Super Rich paying less in taxes

[Sandy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110417/ap_ ... s_no_taxes

So, we have corporations on Senator Sanders' list plowing their way through tax loopholes, some not paying any taxes at all, some getting government subsidies, and now there's this news that the tax rate for the super rich is less than it is for most middle and working class families.

The economic theory advanced by the Republicans is the old Reaganomics trickle down theory. If you load up the tax burden at the high end of the scale, those with the means to create jobs and stimulate the economy from the private sector won't have the money to do it because they are paying taxes with it. So Bush economic policy gave tax breaks to the wealthy, and here is the evidence of that, and the economy, rather than roaring to life, creating jobs and spreading out the wealth, crashed and burned instead. And now, the lobbyists and supporters of this super rich economic catgory is working diligently to keep fairness out of the equation, and keep the tax burden dumped on the backs of the middle class.

That's why I like the fair tax so much. It removes the ability of these monopoly giants to cut jobs by moving their company to some third world country for the cheap labor and to avoid income taxes. The fair tax means that they would have to pay the import taxes on the full value of the goods they bring into this country to sell, which levels the playing field with American manufacturers. There are no loopholes that are exclusive advantages of the wealthy, and no places to hide from the IRS. Overall, consumers and the middle class would pay less tax, because it is controlled by their consumption.

There was a lot of talk by our GOP governor here in PA about not raising taxes one penny, and cutting the budget. So we got a typical Republican tax increase. They cut the education budget so much that school districts are raising property taxes to make up for the lost dollars. They knew that would happen, but they prefer to let someone else take the blame.

Lobbyists will stop any meaningful tax reform.

[Lamar Wadsworth]

Another fundamental injustice is with Social Security withholding taxes. Only the first $108,000 in wages (a level I have no hope of ever attaining, BTW) is subject to Social Security taxes. One who makes $1.8 million pays not a penny more into Social Security than the one who makes a tenth of that. If all wages were subject to SS taxes, SS would be rolling in money, have no problem paying benefits, and would be able to reduce the percentage rate across the board. As it is now, the one who makes $1.8 million effectively pays one tenth of the percentage rate as the one who makes $108,000. There should be no cap on the amount of wages subject to SS taxes.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Jim]

The maximum Social Security benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2011, the amount is $2,366. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

If the worker/entrepreneur makes SS payments above the $108,000 mark, fairness would seem to indicate that his benefits also rise proportionally. One supposes the actuaries have looked into this. Imagine the benefits due someone who makes millions per year. If such is not to be the case, one select group of high earners would actually make payments to the lower-earners. This is redistribution of the wealth AFTER retirement. This would seem to be a massive Ponzi Scheme sort of like robbing rich Peter to pay poor Paul.

[ET]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[ET]

[ET]

[Tim Dahl]

That was a really good article. Thanks for sharing it.

Tim

[KeithE]

[ET]

[ET]

[Jim]

The best antidote now for the plague that the progressives are visiting upon the nation is a renewal of the demand that states’ rights once again be recognized as primary for everything that states cannot do alone, such as defense, foreign affairs and interstate commerce. Entire Washington bureaucracies such as the Department of Education should be wiped out. Housing and urban development could more economically and efficiently be handled on the state level since the most efficient government is the one closest to the individual citizen. Research and development concerning health nationwide is properly a federal thing but Human Services should be a state thing. Fraud, one of the biggest problems throughout all government could be more easily ferreted out on the state and local levels than on the bloated distant federal level. It makes little sense for the feds to collect money from the citizens only to allocate it back to the states according to formulae constructed in Washington, not to mention the passing of laws impinging upon state treasuries without furnishing the money to fulfill the requirements of the laws. The president has surrounded himself with something like 40 czars (who knows at this point?) who formulate all kinds of silly restrictions/demands supposedly carrying out laws passed by Congress, laws in many cases such as the cap/trade and health program fiascos which the lawmakers have never read.

Of course, as long as the nation keeps printing money with nothing to back it, a progressive tool for bringing the citizens to their knees and taking over their lives, the current situation will get worse. Progressives are for everything from population control to who gets what with respect to health services and most everything else, actually socialism, the destination now of this administration, not that the republicans didn’t do their share toward reaching it. Obama has just increased the madness exponentially.

[Sandy]

I find it most interesting that, given the record of conservative presidents since the first world war on economics, and that fact that each one has introduced economic policies that have let to a recession, there are still powerful lobby interests out there who put out the kind of stuff that gets parroted by conservatives on the board here. The whole push against the economic policies of the current administration is being bankrolled by those who benefitted most from the laissez-faire economics of the Republicans. The idea is that prosperity is for the upper economic class, and in order for some to benefit, there must be a working middle class on the borderline of poverty so that labor can be kept cheap, and costs can be kept down. That's why major companies love the third world, and don't particularly care for putting any money into lifting it up, because they can exploit the labor and the human desperation to fill their own pockets. That's the direction conservatives are pushing the American economy. Health care is just the tip of the iceberg.

The stark, accurate facts are that the rich in this country benefit tremendously from an infrastructure and labor pool for which the cost is carried on the backs of the middle class, and they pay little to nothing in exchange for everything they get to set up their profiteering. And there is no argument that can muster any facts to prove otherwise.

[Jim]

[Sandy]

Well, Jim, since you seem to be so satisfied with the current system, and you don't seem to think that it is fair, equitable or ethical for the wealthy to bear the financial responsibility that comes with wealth and privilege, then I suggest that you and others of your ilk volunteer to pay double or triple taxes so that the rest of us can catch a break. Unless you're one of those who is receiving government subsidy, or avoiding taxes altogether because you are wealthy, that will allow you to put your money where your mouth is.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

Ed, I don't know about property taxes on homes where you are, but here it is based solely on the assessed value. If I choose to build a home worth $1.5 million, then I have no complaint to be charged an appropriate property tax on it set at the same rate as it is on a $200,000 home. That dog won't hunt!

[Jim]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

Sometimes I am irked by government inefficiency. In my area, I live in unincorporated county areas just outside an independent city. Because city and county have fought incessantly over annexation, boundary lines, and rights to provide utilities, both governmental bodies maintain large staffs, independent utility departments which cannot operate efficiently and neither of which operates 24/7, and the list goes on. Taxes for both represent ridiculous levels because consolidation of services has been rejected by the voters. This seems a pattern in many areas. Local governments have not cooperated in providing consolidated services that would reduce costs. Just as we have federal duplication and overlap, local governments mirror such a mess.

[KeithE]