| Author | Message | ||
     sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 958 Registered: 10-2001 |
With all the recent discussions about the state of our taxing systems (property, income and SS)and the expected response of the die-hard liberals on this board to constantly increase taxes on the "wealthy" I was wondering how much is considered enough in taxes? If you add up all the major taxes we pay each year (federal, state, property, ss, medicare and significant sales taxes) and divide by your AGI what is a fair number? And if you don't think that "wealthy" people pay enough how would you determine how much they should pay? At what levels do you start to impose your progressive tax structure? Would your structure be indexed by geographic region? FWIW, I compared my tax return to a college buddy of mine. In total I paid approximately 38% of my AGI in taxes (even more if you include the 5K of sales tax I paid on vehicles purchased this year). My buddy earns 3 times what my wife and I earn and he pays (exclusive of sales taxes)approximately 40% of his AGI in taxes. Together we paid over $300K in taxes in 2003. Are we doing well? Yes. Are we paying enough in taxes? IMO, definitely. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 959 Registered: 10-2001 |
I was being serious. | ||
| jet Citizen Username: Jet Post Number: 384 Registered: 7-2001 |
Hows the Porsche ? | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 960 Registered: 10-2001 |
It's just fine. Thanks for asking. But that goes to the question at hand doesn't it? Why does owning one preclude me from the argument? Would I be precluded from the argument because I am paying for my step-son's college education as well (roughly equal to the cost of the car)? There appears to be a prevailing thought that wealth should be evenly distributed, I disagree. The argument that I presented is that we pay enough in taxes, whether they are income, property or payroll taxes what we should be focusing on is spending. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2285 Registered: 1-2003  |
We try to have goals for society that we all agree on. We can't reach that, but we can and do aim for that. Once we settle on the goals, we think about how to achieve them. Roads, schools, military, etc are some of the things we agree to have. Then we have to figure out how to pay for them. Basically, you take a piece of each person's income (or assets or a combination of income and assets) to achieve those goals of the common good. Having that piece taken away for someone (everyone) else's good is the price you pay for living in a society. I assume you agree up to this point. As for how to decide if the people at the top are being taxed enough, perhaps we should look at the people at the top and the bottom and ask if each has enough. If the top has more than enough and the bottom doesn't, we need an adjustment. If we can make that adjustment by raising taxes on those at the top without taking away their incentive for working harder, then a tax increase makes sense. As for the middle, that's left to extrapolation and interpolation. Of course, I've seen that argument that taxes can reduce or eliminate the incentive to earn, and I've never seen any evidence of it. It's not about where you are, it's about where you're going. In math terms, it's not where you are on the curve, it's about the slope of the curve. So saying 38% is too much or too little is fairly meaningless. I prefer to ask if it is getting us towards our goals as a society. There are times to lower taxes and times to raise them. You might point out that taxes generally go up, not down. True, and it is dismaying on the surface. But when you consider how our standard of living continues to go up, as it has over centuries, perhaps our level of taxation is an indication of our wealth. To extrapolate from that, the better the standard of living gets (for the middle?), the more appropriate it is to have a higher level of taxation for most of society. Just a theory that popped to mind. Now, of course the counterargument is that organizations, especially governments, exist primarily to perpetuate their own existence. They will spend money to the extent that they have it. This is true! Therefore, it might be appropriate and not schizophrenic for our society to have alternating waves of liberal spenders and fiscal conservatives running our government, to keep each trend in check. The weird thing about Bush is that this deficit spending isn't investing in our economy nor to help the less fortunate, so he really fits into neither traditional camp. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 961 Registered: 10-2001 |
"It's not about where you are, it's about where you're going. In math terms, it's not where you are on the curve, it's about the slope of the curve. So saying 38% is too much or too little is fairly meaningless." Without an objective "line in the sand" your reasoning would never place limits on spending. What I am saying is that what we pay should be enough to get us to our goals and then some. That it isn't should be telling. Spending is way out of line. Also, your argument boils down to a redistribution of wealth. Taken to its extreme you could argue that people making 100K per year should pay no tax and everyone making more should shoulder the burden. Additionally, we have the age old argument as to who gets to decide what is enough. You could also make the argument that a person earning 100M could pay 99% of their income in tax and still have enough. Is that fair? Generally, I am supportive of Bush and his policies. If you believe in what he is doing (i.e. the War in Iraq) then you believe that he is investing in our future which in turn will benefit our economy which will help the less fortunate and so on. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 447 Registered: 9-2003  |
