The wealthy got much wealthier under Bush

[PastaJoe]

The country’s richest 400 people reported a combined income of $105.3 billion in 2006. The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data show.

 

The 17.2 percent tax rate in 2006 was the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 largest taxpayers in 1992. The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to then- President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

 

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans” adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/145/story/565654.html

 

The usual belief of the conservatives is that lower tax rates for the wealthy will trickle down to job creation for the middle class. That might be true if they invested in American jobs, but since they are free to invest anywhere, they get the benefits of our tax cuts without the reciprocal benefit to middle class Americans. There should be higher tax rates for anyone who invests in companies that move jobs out of the country as an incentive to keep their investments in America.

[finknottle]

The usual belief of the conservatives is that lower tax rates for the wealthy will trickle down to job creation for the middle class. That might be true if they invested in American jobs, but since they are free to invest anywhere, they get the benefits of our tax cuts without the reciprocal benefit to middle class Americans. There should be higher tax rates for anyone who invests in companies that move jobs out of the country as an incentive to keep their investments in America.

 

Is a company which is expanding overseas to be punished? If you are going to export, you generally need an overseas presence. And we do need to export things unless we plan an end to imports.

 

What about a company that opens an overseas office, but closes an unrelated US office? Punish?

 

And what about the flip side? Would it be good if foreign companies were taxed extra by their governments for opening a plant in the US? Gee, that sounds great!

 

And to your original point: do we really want to disuade billionaires like Rupert Murdoch from immigrating to the US for the sin of vast overseas holdings? By all means, lets stick with illegal immigrants!

[Alaska Darin]

Yea! Another stupid class warfare thread.

[StupidNation]

They are being laid off as we speak moron. When the wealth is being tossed out, so are the jobs.

 

I don't know how you missed the rising unemployment figures with the lack of wealth.

 

Instead of supply vs. demand economics you should try to re-focus on productivity side economics... you know that thing we used to do called manufacturing that every politician has destroyed since the unions got too powerful and we lost being competitive, and the Republicans made laws protecting their big businesses.

 

A marriage made in hell if there ever was one. Empires die off from over-regulation, over-taxation, and corporate socialism with each group having leaders not looking out for anyone but themselves.

 

Why not ask what the union bosses are doing with their millions in dues as their constituents are losing jobs? That might be too hard for you to look at wouldn't it?

[PastaJoe]

Is a company which is expanding overseas to be punished? If you are going to export, you generally need an overseas presence. And we do need to export things unless we plan an end to imports.

 

What about a company that opens an overseas office, but closes an unrelated US office? Punish?

 

And what about the flip side? Would it be good if foreign companies were taxed extra by their governments for opening a plant in the US? Gee, that sounds great!

 

And to your original point: do we really want to disuade billionaires like Rupert Murdoch from immigrating to the US for the sin of vast overseas holdings? By all means, lets stick with illegal immigrants!

 

If they close a plant here to produce the same product overseas, then their tax rate should be raised. And the tax rate in other countries such as Britain would still be higher than the U.S., so Murdoch would still be better off in the U.S..

[Kingfish]

To recap-

 

Tax policy that redistributes income upward is terrific

 

Tax policy that redistributes income downward is socialism and is a very bad thing

 

[KD in CA]

Gee, so people with lots of money invested in American companies that create American jobs made a lot on their investment returns? Go figure.

 

The country's richest 400 people reported a combined income of $105.3 billion in 2006. The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent

 

So, 400 people contributed $18 billion to the federal coffers, roughly the same amount as the bottom 20 MILLION tax filers (meaning about 50 million people). Never mind the tens of millions that don't file a return.

 

Cue the simpleton RICH PEOPLE BAD! comments from the usual economically handicapped hippies.

[finknottle]

To recap-

 

Tax policy that redistributes income upward is terrific

 

Tax policy that redistributes income downward is socialism and is a very bad thing

 

 

Have we ever had a tax policy that redistributed income upwards? Or even one which was neutral, such as a flat-tax?

 

Or just policies that were not deemed 'sufficiently progressive.'

 

[DC Tom]

Gee, so people with lots of money invested in American companies that create American jobs made a lot on their investment returns? Go figure.

 

 

 

So, 400 people contributed $18 billion to the federal coffers, roughly the same amount as the bottom 20 MILLION tax filers (meaning about 50 million people). Never mind the tens of millions that don't file a return.

