Forum: pol
Page 3547
Subject: Taxes; regressive, progressive or equitable?

  Posted by: sarge33rd - [372291615] Mon, May 16, 2011, 10:12
The Obama thread (like many), was fast derailing and I'll admit to mea culpa on that count. The paper I found and linked in that thread this morning, I think deserved its own thread/discussion in order to stem the derailment and allow for further dissection.

I link it again here, to facilitate referencing the source data:

America's Tax System, not as progressive as you think

The top 1% of wage/salary earners for example, represents 20.3% of ALL wages/salaries paid. Their total tax liability, represents 21.5% of ALL taxes paid. Not really what one could call disproportionate.

This same income group,($1.254 m/yr) pays 30% OF their income, in one form or another of taxes. ($376,200)

Compare this to the "middle class" (those in the 41st thru 60th percentile with an avg annual income of $40,700), whose income on the whole represents 11.6% of all wages/salaries paid and whose total liability is 10.3% of the total tax bill paid.

This middle class, then pays 25.1% of their income, in one form or another of taxes. ($10,215)

So that top 1%, earns a gross income of approx 30 times that middle class earner. (1,254,000/40,700 = 30.8)

If we subtract the two tax liabilities from each income:

1,254,000-376,200=877,800
40,700-10,215=30,485

Now divide the after tax income of that top 1% by the after tax of the middle class:

877,800/30485=28.79

So the one grp grosses 30.8 times the other and nets 28.79 times as much.

Is that REALLY, all that inequitable?

I would argue that those on the right need to cease focusing on solely federal income tax, while those on the left need to do likewise. Overall, it looks to me like a progressive fed inc tax, simple offsets the regressive nature of state/local taxes; with the end result amounting to a pretty much equitable scenario.
 
1Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 11:22 		This whole thing actually muddies the water. Trying to mix consumption taxes with earning taxes does nothing to resolve the current FIC.

I've said before and I'll say it again - just because somebody earns more than me does not mean they should pay FIC at a higher rate than me. Our rate should be the same. The guy who makes more is already paying more bottom line dollars by virtue of earning more.

Jack up luxury taxes on items like boats, high end cars, houses over a certain $ figure.

Find non-necessity items like cigarettes, alcohol, candy and raise those taxes.

But this whole thread is going to be an exercise in futility if you are going to try to convince me that its fair to tax people at a higher rate just because they make more. And me trying to convince you otherwise is going to be just as fruitless.
 
2sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 11:28 		My point Khahan, and that of the article, is that if/when we look at not JUST FIC but overall taxes in conjunction; the tax distribution is in fact equitable.

If you make 30 times what I do, and after we each pay our respective taxes in total on the year; you net 28 times what I do...how is that unfair?

The truth is that taxes like sales tax, gasoline tax etc; are far more burdensome on the non-wealthy than on the wealthy. I dont think anyone would sincerely attempt to argue otherwise. So all a progressive FIC tax does; is to level the overall tax bill so that each is paying proportionate to their earnings.
 
3Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 13:51 		So all a progressive FIC tax does; is to level the overall tax bill so that each is paying proportionate to their earnings.

Which is exactly what a progressive tax does not do. It makes people pay disproportionately to their earnings based on the INCOME.


I should not pay a higher percentage of my earnings in income tax than a guy who makes $20,000 a year and I shouldn't pay a lower % than a guy who makes $100,000 a year. In FIC it should be the same %.

When it comes to consumption taxes,its a different story. You pay based on what you spend. By its nature, that is going favor those with more money when you do the kind of comparison this article did.

Sorry but I feel no need to 'level the playing field' when it comes to this. There are the have, the have nots and most of us in between.



Sarge, I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you that "I'm right, you're wrong." And I'll appreciate the same. I'll just say this comes down to basic philosophy and how different people apply the term 'fair' to taxes. We obviously have very different opinions. You think its unfair that those who make more don't contribute more because they can without hurting themselves. I think its unfair to ask people to pay a high % of their income just because they make more. I doubt either of us will ever convince the other they're wrong.

There's certainly discussion to be had here. Like so many other issues, most of us agree there is a problem that needs fixing. Its in the solution that we find ourselves at odds.

But if the purpose is to convince the other side to flip-flop on their philosophy, its not going to get far.
 
4boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 14:19 		It would be interesting to see what the distribution of people making the same amount pay in taxes. We can argue all day about who should have more or less of the tax burden but I think most people can agree that if you have two people earning the same amount of money they should be paying equal amounts in taxes.
 
5Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 14:27 		Try looking at it from a slightly different perspective Khahan.

In a way, Federal Income taxes are the same for everyone. Federal Income taxes are stair-stepped so everyone pays the same percentage on the first portion of your income. Even if you make the maximum in a bracket, your effective rate is lower.

See here for the calculations. For a married couple, filing jointly, if they have $1 into the highest bracket, 35%, their effective rate is 27.05%.

So everyone does pay the same percentages on each of step of income. Some people make more in the top tier, have pay more on the portion of their income that is in that top tier.
 
6DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 14:56 		Simple example:

Let's say that, oh, hypothetically, there's another country that's willing to invade us. We'll call them the Marxist Socialist Communist Liberal Muslimobamas (MSCLM for short). The good news is that the MSCLM is going to inflict minimal physical casualties on us. The bad news is that everyone is going to have the equivalent in income (in current US dollars) in MSCLM-land of exactly $15,000 per year.

Do you think the very poor (who currently make $15,000 per year, or less) should be required to contribute a share of their income to militarily and diplomatically protect us from the MSCLM? They have nothing to lose (aside from the minimal chance of being killed, which is worth something, I agree). Conversely, a person making $150,000 per year has a lot to lose, and should be willing to contribute a higher percentage of their income. Right? And a person making $1.5 million per year, who would lose 99% of their purchasing value, ought to be willing to pay proportionally more, because they have a lot more still to lose.

Is it "fair" to force the people with nothing to lose to pay into a system solely to defend the people WITH something to lose, simply because you want to keep the income tax rate flat?
 
7DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 14:58 		Next simple question -- you're in the insurance business, right, Khahan?

Do you charge someone that wants a $2 million life insurance policy exactly ten times as much as someone that wants a $200,000 insurance policy?
 
8Seattle Zen in Forks
      ID: 114581613
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 14:58 		Khahan:

You made a mistake in post 1, you said "alcohol" is a "non-necessity". Before you continue posting, you need to clean that up.
 
9Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:08 		SZ - good catch. How could I?

Dwetzel - I never said I want everybody to pay the exact same flat dollar amount. What I said is I think everybody should pay at the same rate. Call it 20% for whatever reason. If you make $10,000 you pay $2000. If you make $1,000,000 you pay $200,000.

See, the person making the million IS paying more but at the same rate.

For your second issue in post 7 - there is no correlation at all. None. One is the price of a product which is based on market factors. The other is a tax on earned income.

Frick (post 5) - In a way I can see the stair stepped tax as a compromise between the 2 sides here.
 
10DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:19 		Ah, but Khahan, you clearly ARE charging the poor a higher percentage of their income relative to what they are getting out of the arrangement in my example, if you charge them more than $0.

If you think everyone should pay, say 10% (let's say that happens to work out to exactly the amount required to defend us from the MSCLM) -- you're charging the poor 20% of their income for something they get no benefit from, and charging the rich less that what their benefit is. (The poor pay 20% of their income for a protection of 0% of their income; the person making $1,500,000 per year pays 20% of their income for a protection of 99% of their income.)

Why is it fair to steal from the poor to no benefit to them, which is exactly what would be happening in this example?
 
12DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:26 		For your second issue in post 7 - there is no correlation at all. None. One is the price of a product which is based on market factors. The other is a tax on earned income.

What's a grocery store but a product based on market factors? You were all in favor of that analogy about a half hour ago.
 
13DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:27 		(self-edited post #11 -- makes more sense to phrase it this way)
 
14boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:43 		Re 6: then does this mean you support the idea that since poor put less money in then they should get less access to lets say national parks since they contributed less to there protection?
 
15DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:46 		Perhaps.

On the other hand, I thought we agreed the fair way would be if were paying as a flat percentage of income. Yet every time I go to the national park, it's a flat fee. Strange. Warren Buffett should surely pay $2 million or so to get in, right?
 
16boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 15:54 		that would be true if the fee was the only money that goes to support parks.
 
17DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 16:00 		And your statement #14 (and Khahan's argument) would be true if income taxes were the only thing that went to support government.

Which basically goes back to the point of Sarge's original post (and his followup in post 2), doesn't it?
 
18DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 16:04 		Now, if you want to totally eliminate all consumptive taxes and fees whatsoever, and solely support based on a real income tax (and you agree that all forms of income, including capital gains, count as regular income), and you agree that corporations get taxed solely on their revenues (hey, I don't get to deduct the food I eat or the clothes I wear, why does a business get to deduct their Xerox machine and paper?) I'd be willing to listen to the argument.

But taking one small piece of the puzzle out and determining that it is "unfair", without agreeing to look at all the other things that are unfair in the other direction, makes no sense and makes terrible policy.
 
19Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 16:24 		Dwetzel, reread post 1. To me, consumptive taxes and income taxes are 2 different puzzles. You're beating your head against a wall trying to convince me to change how I view taxes. I'd be beating my head against the wall trying to convince you. So in post 18, the final sentence has nothing to discuss. We aren't going to convince each other.

The first paragraph has some merit. I do think a lot of tax deductions in corporate taxes are rather bogus and need to be done away with. Look at GE. They manipulated the system to owe no taxes on their net income. Thats simply broken and needs to be fixed. This is one where we might get more agreement.

Even in FIC from a personal perspective, I think most of the right offs we have should be done away with and a better rate settled upon to balance it out.

What good does it do to take some money from me in taxes then give some of it back because yuou took too much? Or come back to me and say, "we didn't take enough, give more."

Corporate and personal income both needs to be simplified. We're using a taxation system that was developed after the Civil War. Its out of date.
 
20weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 16:32 		Is it "fair" to force the people with nothing to lose to pay into a system solely to defend the people WITH something to lose, simply because you want to keep the income tax rate flat?
This is the problem with class warfare....we are ALL in this together and we ALL lose our freedoms.

The bad news is that everyone is going to have the equivalent in income (in current US dollars) in MSCLM-land of exactly $15,000 per year.
Wow.....you lurched unexpectedly into the truth.
The socialist adgenda is to eliminate the rich and in the end make everyone poor.

Jack up luxury taxes on items like boats, high end cars, houses over a certain $ figure.
The current luxury tax on yachts and cars have been a complete disaster.
People of means just buy their yachts in other countires and have put many ship builders out of business.
So not only have we seen very little of the luxury tax but lost all the taxes generated by the ship builders and the workers who lost their jobs.

Other than that, #1 is an excellent post rebutting the cherry picked numbers.
 
21boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 16:32 		Re 18: I agree in general to what you are saying I was just posing counter argument to your theory on who should pay for defense. Since in general the tax system will not be fair between income groups I am more interested in what the fairness of the current system is among income groups.
 
22DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 17:11 		"This is the problem with class warfare....we are ALL in this together and we ALL lose our freedoms."

This is a nice talking point, but devoid of substance. It completely ignores that some have a great deal more to lose than others.

Wow.....you lurched unexpectedly into the truth. The socialist adgenda is to eliminate the rich and in the end make everyone poor.

This is even more devoid of substance, if that's physically possible.

People of means just buy their yachts in other countires and have put many ship builders out of business.

Now we're getting somewhere.

If those people already don't care about American businesses and American workers, why should we care about what they think about the situation? Clearly, they are putting themselves ahead of the country already. (You can call that "class warfare", but "taking the ball and going home" is class warfare too, yet I don't see you calling those people out.

 
23DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 17:20 		To Khahan (see, I'm learning!)-- I understand what your argument is, I guess I just don't understand why you feel the need to create that dichotomy rather than looking at the whole picture (which, as illustrated, is not that terribly far off).

I guess if we could have a "consumption tax" for 'those parts of the federal government that are currently paid by income tax', you'd be in favor of that instead? If you can think of an intelligent way to do that, I'm all ears.
 
24weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 17:25 		and you agree that corporations get taxed solely on their revenues (hey, I don't get to deduct the food I eat or the clothes I wear, why does a business get to deduct their Xerox machine and paper?) I'd be willing to listen to the argument.

Seriously?
How did I miss this?
What % of revenues would you force corporations to pay?
I will save you the time....You might as well pass a law telling every corporation and business to get the hell out of the country and take all their stinking jobs with them.

yet I don't see you calling those people out.
Why would I call someone out for spending THEIR money however want?
Obviously you see all THEIR money as belonging to the government and the only question is how much should we allow them to keep.



 
25DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 17:47 		Well, your argument is that "people should have to pay the same percentage of their income no matter what", isn't it?

All I want to do is change the word "people" to "corporation" (and keep in mind, a corporation is, at its core, just a grouping of people for business purposes) and keep the rest the same, and suddenly it's an evil socialist agenda designed to drive businesses away?

You've got some 'splaining to do.

I'm equally happy, if you want to let me, to abide by corporate rules and pay a percentage of my net income after expenses (including all my food, toilet paper, child care expenses, doctor visits, car, gas, housing, insurance, Cinemax subscription -- er, client entertainment expenses -- etc.), including the ability to carry over my losses from year to year for those years I spend less than I earn. You're not going to like the percentage that results, though.

But please don't say you want one set of rules for people, and then a totally separate set of rules for people who cloak themselves in the guise of a "corporation", and then come complaining to ME about how unfair things are.
 
26DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 17:49 		Why would I call someone out for spending THEIR money however want?

Well, they're staying in America and deriving all the benefits of living here, but they aren't willing to pay for it. That seems to be what you're upset with the people who "aren't paying enough income taxes" for... isn't it?
 
27DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 17:55 		And (ack, triple post), obviously, charging a percentage of revenues, as opposed to a percentage of net income, to corporations would result in a vastly lower percentage to result in the same amount of revenue. I haven't the faintest idea what the exact number would be, but an average company running on a 20% profit margin would pay a rate roughly equal to 1/5 of whatever their current percentage is -- they might pay 4% of their gross revenues instead of 20% of their net income.

You'd have a lot fewer loopholes too in determining a bunch of creative "expenses" that aren't relevant for deductions any more, as well as a lot fewer issues regarding timing of purchases to lessen tax bills (because expenses aren't relevant any more -- though I suppose things might work somewhat perversely on the opposite end of that bias, in that companies would try to push income past the end of their accounting year).
 
28weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 18:31 		DW:"I haven't the faintest idea......"
On this point we both agree.

Do you have any clue how many corporations would go out of business if you made the rate 1% of revenue?
The absurdity of what you are proprosing is beyond rediculous.
The fact that you cant tell the difference between taxing an individual and taxing a corporation in my mind tells me that all your other arguments are probably rooted in the same kind of flawed logic.
Corporate profits are already double taxed.

FYI....a 20% profit margin is the profit BEFORE expenses and deductions.
 
29DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 18:46 		Despite the fact that you have decided to throw out an insult and a bunch of nonsensical hand waving rather than even attempting to present any evidence to support your case, I'll try one more time.

Would the corporations go out of business if you made it 0.1% of revenue? 0.01%? Would a bunch of those have gone out of business even if the tax rate was 0%, and are you counting those, because if so that's just stupid.

Clearly there has to be some number that is greater than zero which results in a total corporate tax revenue which is essentially equal to what we have now... right?

Similarly, there has to be some personal tax rate less than 100% which would be successful if people were allowed to use corporate tax rules, and which would result in a similar level of total personal tax revenue generated... right?

I think it's pretty hilarious that you're so locked in to your right wing talking points that you can't even fathom the thought of taxing groups of people at the same rate and using the same rules as taxing of individuals might just, possibly, not be completely insane. But I'd be interested if you actually want to try to explain why, instead of just saying ZOMG YOU WANT TO TREAT CORPORATIONS LIKE PEOPLE YOU DUMB EVIL SOCIALIST PIG!!!1!!!!! -- and yes, that is what your posts in this thread have essentially been.
 
30DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 18:54 		(and hint: answering "It just is, um, BECAUSE, and if you disagree you're dumb" is not an acceptable answer.)
 
31DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 19:04 		Total tax income as a percentage of GDP, 1950-2010:

link

Tax income broken down by personal, social insurance, corporate, and miscellaneous:

link

So yes, spare me the "corporations are too heavily taxed" link. If they're double taxed, perhaps we should make that quadruple taxed.


(The author's intro to the "comments" section of his post is likely appropriate for you:

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
 
32weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 19:22 		I never said you're dumb.
What you are trying to propose is beyond dumb.
It is very clear that you have not done enough research into coprorate profits to see if what you are proposing even makes mathmatical sense.
Can you name any sane and rational person who has made a similar proposal?
Or is this simply a case of taking your extreme-left talking points that deductions are bad and we need to eliminate all deductions?
 
33weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 19:40 		Is there a point you are trying to make with your graphs?
 
34DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 19:41 		So I take it you don't have any evidence to offer on your behalf then? You're just going to ask me for the evidence to support your point? That's your job, dude. It seems obvious you don't have any though.

By the way, I didn't know it was the left-wingers who were in favor of eliminating deductions. Oh, wait... PERSONAL deductions are bad (flat tax is a great idea!). BUSINESS deductions are good, though (because business can't survive on flat taxes). Yeah, and I'm the one with dumb ideas. *eye roll*
 
35DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 19:44 		Re: 33... No, I just like to post random graphs in threads for no reason whatsoever. link

Or, it could be that it might have something to do with me refuting your seeming assertion that corporations are already over-taxed. Maybe you should think before you post.
 
36DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 19:50 		Answer a simple question for me, weykool. I asked before, perhaps you missed it, perhaps you were evading it, it's hard to tell.

Why is something which is good for groups of individuals which call themselves families according to you (charging a pure percentage of revenue, with no deductions) bad for groups of individuals who happen to call themselves businesses? (Note: I never said that these need to be taxed at the same rate, so don't even start that strawman.) You seem so sure of it, so I assume you can articulate why.
 
37Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 20:14 		sarge: The reason the numbers are higher for the middle class is because of social security taxes, which top out quickly relative to overall incomes. Those getting more than $106,800 income do not pay any more social security tax.

That is, a guy making $1 million/year will pay the exact same amount of SS tax as the guy making $106,800: $4485.60. But obviously that is a much smaller percentage of income for the million dollar guy.

 
38sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 20:25 		There is more to it that that PD. I'm not unaware of the FICA cap.

Look over the various income levels as a percentage of income and then look at the share of state and local taxes paid by each. Those at or below the middle class, are paying substantially more of that burden (in terms of percentage of income) than are those at the top of the income levels.

Seems Khahan and WK, want to pay less at each level; and pass more of the burden to those who already have trouble paying for basic essentials. Somehow, they seem to deem this as "fair".
 
39Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 20:26 		We've had some pretty good tax threads in the past. Here's one from the bin.

Here's one on the "Fair" tax (i.e., flat tax), through it goes off the rails a bit toward the end.

This one has some good discussion on consumptive taxes, among others.
 
40Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 20:30 		#38: Sure--there are all sorts of basic taxes paid by the poor and middle class that get lost in the wash of those making a lot more--those taxes don't rise as you get more income.

In addition, there are all sorts of tax benefits only the wealthy enjoy.

Conservatives largely believe that the wealthy are, essentially, capitalism's individualized bankers and should have more money with which to invest. The problem is that (1) Largely they don't do so and (2) the rest of us are borrowing money to cover their windfalls.
 
41sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 20:33 		Which all leads me, back to where I began.

The top 1% for ex; gross approx 30 times what a middle class earner does;

and after all taxes are paid retains approx 30 times what a middle class earner retains.

That to me, spells "parity".
 
42Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 20:54 		Seems Khahan and WK, want to pay less at each level;

Sarge, I have absolutely no idea how you pulled that out of my statements.

I've backed out of the weykool/dwetzel show because I don't agree with either side. I'm not even sure I follow what weykool's points are.

But I've made my point on FIC perfectly clear. We should all pay at the same % rate for income tax. No deductions. No tax returns. Making people pay more or less % of their income in income tax because they make more/less is unfair to me.
 
43weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 21:06 		DW:
Individuals work and generate a net income which allows them to pay for their expenses.
Coprorations incur expenses as a means to generate net income.
When that income is distributed to the shareholders it is taxed to the individual as a dividend.
The link in post #35 makes your point better than the links from #31.
If you have a point you were trying to make please make it.

Seems Khahan and WK, want to pay less at each level; and pass more of the burden to those who already have trouble paying for basic essentials. Somehow, they seem to deem this as "fair".
Sarge:
The problem is you are purposly trying to make misleading comments.
Paying the same percentage for all levels of incomes will result in more taxes paid as incomes increase and both of us are fine with higher incomes paying higher taxes.
As Khahan pointed out putting consumption taxes with retirement contributions only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to discussing what is fair when it comes to income taxes.
If you want to discuss each tax on its own merits then go ahead....but trying to justify higher income taxes because you deem the other taxes unfair is wrong.
 
44DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 21:22 		weykool... and why, pray tell, do corporations incur all those pesky expenses in order to make income? They do that to provide their owners, i.e. PEOPLE, with more income, right? It always goes back to PEOPLE. Why is it so hard for you to understand that a corporation is just a collection of a group of people at its core? It's as if you think the "Corporations" are mysterious alien beings on the endangered species list.

People also incur expenses in order to make income. Education expenses are the obvious example. Simple stuff like clothing is another example -- can't go to work naked! (There are a very few job openings that don't require that, and trust me, I'm not qualified.) Yet I know you don't want personal tax deductions -- because otherwise people aren't paying the same percentage of their income.

It's a distinction without a difference.

As for the graphs, you might observe that corporate income taxes (as a percentage of GDP) dropped by more than half over the last 60 years, even as personal income taxes stayed about the same. Not coincidentally, that's about the same time period that we have seen budget deficits take off. Clear enough for you?

If you disagree, try actually presenting data for a change. No more random gum-flapping. Bring the hard data, don't bother with the weak talking points. It's getting kind of pathetic at this point.
 
45weykool
      ID: 444231621
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 22:25 		They do that to provide their owners, i.e. PEOPLE, with more income, right? It always goes back to PEOPLE.
And when that money actually gets back to the people it gets taxed.

People also incur expenses in order to make income. Education expenses are the obvious example. Simple stuff like clothing is another example
Some education expenses are deductible for individuals....consult your local tax professional.
If you are required to buy a uniform it is deductible. Would you be in favor of allowing all clothes worn at work to be deductible? I for one would not be in favor of the rich being allowed to deduct all their Armani suits and Italian shoes. This was one of those pesky little loopholes that got closed.

As for the graphs, you might observe that corporate income taxes (as a percentage of GDP) dropped by more than half over the last 60 years, even as personal income taxes stayed about the same.
While this appears to be a true statement based on the graph you provided what conclusions are you trying to draw?
Let me offer a couple of things you need to consider before you answer.
If a corporation relocates to China or India due to high tax rates and excessive regulations...what affect would that on the graph?
How would Corporations that convert to Subchapter S status affect your graph?
Same question for LLC's.
Yes or no?
Is it possible that corporations are paying significantly more taxes now than 1950....based on your graph?

It is very easy to be misled when you post graphs that are designed to mislead.
 
46sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 23:19 		Then WK, you should have no problem with the military, and every state/federal worker, and every worker of a government contractor; paying no tax at all. After all, they were paid with money collected by taxation, so taxing them is "double taxation".

Many corporations, ARE entities in and of themselves. (See recent SCOTUS ruling for one citation, or consider the multiple ways a corporation can be established/setup.) Those entities, need be taxed. Just like everyone else. Dont like it? Dont incorporate. Be a sole proprietorship or partnership. Oh, you want to shield personal property form corporate debt? Then pay the taxes on the corporate income, separate form personal income tax.

My snide comment Khahan, stems from your saying nothing about increasing the state/local taxes paid by wealthy, which is a disproportionately low figure when compared to the amount of state/local taxes paid by middle class. Since you dont argue that those payments should increase but rather you like the regressive nature of those; one can only surmise you want the middle class to bear the burden for you.
 
47Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 23:24 		Probably should note that corporate federal tax rates are likely to drop soon. The idea has long had the support of Obama.
 
48Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Mon, May 16, 2011, 23:40 		Then WK, you should have no problem with the military, and every state/federal worker, and every worker of a government contractor; paying no tax at all. After all, they were paid with money collected by taxation, so taxing them is "double taxation".

I don't think federal workers should pay federal income taxes. That's mostly a paperwork issue, though.
 
49Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 00:35 		That would be a very large budget issue as well. There are millions of people collecting pay from the federal government. Of course they should pay federal income taxes--they continue to collect the benefit of living in this country.
 
50Boldwin
      ID: 9437170
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 01:37 		This exercise misses a very significant phenomenon. Illinois politicians for the last 16-20 years at least have practiced a novel strategy of shifting all their tax increases to fees and hidden taxes and then they point at their heroic refusal to allow the taxes to be raised.

Don't think for a minute that Obama didn't pick that trick up from his days in Illinois politics.

Thus the several hundred fees and hidden taxes in Obamacare.

