Posted on 11/06/2002 1:39:57 PM PST by Tree of Liberty
Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!
Upper income class pays more tax in proportion to income than any other class.
As a group, they also pay a smaller portion of their wealth
Wealth is income earned and retained after taxes. They have paid far more in proportion to their income in aquiring that wealth than any other class. Your hyperbole merely points once again to the personal problem you have concerning what the rich do with their after tax income.
Even page three of this JCT Study you refer others to, and you base you distribution calculations on says otherwise:
and less than the benefits they receive.
benefits from government? benefits in proportion to tax they pay? Definitely not. Again from your own sources, those who receive the greater share of government largess in proportion to their incomes, the poor, pay the least in taxes:
This leaves the great in between middle class which receive:
Your own sources you rely on, disprove your statements and show your socialist agenda and ingenuousness for what it is.
Youre starting to use Technogeebs hyperbole. If you re-read my post I clearly state that I agree with you that the higher income groups pay more than disproportionately to their income. That is the only issue addressed by my own sources. I then go on to say, that the higher income groups also pay a smaller rate on their wealth. You respond:
Wealth is income earned and retained after taxes. They have paid far more in proportion to their income in aquiring that wealth than any other class.
While this is true, in no way does it negate what I said. You continue:
Your hyperbole merely points once again to the personal problem you have concerning what the rich do with their after tax income.
You identify the comment that the higher income groups pay a higher portion of their income and a lower portion of their wealth as hyperbole? How? It is a statement of fact that doesnt even include a judgment let alone a hyperbolic comment or judgment. I then go on to say that the wealthiest people receive the greatest benefit from government. This is an opinion not a statement of fact as you seem to think when you respond:
Definitely not. Again from your own sources, those who receive the greater share of government largess in proportion to their incomes, the poor, pay the least in taxes
My sources do not address the issue of who benefits from government. However, the most basic (and I would add, valuable) aspect of government services is the defense of life and property from both internal and external threat. Therefore, the more property one has to protect, the more he benefits. In a sentence, that is a primary basis for believing the wealthier classes do not pay for the value received.
Here's the proof in our discussion:
Technogeeb: There is nothing in the system to prevent an administration from increasing the default payout to every household to be equal to the average income of every citizen. 898
Zon: Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size." 900
Here's the paragraph (in red) that was sandwiched in between and is the paragraph Technogeeb dishonestly omitted in his intent to deceive the reader.
[ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer 68
Zon: There's the mechanism that prevents an administration from increasing the payout beyond the poverty level. 900
Technogeeb: It doesn't work. They can simply say the poverty level is $150,000. 901
You don't work. Your brain is steeped in irrationality and has rendered you ineffective. According to your "logic" they can do whatever they want. Thus they can do whatever they want with your preferred plan too. For with any plan you propose they can simply say the _______ (fill in the blank) level is __________ (fill in the blank). For example, they can simply say a 99% income tax will be withheld from all paychecks where the person's annual income level is $10,000 or more.
Ancient_Geezer to Deuce: Your own sources you rely on, disprove your statements and show your socialist agenda and ingenuousness for what it is. 902
That's how I see it too, as would any rational, honest person.
Deuce: I am interested in the distribution of tax burden. Most people are going to want to know this if this concept ever gets off the ground. Knowing that the tax burden is shifted downward, however much you welcome it, is not a feature likely to gain broad based popular appeal. 899
From what I can tell you have a collectivist groupthink mentality about it wherein you join the corralled group herded into thinking it is okay to sacrifice a portion of the individual's life-and-property rights to the supposed betterment of the group.
"Taxation is necessary to gain revenue but honest principle, integrity, honoring and protecting individual life-and-property rights are primary unit. All those in bold are violated when taxes are imposed greater on one group than another. It sacrifices a portion of the individual for the supposed betterment of the group. It is collectivist groupthink. Like voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil -- how so many people thinking they're right can be so wrong. Politics, and especially reflected in politics of taxation, suck. Politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in. Individual life-and-property rights are primary and must be protected, honored and respected -- not sacrificed." 888
Because I don't favor changing the distribution of the tax burden from what it is now to one which increases it for the middle class---the class to which, I, an individual belong? Connect the dots for me.
Here's an example of the flaw in your know it all, one size fits all big central government, rebate:
9-25-01
Study: Costs rising for average California families
By Leon Drouin Keith
Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The wages needed for the typical California family to meet basic costs total nearly three times the federal poverty level, according to a report released Monday by a non-profit research and advocacy group.
