[jlisenbe]

You don't listen or perhaps you don't understand. I said that superannuation income wasn't taxed

Oh!! So you're living on a fat pension and not having to pay taxes on it? Well no wonder you love the Aussie tax plan. You get the benefits without the costs.

Can you not understand? I don't really care what your country does. I care about what our country does, and I'd like to see us shrink our military and tell other countries, including yours, that if they want a defense alliance with us, they need to get off their duffs and provide for their own defense.

And for hopefully the last time, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SPEND ON YOUR MILITARY! I just care about what we spend on our military. Insisting? Not at all. It's like I said. You can become South China if you want to. Spend zero if you want to. Just don't call on us for help.

[talaniman]

What an outrageous right wing rant. Having a foreign base is an asset for us that belies the dollar shortfall.

[paraclete]

yes tal there is no middle ground with jl, what he doesn't realise is that many consider the US military expenditure excessive but when you are in the grip of the military industrial complex how else are you going to spend your money? Instead of berating us for maintaining an appropriate military which, after all, is a defense not offense force he should focus on real issues like US underspending on health

[jlisenbe]

What an outrageous right wing rant. Having a foreign base is an asset for us that belies the dollar shortfall.

Anything you don't understand automatically becomes a "right wing rant".

Clete, as usual, sitting thousands of miles away, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[paraclete]

Anything you don't understand automatically becomes a "right wing rant".

Clete, as usual, sitting thousands of miles away, you have no idea what you're talking about.

No, Jl, living thousands of miles away means I can view matters with a perspective not apparent to those sitting on top of the problem

[jlisenbe]

Now if you can just start having a little knowledge, you'll be dangerous.

[talaniman]

Anything you don't understand automatically becomes a "right wing rant".

The right wing has been ranting the same things you have for a long time so nothing to understand. That's what you do.

[Athos]

For the five hundredth time. The top 20% of income earners in the U.S. pay about 85% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay about 3%.

This is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. It's shameless but effective propaganda, which is why the right wing spreads it widely.

First, these numbers refer only to federal income taxes. The income tax is not the only tax collected by the federal government. There are several others including excise tax, inheritance tax, and the payroll tax. About a third come from payroll taxes which fall much more heavily on working people since they are collected only on the first $130,000 of earned income.

This means the rich pay a far lower tax rate than ordinary people. A $50,000 a year salary pays (counting both the employee and employer side) 12.4 per cent in OASDI taxes – Social Security and disability insurance. But a very wealthy person making a thousand times that or $50 million a year pays only on the initial $130,000 income which comes to an OASDI rate of 0.03 per cent. Since these taxes are only on earned income, a billionaire receiving $50 million for dividends and capital gains pays ZERO per cent.

There are also many state and local taxes. State income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and more. Some of these – sales taxes – are actually regressive. Since these are flat taxes, they take a higher percentage of income from the poor than the rich. The lower-income you are the higher the tax rate you pay compared to the higher-income.

The wealthy naturally pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes because they make a disproportionate share of the nation's income. To some degree, this demonstrates precisely the opposite of what the propagandists claim. They're hardly an indication that the rich are paying more than their share, but are a sign of America's staggering wealth inequality.

The top 1% have annual income (average about $2 million) that is about 140 times greater than the bottom 20% (average about $14,000). Yet, the bottom 20 pay 22.2% of ALL taxes paid and the top 1% pay 33.7% of ALL taxes paid. This equals a whopping 60% paid by the bottom compared to the top. In other words, for every dollar the top 1% pay in taxes, the bottom 20% pay SIXTY CENTS! For every dollar of income to the top 1%, the bottom 20% receive less than ONE PENNY! Hardly tax justice.

Isolating federal income tax from all taxes to show a false picture is not the way to Tax Justice.

[jlisenbe]

First, these numbers refer only to federal income taxes.

No one has said otherwise. I was responding to a comment made to the effect that federal income tax policies were supposedly being slanted to favor the rich.

inheritance tax, and the payroll tax

Who do you think pays inheritance taxes, welfare recipients? As to the payroll tax, it is one that the wealthy are forced to pay when they really don't need it, so your point is still unsupported.

A $50,000 a year salary pays (counting both the employee and employer side) 12.4 per cent in OASDI taxes – Social Security and disability insurance. But a very wealthy person making a thousand times that or $50 million a year pays only on the initial $130,000 income which comes to an OASDI rate of 0.03 per cent.

Thank you for making my point for me. The wealthy man in your example will pay nearly 3X more in payroll taxes since he is paying in on nearly 3X greater income base. And that is really not a tax as much as it is a state managed retirement program. You pay in, and then you get to take out. So your point STILL unsupported.

