TonyB
Member
Anybody have an email address for 20/20 or John Stossle???I tried the abc web site but couldn't find any...thanks
20/20 show this Friday
- Thread starter 4thHorseman
- Start date
- Status
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Jimpeel,
Actuallly, if the very rich individually paid 1% of their income in taxes that could still conceibablly add up to the 34% of the overall pot. If they paid 15% of their income that would multiply the total portion of the pot they are paying.
Another way top phrase the question is "What percentage of their individual incomes they are paying?". Per your chart they are paying in the area of 27% and make up 34% of the total pot.
On the crime definition, I probably need to reword to say that he did not clearly discriminate/point out that many of the "child" injuries are not accidents, but rather juvenile violence. The next part of that would be to point out that juveniles have access to the same guns as described by the felons in prison.
Actuallly, if the very rich individually paid 1% of their income in taxes that could still conceibablly add up to the 34% of the overall pot. If they paid 15% of their income that would multiply the total portion of the pot they are paying.
Another way top phrase the question is "What percentage of their individual incomes they are paying?". Per your chart they are paying in the area of 27% and make up 34% of the total pot.
On the crime definition, I probably need to reword to say that he did not clearly discriminate/point out that many of the "child" injuries are not accidents, but rather juvenile violence. The next part of that would be to point out that juveniles have access to the same guns as described by the felons in prison.
jimpeel
Member
Guy B. Meredith
I don't understand. How could they pay 1% and make up the 34% number; and just who are the "very rich"?
In your last paragraph, you answered your own question. The average percentage of income the wage earners making over $200,000 is 27.4%. See chart Share of Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Highest-Income One Percent of Taxpayers, 1980-2001
The share that those who earned over $200,000 contributed was 32.4% of the total monies gleaned. See chart Share of Federal Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001 (Includes Individual Income, Payroll, and Excise Taxes)
The share of the top 1% -- among which are those who earned over $200,000 but could also include those making less -- is 33.9% of all monies gleaned. See chart Share of Federal Individual Income Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001
The chart Share of Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Highest-Income One Percent of Taxpayers, 1980-2001 shows the historic share that the top 1% have paid from 1980-2001.
But please note: The top 50% of wage earners paid fully ninety-six percent of all monies gleaned. The bottom 50% of wage earners paid a mere four percent of all monies gleaned. Are we to expect the top 50% of wage earners to pay 100% of all monies gleaned? The only way to get past that figure would be to reduce the number of wage earners paying the 96%. So should the top 40% pay 96% of all monies gleaned and the bottom 60% pay 4%; or should they pay 100%?
For an interesting perspective on what General Wesley Clark thinks of those who now pay 34%, listen to this blurb from Rush Limbaugh and listen to Clark state unequivocally that those who do not pay what he says they should are unpatriotic. That is one damned dangerous man and I am happier than a pig in swill that he will not see the nomination.
Click HERE to listen
I don't understand. How could they pay 1% and make up the 34% number; and just who are the "very rich"?
In your last paragraph, you answered your own question. The average percentage of income the wage earners making over $200,000 is 27.4%. See chart Share of Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Highest-Income One Percent of Taxpayers, 1980-2001
The share that those who earned over $200,000 contributed was 32.4% of the total monies gleaned. See chart Share of Federal Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001 (Includes Individual Income, Payroll, and Excise Taxes)
The share of the top 1% -- among which are those who earned over $200,000 but could also include those making less -- is 33.9% of all monies gleaned. See chart Share of Federal Individual Income Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001
The chart Share of Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Highest-Income One Percent of Taxpayers, 1980-2001 shows the historic share that the top 1% have paid from 1980-2001.
But please note: The top 50% of wage earners paid fully ninety-six percent of all monies gleaned. The bottom 50% of wage earners paid a mere four percent of all monies gleaned. Are we to expect the top 50% of wage earners to pay 100% of all monies gleaned? The only way to get past that figure would be to reduce the number of wage earners paying the 96%. So should the top 40% pay 96% of all monies gleaned and the bottom 60% pay 4%; or should they pay 100%?