The study by the California Budget Project found that a family of four needs an income of $52,034 a year to earn a modest living -- a 16 percent increase from 1999, when the organization first studied how much it takes to make a living in the state.
The study found that the cost of living is rising faster than the state's average hourly wage, which went up 9.5 percent, from $11.96 in 1998 to $13.10 last year.
Raising two children is tough all around California, said Jean Ross, the project's executive director. Housing costs are sky-high in urban and coastal areas, but because wages are lower inland, "in a lot of respects it's a toss-up," Ross said.
Making ends meet is particularly hard for single parents. An adult raising two kids while working one 40-hour-a-week job would need to earn close to $21 an hour to cover the basics, the report found. That's well over triple the state's minimum wage of $6.25 an hour.
"There has to be some broader awareness that the minimum wage standards are utterly contemptible -- they're not just ridiculous," said Bob Untiedt, executive director of the Hollywood Interfaith Sponsoring Committee, a coalition of churches and a synagogue working to improve the living standards of their community.
Untiedt said that although wealthier people may think that families can get by on much less than the report suggests, doing so means coping with hardships including overcrowded, substandard housing, a lack of transportation and no medical care.
"There really is a lot of struggle in the lives of lots of ordinary people," he said.
The project used the latest available federal and state data to estimate how much families need to pay for housing, transportation, child care, food, taxes and other necessary expenses. It did not take into account this year's federal income tax cut because details on the newest tax tables were not available, Ross said.
The report assumed the families had housing cheaper than 60 percent of their region's rental properties, and that they enrolled in individual health care plans through Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross.
Although families in lower-cost housing or who have health care through employers or public programs would have lower expenses than the report indicates, there are other expenses that are not included, Ross said.
The study assumes that families rent their homes, do not send their children to private schools, are not saving money and aren't taking vacations, Ross said. "We don't even figure in two weeks at a state park," she said.
Ross said one thing federal officials could do quickly to ease the burden on families is to grant the state a waiver that would allow it to expand its "Healthy Families" program, which provides health care to children in families earning two and a half times the poverty level or less. The waiver would expand the program to the children's families.
So in effect, in your system, contrary to your promise of equality, the impoverished in Cal. for example would be subsidizing the impoverished in other states.
That system would be fair because?_________
Because I don't favor changing the distribution of the tax burden from what it is now to one which increases it for the middle class---the class to which, I, an individual belong? Connect the dots for me. Connect the dots for me.
Okay. The connected dots show your collectivist groupthink mentality is irrational. You seek to enlist government agents to initiate force against certain persons on your behalf. ...For government to force people with higher incomes than you to sacrifice a portion of their individual life-and-property rights so that you may reap the benefits.
Zon said twice to Deuce: "Taxation is necessary to gain revenue but honest principle, integrity, honoring and protecting individual life-and-property rights are primary unit. All those in bold are violated when taxes are imposed greater on one group than another. It sacrifices a portion of the individual for the supposed betterment of the group. It is collectivist groupthink. Like voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil -- how so many people thinking they're right can be so wrong. Politics, and especially reflected in politics of taxation, suck. Politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in. Individual life-and-property rights are primary and must be protected, honored and respected -- not sacrificed." 888, 905
Collectivist groupthink mentality is the rule of tribalism -- tyranny of a majority over the individual. It's a form of terrorism inflicted on the individual that if the individual doesn't bow to the tribe's irrationality, dishonesty and mysticism he or she will become the tribe's next victim. There in lies the underlying motive and cause of almost all politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream news media "personalities" and many academics: to undermine honesty.
Dishonesty, mysticism and irrationality are the problem/cancer that terrorize the little guy.
ancient_geezer to lewislynn: "Certainly, the choice to live in a high rent area as opposed to an area that has lower rents and lower taxes, is not a function of necessity. The HSS povertyline is the determinate. How you allocate your income by your choices of where you live or what you specifically buy is your own affair, as it should be." 796 ancient_geezer
Zon to lewislynn: "Lying Lewi, I've seen you on several tax threads going back years. I have no need or desire to engage "heathens" such as yourself. People that lie and are dishonest are not to be respected. For with their dishonest actions they disrespect others. Scorn. That's what you've earned and deserve. I doesn't always have to be that way. You could come clean and regain honor. I'm not holding my breath though." 826 Zon
You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You're a joke -- you're clueless.
bye
However, the most basic (and I would add, valuable) aspect of government services is the defense of life and property from both internal and external threat. Therefore, the more property one has to protect, the more he benefits. In a sentence, that is a primary basis for believing the wealthier classes do not pay for the value received.
