Yahoo.com: Fact Check, Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Life isn't supposed to be fair. Since when has Americans begun hatin on the successful instead of striving to achieve that level? Wealth redistribution has only led to people being dependent on government or becoming the daddy or hubby in single family homes. And where is there a family in the USA that would have to downgrade to 1 egg a week? Why aren't they working two jobs to avoid that type of situation?

I love how you impugn the middle class and say they should pay MORE taxes than the wealthy. Why isn't THAT wealth redistribution. The middle class is carrying a bigger burden of the revenue stream. You think the wealthy aren't taking advantage of that? Seriously? A tax loophole for huge corporations is different than a welfare program for the poor? Why? In both instances, the government is GIVING money to someone based upon their wealth, or lack thereof.

Ultimately, your position is that the wealthy in this country are victims of the middle class? The wealthy have been beaten down so bad in this "class warfare" by the middle class that its no longer desirable to be wealthy? Or to try to make more money? Give me a break.

Let's have a grown up conversation.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Class warfare and Wealth redistribution are not being argued for? Heck we have people looking at Capital Earnings as more loot to steal from those who took the risk to invest money that was already taxed.

No, we aren't arguing for wealth redistribution, that's the lie from the Right that every time someone says that the rich ought to pay their share that it is about wealth redistribution...they use the roads we use, the police, FBI, CIA, NSA, and military serves them too, they should pay their share. Why is it that every time we talk about equitible taxation that the Right wants to make it about redistribution? It's as if they cannot see that there is a difference between the discussions of how we tax in this country and how we spend that money, all we hear is that the two are one.

Heck, if we had ZERO social spending and the only federal and state revenue was for infrastructure and defense (a pure minimalist government) it wouldn't change the fact that the rich were still not being taxed at an equitable share. So can we just for a moment stop trying to muddy the waters here?

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 10:12 AM ----------

Life isn't supposed to be fair.

Glad you said it....then let's tax the hell out of the rich.........

*edit

Sorry, I know I have to add this disclaimer because someone...and I'm not naming names....but someone will think that my "tax the hell out of the rich" comment is somehow serious, rather than it being said in jest as poking an ironic turn on what was said in the cited quotation. Any indication that what I said was intended to be taken seriously should have been dismissed by the icon...however I feel it must be stated clearly for those who would rather ignore such clear indications regarding the way that my comment was to be taken that indeed my comment was said in jest and was not meant to be any real statement in support of any Marxist/Maoist/Communist/Socialist or Nazi (just to be safe) ideals. If there is any such confusion regarding the intent of my comment it is purely on the part of the reader and is not reflected by the true beliefs of the author. And as always my comments are not necessarily the views reflected by the Washington Redskins organization, its ownership, coaching staff, or its players.

Thank you.

[alexey]

Since when has Americans begun hatin on the successful instead of striving to achieve that level?

Nobody is hatin' on nothin'.

People are just saying that high income disparity is not good for anybody.

The consumers are the job creators. The middle class drives the economy.

There is no shortage of money to invest. If business opportunities are there, people will invest. what creates business opportunities? Disposable income of the middle class.

[JimboDaMan]

Life isn't supposed to be fair. Since when has Americans begun hatin on the successful instead of striving to achieve that level? Wealth redistribution has only led to people being dependent on government and Govt becoming the daddy or hubby in single family homes. And where is there a family in the USA that would have to downgrade to 1 egg a week? Why aren't they working two jobs to avoid that type of situation?

Good old ND. The man claimed it was fair. I said it was not. You spewed the usual right wing indignation in all directions except the relevant one.

[Thiebear]

So we took our housing infrastructure and ruined it to get everyone into a house based on BOTH political parties.

And now we are blaming the Rich/Middle class for the results and saying this last 10 years was not as good as the previous?

We don't have a taxation problem.

On the left we have a 3 wars and trillions of dollars problem, we have a Defense spending problem.

On the right we have a SS/Medicare/Medicaid problem due to a lack of paying attention, 2 years of unemployment, GM, Fannie, Freddie, BOA, Citi etc.

On both sides we have the Tarp/Stim1/2/3/4

so because of all of the 'messes' we've gotten ourselves into we are saying the Rich should pay more so the rest of us don't feel any pain from the fallout.

I've yet to see any leadership from either side actually carve out a plan as we did in the past with "BUY WAR BONDS!!!" and Recycle to this place to support the troops. etc.

We have a leadership problem. (mostly Congress coasting by not participating).

[zoony]

The "Best" tax would be a national sales tax on everything (Yes EVERYTHING). It taxes the use of money and those who spend more are taxed more but my first dollar spent is taxed at the same rate as my billionth dollar spent. What I find interesting is that this "most fair" method of taxing is painted as being unfair because it includes people who are under our current system paying ZERO in Federal Income Tax.

The problem I have with the National Sales Tax is that there is no way that our Federal Government would make it a "replacement" for the current system, they would insist that it were "in addition to" our current system.

Many states do it this way, such as the state I live in. I pay almost nothing in property taxes, I pay no state income tax, but sales tax is 10%.

I disagree with any "simple" tax code. saying we're just going to a national sales tax or a flat tax or whatever is popular rhetoric- I can see why- but it is an extremely facile proposal in an extremely intricate economic landscape.

Our tax code can of course be improved, especially with regard to loopholes. But, in its defense, modern U.S. tax code overall does a good job of touching all parts of the economy, everything from landowners to investors to family-money types and regular earners. We need to stop with the simpleton faith-based rhetoric and start proposing workable, realistic, smart solutions to making our tax code stronger. Which, btw, is the tax code of the strongest economic and military superpower in the earth's 4 billion year history. Interesting that some ass-wipe on talk radio tells everyone it doesn't work, and so many rush to get in line for him. But whatever.

Uncompromising and simple positions are easily explained and win lots of supporters who don't have critical thinking abilities (i.e. Ron Paul), but by and large they are dumb.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No one is blaming the rich for the last ten years. (We are still blaming W )

Seriously, no one is blaming the rich. The fact is that the rich don't pay as high a rate in taxes as the middle class. And on top of that, we have both a revenue and a spending problem. Its not about blame, its about fixing a problem (the deficit) in a way that actually makes sense.

[AsburySkinsFan]

so because of all of the 'messes' we've gotten ourselves into we are saying the Rich should pay more so the rest of us don't feel any pain from the fallout.

:secret:

Some of us have been calling for equitable taxation since before the three wars (three?), and SS/Medi problems, underemployment, TARP/stim1-4, see this whole inequity of taxation has been going on for awhile, so to make it sound like this somehow a "new" discussion seems more than a bit disingenuous.

[zoony]

Might want to edit the thread title.

Fact Check is not the source of the article, it's the headline for an AP article.

this is correct.

stevenaa, please make a note. I fixed it for you, thanks

[No_Pressure]

Rich...what is rich? 1,000,000 dollars per year? I know people who make that money and have over 40% taken away between federal and state taxes. Warren Buffett might pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, but people like Warren Buffett who are making multi-millions per year are capable of affording super rich tax breaks that people making 1,000,000 dollars are not. The people I know who are making that kind of money can't necessarily have their income paid in stock options and taxed at 15% as their company CEO can. I'm not trying to say that anybody making 1,000,000 dollars per year has it hard with money, though most people earning money in that range are truly earning it by working their asses off as opposed to figureheads who are riding it out at the top for 20 years collecting tens of millions per year doing basically nothing. I'm saying that things like this proposed tax on people making 1,000,000 dollars or more is ignorant of how much money people who are on the low end of that wealth spectrum are actually paying in taxes, cause they're most likely paying the maximum an American CAN pay in taxes.

Again, it isn't to say anyone making a lot of money has it bad, but it is insulting to people who are making 1,000,000 per year and pay over 400,000 of that to the government to have the president talk about how they're getting all the good tax breaks and the middle class is carrying a bigger burden than they are, when that isn't the case. A new tax isn't what this country needs, we need tax reform, we don't need to add new taxes for the rich necessarily, we need to close the loopholes that the super rich are hopping through. That's all we need to do. Close the ****ing loopholes. It isn't really all that complicated. You have Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary? Why is that? Oh there are a bunch of super rich tax loopholes? Ok lets stop that from happening.

That line of thinking isn't something which occurs however. You would have to screw over the wealthy elites who have bought and paid for congress, and everybody knows thats not going to happen if anybody currently holding a seat wants to get re-elected, or have a cushy high paying job when they leave the house or senate.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Rich...what is rich? 1,000,000 dollars per year? I know people who make that money and have over 40% taken away between federal and state taxes. Warren Buffett might pay a lower tax rate than his secretary, but people like Warren Buffett who are making multi-millions per year are capable of affording super rich tax breaks that people making 1,000,000 dollars are not. The people I know who are making that kind of money can't necessarily have their income paid in stock options and taxed at 15% as their company CEO can. I'm not trying to say that anybody making 1,000,000 dollars per year has it hard with money, though most people earning money in that range are truly earning it by working their asses off as opposed to figureheads who are riding it out at the top for 20 years collecting tens of millions per year doing basically nothing. I'm saying that things like this proposed tax on people making 1,000,000 dollars or more is ignorant of how much money people who are on the low end of that wealth spectrum are actually paying in taxes, cause they're most likely paying the maximum an American CAN pay in taxes.

Again, it isn't to say anyone making a lot of money has it bad, but it is insulting to people who are making 1,000,000 per year and pay over 400,000 of that to the government to have the president talk about how they're getting all the good tax breaks and the middle class is carrying a bigger burden than they are, when that isn't the case. A new tax isn't what this country needs, we need tax reform, we don't need to add new taxes for the rich necessarily, we need to close the loopholes that the super rich are hopping through. That's all we need to do. Close the ****ing loopholes. It isn't really all that complicated. You have Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary? Why is that? Oh there are a bunch of super rich tax loopholes? Ok lets stop that from happening.

That line of thinking isn't something which occurs however. You would have to screw over the wealthy elites who have bought and paid for congress, and everybody knows thats not going to happen if anybody currently holding a seat wants to get re-elected, or have a cushy high paying job when they leave the house or senate.

I think that's exactly what's been proposed. A minimum rate of tax for people making over $1 MM a year so that they can't take advantage of a bunch of loopholes that are available to them only because they already have wealth.

[Destino]

Warren B pays more than a secretary on any ONE of those. What's the question.

We are obviously talking percentages.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We are obviously talking percentages.

See that's the classic move from the Right, intentionally confusing percentages with total, seriously it happens EVERY single time this issue comes up.

[Destino]

And somehow you think that the person who took the risks to get a "capital gain" does not "deserve" the fruits of his own labor and that the "windfall" belongs to the Government.

We simply disagree. I cannot change your mind on this. and you cannot change mine. HTTR

I don't see where ASF said any of that. He's noting the fact that it's "taxed" at a lower "rate" be the Government.

[Madison Redskin]

Can someone please define "tax loophole?" I still have no idea what that term means. Are property tax, mortgage interest, and charitable donation deductions "tax loopholes?"

[Destino]

The "Best" tax would be a national sales tax on everything (Yes EVERYTHING). It taxes the use of money and those who spend more are taxed more but my first dollar spent is taxed at the same rate as my billionth dollar spent. What I find interesting is that this "most fair" method of taxing is painted as being unfair because it includes people who are under our current system paying ZERO in Federal Income Tax.

The problem I have with the National Sales Tax is that there is no way that our Federal Government would make it a "replacement" for the current system, they would insist that it were "in addition to" our current system.

If the question was "how can we transfer the tax burden to those that have the least?!" then a national sales tax would be the answer. Only someone that didn't realize that the less you make the greater percentage of income that you spend would think that such a system was at all fair. It would concentrate wealth dramatically faster then the current system.

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 02:57 PM ----------

Life isn't supposed to be fair. Since when has Americans begun hatin on the successful instead of striving to achieve that level? Wealth redistribution has only led to people being dependent on government and Govt becoming the daddy or hubby in single family homes. And where is there a family in the USA that would have to downgrade to 1 egg a week? Why aren't they working two jobs to avoid that type of situation?

Why don't you look up the tax rates during the period of time this country made itself a super power economically and stop pretending that your position is historically american. America's greatness didn't start in the 80's.

[No_Pressure]

I think that's exactly what's been proposed. A minimum rate of tax for people making over $1 MM a year so that they can't take advantage of a bunch of loopholes that are available to them only because they already have wealth.