Including reductions in Medicare in the financing of the bill and then blaming republicans for once again trying to kill granny when it came time to impliment the Dem's own provision was machiavellian genius. There really should be some award other than a second term for that one.
 
51weykool
      ID: 444231621
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 05:01 		My snide comment Khahan, stems from your saying nothing about increasing the state/local taxes paid by wealthy, which is a disproportionately low figure when compared to the amount of state/local taxes paid by middle class. Since you dont argue that those payments should increase but rather you like the regressive nature of those; one can only surmise you want the middle class to bear the burden for you.
The numbers you presented are skewed.
First you include regressive retirement contributions.
In addition, how many rich people live in Texas and Florida because there is no income taxes?
You want to raise federal income taxes on everyone because some states have decided not to collect state income taxes?
Sounds really fair to me. /sarcasm
 
52Wilmer McLean
      ID: 839213
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 05:59 		RE: 0,2,38,41,46

Using Colons (:) and Semi-Colons (;)

...

The semi-colon


A semi-colon consists of a comma with a dot above it:

;


The semi-colon is often used to join together two independent clauses -- in other words, it joins two clauses that could be sentences. For example:


Mary drives a Mercedes; Joanne drives a Chevrolet.

These two clauses could be separate sentences: "Mary drives a Mercedes. Joanne drives a Chevrolet." However, when we use a semi-colon, we are usually suggesting that there is a relationship between the sentences, but we are not making that relationship clear. Usually, you can tell from the context what the relationship is. In the example above, the relationship is probably CONTRAST; we could also use "but" to make this clear: "Mary drives a Mercedes, but Joanne drives a Chevrolet." When we use a semi-colon, it is often because we want to make the reader think about the relationship for herself. This is useful in many situations, such as when writing cautiously, ironically, or humorously.

One more very common use of the semi-colon is to join two clauses using a transition such as however, therefore, on the other hand, etc. Here are some examples:

Transition Example

She works all day in a store; in addition, she takes classes in the evenings.

John is Canadian; however, he lives in the United States.

You should get your brakes fixed; otherwise, you might have an accident.

Hundreds of people cross the border from the US to Canada every day; therefore, it is not possible to search all of them carefully.

 
53Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 07:51 		My snide comment Khahan, stems from your saying nothing about increasing the state/local taxes paid by wealthy, which is a disproportionately low figure when compared to the amount of state/local taxes paid by middle class. Since you dont argue that those payments should increase but rather you like the regressive nature of those; one can only surmise you want the middle class to bear the burden for you.

I never called any comment snide so don't try to the emotional manipulation game. Not playing.

As for State/local income taxes - I have yet to comment on them, so I'm not sure how you are drawing the conclusions you are drawing about my feelings. I'm discussing FIC and often specifically cite FIC in my comments.

If you want to start 50 threads for state/local income taxes go right ahead. But they have no place in a discussion on FIC.

 
54sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 08:15 		WK, I cant speak for FL having not been a resident there. Texas however I have resided and while true there is no state income tax, the sales tax is burdensome, property taxes are high and municipalities are known to set any variety of "traffic traps" to write largely bogus tickets for the purpose of revenue generation. So while there is no state income tax, the same affect as having one is paid/collected all the same.

TX DPS, pulled me over outside of Houston in Sep '99 while I was in a govt car heading for Ft Rucker to give a class at the MP school. I was doing 71 on the interstate. The speed limit? 70. $100 fine. They collect, dont you worry about that.


Khahan, true you said nothing about the state/local taxes. The chart clearly shows both those and the Federal taxes. Often what is not said, counts as much as what is said. Since you made no comment re those lower exposures to the wealthy but rather only contrary re the higher exposures...I drew my own conclusion. Perhaps erroneous, perhaps not.
 
55DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 09:53 		It is very easy to be misled when you post graphs that are designed to mislead.

Oh, screw off. I did no such thing.

You seem to think you're a genius on the matter, why don't you tell me what you think the effects are? Again, you refuse to add anything to the discussion except sniping.
 
56weykool
      ID: 444231621
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 11:02 		Screw off?
Nice discussion.
My point is I dont know what the graphs mean.
I wasnt the one who posted them.
All I did was offer very viable/probable reasons for why the rate has gone from 4% to 2%.
Is the underlying data available?
I would bet a lot of money that actual corporate taxes collected have increased.

As the old saying goes:
"Figures dont lie, but liars know how to figure".
In this case the author has an agenda and is merely searching for statistics that seemingly support his position.
If you are going to post stats and graphs it is most important to not get sucked in by the manipulation.
The same can be said for post #1.
 
57DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 11:23 		Well, yes, when you accuse me of posting graphs with the intent to mislead, without even knowing what they are -- i.e. you assume I'm just trying to mislead you, without you even making a token effort to understand -- then, yes, screw off.

Or hunt down the corporate tax numbers you want to propose as being different. I hear there's this thing called Google which is pretty darn useful for the purpose. But until you can make at least a little bit of effort to gather some information which supports your conclusion, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears at every bit of data thrown at you while chanting "lalalala, I can't hear you", then "screw off" is just operating on a level I think you can understand.

I'd be much, much happier to discuss the relative merits of your supporting data, but for about the 237432429575th time, you haven't actually presented any. Until you do, it's pretty clear that you're operating from a position not governed by reason.
 
58DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 11:27 		For the original link (which was reposted by the author to which I linked earlier), go here.

And then read it. The original census abstracts are referenced therein. Read those if you want.
 
59boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 11:30 		That graph is kind of miss leading it would have you believe that the corporate % has continued to go down and will eventually go to zero but in reality it has been relevantly constant since the early 70's. I think 30+ years of stability does not make a trend.
 
60DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 11:56 		Part of that lies with the issue that income and corporate tax rates fluctuate as a result of economic cycles. (The drops you see in the income and corporate tax rates, notice they pretty much go together and they tend to drop in recessions --- see early 1970s, 1987-1988ish, post-2001, and the last 3-4 years.)

However, if that were the only cause, one would expect income and corporate tax rates to fluctuate around the same, level mean. Which is not what has happened. We have, over the last 60 years, kept income taxes as a % of GDP close to constant, greatly increased Social Security tax rates as a percentage of GDP (which is, as has been discussed, a regressive tax -- those with incomes below $106,800 pay a HIGHER percentage of their income toward SS than those with incomes above it, because of the cap), and greatly reduced corporate tax rates as a percentage of GDP.

Basically, corporations (through lowered tax rates and a bunch of loopholes they have purchased from their politicians, and/or learned to exploit better) ALREADY have it much easier today than they do now.

A simple calculation for you as food for thought:

2010 GDP = approx. $14 trillion.
Corporate tax rates of 2% = $280 billion.
2010 budget deficit: $1.2 trillion.

In other words, had the corporate tax rate been 4% instead of 2%, there's 20% of your current budget deficit resolved right there. (Obviously, ti's not that simple, because there clearly would be some negative effects on total GDP, and other tax receipts, as a result -- but if you want to argue that the national GDP would be affected that much that total tax revenues would go down, you're just wrong.

Those among us who think that the Laffer Curve looks like a graph of y = 1/x won't understand this, of course.
 
61weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 13:28 		Once again completely erroneous conclusions based on the skewed data.

I asked some specific questions which you refused to answer so I will ask them again:
If a corporation relocates to China or India due to high tax rates and excessive regulations...what affect would that on the graph?
How would Corporations that convert to Subchapter S status affect your graph?
Same question for LLC's.

If corporations are leaving this country and taking our jobs with them because of high tax rates and excessive regulations, what would you do to stop this trend, raise taxes even more?

When a C-corp files for S-Corp status there are no corporate taxes paid but all of the income is passed through to the shareholders and taxes are paid by the individuals.
S-corps make up over half of all corporations yet you completely ignore these facts to draw your erroneous conclusions.
 
62Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 13:37 		If corporations are leaving this country...

Are they?
 
63DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 13:50 		weykool, you haven't once answered a question of mine in this thread, nor have you even bothered to provide what YOU think the effects would be, nor have you provided any data to the contrary, so I'm not going to play this silly game with you until you do.
 
64boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 14:46 		We have, over the last 60 years, kept income taxes as a % of GDP close to constant and for majority of those 60 years we have kept corporate income tax rates constant so I am not sure what you are trying to show not to mention the data starts in 1950.

In other words, had the corporate tax rate been 4% instead of 2%, there's 20% of your current budget deficit resolved right there.

well that would be true assuming that rate of deficit spending did not go up in proportion tax revenues. By saying if only we had taxed more in the past we would be debt free is complete logical fallacy.
 
65Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 14:54 		The assumption there is "all other things being the same," clearly.

A necessary assumption to any talk about taxes. Including points you are making yourself.
 
66boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:04 		I don't think I have made any points in this thread that assumed "all things being the same". It pointless to make any arguement based on that assumption with out providing so evidence to support that assumption.
 
67DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:08 		Exactly. I thought I'd pretty well disclaimed that in the sentence that directly followed. It's still a helpful exercise to see what the scale of the numbers we're talking about here is.

Combined with the news that corporate profits are reaching a (non-inflation adjusted, I grant you) records link and are forecast to continue to grow link, in a time of historically low corporate tax rates (as posted above), but they aren't employing more people link...

one has to question the entire wisdom of economics that is and has been peddled by the Republican party.
 
68weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:13 		Assuming all things being equal will only lead to erroneous and false conclusions.
Case in point.
How much revenue would we collect over the next 10 years if we raised the income tax rate to 100%?
Assuming all things being equal it would be a hell of a lot of money.
When you take into account other factors like people not being complete morons you get a number a lot closer to zero.
 
69DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:16 		67 was re: post 65.

Boikin, it's not pointless. It's obviously not meant to be a final exact calculation of the entire US economy. If you want to undertake that, be my guest! It is a useful first approximation though,and again, it provides a useful idea of the numbers we are talking about here.

It's important to note that corporations are already leaving the US (at least on paper), even as the corporate taxes are coming down. link So, will a few more leave if taxes are raised further? Probably. But let's not lie and say we're exactly keeping them here now because of our lowering taxes.
 
70DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:27 		Re: 68 -- sure, if you want to make stupid assumptions regarding your opponent's point, you can do that. For instance, you obviously think that reducing the tax rate to zero will raise infinite money, since you think that reducing it further will result in growing the economy enough to generate more taxes at a lower rate. When any monkey can see that zero * anything is zero. So, clearly, your economic policy is dumber than a monkey.

Easy? Sure.
Responsive to your argument? Duh, no.
Accurately represents what you are saying? Clearly not even close.
Productive, obviously not.

Don't like it? Well, don't make completely idiotic posts like 68 then.
 
71DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:34 		And it's especially stupid to do that when the person making the post specifically says in the words immediately following that "Obviously, it's not that simple".

So, in future, I expect you to support every economic statement you make with a full explanation of at least the first three orders of side effects of your statements, with full rigorous supporting data, or I will disregard your statement as incomplete and worthless. Of course, since you have still provided zero support for your statements, that's especially easy.
 
72TD
      ID: 51116811
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:38 		I am mostly libertarian in my political views, and occasionally read these threads.

I used to be in favor of a flat federal income tax, but now understand that a progressive federal income tax is needed to offset other regressive taxes.

I am still in favor of cutting spending on many entitlements so taxes can be lowered for all workers.
 
73weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:46 		#72
I concur.
 
74weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 15:53 		DW
You crack me up.
You remind me of someone I used to work with.
He would throw out all the usual liberal talking points and I would counter them.
Finally out of frustration he would say: "What about Halliburton"?
As if that was the end all be all of arguments.
I will take your posts #70 and #71 to be your version of "What about Halliburton"?
 
75Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 16:00 		Arguing about how to argue isn't very helpful for either side.
 
76DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 16:09 		Um, you haven't countered anything weykool. And I think it shows the weakness of your position and of your approach to the entire thread (and probably more that I'll omit out of a nod to civility) that you think you have.

You've sat there and said, "um, no, you're just wrong'. Now, I can see how you think that's "countering" the argument, but see, it doesn't, because it's easy for me to say "no, you're wrong", and now I guess I've refuted your counter, so I win, until you come back and say "no, you're wrong".

See, what adults do is present evidence. You've had ample opportunity to do so, and steadfastly failed at every opportunity. Do you even have ANY evidence to support your beliefs, or are you just operating on pure faith on this? It sure seems like the latter, which is pretty pathetic.

It's no longer worth responding to your heckling (and that's exactly the right word for it) at this point. If you want to sit there and be a heckler, go ahead, waste your time. If you actually want to be useful, step up and put an argument out there, supported by evidence. My guess is you don't have one worth putting out there.
 
77DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 16:10 		(But I'm glad that in post 73 you agree that a progressive income tax is necessary to offset other regressive taxes.)
 
78Boldwin
      ID: 9437170
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 17:01 		How much revenue would we collect over the next 10 years if we raised the income tax rate to 100%?

When you take into account other factors like people not being complete morons you get a number a lot closer to zero.

I shudder to point out that a majority of americans voted in someone living out 'The Dreams of His Father', one of which was
"there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)
So I'm just wondering where you came up with factors like people not being complete morons?
 
79boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 17:07 		re 60: Actually I miss read what exactly you were saying in your example and I don't really have any problems it. I will make this comment that it is interesting that for all your complaining about the corporate tax rate that full doubling it would only have cut the debt by 20%. That would imply to me at least that either the corporate tax rate is way too low and/or is not a large factor in tax revenues. Though I guess the second option can be seen in the graph you posted earlier.
 
80sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 18:37 		re 78...what he said there B, is (a) opinion and (b) IMHO absolutely correct.

Perhaps you are not paying attention to the qualifier "theoretically".

Theoretically, Congress could convene tomorrow and abolish income tax entirely.


true statement, but not one I am betting on, backing or endorsing. Like Obama's statement, it is true, but not a reflection of his goals.
 
81Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 18:45 		Sarge,
President Obama never said that. His father, Barack Obama Sr. said it when he was a teenager, I believe in 1958. Ialso believe it was translated in Swahili and possibly taken out of context

Boldwin's insult to the American voter is duly noted, and should be brought up whenever he utters phrases like anti-American, American hating and self-loathing.
 
82sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 18:48 		quite correct, I did misread it. Still, the statement as quoted; is in point if fact "true". theoretically, there IS nothing to prevent it.
 
83weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 19:30 		(But I'm glad that in post 73 you agree that a progressive income tax is necessary to offset other regressive taxes.)

Perhaps I need to clarify my position a bit.
There is part of me that feels exactly like Khahan that everyone should pay the same rates.
Individuals that make 10 times more income pay 10 times more income taxes.

I also understand some of the arguments for having progressive income tax rates.
Making up for other taxes, regressive or not, is not one of them.
To some extent the ability to pay higher rates (disposable income) and in theory being able to take advantage of the services/protection provided by the government are aguments that have some merit.

That being said the problems I have with the current rates is they are way too high.

So I concur with: "I am still in favor of cutting spending on many entitlements so taxes can be lowered for all workers".

I hope that clarifies my position.
 
84Boldwin
      ID: 9437170
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 20:37 		PV

Considering that I don't have any problem with the Reagan landslide or the 2008 landslide...

...we can no doubt chalk up some of the 'complete moron' vote to the MSM which failed to explain exactly what the 'Dreams of My Father' were, which Obama was so in love with.

Obfuscation of which you are still spinning out madly, I might add, PV.
 
85Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 20:41 		#83: Thanks for the clarification.
 
86Boldwin
      ID: 9437170
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 20:49 		The quickest cure for socialism would be to let people opt out.

People would even pay big money to avoid the big bad nanny.
 
87Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 21:53 		Opt out of taxes? Riiiight. Even the Quakers pay taxes.
 
88Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 22:33 		...we can no doubt chalk up some of the 'complete moron' vote to the MSM which failed to explain exactly what the 'Dreams of My Father' were, which Obama was so in love with.

In that vein, we can also chalk up to the MSM the 30 or so percent who think Obama is a Muslim, born in Kenya, and allowed Donald Trump to make a mockery of America.

 
89Boldwin
      ID: 9437170
      Tue, May 17, 2011, 23:13 		PD

I begged my bookkeeper to find me a way to opt out of SS as soon as I got out of college. Explain to me why I shouldn't have been allowed to opt out of the ponzi scheme. No benefits, no borrowing, no reneging.
 
90Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 00:20 		That's a joke, I'm sure. SCOTUS upheld the Constitutionality of Social Security taxation in two rulings in 1937.

There's only one way to get out of paying taxes: Stop working.

I would also suggest that you stop doing things which are benefits to you of federal spending. Like roads, schools, libraries. And the internet.
 
91Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 08:53 		Without getting into to much of a tangent, federal taxes aren't typically used for local libraries. I also disagree with the federal government taxing more so they can then decide which roads and schools get more money. Interstate highways are a federal program, local roads are not.