As to the other taxes you mentioned, the wealthy pay much more in sales taxes and property taxes than do lower income people since they spend much more and they own much more valuable properties.

The top 1% have annual income (average about $2 million) that is about 140 times greater than the bottom 20% (average about $14,000). Yet, the bottom 20 pay 22.2% of ALL taxes paid and the top 1% pay 33.7% of ALL taxes paid. This equals a whopping 60% paid by the bottom compared to the top. In other words, for every dollar the top 1% pay in taxes, the bottom 20% pay SIXTY CENTS! For every dollar of income to the top 1%, the bottom 20% receive less than ONE PENNY! Hardly tax justice.

Where is your documentation for this? I'd just like to take a look at it, but right away I can see that part of the issue is simply due to numbers. You are comparing the bottom 20% to the top 1% which is automatically dishonest since the bottom 20% will have something on the order of 2,000% more people in it. I want to see how it looks when we compare the bottom 20% to the top 20% which is how it should be done. Otherwise, you are comparing a very large number of people to a very small number of people.

The approach of liberals is to penalize the wealthy in order to help poor people, a group which the average liberal does nothing for on a personal basis. Tax policy allows liberal people to feel morally superior on the basis of having such great concern for poor people that they are willing to force other people to help them.

If you want to help poor people, then let's all join together in calling for the re-establishment of the two parent family and a complete reworking of the educational system to give poor kids a shot at a good education.

[paraclete]

Now if you can just start having a little knowledge, you'll be dangerous.

The same can be said of you

[jlisenbe]

Might want to try an original statement at some point, but I do appreciate the compliment of being copied.

[paraclete]

Just reflecting or is it deflecting

[Athos]

I was responding to a comment made to the effect that federal income tax policies were supposedly being slanted to favor the rich.

They do favor the rich. Keep reading.

The wealthy man in your example will pay nearly 3X more in payroll taxes since he is paying in on nearly 3X greater income base.

You misread the example. Whether 3X, 5X or 10X, the payroll tax has a ceiling which results in lower income paying a much larger percentage of income than the wealthy man.

And that is really not a tax as much as it is a state managed retirement program.

No, it IS a tax. No one denies that.

As to the other taxes you mentioned, the wealthy pay much more in sales taxes and property taxes than do lower income people since they spend much more and they own much more valuable properties.

The rate is the same resulting in the lower income paying a substantially higher percentage of their income while the rich pay a much smaller amount of their income. It's becoming apparent you are not understanding the effect of regressive taxes on the incomes of the poor and the rich.

Where is your documentation for this?

https://itep.org/who-pays-taxes-in-america-in-2019/

See the chart at the bottom of the article.

I'd just like to take a look at it, but right away I can see that part of the issue is simply due to numbers. You are comparing the bottom 20% to the top 1% which is automatically dishonest since the bottom 20% will have something on the order of 2,000% more people in it. I want to see how it looks when we compare the bottom 20% to the top 20% which is how it should be done. Otherwise, you are comparing a very large number of people to a very small number of people.

This argument is meaningless. See the chart where all 5 quintiles are compared. Your comment about a disparity in numbers between the wealthy and the low income is a proof of the unfairness of the tax system.

The approach of liberals is to penalize the wealthy in order to help poor people, a group which the average liberal does nothing for on a personal basis. Tax policy allows liberal people to feel morally superior on the basis of having such great concern for poor people that they are willing to force other people to help them.

Where is your documentation?

If you want to help poor people, then let's all join together in calling for the re-establishment of the two parent family and a complete reworking of the educational system to give poor kids a shot at a good education.

There is much that can be done for poor people. Tax Justice is a major step in that direction since it reveals the basic unfairness of the tax system and that it needs to be corrected for it to be fair to everybody.

When the poor have their just share of the fruits of the society which they have made a major role in creating, many of the problems will disappear. Then liberal and conservative can work on what's left - problems of both rich and poor - to form a more perfect union.

[paraclete]

T



This argument is meaningless. See the chart where all 5 quintiles are compared. Your comment about a disparity in numbers between the wealthy and the low income is a proof of the unfairness of the tax system.

Athos, logic is lost on someone like Jl, he has a religious belief in pelican rhetoric

There is much that can be done for poor people. Tax Justice is a major step in that direction since it reveals the basic unfairness of the tax system and that it needs to be corrected for it to be fair to everybody.

When the poor have their just share of the fruits of the society which they have made a major role in creating, many of the problems will disappear. Then liberal and conservative can work on what's left - problems of both rich and poor - to form a more perfect union.