 

Cue the simpleton RICH PEOPLE BAD! comments from the usual economically handicapped hippies.

 

But only up to 2006. Since then, with the market and economy tanking, they're worth and making much less, and contributing much less in taxes because of it.

 

Anyone want to tell me how that's working out?

[Jim in Anchorage]

But only up to 2006. Since then, with the market and economy tanking, they're worth and making much less, and contributing much less in taxes because of it.

 

Anyone want to tell me how that's working out?

Spoken like a true government contractor,who spends his working hours making posts on ppp.

[gmac17]

If they close a plant here to produce the same product overseas, then their tax rate should be raised. And the tax rate in other countries such as Britain would still be higher than the U.S., so Murdoch would still be better off in the U.S..

 

would like your take on this scenario:

 

I sometimes hire overseas contractors to do computer programming for me. The reason I do this is so that I can build my business. So when I pay my Ukranian friend $4,000 to do work for me instead of the $10,000 - $15,000 it would cost here in the US (not to mention speed and quality of the work) I take the extra money (if there is any) and use it for the next project. (note that i don't go out and by gold watches or caviar with it). So last year, I invested in a major new project for me. I bought something from a guy in Rochester for $15,000. He then had $15,000 to spend that he wouldn't have without me. If I had to pay US programmers, that $15,000 would not have been available to me. This new project would not exist, $15,000 would not be in the Rochester economy and I would not be thinking about hiring someone in central new york to work for me in the next year.

 

So....

 

Should I be taxed more? Am I a bad person for hiring people overseas?

[PastaJoe]

would like your take on this scenario:

 

I sometimes hire overseas contractors to do computer programming for me. The reason I do this is so that I can build my business. So when I pay my Ukranian friend $4,000 to do work for me instead of the $10,000 - $15,000 it would cost here in the US (not to mention speed and quality of the work) I take the extra money (if there is any) and use it for the next project. (note that i don't go out and by gold watches or caviar with it). So last year, I invested in a major new project for me. I bought something from a guy in Rochester for $15,000. He then had $15,000 to spend that he wouldn't have without me. If I had to pay US programmers, that $15,000 would not have been available to me. This new project would not exist, $15,000 would not be in the Rochester economy and I would not be thinking about hiring someone in central new york to work for me in the next year.

 

So....

 

Should I be taxed more? Am I a bad person for hiring people overseas?

 

If you had paid $10-15k in the US, then that money would have still gone back into the US economy. But your scenario isn't what I was talking about. My scenario was if you had an employee, not a contractor, and you eliminated his job and moved his position overseas to do the same work, then yes you should be taxed more.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Have we ever had a tax policy that redistributed income upwards? Or even one which was neutral, such as a flat-tax?

 

Or just policies that were not deemed 'sufficiently progressive.'

 

Flat taxes on earned income as often proposed are inherently regressive, the poor pay a much higher proportional ratio of their income. A flat tax has been proven to be inherently regressive, not neutral unless you include unearned income in the equation. Boy, you can hear the hooting and hollering over that one!

 

That being said the simplification would be nice. The problem is, you would have to apply it to business income as well and the devil is in the details. Politically, despite folks now touting it, it is a trojan horse. No businessman in the right mind would ever support it. They have too many marginal advantages right now and it would cost them a lot of money.

[GG]

Flat taxes on earned income as often proposed are inherently regressive, the poor pay a much higher proportional ratio of their income. A flat tax has been proven to be inherently regressive, not neutral unless you include unearned income in the equation. Boy, you can hear the hooting and hollering over that one!

 

That being said the simplification would be nice. The problem is, you would have to apply it to business income as well and the devil is in the details. Politically, despite folks now touting it, it is a trojan horse. No businessman in the right mind would ever support it. They have too many marginal advantages right now and it would cost them a lot of money.

 

Good thing you don't teach math. How in the world is a flat tax regressive?

 

Oh yes, but throwing in a ridiculous determination of earned vs unearned income that perpetuates the tax preparation racket and aids our elected and appointed officials.

 

How's this for a concept, you bring in a dollar that you didn't have yesterday, you pay an 18% federal tax on it.

[RkFast]

The country’s richest 400 people reported a combined income of $105.3 billion in 2006. The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data show.