I think many moderates and conservatives would like to see reduced expenditures resulting in lower tax rates, but the method used to collect taxes is open for debate. I oppose a flat tax on income, as it is a highly regressive tax. I think we all agree that the higher income families will pay the more in taxes and that is fair, but where a flat tax is unfair IMO, is the effect it has when a families entire net income is spent only on necessities. If you want to carve out the first X number of dollars to cover necessities like housing and food, I'm ok. But what seems more fair? Everyone paying some small amount like we have now, or an even larger number of people paying no taxes, as they don't make enough to get them above the carve out area.
 
92Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, May 18, 2011, 10:37 		#91: My point was taxes in general, that those who don't want to pay any taxes should not enjoy the benefits brought about by those who do pay taxes.
 
93Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 14:02 		Some hard truths about taxes.
 
94boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 15:02 		It would have been nice is they would have included some citations in their piece.
 
95Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 15:43 		While I don't necessarily deny what the author in PD's linked post 93 says I do have to point out - his whole basis for why we should pay attention to him and not 'the other side' is that 'the other side' uses only partial information and focuses on 1 tax rate to prove their point.

The author then turns around does the exact same thing, focusing on the taxes that proves his point. Would be nice to see somebody do a thorough review and analysis of both sides and how both sides interact. That would give us a more real feel for where taxes truly stand.
 
96sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 16:36 		Not at all sure I follow your argument Khahan. The author opens by indicating that:

"The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.

By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years." (emphasis added)

This would seem to be inclusive of all Federal Taxes. The Federal is highly relevant, since it would require Federal action to alter things like Corporate Income Tax, which forms the cornerstone of the republican claims.

He then goes on and concludes with:

"The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992. Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent."

Where in he refers specifically to Federal Income Tax, as in personal income tax. So he is comparing multiple taxes, the applicable rates as well as "yield" and the truth behind the final numbers as a per centage.

Not at all sure, what "else" you are wanting incorporated.
 
97Seattle Zen
      ID: 10732616
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 16:41 		boikin: you do understand that when a part of a sentence is underlined and blue, it is a hyperlink to the citations that you claim are lacking.

Khahan: I found that piece very even handed as any piece titled Are the taxes in the U.S. high or low should be.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone unbiased who would claim that US corporate taxes are too high after looking at this chart alone:
 
98boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 16:53 		hmmm SZ maybe i should have thought of that then again maybe I did click on the links and found that they take you NYTs search page and not to any actual citations.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone unbiased who would claim that US corporate taxes are too high after looking at this chart alone:

actually that chart shows nothing with out also letting us know what % of GDP is made of corporate profits.
 
99sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 17:01 		simple google search boikin:

link 1


link 2

from the 2nd link:

Corporate Profits are Hovering Near Their Long-term Averages

We note that corporate profits currently represent some 10% of U.S. GDP. This compares to the historical median of 9.0% and its recent sub-5% trough.
 
100Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 17:18 		#94/97/98: Unfortunately, the NYT method of linking is often to simply insert a link for other articles which have the same subject as the linked word. Annoying, to say the least. This is like pointing to books in which the phrase "progressive taxation" occurs when making a point about the same.
 
101weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 17:58 		That corp tax chart is completely meaningless and purposely misleading.
Corporate income taxes only take into account taxes paid by C-Corps and completely ignores S-Corps and LLC's which pass all corporate income to the shareholders and is collected as PERSONAL income taxes.
Fact: The most common corporate form in the US is S-corps.
It is difficult to find actual data on S-corps income vs C-corp income but if the taxes paid by individuals for the corporate profits were added to the 1.8% it is conceivable that the US could be double or even triple the stated percentage.
If its double that puts the US top 10 and triple puts us at #3.
 
102Boldwin
      ID: 29453117
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 18:12 		I begged my bookkeeper to find me a way to opt out of SS as soon as I got out of college. Explain to me why I shouldn't have been allowed to opt out of the ponzi scheme. No benefits, no borrowing, no reneging. - Boldwin

PD: That's a joke, I'm sure. SCOTUS upheld the Constitutionality of Social Security taxation in two rulings in 1937.

There's only one way to get out of paying taxes: Stop working.

I would also suggest that you stop doing things which are benefits to you of federal spending. Like roads, schools, libraries. And the internet.

How is your response appropriate? What have roads, schools, libraries and internet got to do with that fraudulent retirement plan you democrats have been robbing and squandering?

Payments into what were supposed to be my retirement funds aren't taxes. They're my money I want back. When you hold a gun to my head and tell me about your 'trust fund' could you find the character within yourself to be trustworthy?
 
103Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 18:23 		fraudulent retirement plan

You referring to Social Security? Because your latest mistake is calling it that. Social Security is insurance, not a "retirement plan."

Another is the belief that you are paying your money into Social Security and will get your money out later. This misunderstanding probably flows from your not understanding of the nature of Social Security.

Like other forms of insurance, current payouts are paid for by current premiums. It isn't like your insurance company puts your money into an account and then pays back the same money out to you if you have a claim.

It is hard to take seriously the loud complaints about a program the muser misunderstands.
 
104boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 18:24 		re 99, I was looking for a citation on table in 98;
 
105Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 18:36 		If its double that puts the US top 10 and triple puts us at #3.

Assuming, of course, that we count the taxes in the US one way and other countries a different way in order to demonstrate that corporate tax rates are somehow too high here.

No one is arguing that there are a lot more S-Corps out there than C-corps. The reasons are as simple as the returns they submit. But we are talking about a *lot* more money at the C-Corp level.

And yet, even with that corporate income in LLC's and S-corps transferred to personal income taxes, our rates are still historically low.
 
106sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 19:12 		...our rates are still historically low.


Unfortunately, Americans self-serving greed is historically high.
 
107weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 19:27 		PD
That chart is assuming a lot of things thet we really have no basis to be making any kind of assumptions or drawing any kind of conclusions.
Are we the only country with pass through corporations?
"Historically low"?????....based on what?
Erroneous and/or incomplete data?
Keep in mind when pass through shareholders add the corporate income to their personal income it is often added at the top rate.
They lose the benefit of the lower corporate brackets.
 
108DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 19:45 		Re: 101 -- LLCs get to choose whether to be taxed as corporations or have the income passed through to the individuals. Saying that all of those are treated as individual income is not correct. (Once again, I'd ask you to show your work for your assertions -- handwaving "well, if it's actually triple, then the taxes are really high" is factually correct but practically useless.)

link

"Electing Out of Default LLC Tax Treatment

Many people would find LLC taxation pretty easy if only the default rules were used... However, you don't have to use the default tax treatment for an LLC. You can elect to opt out of the default tax treatment. In other words, single and multiple member LLCs don't have to accept the default tax accounting treatment--they can instead choose to be taxed as corporations.

If an LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation, the LLC is still an LLC. (This is confusing, I know.) But the LLC for income tax purposes is treated as a corporation. For tax accounting purposes, for example, a single member LLC is either disregarded... or treated as a corporation. And a multiple member LLC is either treated as a partnership... or treated as a corporation.

Note: Getting treated as a corporation occurs only after the LLC and its owner proactively elect to be treated as a corporation using either the 8832 or the 2553 form (both available from the www.irs.gov website)."
 
109Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 19:47 		Historically low as noted in the Bruce Bartlett piece linked to in #93.

No matter where those taxes are charged (corporate or individual) the effective rates are historically low.

I'm not saying you are not right that the full corporate tax scheme can't be captured in that chart. I'm saying that if your point is that the money is not on the chart because it is being taxed on the individual side, the numbers still are historically low.
 
110Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 19:56 		Some more looks at historical data on corporate rates and how it should play out in debates these days, from the February paper from the CBPP.
 
111Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 20:47 		Sarge, you need look no further than your own quoted part to see my point. . ."By this measure,"

He chose the measure of taxes to be "total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product."


To date, in our various threads, most of the focus has been on the FIC rate per individual. In otherwords, if I earn $100, how much is taken out in taxes and is that fair, equitable, reasonable, etc.

Yes, he was very fair and gave a very even-handed analysis of his point of view. But he also picked and chose his stats as appropriate. Again, taxes are not so simple as to boil them down to what the author did and expect to come up with an answer. Take the authors evidence, roll it up with similar articles on individual FIC, corporate taxes etc and use it as a piece of puzzle. But don't sit here and crow about it as if its 'the' singular truth.
 
112Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, May 31, 2011, 21:03 		With respect, though, some measures give a clearer picture of fairness and some don't. It isn't in the interest of the GOP to present a clearer picture however, particularly when so much of the GOP leadership seem to be unable to comprehend that the deficit that is their current pet peeve is the result of them getting their way on lowering the wealthy's taxes (their other pet peeve).
 
113weykool
      ID: 53446220
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 02:06 		Seriously DW You think people are foregoing the liability protections offered by C-corps and forming LLC's and still paying the double taxation of a C-corp?
Get real.
As for my assertions on LLC's I have made none.
When I think of an LLC I think of a law or accounting partnerships that were already taxed as a pass through.
Even though I work for a LLC I make no other assertions as to how many there are or what affect they have on the corporate tax picture.
I have made assertions about S-Corps as there was a significant shift in corporate taxation during the 1980's but you continue to gloss over this fact.

PD:
You keep saying corporate taxes are historically low.
I will ask again...based on what?
 
114Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 02:36 		Did you not read the article linked in #93? Or the one linked in #110?
 
115boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 11:08 		Re 110: It is interesting that the country on the bottom, germany, is also one of more successful manufacturing countries in Europe.

Re 114: actually no where does is show that corporate tax rates are historically low, what they do show is that the % of GDP from corporate taxes have stayed relatively constant since the early 80's when then hit another "historical low"
 
116Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 11:12 		#115: I didn't say corporate tax *rates* are historically low--that is mixing up two different things.

I've stated (and the articles have both stated) that corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP has dropped to historic lows. In other words, as we produce more and more in this country, the amount of taxes paid against that his dropped lower and lower.

As for the country list, it very well could be that more companies pay taxes, making it lower for everyone. We have oodles of very large companies in this country which pay no taxes at all, forcing their fair share of taxes onto other companies who do pay taxes (and, as weykool points out, onto pass through organizations).
 
117boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 11:27 		In other words, as we produce more and more in this country, the amount of taxes paid against that his dropped lower and lower.

or companies in general could be just contributing less and less to GDP. With out knowing what they actually contribute to the GDP then knowing what they contribute in taxes is meaningless.
 
118Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 11:32 		How could companies be contributing less and less but GDP be going down? GDP is a measure of domestic production--when it goes up it means that companies are making more.

Remember that we are speaking in aggregate terms, not for any particular company or industry: If companies are making more (and they are--GDP is rising and has been for some time) their share of taxes has not, and in fact has dropped.
 
119boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 11:41 		Maybe a the refresher on what the GDP will help:

GDP-The monetary value of all of a nation's goods and services produced within a nation's borders and within a particular period of time, such as a year.

You will notice that nothing in the definition of GDP includes the word corporations. also note though not mentioned here but government spending is also included in the calculation.
 
120DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 11:55 		Re: 113 -- I'd welcome the opportunity to critique your data supporting what you believe, but for the umpteenth time, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.

At this point it's completely pointless to attempt to have a rational discussion with you, because you refuse to attempt to actually support your arguments (while insisting, apparently on blind faith and nothing else, that everyone else is lying or distorting the data that DOES exist, because it doesn't support what you already believe).
 
121Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 13:15 		#119: So you believe that corporation contributions to GDP have dropped several fold since the 1950s? That isn't demonstrated by the data, which shows that increases in the GDP are largely made up of domestically purchased personal goods & services (2010 table only, but feel free to play with the date ranges).

If the goods and services being purchased in increasing numbers are not being provided by companies then where are they coming from?

Meanwhile, Corporate profits (not revenue or income, but profit) reached 11.24% of GDP last fall.

So corporations are making very very good profits (11.24% of GDP) but paying a near-record low 1.9% of the tax revenue as a share of that same GDP.

I'm not begrudging corporate profits. I do begrudge corporations who pay no income tax, as 55% of companies didn't at least one year of the previous seven.

As I've mentioned before, it seems silly to talk about the tax rates when corporations utilize a variety of tax avoidance strategies to make their effective tax rate virtually (and in some cases actually) disappear.
 
122Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 13:29 		121, PD now you are talking sense (and even bridging that gap between focusing on tax/gdp ratio and actual taxes being paid by individuals or corps).

Step 1 has to come with more responsible spending and budgeting by the government. Absolute must.

Step 2 has to come with closing tax loopholes. For example, why do corporations get to figure out how much they are taxed on, then take deductions out of that? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the amount of profits taxed by the last step? In otherwords: My company makes $1,000,000 a year. All expenses - payroll, electric bill, TP for the bathrooms, advertising, gets deducted, leaving a true net profit of $300,000. That $300,000 is what my company should be taxed on. Instead they get to figure their taxes on the $1,000,000 then reduce that taxed amount wirh certain loopholes.

Or simply make the taxable income the amount a company announces to shareholders as its profits. No company should be able to pay a $0.00 tax bill then announce millions if not billions in profits.

Same accounting principals for individuals.

Step 3 - adjust tax rates accordingly to close gaps still left by a) responsible spending and b) a simplified tax code.
 
123Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 13:39 		Absolutely. I've said the same thing about property taxes on the local level. Some cities (like Philadelphia) haven't done a city wide property tax valuation in decades.
 
124Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 13:45 		corporate lobbyist money and campaign donations >>>>> congress >>>>> tax laws that reduce corporate taxes

Wash, rinse, and repeat.
 
125Boldwin
      ID: 12554112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 13:54 		If we can have reasonable lobbyist laws why can't there also be laws against proposing lines of tax code benefiting your own campaign donors?
 
126boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 13:56 		Re 121: the first link is meaningless, but the second one is relevant, and it answer my question.

why even tax corporations at all?
 
127Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 14:09 		We tax corporations for a lot of reasons, but mostly because they consume government benefits. Our society has an assumption that those who gain the benefit for government services will pay for them, assuming that they can afford to do so.
 
128boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 14:24 		let me rephrase the question why do we tax corporations instead of taxing the income the people receive from them more?





 
129Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 14:29 		For the same reason--corporations are the ones receiving the benefits. Sure, it trickles down to the workers in some ways, but if we treat corporations as entities with certain rights distinct from their individual workers (or shareholders), those rights need to be paid for.

Otherwise, we should do away with corporations entirely and just have LLC's or other partnerships.

Among other things, corporations enjoy tax benefits by setting themselves up as corporations (separate from partnerships or other entities). One of those benefits shouldn't be the avoidance of all tax, particularly when the corporation is getting the benefit of roads, police, educated workers, firemen, safe transport, etc., all of which are tax supported.
 
130Boldwin
      ID: 12554112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 14:36 		Boikin

Control.
 
131boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 14:44 		Among other things, corporations enjoy tax benefits by setting themselves up as corporations (separate from partnerships or other entities).

so we tax them in order to give then tax benefits, did that not seem a bit irrational when you typed that?

corporations are the ones receiving the benefits.

then I guess you have no problem with corporations give the right to vote or at least right to campaign for politicians?
 
132Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 19:02 		Corporations have a lot of the rights of citizens already. But not all citizens have all rights. I'll continue to think of corporations like convicted felons They have the right to speech, to work, and to petition their government about policies. But they can't vote.
 
133weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 20:48 		PD:

So are you suggesting the individuals and corporations should pay taxes based on the amount of government benefits they receive/consume?
 
134Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 21:00 		No, I'm saying that entities which consume government benefits are ethically bound to pay taxes. Put another way, assuming the ability to pay (that is, that benefits in question aren't the result of a social safety net) that both companies and individuals should pay taxes.

That's it. I'm not saying anything about rates or amounts. Only that companies should not escape taxation entirely, because they continue to enjoy the fruits of government benefits paid for by taxes.
 
135Boldwin
      ID: 14557416
      Sat, Jun 04, 2011, 18:11 		Here's the real lesson of taxes/GDP.

That ratio stays nearly the same no matter how punitive we make taxes.

Cooking the golden goose produces no new taxes, it just kills jobs and businesses.

That the ratio stays virtually the same is so invariant it's even been given a name. Hauser's Law.

What part of this phenomenon do liberals not get? How do we need to restate it before it sinks in?

No, raising taxes to infinity on political class enemies will not raise tax revenues or fix anything.

No Hauser's Law does not recommend raising taxes. Just the opposite. Empower individuals at all economic levels by keeping taxes low and fair for everyone.

Sticking it to rich guys and business may make you feel good [for whatever sick and twisted reason] but it doesn't help the poor people you put out of work. It doesn't help anyone.

A good lesson in a depression. Get real, face the facts.

Unfortunately the Dem meme for the next election cycle 'target the greed and unfairness', won't spend a moment looking at their own counterproductive powerlust.
 
136Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Jun 04, 2011, 18:29 		Raising tax rates to what they were in the 90's is "sticking it to the rich guys?"

Cutting taxes too much for those best able to pay them is, unfortunately, a right wing neuroses. A good lesson in a depression. Get real, face the facts. A lesson lost on the Right, who continue to believe that the best thing for a government to do is (1) cut more taxes for the wealthy and (2) reduce spending to a bare minimum.

It is as if facts don't matter to them anymore--only attitude.
 
137sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sat, Jun 04, 2011, 18:41 		My thoughts precisely PD as I read 135. I keep waiting, hoping, praying that one day, SOME day; the Right will indeed "face the facts". Capitalism, unfettered by regulation, puts HUGE sums into pockets of a very select few and deprives the majority of ANY life.

Look at late 1800s and early 1900s worker conditions, pay etc. The great republican experiment has been tried, and failed miserably. (slave labor conditions, unsafe working conditions, etc etc etc All because the bottom line was the SINGLE determining factor)
 
138Boldwin
      ID: 14557416
      Sat, Jun 04, 2011, 18:43 		The Reagan Revolution was a smashing success.
 
139Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sat, Jun 04, 2011, 21:42 		As usual, the Right is learning the wrong lessons from whatever success they might have had in the past.

Cafeteria Reaganists are unlikely to understand the contexts necessary to draw any conclusions to today's conditions.
 
140Boldwin
      ID: 14557416
      Sat, Jun 04, 2011, 22:35 		Success is when thirty years later your enemies feel they must claim to be better at your game and more faithful to you than your actual supporters.
 
141Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 00:05 		Who, exactly, is saying this? It is certainly a fact that Reagan would be called a RINO these days. This doesn't make it "your game" nor that somehow the Right is doing things the same way Reagan did.
 
142Boldwin
      ID: 14557416
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 01:16 		See
 
143weykool
      ID: 53446220
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 02:09 		Look at late 1800s and early 1900s worker conditions, pay etc. The great republican experiment has been tried, and failed miserably. (slave labor conditions, unsafe working conditions, etc etc etc All because the bottom line was the SINGLE determining factor)
And yet people from all over the world did everything they could to get to America in order to better their lives.
Why?
Because they were fleeing they same kind of government that you want to impose on the country today.
I will take the record of America with all of its imperfections over the USSR, China and Cuba any day of the week.
I feel sad for you that you choose ignore all the good in America and only focus on the bad.
 
144Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 10:00 		And yet people from all over the world did everything they could to get to America in order to better their lives.

Absolutely. And they did so, in no small part, because of worker guarantees in this country.

I fail to see why American exceptionalism has to exclude the many great things done by the Left over time.

Right or wrong, we're a great country, in no small part because the workers of this country made it so.
 
145Boldwin
      ID: 14557416
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 12:36 		It could have even better had workers not been prevented or discouraged in many cases by their unions and government from ambitious risk-taking and the potential for individual achievement and commensurate reward. In most cases american exceptionalism was achieved by those who operated outside those shackles.
 
146Boldwin
      ID: 14557416
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 12:55 		What leftist cocoon produced your business, PD?
 
147Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 14:14 		Still stuck in the 70s, eh?
 
148sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 14:19 		Peoples the world over WK, want to come here for the freedoms we offer and are guaranteed by our BoR.

Rights, which it quite frankly appears, THE right wants to take away from any/all who dare to disagree with their narrow positions.

The Evangelical Right will play a HUGE role, in naming the Rep Pres candidate. They claim to want "smaller, less intrusive" government. They ALSO want, the Fed Govt to intrude into the most intimate of personal affairs, and dictate who can/cant wed whom.

In short, the right wants smaller govt, until it means not having everyone follow your own narrow set of rules. Once someone, anyone else, wants to lead their independent lives, the Right wants to legislate away that other persons rights to do so.
 
149weykool
      ID: 53530517
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 22:40 		Sarge:
People for the most part are coming here for the economic opportunities.
My guess is most of them are not coming here for the chance to pay higher taxes that you advocate.

As for the rights being taken away by the boogie men on the right you sound like the political sage Cher.
Please name all the rights taken away by the right that you speak of.
If you want to talk about rights being taken away what about the rights of taxpayers who have more and more of their money being taken away.
The right to spend your money how you want to spend it is being taken away year after year to fund the social experiment foisted upon us by the left.
Money equals economic freedoms and the left's desire is to take away as much of our freedoms as possible.
 
150Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 23:04 		Taxes have fallen for virtually anyone making under $250,000 year, weykool.
 
151Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Sun, Jun 05, 2011, 23:38 		Please name all the rights taken away by the right that you speak of

Read the patriot act. Of course, the left is just as bad. Its not an issue of right or left wanting to take our rights. The only issue is how they want to take our rights away from us.
 
153Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 00:21 		Which rights, or what qualifies as a right.

Foreigners come here for all sorts of reasons. Included among them are the entitlements and provisions afforded by taxes they pay. Since we're using the term loosely, I'm quite sure that most undocumented aliens who live and work here would gladly exchange that status for the right to pay all applicable taxes.
 
154Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 08:50 		Since we're using the term loosely, I'm quite sure that most undocumented aliens who live and work here would gladly exchange that status for the right to pay all applicable taxes.

Whole different topic, but I doubt that MITH. If they'd gladly do it, then why don't they?

Maybe if we actually took away these 'rights' to undocumented illegal aliens there would be an incentive to pay taxes and become documented.

As long as my tax money is going to pay for people who come here illegally and suck up our resources I have the right to demand better/more responsible spending habits by our government.
 
155Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 09:22 		I was responding to the first sentence of #149.

I have to admit I'm quite shocked at the ignorance of someone I usually regard as a bright person who thinks it's as simple as just "becoming documented" like it's an afternoon spent in line at the DMV. If you aren't wealthy or highly educated it takes somewhere between years and never. The various processes are well beyond the means (financial, logistical, etc.) of most poor Latin Americans.

I'm sorry but the notion that any large portion of undocumented workers actually prefer not having green cards or current work visas is a doozy.
 
156Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 09:29 		The various processes are well beyond the means (financial, logistical, etc.) of most poor Latin Americans

And now we suddenly come back to the race issue. This isn't about Latin American or Mexican or Hispanic immigrant workers. I don't care if they're undocumented from Canada. This is about undocumented workers. Yes, its believed the majority of these are Latino. But if somebody is starting the process, even if it takes the process years, they're fine by me. The undocumented workers people talk about are those who come here and have no intention of joining the system.

I even include American citizens who duck out on their taxes. While they may not be 'undocumented illegals' the result is the same. Their work and their pay is undocumented and unaccounted for.

So don't presume to know that I don't understand the process or that I'm talking about a select racial group, either.

 
157Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 11:23 		Khahan you are embarrassingly clueless. That they would rather live and work here undocumented than be unable to keep their families unsafe and/or unfed does not mean that they wouldn't jump at the chance to do so in compliance with our immigration laws. Doing so and paying income taxes and receiving all of the associated benefits - chief among them being free from having to hide and always worry about getting caught and deported - would be a terrific option if they were ok with subjecting their families to the hardships of their home countries for the that long. The sad fact is that many people who try to get in through the front door simply never do.
 
158Frick
      ID: 5310541617
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 14:55 		I agree with MITH on this one. By starting the process to become legal, illegals run the risk of being deported. This is why the amnesty programs have been proposed. I'm sure there are plenty of illegals here who would like to change their status, but are afraid to due to the fact that it could result in their deportation.
 
159boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 16:02 		Doing so and paying income taxes this is only a guess but I bet that if you are coming to American to work at job that makes enough to pay income taxes you ability to get citizenship is much easier then those who are coming here to make minimum wage. I guess my point is that some people probably prefer the system the way it is since undocumented workers are paying into state taxes through taxes on sales, gas, cigarettes,...and not taking much out because of fear of deportation, While amnesty programs in the view of these people would only mean that these people would now qualify for benefits with out paying much more in taxes.
 
160weykool
      ID: 343561414
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 19:55 		ummm...they already qualify for benefits documented or not.
The biggest benefit is the free education for their kids.
In California it is "illegal" to deny a free education to the children of "illegals".
 
161Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jun 06, 2011, 21:34 		Some they do, yes. But educating kids is probably a benefit to all of us, I think.
 
162sarge33rd
      ID: 372291615
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 02:07 		The way our political right treats education/teachers PD; it is clear the right considers ewducation an expense and not an investment.
 
163Boldwin
      ID: 1353071
      Tue, Jun 07, 2011, 02:33 		The PC propaganda part is sure expensive.