Jl believes that the truth that the poor are always with us is an invitation to ignore them but Jesus also told the rich to give to the poor and that 2,000 year old injunction tell us much about the condition of the human heart. All taxation is unfair but as you say, the impact is greater on the poor, something that JL ignores. This is an imperfect society where greed rules, in some places its impact are greater than in others but nowhere is the impact more obvious in the divide between rich and poor than in a society that doesn't recognise its flaws

[jlisenbe]

You misread the example. Whether 3X, 5X or 10X, the payroll tax has a ceiling which results in lower income paying a much larger percentage of income than the wealthy man.

You don't understand Social Security. It is not one of your beloved welfare programs. It is a retirement program. People are paying in to provide for their own, individual retirement. The fact that the wealthy have to pay in at all is a negative for them since they have no need for SS income.

The rate is the same resulting in the lower income paying a substantially higher percentage of their income while the rich pay a much smaller amount of their income. It's becoming apparent you are not understanding the effect of regressive taxes on the incomes of the poor and the rich.

It's becoming apparent that you don't understand simple math. When a wealthy person pays in 20X more in property tax than a poor person does, that means he has paid in 20X more money. It is not necessarily true that it represents a smaller percentage of that person's income.

This argument is meaningless. See the chart where all 5 quintiles are compared. Your comment about a disparity in numbers between the wealthy and the low income is a proof of the unfairness of the tax system.

The numbers reference was your comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20%. Might want to add that even your charts show that the top income earners pay a higher percentage of income tax than they earn income.

There is much that can be done for poor people. Tax Justice is a major step in that direction since it reveals the basic unfairness of the tax system and that it needs to be corrected for it to be fair to everybody. When the poor have their just share of the fruits of the society which they have made a major role in creating, many of the problems will disappear. Then liberal and conservative can work on what's left - problems of both rich and poor - to form a more perfect union.

You can call for tax justice all you want, but it cannot come in fed income tax where the top 20% pay more than 85% of taxes while the lower 50% pay 3% or so. It cannot come in inheritance taxes for obvious reasons. Property and sales taxes are not the responsibility of the feds, so you'll have to work on the state level on that.

As to how to help the poor, my two suggestions are the way to go. Our state sales tax is 7%. If you cut that in half, it would mean a few hundred dollars a year extra for the poor. That does not solve the problem. The problem is centered in family structure and educational results. It is much better to help poor people develop solid incomes than it is to simply force others to give them money. It has to do with self respect.

Jl believes that the truth that the poor are always with us is an invitation to ignore them but Jesus also told the rich to give to the poor and that 2,000 year old injunction tell us much about the condition of the human heart

First of all, you are lying again in trying to describe what I believe. I have never, ever suggested to ignore the poor, so your description is not accurate and completely stupid. Secondly, Jesus never commanded the government to force wealthy people (or anyone else) to give money to the government for poor people. That idea is found nowhere in the Bible.

[paraclete]

You don't understand Social Security. It is not one of your beloved welfare programs. It is a retirement program. People are paying in to provide for their own, individual retirement. The fact that the wealthy have to pay in at all is a negative for them since they have no need for SS income.

a spirious response, noone knows whether they will have wealth when it comes time to retire, to presume that because you are wealthy at some point things will always be that way is rediculous

It's becoming apparent that you don't understand simple math. When a wealthy person pays in 20X more in property tax than a poor person does, that means he has paid in 20X more money. It is not necessarily true that it represents a smaller percentage of that person's income.

or a larger percentage again a spirious argument

The numbers reference was your comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20%. Might want to add that even your charts show that the top income earners pay a higher percentage of income tax than they earn income.

You can call for tax justice all you want, but it cannot come in fed income tax where the top 20% pay more than 85% of taxes while the lower 50% pay 3% or so. It cannot come in inheritance taxes for obvious reasons. Property and sales taxes are not the responsibility of the feds, so you'll have to work on the state level on that.

The tax system is exactly that, a system. Where I come from we have a saying; the idea is extract the most wool with the minimum of bleeting. Who bleets the most, the rich, the poor just grin and bear it because they have no choice

As to how to help the poor, my two suggestions are the way to go. Our state sales tax is 7%. If you cut that in half, it would mean a few hundred dollars a year extra for the poor. That does not solve the problem. The problem is centered in family structure and educational results.

So the nub of it is poor people make themselves poor

First of all, you are lying again in trying to describe what I believe. I have never, ever suggested to ignore the poor, so your description is not accurate and completely stupid. Secondly, Jesus never commanded the government to force wealthy people (or anyone else) to give money to the government for poor people. That idea is found nowhere in the Bible.

I don't tell lies, I express an opinion. My opinion differs from yours, this is obvious, but you reflect a certain opinion which suggests the poor should be taxed more so the rich can be taxed less. You have twisted my statement, I too could call it a lie, but I will be generous. My reference was to the rich man who would not give up his riches even to walk with Jesus. Jesus made only one pertinent reference to government and taxes, and he said nothing about bleeting about the quantum

[Athos]

Jlisenbe: First of all, you are lying again in trying to describe what I believe

(The above quote from Jl was directed at Paraclete.)

Paraclete has answered your reply as well as anyone, so I won't repeat what he so effectively said. Calling him a liar does not help your case at all. It just lessens whatever limited credibility you may have had. WG has warned you many times about that nasty habit of yours but you don't seem able to control it.

Some of your comments were so weird, I'll note them here.

You don't understand Social Security. It is not one of your beloved welfare programs.

The reader can see this and make his own decision about your inaccurate and mean-spirited reply. You did not address the point that was made. When in doubt, insult is not a replacement for a rational disagreement which you don't possess.

The numbers reference was your comparison of the top 1% to the bottom 20%. Might want to add that even your charts show that the top income earners pay a higher percentage of income tax than they earn income.

No one is denying there is a progressive income tax. Otherwise, your thought is muddled. You might want to rephrase it so your meaning gets un-muddled.

It is much better to help poor people develop solid incomes

That is the first clear thing you've said. If you truly agree with helping poor people develop solid incomes, then you should be on the side of Tax Justice. That would go a long way to fairly balancing taxes that help the poor develop solid incomes.

Jesus never commanded the government to force wealthy people (or anyone else) to give money to the government for poor people. That idea is found nowhere in the bible.

What an incredibly disgraceful way to characterize the words of Jesus. Jesus' commandment was about loving the poor expressed in parables. How that is done, he left to the people. The best way economically is a fair tax system.

Your statement that the idea is found nowhere in the Bible is too preposterous to address.

[paraclete]

I don't know why we bother refuting his ridiculous arguments, as I said earlier he has a religious pelican belief, what that means is the pelican is a bird whose beak holds more than his belly can, He obviously believes the rich should keep what they catch, so arguing that taxing the rich more than the poor is ridiculous, as ridiculous as the idea of a flat rate income tax. What does work is a flat rate consumption tax but again Jl would complain the rich pay more than the poor

[jlisenbe]

Calling him a liar does not help your case at all. It just lessens whatever limited credibility you may have had. WG has warned you many times about that nasty habit of yours but you don't seem able to control it.

I did not call him a liar. I said he was lying because...he was lying. WG doesn't get to tell me not to be honest with people.

There is so much to respond to, I'll try and make it simple.

1. Don't know what a "spirious" response is. I suppose you meant "spurious". To force a wealthy person to contribute to a retirement program he would otherwise not choose to contribute to is hardly spurious.

2. Tell me why I shouldn't think that you find the Aussie system to be great because it does not require you to contribute so much as a penny. Am I wrong in thinking that?

3. When you say that I believe we should ignore the poor, you are lying. That is a fact. You would be much better served to own up to your mistake. If you had done that, then perhaps you were just over-exuberant in expressing your "opinion". That you won't do that raises eyebrows.

4. Some poor people make good decisions and become better off and even wealthy such as Dr. Carson. Some poor people make bad decisions and stay poor. We should encourage everyone to make good decisions. I would think that would be the most startlingly obvious truth imaginable.

5. My comment on Social Security was entirely accurate. You sometimes confuse inaccuracy with you disliking the truth.

6. My comment about what Jesus said was 100% accurate. He never commanded the government to operate a welfare system. As to what the Bible says, if you know how to refute what I said, then do it. Otherwise, it certainly appears to be the complaining of a man who knows he has no answers.

7. Clete, if you can refute an argument, then have at it. I haven't seen that you can. The rich are taxed more than the poor. It is a fact. I have not complained about that. I have presented that as clear, objective evidence that our income tax system does not favor the rich as others have suggested.

8. A flat rate consumption tax is something I would consider. Most of the flat rate income tax plans I have seen have provisions built in to protect the poor. They have the enormous benefit of not allowing the wealthy to pay no taxes at all as all of you constantly complain about, as well you should. That was, by the way, the "tax policy" of the Old Testament. However it's done, my major concerns are to have a balanced budget and not destroy the economy in the process.

9. The most disgusting comment a person can make is this. "His arguments are too foolish to refute." I have found that people who have no answers love to say that to cover up their lack of knowledge. I think your real problem is that you simply don't like the truth, but if you have good answers, then bring them forward. I would suggest you abandon the "too foolish to refute" approach. You are fooling no one other than, perhaps, yourselves.

[tomder55]

To force a wealthy person to contribute to a retirement program he would otherwise not choose to contribute to is hardly spurious.

Going to get worse . They plan on means testing distributions

My comment about what Jesus said was 100% accurate. He never commanded the government to operate a welfare system.

That is accurate . If anything the rule of law was the primary function of government mentioned in the Bible ..