as to how to account for
the benefits afforded to higher skilled, higher wage earning,
higher capital gains earning folks? For instance, the lowest
income folks probably don't make much direct use of air traffic
controller services, nor TSA services, whereas folks of more
means make more use of those services. I suppose there's a means
test here too; those who can afford a plane ticket get to use
those services.
> And here too:
> http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1111.html
> .....before accounting for refundable tax credits, the bottom 20 percent
> taxpayers shouldered 0.2 percent of the income tax burden while the top 20
> percent of taxpayers paid roughly 79 percent.
What percentage of total income did the bottom 20 percent of tax
payers earn? What percentage of total income did the top 20
percent of tax payers earn?
Thanks....
Lobby Dosser
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:09:59 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Eventually you will be charged a weight/mile user fee.
>>
>>No, we will not. Too intrusive.
>
> Yeah -- you will.
No we won't.
> It need not be intrusive at all.
It will be, if there is government involvement.
> The technology
> for testing that is already in the pipeline.
So.
>
Lobby Dosser
Ockham's Razor
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> And as Mr. Thomas has shown in another post, the poorer folks, representing
> 40+% of the population pay no Federal Income Tax whatsoever. They have no
> need to shelter their income, they don't pay any income taxes on their
> income.
You imply that people making the minimum wage are skewing the taxing
data.
Do you there by imply that they should be paying the same rate as those
making millions? As the present system is closer to the rich paying
about the same as the lowest paying people, I insist that such is wrong.
The need is to get rid of the hiding of income from taxes.
Only when that is done, we can discuss the fairness of the tax rates.
>
> By using "Ockham's Razor" to identify yourself you are implying you have
> some superior level of intelligence but you proceed to demonstrate a vastly
> inferior level.
First, you need to get some information about the implications of
Ockham's Razor. It is definitely not the philosophy followed by the US
tax code. Your education is deficient.
Second, personally am paying the taxes assessed for the top 2% of
Americans. But, I have two grand children who are struggling to make
ends meet in low wage situations. They are learning their lessons, but
the system as it exists is stacked against them. Of course, grand-pa
(like any good republican) will protect them from the ravages of the
federal government.
Ockham's Razor
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Indeed? How are these people sheltering this income?
>
> Income cannot be "sheltered" by anyone receiving wage, dividend, or interest
> from financial brokers, as all that is reported on W-something forms.
You confuse how the wealthy assimilate and report income. you assume
that it is all on a bunch of W-2 forms. Nothing could be farther from
the truth. You are naive.
>
> Ergo, your concern must be limited to people who are "wealthy" from other
> ventures. What ventures would those be?
The newest trick of US corporations is to report inflated foreign income
to avoid US taxes.
The older tricks are investments in foreign holding corporations in
places like the Cayman Islands.
Steven
Steven
> Paul Maffia <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> > "Kevin the Drummer" <nob...@tek.com> wrote in message
> >news:slrnfac68i...@lwe128481.central.tektronix.net...
>
> > > All taxes collected amount to 18-19% of all income being
> > > taxed. It's a year since I knew this cold, and that might
> > > include Medicare and Social Security in addition to income
> > > tax. The bottom run of tax payers pay about 18%.
>
> > Wrong, to even reach 10% of your income going to Federal income
> > taxes, you have to be in the $50K + area. If you add in SS
> > taxes. the bottom rungs are still well below 18% going to
> > uncle. Even if you add the employerts share to that, they will
> > still be below hat 18%. Now if you add in state and local
> > taxes, especially if they made a large purchase during the
> > year, they will cross over the 18% threshhold.
>
> So, my recollection that the 18% might include Medicare and
> Social Security, and your statement would seem to indicate that
> those would be included. I wish I had that book with me, but I
> returned it to the library. It had all the figures, most from
> government reports, and it had a good bibliography so the facts
> can be checked. Once again, the book is "Perfectly Legal: The
> Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich
> and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston. The author
> earned two Pulitzer prizes writing about the tax system. More
> info here:
>
Steven
What would Jesus have to say about that? Oh, that's right, we already
know.
---
He not here either, so that's one more thing to fuck.
Scratch
> WTF IS Ward Churchill? I've heard that name a couple of times, dunno?
>
>
Steven
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:13affr6...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Income cannot be "sheltered" by anyone receiving wage, dividend, or
> interest from financial brokers, as all that is reported on W-something
> forms.
>
What makes you think rich people's income shows up on those forms?
There are plenty of reports of rich people and corporations having millions
in income, yet end up paying nothing in taxes.