 

The 17.2 percent tax rate in 2006 was the lowest since the IRS began tracking the 400 largest taxpayers in 1992. The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to then- President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

 

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans” adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/145/story/565654.html

 

The usual belief of the conservatives is that lower tax rates for the wealthy will trickle down to job creation for the middle class. That might be true if they invested in American jobs, but since they are free to invest anywhere, they get the benefits of our tax cuts without the reciprocal benefit to middle class Americans. There should be higher tax rates for anyone who invests in companies that move jobs out of the country as an incentive to keep their investments in America.

 

STFU and move to China if this type of thing bothers you.

[RkFast]

Gee, so people with lots of money invested in American companies that create American jobs made a lot on their investment returns? Go figure.

 

 

 

So, 400 people contributed $18 billion to the federal coffers, roughly the same amount as the bottom 20 MILLION tax filers (meaning about 50 million people). Never mind the tens of millions that don't file a return.

 

Cue the simpleton RICH PEOPLE BAD! comments from the usual economically handicapped hippies.

 

Its the SAME simpletons who get mad that Exxon Mobil is doing so well. Becuase US based companies doing really well is a terrible, terrible thing...especially these days. Something needs to be "done" about that.

[Booster4324]

Good thing you don't teach math. How in the world is a flat tax regressive?

 

Oh yes, but throwing in a ridiculous determination of earned vs unearned income that perpetuates the tax preparation racket and aids our elected and appointed officials.

 

How's this for a concept, you bring in a dollar that you didn't have yesterday, you pay an 18% federal tax on it.

 

I am middle class and pay around the same rate and when you factor in SS, I pay a higher percentage. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't their percentage capped on SS?

[Alaska Darin]

I am middle class and pay around the same rate and when you factor in SS, I pay a higher percentage. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't their percentage capped on SS?

So what if you pay a higher percentage?

 

Let's say you make $100K. Depending on what proposal you're talking about you're not going to pay anything on the first $30-45K. After that, you'd pay 15%. Assuming the bottom is going to be $30K, your income tax rate would really be 10.5%. Add the 6.5% up to 106000 and you're going to pay about 16.5%.

 

Let's say you make a million a year. You're forgiven $30k. That means you pay about $145500 in taxes. Your tax rate is 14.55%. Add the $6890 to social security. That means you'd pay $152930 in taxes. That's 15.2% I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of people making a million per aren't paying anywhere near 15.2% effective. Probably closer to half that.

 

The flat tax will ONLY work if they get rid of all the other taxes/tariffs that most people don't know they're paying.

[Booster4324]

So what if you pay a higher percentage?

 

Let's say you make $100K. Depending on what proposal you're talking about you're not going to pay anything on the first $30-45K. After that, you'd pay 15%. Assuming the bottom is going to be $30K, your income tax rate would really be 10.5%. Add the 6.5% up to 106000 and you're going to pay about 16.5%.

 

Let's say you make a million a year. You're forgiven $30k. That means you pay about $145500 in taxes. Your tax rate is 14.55%. Add the $6890 to social security. That means you'd pay $152930 in taxes. That's 15.2% I'd venture to guess that the vast majority of people making a million per aren't paying anywhere near 15.2% effective. Probably closer to half that.

 

The flat tax will ONLY work if they get rid of all the other taxes/tariffs that most people don't know they're paying.

 

 

That is sorta my point, only I had hoped GG would say something stupid, Unlikely, but it could happen. Thanks.

 

Whatever, I never want to hear sh-- again about how the rich are taxed unfairly.

[GG]

That is sorta my point, only I had hoped GG would say something stupid, Unlikely, but it could happen. Thanks.

 

Whatever, I never want to hear sh-- again about how the rich are taxed unfairly.

 

Unlikely is right, because SS taxes are regressive when you look at them in isolation. Too bad the treasury doesn't work that way and all taxes go into one big pot. But it does give the Algores a campaign slogan to create a lockbox to protect the "retirement savings" when in actuality it's a government mandated wealth transfer program.

 

Any tax that treats one class of payers different than another class, by definition, is unfair. I'll let you decide on the fairness. Never mind that the whole point of the flat tax is to remove the disincentive to generate more income. Tax progressives always point to the tax rates paid by individuals to demonstrate unfairness, while flat taxers point out the total taxes that will be paid as you flatten out the marginal rates.

 

If you truly cared about unfair taxing of the lower classes, you'd eliminate the lottery, cigarette & alcohol taxes, and cut the sales and gasoline tax too. But, those are wonderful gravy trains that fly under the radar of the intelligentsia.