I kind of prefer consumption taxes, sales taxes etc. If you make $100K, but prefer to to live modestly, you'd only get taxed as you consume. If you live to the limit, then you get taxed a lot. Always seemed to me fairer, and got away from taxing wealth... | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 1000 Registered: 6-2001 |
Problem with that Cynicalgirl is that people who make less will be paying taxes on a greater % of their earnings because they spend a greater % of their income on food, shelter, clothing. This would be a very regressive form of taxation. | ||
| Habanero2 Citizen Username: Habanero2 Post Number: 33 Registered: 12-2003 |
The tax exemption for mortgage interest makes a fairer tax system difficult to implement. A flat tax would work but it would require a change in real estate interest exemption. Not sure how that would be done especially since most Americans have the majority of their net worth tied up in their house. Term limits would help the situation because then politicians would do what is right as opposed to what will get the elected. Also balanced budget amendments are key. Surpluses should be returned or put in escrow. Without term limits (1 term) then we get Bush who will spend like Ted Kennedy to get re-elected (the Medicare Drug Benefit is the identical plan that Kennedy proposed in 1998 - almost no changes). "You kids today have it easy. When I was a kid everything was HUGE. My dad was nearly four times bigger than me. You couldn't even see the tops of counters.... Then gradually everything became smaller until it was the manageable size it is today." | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 962 Registered: 10-2001 |
Jet - just curious about your car comment. Assume that the car costs me roughly 11K per year. Also, assume that I pay 10K in property taxes. Now take someone who pays 21K in property taxes. The two scenarios are only different in what we choose to spend our money on. | ||
| johnny Citizen Username: Johnny Post Number: 836 Registered: 5-2001 |
Didn't Sportnut's tax bracket get the largest federal income tax reduction from Bush? | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 963 Registered: 10-2001 |
The latter portion of my income was taxed at 33% rather than 35%. A two percent reduction - probably no different from yours. I saved $2500 in federal tax as a result of the cuts. Not exactly what I would consider a huge amount. Not bad but not life altering. Go to http://www.turbotax.com/calculators/lawchange/notemplates/ to figure how much you saved. | ||
| luv2cruise Citizen Username: Luv2cruise Post Number: 164 Registered: 12-2002 |
Do we really care? I think sportsnut just likes everyone to know he and his wife are wealthy. I'm so jealous I could die!!!!  There's nothing like being on the ocean! | ||
| thegoodsgt Citizen Username: Thegoodsgt Post Number: 397 Registered: 2-2002 |
"I prefer to ask if it is getting us towards our goals as a society." That's a really good point that I hadn't considered, that taxes are a way of moving our society forward, not simply for paying for immediate services such as roads, schools, etc. But it still raises the question, how much is too much. One could tax the rich (let's say, those earning more than $1 million per year) at 75 percent, which would allow us to fund very progressive programs for the disadvantaged. But is 75 percent too much? If it is, what about 60 percent? Is that fair? | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 2020 Registered: 5-2001  |
luv2 - were you able to go back to sleep? thegoodsgt - progressive programs for the disadvantaged? What are we, a socialist country? | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2288 Registered: 1-2003 |
ffof, every country is socialist to varying degrees. We happen not to call ourselves one, but we have socialist programs all over. The countries that call themselves socialist are not purely socialist, either. It's a continuum. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| thegoodsgt Citizen Username: Thegoodsgt Post Number: 398 Registered: 2-2002 |
By disadvantaged, I was thinking about the unemployed, seniors who need housing assistance, the mentally ill who require state assistance, federally insured loans, etc. I'm not referring to people who are able to work but refuse to. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4839 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sports is the only person I know who is going to complain about paying $5,000 in sales taxes, and poor mouthing about it, for buying $60,000 to $70,000 worth of cars.  | ||
| amandacat Citizen Username: Amandacat Post Number: 378 Registered: 8-2001  |
Sportsnut, just an observation: to you, a tax savings of $2500 a year is "not exactly what I would consider a huge amount. Not bad but not life altering", but to someone making far less you do, that amount could very well be life altering. And that is why a progressive system of income taxation makes sense. | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 964 Registered: 10-2001 |
bobk - that's why I excluded it from my original calculation as it related to purely discretionary spending. But to be honest that's about the only portion of my tax liability that I didn't "poor mouth." But hey you know all about those kinds of sales taxes don't you. Aren't you a hummer owner. |