There's also the fact that many rich people's taxes are not paid by them but
by their corporations.
-----
When the CBO studies the tax burden, it includes all federal taxes,
including individual income taxes, payroll taxes and corporate income taxes.
In its analysis, payroll taxes are borne by workers and corporate taxes by
the owners of capital. For the richest 1 percent of the population, 9.3
percentage points of their 31.1 percent tax rate comes from the taxes that
corporations have paid on their behalf. The corporate tax would undoubtedly
loom large if the CBO were to calculate Buffett's effective tax rate.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:Raudndovst9WUzrb...@centurytel.net...
> Nothing like using someone else's quote that does not apply.
It applies absolutely.
> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:13af8oh...@corp.supernews.com...
This battle has been waged many times before, and it's clear that Mr Thomas'
figures are the product of ideological manipulation of statistics
For a starter, he talks about "all taxes", but then only includes statistics
on the Federal Income tax - not the "tax burden". These are the kinds of
manipulation of figures that we see from the Tobacco and Oil industries, and
from the Bush Administration on the lead-up to the Iraqi invasion.
Paul Thomas
> Do you have any method to propose as to how to account for
> the benefits afforded to higher skilled, higher wage earning,
> higher capital gains earning folks? For instance, the lowest
> income folks probably don't make much direct use of air traffic
> controller services, nor TSA services, whereas folks of more
> means make more use of those services. I suppose there's a means
> test here too; those who can afford a plane ticket get to use
> those services.
>> http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1111.html
> What percentage of total income did the bottom 20 percent of tax
> payers earn? What percentage of total income did the top 20
> percent of tax payers earn?
You may want to spend a few seconds cruising through those two websites for
the details before you ask. Both provide full support for their data, as
well as give information on what went into what category.
Paul Thomas
"Kevin the Drummer" <nob...@tek.com> wrote
>> http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
> Is the tax as a percentage of income question answered on that
> website? I suppose I should just go look.
Indeed, you should.
It's not provided in a sugar coated format, as I suspect you want, but grab
a Casio calculator and have at it.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Thomas" <paulth...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ZATpi.4178$WN1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Are those websites going to point out that the rich now own a greater
percentage of the total wealth than they did even just 15 years ago?
Are those websites going to detail the tax burden as a percentage of
*discretionary* income by income class?
No, they won't because they're propaganda sites.
Steven
Casios are sooooo 1987.
Steven
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> news:ZATpi.4178$WN1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Kevin the Drummer" <nob...@tek.com> wrote
> >>>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/sr12.cfm
>
> >> Do you have any method to propose as to how to account for
> >> the benefits afforded to higher skilled, higher wage earning,
> >> higher capital gains earning folks? For instance, the lowest
> >> income folks probably don't make much direct use of air traffic
> >> controller services, nor TSA services, whereas folks of more
> >> means make more use of those services. I suppose there's a means
> >> test here too; those who can afford a plane ticket get to use
> >> those services.
>
> >>>http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1111.html
>
> >> What percentage of total income did the bottom 20 percent of tax
> >> payers earn? What percentage of total income did the top 20
> >> percent of tax payers earn?
>
> > You may want to spend a few seconds cruising through those two websites
> > for the details before you ask. Both provide full support for their data,
> > as well as give information on what went into what category.
>
> Are those websites going to point out that the rich now own a greater
> percentage of the total wealth than they did even just 15 years ago?
>
> Are those websites going to detail the tax burden as a percentage of
> *discretionary* income by income class?
>
> No, they won't because they're propaganda sites.
You are stone cold broke capitalist spongenik GI JOE.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote
> That's not a flat tax. Does Wyden actually call this a flat tax?
It's flatter than what we have today.
People in Colorado mistakenly believe that Nebraska it "flat", but indeed it
is not "flat".
You have keen insight, you must therefore realize that a national sales tax
isn't "flat" either.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> Are those websites going to point out that the rich now own a greater
> percentage of the total wealth than they did even just 15 years ago?
>
> Are those websites going to detail the tax burden as a percentage of
> *discretionary* income by income class?
Bitch, bitch, bitch. The data is there to cul for yourself.
John Galt
> In article <13affr6...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Indeed? How are these people sheltering this income?
>>
>> Income cannot be "sheltered" by anyone receiving wage, dividend, or
>> interest
>> from financial brokers, as all that is reported on W-something forms.
>
> You confuse how the wealthy assimilate and report income. you assume
> that it is all on a bunch of W-2 forms. Nothing could be farther from
> the truth. You are naive.