As usual you try to substitute an absolute amount that is with without regard to proportion share for a proportionate measure. I would challenge you to provide statistical evidence if you are claiming that the high income groups are receiving more proportionately for their taxes paid than the low income groups receive in proportion to their taxes paid.
One might further ask which is of more value, life or property. If it is life, do you then imply a rich man's life is more valuable than that of the poor man's?
If you answer property is more valuable than life. I would submit the property of the low income group recieves far more protection in proportion to their tax payment than the high income groups receive in regard to theirs, and again challenge you to back up your claim with statistical evidence. Remember even the ownership of property of the low income groups is subsidized by the government in far greater proportion to their income than can possibly be construed for high income groups.
For evidence of this I refer you again to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics File you pointed out to me in your search for distribution of taxes by income for the year 2000,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2000/income.txt
and once again I bring your attention to the case of the less than $5,000, average income of $1,942 with an expenditure of $17,946 owning a $40,008 home.
Income | less than $5,000 |
5,000 to 9,999 |
10,000 to 14,999 |
15,000 to 19,999 |
20,000 to 29,999 |
30,000 to 39,999 |
40,000 to 49,999 |
50,000 to 59,999 |
greater than 60,000 |
|
Gross Income |
1,942 | 7,192 | 12,245 | 17,070 | 23,666 | 32,720 | 41,498 | 54,432 | 102,578 | |
Expenditure | 17,946 | 15,703 | 21,199 | 24,331 | 29,852 | 35,609 | 42,323 | 49,245 | 75,964 | |
Personal Taxes |
39 | 447 | 71 | 248 | 861 | 1,702 | 2,703 | 4,128 | 10,008 | |
OwnedHome Value |
$40,008 | $38,335 | $51,671 | $60,981 | $60,417 | $68,825 | 80,089 | 102,153 | 185,009 |
In a sentence, that is a primary basis for believing the wealthier classes do not pay for the value received.
Explain to us where the resources for $17,946 a year expenditure comes from, and receiving protection on a $40,008 home( for a group of persons receiving average $1,942 per year income.) paying $39 per year in taxes for that protection.
Tell us how the person in the less than $5,000 bracket above receives less proportionate benefit from government than the top income bracket of greater than $60,000 does paying $75,964 in taxes and receiving protection of his $185,009 home.
Who does not pay for value received? The low income group or the high income group?
Once again the information you have provided and use yourself contradict your reckless and unfounded assertions.
the same administration can modify the value of this calculation merely by changing the value of the poverty level. And since that requires nothing more than the secretary publishing the new value in the Federal Register, your system, once passed, allows a single individual (and an unelected one at that) the ability to convert the economy of the United States into a communistic one.
You have stepped beyond the bounds of any rational discussion.
I suggest you straighten your tinhat abit, them spycontrol waves are leaking in around the edges.
Might I suggest something abit more protective, in the way of shielding out them ray blasts from satellites, black helicopters, and secret CIA radio mind control weapons?
Complete protection in todays spy wave environment, includes portable grounding prod displayed with the full protection tinhat suit. Guaranteed protection against all forms of satellite and ground based emissions.
The review for publication in the Federal Register is extensive with public and congressional input required with presidential review authorization, a process established by statutory law, not the mere fiat of an individual. I would suggest you tone your rhetoric down before you make even more of a fool of yourself than you have already.
The system you are making your statements about is the current one in place and the NRST changes nothing about it. By your reasoning , the EITC of the income/payroll tax system should have already done under the control of liberal congresses and presidents across the last 40 years, what you claim the NRST will do to the nation with an FCA.
The reasoning is flawed in concept as well as being the grossest sort of hyperbole.
We have a hard enough time fighting with socialists and liberals among us. To turn on each other for over the perfect method or approach to restoring constitutionally constrained government with accountability to the individual is insanity, and accomplishes more for the status quo proponents and socialists than it provides toward finding solutions, for the real problems in front of us.
I would suggest you both cool off for abit and approach your issues with abit less heat and more clearity of the reason instead of blinding emotional attachment to your own particular personal views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.