For an interesting perspective on what General Wesley Clark thinks of those who now pay 34%, listen to this blurb from Rush Limbaugh and listen to Clark state unequivocally that those who do not pay what he says they should are unpatriotic. That is one damned dangerous man and I am happier than a pig in swill that he will not see the nomination.
Click HERE to listen
M1911Owner
Member
And the problem with that is?
A good case can be made that Representation without taxation is tyranny. When those who are voting themselves goodies don't have to pay taxes to pay for those goodies, the ultimate result is that the system collapses due to excessive taxation of the productive class.
A couple of years ago, because of the Silicon Valley/"dot-com boom" collapse, my income dropped to about $50,000. I was quite distrubed to discover that my total California income tax for the year was $50! Had I made a few dollars less, it would have been zero. That means that, basically, everyone in California earning less than about $50,000 pays no state income taxes. (Adjusted for number of kids, charitable contributions, etc.) Which is a lot of people. People who vote for state senators and assemblymen who'll pass programs that they don't have to pay for.
It seems fair to me that everyone needs to pay into the system. And that everyone needs to feel the pinch if spending requires that taxes be raised.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Well said 1911owner. We are at a tipping pint where nearly 50% of the "voters" pay no income tax. We are very near the "tyranny of the majority." Once that happens, we become socialists because we will auger in.
jimpeel
Member
M1911Owner
By your post you are saying "But I really, really, really wanted to pay that $7,500 in taxes!" That is, of course, what your 15% would be on your $50,000 income.
Would you have been able to make it having had $7,500 of your (now disposable) income disposed of through a government agency? Seventy-five hundred dollars is a fourth of a cash purchase of a new car or truck.
Now, what about the guy driving a 73 Olds Cutlass Supreme Brougham, living in a rat infested hellhole rented by a slumlord, with his wife and 1.7 children eating Kraft macaroni and cheese dinners and Top Ramen every night because he earns only $18,000/year? Right now, with his deductions for his 1.7 kids he pays no income tax. You would want him to pay $2,700/year to the government. That, by the way, is enough to buy two 73 Olds Cutlass Supreme Broughams.
There is a program through the IRS wherein a taxpayer can contribute money to the federal government for various reasons -- like paying down the national debt. Perhaps you should look into that program if you feel so guilty about paying the mere pittance of fifty dollars last year. It could be the balm for your soul that you have been seeking.
By the by: Making $50,000 / yr in Palo Alto just about qualifies you as "the poor" in those parts.
By your post you are saying "But I really, really, really wanted to pay that $7,500 in taxes!" That is, of course, what your 15% would be on your $50,000 income.
Would you have been able to make it having had $7,500 of your (now disposable) income disposed of through a government agency? Seventy-five hundred dollars is a fourth of a cash purchase of a new car or truck.
Now, what about the guy driving a 73 Olds Cutlass Supreme Brougham, living in a rat infested hellhole rented by a slumlord, with his wife and 1.7 children eating Kraft macaroni and cheese dinners and Top Ramen every night because he earns only $18,000/year? Right now, with his deductions for his 1.7 kids he pays no income tax. You would want him to pay $2,700/year to the government. That, by the way, is enough to buy two 73 Olds Cutlass Supreme Broughams.
There is a program through the IRS wherein a taxpayer can contribute money to the federal government for various reasons -- like paying down the national debt. Perhaps you should look into that program if you feel so guilty about paying the mere pittance of fifty dollars last year. It could be the balm for your soul that you have been seeking.
By the by: Making $50,000 / yr in Palo Alto just about qualifies you as "the poor" in those parts.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Jimpeel.
If the deadhand of government is removed, then the productive will take more initiative thus creating more wealth and more jobs. The standard of living would rise so dramatically that people would stand in line to pay 15%.
If the deadhand of government is removed, then the productive will take more initiative thus creating more wealth and more jobs. The standard of living would rise so dramatically that people would stand in line to pay 15%.
jimpeel
Member
7.62FullMetalJacket
I'd still rather pat 7% at the checkstand. Read my post on a consumption tax at the bottom of page 4.
