Clint Eastwood endorses Romney

I only throw in sales tax gas tax etc so save me from your gotcha moment when you brow beat me into admitting that not only do they pay payroll taxes but they pay taxes of other forms to the state and local government. It was actually a concession to you but if you are willingto dismiss it and talk only about payroll and income taxes then so am I.

Approx half of federal tax revenue comes from individual income taxes right? So that's not an insignificant amount of money. You continue to believe that any one who does bring up incomel taxes is being deceptive, using talking point etc. Maybe people
don't really think that these taxes are unfair. If that's the case then why include it? I think you chose to insist that any discussion of income taxes also include payroll taxes simply because it softens the numbers. True but does warde the fact that that nearly half of Americans don't pay income tax. When you are talk about approximately have of the government tax income I think its legitimate to have that discussion alone. Now if we are to say those people don't pay any taxes at all you are more than right payroll taxes need to discussed.
Since income tax alone makes up he biggest part of government tax revenue by far, I think other than softening the discrepancy between the upper 50% of wage earners and the lower 50% the main reason that payroll taxes NEEDS to be included when some talks income tax is because they don't believe payroll taxes (or other non income based taxes) are fair. In other words its ok that the upper 50% pays nearly all of individual income taxes becase the bottom 50% are taxed disproportionately by other taxes which in many cases are regressive. I don't agree with that. I think everyone should pay the same amount for sales tax, everyone should pay the same percentage for ss and Rica and I agree that beyond a certain point the should be capped. This is especially true with ss since that upper wage earner is unlikely to ever see that money that hes paid.in for decades.
I hope you'll take me at my word when I ask your opinion in a nonconfrontational way(ie I'm not trying to change the subject or stir the pot) but what is your opinion of the various forms of taxes? Which ones are being done right which ones are being done poorly? Is there a need for tax reform(remember the BO agrees that tax reform is needed although I'm sure that his idea of tax reform is very different that eastwoods)?

Ive read many a discussion about the unfairness of income tax (unfair both ways) but far far less about the unfairness of payroll taxes (even from the soak the risk side) which leads me to believe that the majority don't see a problem with the way its implimented. I also don't believe that because tax A, B, and C are fair that we cant have a discussion about tax D which again is the major tax for many of us. I can already see that you are unlikely to engage in discussion of income tax alone without bringing along payroll tax too (even if we can both agree that its not unfairly being implimented - or perhaps you don't agree hence the question above) so perhaps we are at an impass.

Thanks
 
Dheimann: I suppose that you could say that, but you would be wrong. Again. Income taxes are about 42% of revenues, Payroll taxes about 40%. (not precise: 6% is undesignated in my source) Keep trying. I'm sure you can find some equally strained formulation that will allow you to continue the "50% don't pull their weight!" narrative. Hey, I have an idea! Throw in Corporate taxes. After all, corporations are people too, my friend.
The Link
 
Ah yes, again twisting the discussion of income tax revenues back into the more global and more easily defensible argument against "they don't pay anything " which again has never been my point (remember you took me at my word that my 50% figure was in reference to income tax earlier so you cant keep going back to "you meant they don't pay anything "). But again we 've already agreed on that point. I think that the percentage of federal tax revenue that comes from payroll tax is closer to 34% (not 40%). That 34% number is the number used by the whitehouse on their website.

The cbo agrees with you. The 50% number is rubbish. The number they use is 47% of house holds pay no INCOME TAX. (Ill give you a pass on rounding up your number if you give me a pass on rounding up mine - this is just a joke.) Your point seems to be that those 47% pay a substantial amount in payroll taxes right?

The Link

This article which ironically is trying to make your point, suggest that many of those that pay no income tax also pay no payroll tax. The number they use is more than 2/3 do pay which I assume means 1/3 don't pay payroll taxes and they go to say that many of those that do pay get tax credits to equal what they've paid in. So if this article is true there are many in the lower 47% who are effectively not paying payroll tax or are having their contributions offset by tax rebates. To use their numbers 69 million households effectively pay no federal income tax. Of that 69 million, 20 million also dont pay payroll taxes and another 15 million are rebated as much as they paid in. Now to me these number might be questionable. I didnt confirm their numbers with another source but if they are right, only slightly less than half of those not paying income tax are actually paying payroll tax.
Btw You ought to check out the whitehouse 's website. I think they stole your talking points.

Frankly the Jenna Jamison endorsement was more stimulating discussion.
 
Just so we're clear...

Romney plans to raise taxes for some notable portion of the middle class when he fights for a tax overhaul? Is that his platform or just math?
 
That’s a tough question, Sip(addressing your second to last post...haven't read your latest yet. I will). I think that the social security and medicare taxes are just taxes. They are not in a lockbox, they are not earmarked for benefits, and you do not "get back the money you paid" when you start drawing ss or medicare.

This fiction is engaged in equally by Democrats and Republicans when it suits their purposes, and it is eagerly seized upon by the elderly, who see everyone else who gets benefits as living off the government tit, "but they paid for theirs". All tax money goes to the same general revenue funds, and used to pay the obligations of the US, including ss and medicare. Future taxpayers will pay your social security benefits, just as I am paying the benefits for current recipients.

I am ok with that. In the years when they ran a surplus, this was great. During the coming/already hitting baby boom lump in the snake, this will be a problem.

Income taxes and payroll taxes are separately provided for in the tax code (in part) to facilitate application of these reductions to income tax, and to facilitate collection of the employer's contribution to payroll taxes (I think the calculation is different for medicare and ss), but the distinction between payroll and income taxes is largely an artifact of accounting requirements - taxes are taxes.

I think great mischief has transpired as a result of pretending that these taxes are not taxes to pay obligations of the government, but a trust fund. The Democrats are primarily responsible for the popularity of this fiction. Rather than defend the social security system on its merits, they scream "lockbox." Of course they also engage in this fiction, in part, to defend against screams from the Republicans of "socialism!”

Because of how I view those taxes, you are right. I don’t like to discuss income tax rates in isolation from payroll taxes, because they are not paid in isolation. But I get your point, so I'll try. If I were to revamp the system, my changes would not be very popular. I'm on the fence about removing the payroll tax cap. On FIT, I would make all income subject to the same tax rates, including capital gains. I would, however, define capital gains income to exclude gains due to inflation (warning: this opens a pandora’s box of creditable claims of other incomes and deductions that should arguably be inflation adjusted, such as real versus nominal interest payment deductions. Full adjustment of the code for inflation is an impossible task. I just think it’s justified for capital gains, new market distortions notwithstanding-but I could be wrong. This also complicates tax calculation immensely. So much for simplification.).

I think most exemptions and deductions designed to influence behavior are a bad idea, though we are irretrievably addicted to many of them (e.g.- home mortgage deduction, active/passive interest special rules for Oil & Gas drillers, intangible drilling cost and intangible drilling cost exemptions, and a passel of other O&G special benefits, the entire tax benefit structure that created a wind energy program that is not ready to stand on its own, and many others). I admit that I may be wrong on some or all of those I’ve listed, and the problem is horribly complicated, and some behavior modification through taxation is probably inevitable. (example, should we create tax disincentives to exporting jobs? How? What about excessive executive compensation? Should huge salaries be fully deductible as a business expense? How do we know when “salary” is really a disguised distribution of profits? What about helping vital American industries that face unfair competition from mixed economy foreign competitors? I don’t pretend to have an answer or a coherent overall theory for evaluating same. I also assert that you (not you personally, Sip, but a more generic you) pro business types who leap to the defense of just about any tax break that benefits business, the owners thereof, and the energy industry do not have a coherent overall theory either. This stuff is not as easy as partisans on either side (more properly “any side”) pretend that it is.

An honest discussion and overhaul of corporate tax rates would be a great thing too, but who knows if it will happen. Conservatives are correct that nominal corporate rates are too high in the US. Liberals are also correct that corporations make out like bandits using tax code manipulations, and only suckers pay those nominal rates. Once again, when I look at proposed solutions, I see that it is not so simple to fix. Lowering nominal rates cannot be done responsibly without fixing the gameability (if that’s a word) of the code. That will be a nightmare after decades of accreted rules, many put there for a good reason, many as a sop to the corporate benefactors of politicians. I wish I knew a responsible, simple way to fix it. And no, I don’t think “9.9.9” or the cleverly but not so accurately named “fair tax” is it. (I’m too tired to argue with you Bortz listeners, I get your arguments, just don’t buy them). Rebooting the system and starting from scratch is a non starter, IMO. Simple sounding, but catastrophic unintended consequences.

All the crap above really means, Sip, that I don’t really have a clue. Mainly, I just think we have a better chance of achieving beneficial reform, not just reform so we can say we did it, when we are honest in debate. The simple solutions of partisans on all sides are usually not honestly presented, again just my humble, and probably wrong opinion. Useless, huh? but you asked.
 
Re your last post, Sip: The percentages I used are 2010, yours are 2011 (I hadn't found them) Ok you got me on the quibble, but but not on the larger point. Income taxes contribute less than 50% under both 2010 and 2011 numbers. I still claim scoreboard on Dheimann. ;-) Seriously, thanks for the heads up on the White House budget source. Lots of good data there.
As for the claim that millions pay no payroll taxes, the CNN article just botches it. If you earn wages, you pay payroll taxes. There are no exemptions or deductions. (ok, preachers maybe? I don't know) . Here are the numbers from the very source CNN purports to rely on. For 2011:The Link

Here is the CBO analysis of the same issue:http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf

As I stated in a previous post, there is no accepted standard for calculating this stuff, so the numbers vary slightly with different sources, but they uniformly demonstrate my original points. Except for those earning less than about $20k per year, every one pays net positive taxes.
The CNN piece is ambiguous, but if your reading is/were correct, the writer just might have botched it in trying to interpret the tax policy center's numbers. The TPC numbers he relies on don't say what the CNN writer appears to state, if your interpretation is correct. Goddam journalists.
 
Good read Whitman and I thank for you for the thoughtful reply. You clearly must be in the industry because you've thought about this on a whole other level than the average vaguely interested taxpayer like myself. Actually I can't even pretend to be vaguely interested. I find it frustrating and boring.
I think that if you were to ask 100 people "do we need tax reform?" you might get about 90% who would agree but have very differing ideas of what that means. Even of the relatively intelligent responders, I don't think many would have any idea of how that would happen, but the desired outcome would be "I pay less, someone else pays more" whether that's the "rich" paying a lot more, or saddling the lower income (not poverty level of course) with a bit more. It's clearly very complicated and I agree with one of the other posters (maybe on another thread) who wondered why anyone would give a crap what a celebrity thinks (in reference to Clint Eastwood's endorsement).
I'm actually quite OK with what I pay even though I pay a lot and have minimal deductions except my mortgage, but I must says that I don't want the Bush tax deductions to go away.
Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top