My point is that somebody making 1,000,000 per year already pays a higher tax rate than somebody making 100k. If there weren't income tax loopholes for people like Warren Buffet he would pay the same 35%+ that people making 1,000,000 dollars do. Why do you need to add a new tax bracket so to speak specific to people making over 1,000,000 dollars, when all you need to do is close a bunch of loopholes? Close the corporate loopholes also while you're at it. I don't care if people I know who are making over 1,000,000 per year have to pay a high tax rate, as long as they're paying the same high tax rate as people making even more then they are.

[Teller]

ASF, you're rivaling me in a race thread in terms of the ape-****tedness here.

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 11:10 AM ----------

See that's the classic move from the Right, intentionally confusing percentages with total, seriously it happens EVERY single time this issue comes up.

What does the headline ask? Does it ask if they're taxed at a lower rate? Or does it ask if they're taxed "less?" There is a difference, and you know that. You also know which question the headline asks, but I don't expect you to acknowledge that when the ebil-rightwing-boogeyman is nearby.

[alexey]

My point is that somebody making 1,000,000 per year already pays a higher tax rate than somebody making 100k. If there weren't income tax loopholes for people like Warren Buffet he would pay the same 35%+ that people making 1,000,000 dollars do. Why do you need to add a new tax bracket so to speak specific to people making over 1,000,000 dollars, when all you need to do is close a bunch of loopholes? Close the corporate loopholes also while you're at it. I don't care if people I know who are making over 1,000,000 per year have to pay a high tax rate, as long as they're paying the same high tax rate as people making even more then they are.

Long term capital gains are taxed at 15%. Is that the loophole you are talking about?

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 11:16 AM ----------

So we took our housing infrastructure and ruined it to get everyone into a house based on BOTH political parties.

And now we are blaming the Rich/Middle class for the results and saying this last 10 years was not as good as the previous?

We don't have a taxation problem.

On the left we have a 3 wars and trillions of dollars problem, we have a Defense spending problem.

On the right we have a SS/Medicare/Medicaid problem due to a lack of paying attention, 2 years of unemployment, GM, Fannie, Freddie, BOA, Citi etc.

On both sides we have the Tarp/Stim1/2/3/4

so because of all of the 'messes' we've gotten ourselves into we are saying the Rich should pay more so the rest of us don't feel any pain from the fallout.

I've yet to see any leadership from either side actually carve out a plan as we did in the past with "BUY WAR BONDS!!!" and Recycle to this place to support the troops. etc.

We have a leadership problem. (mostly Congress coasting by not participating).

We have all the problems that you have listed AND the taxation problem.

I just do not understand how people can point at one problem and say "see THAT problem? That means we don't have that OTHER problem".

Our government, for example, has both the "too much spending" and the "not enough income" problem. Let's not pretend that these problems are mutually exclusive.

(if you agree with the GOP, this is where the next argument comes in: "before we give any more money to the government, the government needs to show that it is a good stewart of people's money"... and oh by the way, we are pretty good at ****ing up the government)

[No_Pressure]

Yes, I know somebody who has been paid in stock and I suppose you simply hold on to it for a few years and ultimately you pay 15% tax on it rather than the full amount if you had taken it as income.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

My point is that somebody making 1,000,000 per year already pays a higher tax rate than somebody making 100k. If there weren't income tax loopholes for people like Warren Buffet he would pay the same 35%+ that people making 1,000,000 dollars do. Why do you need to add a new tax bracket so to speak specific to people making over 1,000,000 dollars, when all you need to do is close a bunch of loopholes? Close the corporate loopholes also while you're at it. I don't care if people I know who are making over 1,000,000 per year have to pay a high tax rate, as long as they're paying the same high tax rate as people making even more then they are.

Nobody is really talking about adding a tax bracket. The "loophole" we are mostly talking about is capital gains. Capital gains is income in every single way, except its not. Its taxed at variable rates between 15-20%. That is HALF of income tax rates.

I can tell you that people making a million dollars a year absolutely do not pay an overall rate of tax at 35% of their income. Not even close. I don't make anywhere near 1 MM bucks, but because I have some ownership of my company, I was able to restructure some of the payments made to me as capital gains instead of income. It was payment for making the business profitable, but it wasn't taxed as income. I saved a buttload.

One more thing about your hypothetical numbers there. Let's use 35% as the highest rate of tax. In today's current tax code, if you make a million bucks, the whole million does not get taxed at 35%. That money gets taxed at the same rate as it does for everyone else, up until the 250K mark. So, lets say the tax brackets are 15% up to 50K, 20% up to 100K, 25% up to 250K and 35% for 250K and over. (I am just using these numbers as an example). Those tax rates apply to everyone. A person making 1MM bucks, pays 15% on his income up to 50K, 20% on his income between 50K and 100K, 25% on his income between 100K and 250K, and THEN 35% only on the money he makes between between 35% and 1 MM. So, no one making a million pays 35% of their income to taxes. That is not even sought. So, the guy making a million is not paying a higher tax rate on the same amount of money that a guy with a lower income is paying. Its not like he gets taxed higher on his first 100K than a guy who only makes 100K does.

But, the bottom line is that a person making 1 MM takes the money he makes over a certain amount and structures it as capital gains so that he only pays 15%-20% tax on it anyway.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What does the headline ask? Does it ask if they're taxed at a lower rate? Or does it ask if they're taxed "less?" There is a difference, and you know that. You also know which question the headline asks, but I don't expect you to acknowledge that when the ebil-rightwing-boogeyman is nearby.

The headline is more than ambiguous that I'll grant, but seriously we're all (well most of us) adults, we surely can look past an inflammatory headline in order to discuss the actual issue right? You and I both know that all too often the Right does jump straight from a percentage discussion to a volume discussion in order to muddy the waters, and that tactic has been used so many times that it is borderline insulting.

[Teller]

The headline is more than ambiguous that I'll grant, but seriously we're all (well most of us) adults, we surely can look past an inflammatory headline in order to discuss the actual issue right? You and I both know that all too often the Right does jump straight from a percentage discussion to a volume discussion in order to muddy the waters, and that tactic has been used so many times that it is borderline insulting.

Just because someone sees something differently than you do, doesn't mean they're necessarily trying to muddy the waters. It is a fact that the upper few percent of earners pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, while the bottom half pay virtually (and in some cases, literally) nothing. Some of us have a legitimate problem with that, even if it doesn't concern some on the left.

I do like some of what you're saying here, tone aside. I'm a flat tax, close the loopholes kinda guy. You are too. Once the shouting dies down, I suspect we'd find a good bit of common ground in this area. (Oh, and the "Left" has to stop calling fairness "regressive." But that's just their attempt to muddy the waters, right?)

[alexey]

Just because someone sees something differently than you do, doesn't mean they're necessarily trying to muddy the waters. It is a fact that the upper few percent of earners pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, while the bottom half pay virtually (and in some cases, literally) nothing. Some of us have a legitimate problem with that, even if it doesn't concern some on the left.

I also have a HUGE problem with middle/lower classes not paying more taxes.

It means middle and lower classes are not making enough money. Middle and lower classes need to make more money in order to sustain our economy (and obviously they will also pay more taxes when this happens). The biggest problem with our economy is lack of consumers who buy things.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just because someone sees something differently than you do, doesn't mean they're necessarily trying to muddy the waters. It is a fact that the upper few percent of earners pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, while the bottom half pay virtually (and in some cases, literally) nothing. Some of us have a legitimate problem with that, even if it doesn't concern some on the left.

Which is what confuses me, because if we're talking percentages then that seems at least to me to be more than fair, volume is misleading IMO which is why the tax system is on percentages. As for those who pay little or nothing, out of sympathy I understand; if you're barely scraping by week to week paying in taxes even a small amount hurts a lot more.

I do like some of what you're saying here, tone aside. I'm a flat tax, close the loopholes kinda guy. You are too. Once the shouting dies down, I suspect we'd find a good bit of common ground in this area. (Oh, and the "Left" has to stop calling fairness "regressive." But that's just their attempt to muddy the waters, right?)

Yes, terms like regressive etc are loaded, which is why I don't use them. I'm not so much a flat tax person as I am about fairness. IMO loopholes have to be closed, off shore accounts and funneling of money needs to be taxed and regulated, and capital gains must be seen as the income that it is. I can see a tax system that is like what we have now that can work without it being a flat tax, but I can see the validity of a flat tax too, but not a spending tax, because the poor spend 100% of their income whereas the rich spend but a fraction, which means that the poor would be having all of their money taxed while the rich would be able to sit on great quantities of untaxed money.