I'd still rather pat 7% at the checkstand. Read my post on a consumption tax at the bottom of page 4.
M1911Owner
Member
Jim:
No, of course that's not what I'm saying. Nobody (that I know of) enjoys paying taxes in any amount. What I was saying is, if you get to vote in taxes, you need to be paying the taxes.
To take what I was saying further, if the tax rate were flat for everyone, it wouldn't be 15%, because the guy in the Cutlass would scream bloody murder to his representatives about lamebrain projects to spend his Federal taxes on a $15 billion, two-mile-long freeway in Boston, or on a National "Forest" in Nevada that doesn't have a single tree as far as the eye can see, etc., etc., etc.
The point is, if all of the voters feel the pain of the taxes, our representatives are going to be a lot more careful about how they spend our money. Whereas, now, there are a huge number of voters who pay little or no taxes who are screaming for more and more government funding for their favorite "programs."
No, of course that's not what I'm saying. Nobody (that I know of) enjoys paying taxes in any amount. What I was saying is, if you get to vote in taxes, you need to be paying the taxes.
To take what I was saying further, if the tax rate were flat for everyone, it wouldn't be 15%, because the guy in the Cutlass would scream bloody murder to his representatives about lamebrain projects to spend his Federal taxes on a $15 billion, two-mile-long freeway in Boston, or on a National "Forest" in Nevada that doesn't have a single tree as far as the eye can see, etc., etc., etc.
The point is, if all of the voters feel the pain of the taxes, our representatives are going to be a lot more careful about how they spend our money. Whereas, now, there are a huge number of voters who pay little or no taxes who are screaming for more and more government funding for their favorite "programs."
M1911Owner
Member
7.62:
To paraphrase Fermat, I have a mathmatical proof of that for which there in not sufficient room in the margin. Hopefully, I'll get a chance fairly soon to finish writing in up and publish it somewhere. The positive effect on the economy of even a small drop in taxes is quite dramatic.
To paraphrase Fermat, I have a mathmatical proof of that for which there in not sufficient room in the margin. Hopefully, I'll get a chance fairly soon to finish writing in up and publish it somewhere. The positive effect on the economy of even a small drop in taxes is quite dramatic.
jimpeel
Member
M1911Owner
A 7% consumption tax would also be a constitutional tax as it would be an excise tax.
There will never be a fair tax system as long as there are bleeding hearts. The only fair tax that exists today is the sales tax. It affects everyone equally; thus the state sales tax department is called the "Board of equalization".
A 7% consumption tax would also be a constitutional tax as it would be an excise tax.
There will never be a fair tax system as long as there are bleeding hearts. The only fair tax that exists today is the sales tax. It affects everyone equally; thus the state sales tax department is called the "Board of equalization".
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
JP
I am all for a consumption tax. I look at the flat tax as possibly a compromise or a bridge. But, you are right. The consumption tax would have many additional benefits.
But the social engineers would be out of a job
I am all for a consumption tax. I look at the flat tax as possibly a compromise or a bridge. But, you are right. The consumption tax would have many additional benefits.
But the social engineers would be out of a job
nico
Member
haha i feel so ignorant, but I've never heard of a consumption tax. It sounds like a great idea though. What are the drawbacks of such a system (if any)?
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
I am sure that studies of the effects of the consumption tax have been prepared. There will be a drop in consumption for some things (current tax write-offs) and an increase in others (what we really want). I think the over-riding factor will be that the economy would be so robust that we will all be spending money like drunken sailors.
jimpeel
Member
nico
If it degenerates into a VAT (Value Added Tax) it would kill the economy; just like it has in every other nation with a VAT.
If the Sixteenth Amendment is not simultaneously repealed, we would end up with both.
If it degenerates into a VAT (Value Added Tax) it would kill the economy; just like it has in every other nation with a VAT.
Treylis
Member
Saw the program, it was excellent... apart from the segment on guns, DDT is a personal cause of mine, and it was quite amusing to see the person from USAID squirm around.
I sent a letter via the e-mail form commending them on the program.