I asked for an example, and you respond with a personal attack? Who'se
naive?
>>
>> Ergo, your concern must be limited to people who are "wealthy" from other
>> ventures. What ventures would those be?
>
> The newest trick of US corporations is to report inflated foreign income
> to avoid US taxes.
Change of subject. That's a CORPORATION. Your accusation was concerining
wealthy US taxpayers using loopholes in the tax code to avoid taxes. I asked
for an example. The above is not an example.
>
> The older tricks are investments in foreign holding corporations in
> places like the Cayman Islands.
Yes, they are. You used the term LOOPHOLE. A "loophole" is used to describe
a consideration WITHIN TAX LAW that permits people to shelter income on an
inequitable basis. Moving money to a country with confidential banking laws
is not a "loophole"; it's an illegal act.
Again, what LOOPHOLES in the tax code do the rich have access to that others
do not? Can you answer the question or not?
JG
John Galt
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> news:13affr6...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> Income cannot be "sheltered" by anyone receiving wage, dividend, or
>> interest from financial brokers, as all that is reported on W-something
>> forms.
>>
> What makes you think rich people's income shows up on those forms?
That's the quesiton I asked, is it not? If their income does not show up on
those forms, then HOW ARE THEY OBTAINING IT? The accusation has been made
that there are "loopholes" in the taxation system permitting the wealthy to
access perferred taxation treatment. I'm simply asking how that is done.
Before you levy an accusation, shouldn't you at least have some explanation
of the mechanics on how it works?
>
> There are plenty of reports of rich people and corporations having
> millions in income, yet end up paying nothing in taxes.
How many and how much? I'd like to ascertain if it's a big problem or not.
If the answer is "1 million, avoiding a billion in taxes", that's a big
problem; if the answer is "10, avoiding a million in taxes", that's not much
of a problem. Fix it, to be sure, but let's not blow it out of proportion.
>
> There's also the fact that many rich people's taxes are not paid by them
> but by their corporations.
That's only an issue if their total taxation is less than what it would be
if they filed personally. Is that the case, and if so, how much money is
being lost to taxation by this process? Again, if it's a billion, I'd share
your concern; if it's a million, there's bigger problems to go after.
JG
Paul Thomas, CPA
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote
> Yes, they are. You used the term LOOPHOLE. A "loophole" is
> used to describe a consideration WITHIN TAX LAW that
> permits people to shelter income on an inequitable basis.
> Moving money to a country with confidential banking laws is not a
> "loophole"; it's an illegal act.
Having assets in the Caymans isn't illegal on it's face. Having income
generated by those assets isn't illegal on it's face. Not reporting those
assets or income, if reporting is required by your country or other tax
jurisdiction is however, illegal.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote
> The accusation has been made that there are
> "loopholes" in the taxation system permitting the
> wealthy to access perferred taxation treatment.
There are no provisions in the tax code that apply to "the wealthy". There
are however, many that apply to certain types of income (ie: from certain
sources), and the tax treatment applies to that income from that source if
the person earning the income has a net worth of $5 or $5 million.
There are however, some people who are better situated to take advantage of
those provisions than others.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Lq0qi.17321$7G1....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
LOL! IOW, you have no answers when the conversation goes off script.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:13ah7of...@corp.supernews.com...
That the CORPORATION pays their individual income taxes.
That much of their income that is reported is "Capital Gains" and taxed at
a lower rate.
And your question itself is obfusticory - while technically anyone may make
these benificial investments, only the rich have the discretionary wealth
to do so.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:13ah86u...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:13afu1i...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>> news:13affr6...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> Income cannot be "sheltered" by anyone receiving wage, dividend, or
>>> interest from financial brokers, as all that is reported on W-something
>>> forms.
>>>
>> What makes you think rich people's income shows up on those forms?
>
> That's the quesiton I asked, is it not? If their income does not show up
> on those forms, then HOW ARE THEY OBTAINING IT? The accusation has been
> made that there are "loopholes" in the taxation system permitting the
> wealthy to access perferred taxation treatment. I'm simply asking how
> that is done. Before you levy an accusation, shouldn't you at least have
> some explanation of the mechanics on how it works?
No. Great pains have been taken to obfusticate the mechanism. But we can
determine there is a problem by the effects - just as we can determine there
is a problem with tobacco without knowning the actual mechanism.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paultho...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:r72qi.4341$WN1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
And this is the same sort of techniques used to keep blacks out of upscale
neighborhoods and social environments. It's still racism.