I sent a letter via the e-mail form commending them on the program.
Moparmike
Member
Actually, if we cut the fat out of the .gov programs and kill the 16th amendment, we could get away with a 1% sales tax. I think. Anyone know what the TOTAL $ amount of exported and imported goods are? Anyone know what that would be sans groceries and meds?
I think that if we cut the .gov down to what its supposed to be, and did a 1% fed sales tax on everything except for food and medical, we could not only fund the .gov, but also pay off the debt in 20-50yrs. I would love for someone to provide numbers to back that up. I dont know where to get such numbers though.
I think that if we cut the .gov down to what its supposed to be, and did a 1% fed sales tax on everything except for food and medical, we could not only fund the .gov, but also pay off the debt in 20-50yrs. I would love for someone to provide numbers to back that up. I dont know where to get such numbers though.
Zundfolge
Member
According to the CIA Factbook, the 2002 GDP for the us was $10.45 trillion so a 1% sales tax would have brought in $104.5 billion
The IRS collected about $2 trillion in 2002 and refunded $284 billion Source
So cutting some fat I see no reason why a 1% national sales tax wouldn't work (especially because doing away with income tax would probably double the GDP).
The IRS collected about $2 trillion in 2002 and refunded $284 billion Source
So cutting some fat I see no reason why a 1% national sales tax wouldn't work (especially because doing away with income tax would probably double the GDP).
Nightcrawler
Member
I've heard that top economists (University of Chicago School of Economics) don't think a national sales tax would work. I've never seen an article written on it, though. If it could work (you know, without crashing the economy or something), it certainly should be implemented, in my opinion.
Anyways, I didn't catch this show, but a bunch of people from my dorm did see it.
"Criminals will get guns anyway."
"Banning guns never cuts crime."
"You have a right to own a gun under the Constitution."
These were college students, mind you, my peers. It almost brought a tear to my eye, especially after a conversation I had the other day with a young woman that honestly thinks socialized medicine can be implemented in the US, a country expected to hit 300,000,000 people soon, just like it works in Sweeden, a fairly homogenous country with a population of what? 20-30 Million?
Browns Fan
Member
I too, saw it Friday nite, awesome stuff. I also sent ABC an email of "encouragement".
jimpeel
Member
Zundfolge
How will you fund a 1.7 trillion dollar budget with 104.5 billion dollars? You are talking in terms of cutting the entire federal budget by over 83%. That would hardly fund the military.
At 7% the taxes gleaned would amount to 731.5 billion, a far more realistic number.
The biggest remedy to the current debacle would be to return Social Security to its original intent. If we got rid of the feel-good changes like survivor's benefits, SSI, etc. it would once again be self sustaining. It would eventually glean enough to pay off the theft of SS funds by LBJ and the rest of the top thieves since.
How will you fund a 1.7 trillion dollar budget with 104.5 billion dollars? You are talking in terms of cutting the entire federal budget by over 83%. That would hardly fund the military.
At 7% the taxes gleaned would amount to 731.5 billion, a far more realistic number.
The biggest remedy to the current debacle would be to return Social Security to its original intent. If we got rid of the feel-good changes like survivor's benefits, SSI, etc. it would once again be self sustaining. It would eventually glean enough to pay off the theft of SS funds by LBJ and the rest of the top thieves since.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
7% is workable. Add the 5,6,7,8% local/state and it ends up at no more than 15%.
All welfare and social engineering gone. Defense is at about $400B. Bye-Bye Amtrak and USPS subsidies! No more memorial bridges in Mississippi and Museums in West Virginia.
LP states that social security could be completely eliminated - you are on your own from 50 and under - and sell federal lands to finance benefits due (for those over 50). We need to end the Ponzi scheme.
All welfare and social engineering gone. Defense is at about $400B. Bye-Bye Amtrak and USPS subsidies! No more memorial bridges in Mississippi and Museums in West Virginia.
LP states that social security could be completely eliminated - you are on your own from 50 and under - and sell federal lands to finance benefits due (for those over 50). We need to end the Ponzi scheme.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked