Should the UBER Rich Pay their fair share?

[Tigress DEM]

[yurbud]

1. the trick is getting the average joe to find out they AREN'T

[NewJeffCT]

2. Not only that

But, how much more the rich benefit from government largesse than the other classes...

[Tigress DEM]

17. They poison the environment, killing US with God knows what...

but like a "good corporate neighbor" they say, "No, I don't have to clean up my mess. That's the little guy's job."

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

9. I hear what you're saying...BUT...

...that doesn't stop me from wanting to bang my head against the wall again and again and again when I think that the "Average Joe" actually believes that Bush's "have mores" are contributing anything close to a "fair share."

Of course, these same "Joes" probably also believe Little Lord Bunnypants' assertion that the rich need those tax cuts so that they can invest them back into the economy by CREATING JOBS...

:banghead:

[Tigress DEM]

12. Well, the numbers from 2003 are probably "low ball" because...

EVERYTHING that has been done since then by this administration has been to favor that group even more.

I guess whenever we get into the conversation we have to ask "Why do the Uber Rich need to shift 27% of their tax burden off to normal people who have much less money to survive?"

If they paid that 27%, none of them would starve or even have to debate whether or not they had enough money to send their kids to college and they would be paying their fair share to support national programs and resources that they benefit more from anyway.

Another number I found that drove me nuts is this Corporate CEO jet fuel tax rebate that effectively lets them fly wherever they want to and only pay .01 oe .02 per gallon for jet fuel. The rest of that burden is paid for by the people. Can you say "Corporate Welfare" ? I knew you could.

[yurbud]

33. Ironically, the HERITAGE FOUNDATION posted a good graph on rich taxes

it's trending massively downward while the average Americans tax rate is relatively flat.





This is my own chart based on Congressional Budget Office data:

[Tigress DEM]

39. Thanks --- Really GOOD Graphs! Worth 1000 words

I hope I haven't started a war here. But that's good discussion I guess.

[Tigress DEM]

35. Here is a more recent tax discussion - NOT Prescreened.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/conferences.nsf/0/B316E6753FAE90E48525707D005C2FAE?OpenDocument&link=transcript

(This is the panel)
PANELISTS:
CHRISTOPHER BERGIN, Moderator
Tax Analysts

SCOTT HODGE
Tax Foundation

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
New York Times

GENE STEUERLE
Urban Institute

OTHER SPEAKERS:

DON ALEXANDER
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

DAVID BRUNORI
Tax Analysts

SHELDON COHEN
George Washington University

NORM KURLAND
Center for Economic and Social Justice

STEVE ENTIN
Institute for Research on Economics of Taxation

HOWARD GLECKMAN
Business Week

MARTY LOBEL
Lobel Novins & Lamont

JOE MINARIK
Committee for Economic Development

BILL NISKANEN
Cato Institute

THOMAS OCHSENSCHLAGER
GrantThornton

ROB SHAPIRO
Brookings Institution

JOE THORNDIKE
Tax Analysts

ERIC TODER
Urban Institute

JAMES WHITE
United States Government Accountability Office


HODGE:
So in the spirit of defending the indefensible I'd like to share with you a few thoughts on tax fairness and a lot of the work that the Tax Foundation has been doing over the last few years in pulling the onion layers away from tax data and, as we call it, putting a face on America's tax returns.

(He never mentions the group of NON Payers that are rich corporations that have off shore Bahama accounts, but makes us think all the Young Single payers are Joey Tribiani buffon types. Read more of him if you can stomach it.)


JOHNSTON:..... we need to think about law enforcement. If we have large numbers of wealthy people who pay no taxes, who are undetected by the government, who engage in what is criminal behavior, and we are not prosecuting them are we being fair? If we have a system which Charles Rissotti, the former IRS commissioner, has observed, is extremely efficient and effective in capturing the income and requiring the payment of taxes of wage earners but we do not do the same with people whose income comes from business activity, being landlords and investors, because we don't have third-party independent reporting are we being fair to all people? Or do we have a system that instead says if you're a wage earner you will obey the law, if you are not a wage earner it's up to you; it's a voluntary system and to the degree that you're willing to be aggressive in approaching the tax system if not downright dishonest you can profit from your crimes?

We need, I think, to think about whether we want to live in a society that forces most families with children to have two incomes. Is that really good social policy? Now, I have eight children so I may have a little more stake in this game than most people, and I want to say that so that I'm clear to people. But when I was a young man and had six children in my 20s I was able to afford a home in a middle-class neighborhood on one income to raise my children. I had no debt, did just fine. Couldn't do that today because we have changed the nature of the economics of our society.

My $29,000 middle-class home in Sunnyvale, California, in the heart of Silicon Valley resold recently for three quarters of a million dollars. We've changed fundamentally the nature of our society and the tax system to the degree that it forces and encourages people to have two incomes imposes a horrendous cost on us in terms of making our society endure. The average family in America with children does 820 hours more paid labor today than it did in 1970. That's back when I had my house in California or shortly before I got my house.

[Benhurst]

3. No, not in BushAmerica.

Hey, we need them to have lots of money so they will trickle down some of it on us.

So far we're being trickled on, but not with money.

BushAmerica: What a DUMP!

[Daphne08]

5. I've been waiting for that "trickle" since the early 80's n/t

[Tigress DEM]

16. It's all moving up.

Those who have it hold tight and send their kids grasping for more.

Those that are poor get robbed again and again.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. I vote no, if the GOP has any voice in determining whatt is "fair share"

[TomInTib]

8. Precisely. I happen to fall into that slice of society these bastards

(GOP) covet and I will be damned if I want them to parcel out my money.

Doctors Without Borders
Pakistan 'quake relief
Red Cross, etc.

If I want to buy some poor mother's groceries at the store I know where my money is going.
I would rather feed people than contribute 50 cents to some missle defence program or "Drug War" or any other fucking program.

[Tigress DEM]

15. Isn't there an option to earmark tax dollars AWAY from Military Spending?

I was looking on the web and I couldn't find it, but in years past I've seen that listed and also the option to designate some tax dollars to deficit reduction rather than the general fund.

[TomInTib]

27. That was lifted some time ago.

It is funny, tho.

I spend a lot more now on causes than I ever did on taxes.

At least I can see my money work.

[Tigress DEM]

29. Too bad.

I spend more on both.

[Tigress DEM]

20. GOP has enough corrupt voices speaking for them.

comment withdrawn

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. you clearly missed my point. Right now the thugs control

both houses, the executive and the judiciary. They are the ones who get to change tax policy. THEY are the ones who decide what is fair. To them, the haves and the have mores get the cuts whereas we get the shaft.

Descriptive posts don't necessarily mean supportive ones. So, don't you dare call me a freeper. It's bad enough arguing with parental units who think that JC and GWB walk on water together.

[Tigress DEM]

28. I knew it was meant as humor, but it was quite droll.

I realize that the GOP is in control. I think that was the point of MY post.

I didn't say you were a freeper, just freeping on their behalf. Giving the "devil's advocate" voice to the post. It was a valid viewpoint.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

34. No, not humor. I am serious. Before we screw up the tax system even more

we need to be careful of who makes the decisions because their definitions of fair will probably not be fair.
How the HELL am I freeping on their behalf when I suggest that we need to be careful what we wish for?

[Tigress DEM]

40. OK, so no progress toward FAIR if the GOP is in control & going to subvert

Got it.

Freeper comment withdrawn.

[Tigress DEM]

6. By UBER Rich, I mean the top 1% who hold 57% of the money

I didn't know how to connect poll and post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2454758&mesg_id=2454758


1% of the population has 57% of the money in the US. For them to be paying an "unfair portion of the tax burden" they would have to be paying 58% or more of the tax burden.

They pay (according to a rethug on FAUX rebutting Rev Lowery today with Chris Matthews) 30%. Really? How is that anywhere near fair to shift 27% of THEIR tax burden onto people who struggle to keep things together and provide for the needs of their families?

Those of use who split the smaller portion 43% of the pie 99 ways are expected to pick up the UBER Rich slackers 27% shifted tax burden, so that those with 43% of the money pay 70% of the tax burden, while those with 57% of the money pay 30%.

[Yupster]

32. Here's my answer to your other thread

The uber rich own 57 % of the "money" in the US?

The source looks like it's saying the top 1 % own 57 % of the "corporate wealth" in the US.

Well those two things would be very different indeed.

Then it talks about the top 1 % making from $ 237,000 and up. Now we're talking income which is completely different than either money owned or corporate equity owned.

Now we're comparing at least three different things. We've got apples, oranges and bananas.

So what this study is actually attempting to say is that the uber rich own an overwhelming percentage of the stock in corporations in the country. Corporate stock would be corporate wealth. And it is also making the point that the number has skewed even more toward the very wealthy over the last 15 years.

I'm very skeptical of this conclusion as I know that in the last 15 years a much larger group of middle class and even lower class people have begun to fund 401(k) or 403(b) plans through work where they would be buying corporate stock in mutual funds every month many times without them even realizing it.

Well WTF. I get about four paragraphs into the source article and it tells me the study excludes purchases made through retirement plans. Well now we've just gotten ridiculous. That's like Bush saying inflation is down if you exclude oil and gas while oil and gas prices are surging.

Yes I guess it is very true that if you exclude mutual funds purchases by qualified retirement plans, then for sure most families buy very few stocks. That makes good sense since most families buy their stocks overwhelmingly through their qualified retirement plans. What would be the point of that point though other than to confuse people?

If you exclude all the plays where he touched the ball this year, then Sean Alexander didn't have a very successful 2005 season. Okay.

____________________________________________________________________
Anyway, on a different topic, the problem with taxing the uber rich is the difference between wealth and income. The uber rich families like the Rockefellers or the Kennedys have incredible wealth, but they make relatively little income. So, if you increase the income tax rate you won't hit their wealth which is in trust funds and land and tax free municipal bonds. In order to hit the uber rich you'd need a "wealth tax," not an income tax, and no one ever seems to talk about that possibility.

It's probably because many don't understand the difference.

[Tigress DEM]

41. Even Enforcing what LAWS DO EXIST Equally would payoff..

There are many at the top who dodge taxes and the IRS has been told to stand down from pursuing those cases, which is stupid, Enron themselves stiffed Oregon on some 400Million in payroll taxes and have never been prosecuted... But people wanting to file Earned Income Credit and should be Entitled to this have to PROVE their eligibilty beforehand.

Known criminal activity unprosecuted and 400Million at stake vs plain ordinary folk trying to get what is rightfully due them according to tax law being prosecuted and judged as guilty until proved innocent? How is that fair?

[AX10]

7. The top 1% should pay there fair share.

[oscar111]

11. 91% was Truman"s top tax rate in nineteen fifty two.

i think it is now a pathetic thirty five p;ercent.

[Tigress DEM]

13. 1% pay 30% according to a rethug on FAUX this morning.

1% HAVE 57% of the wealth, though. (As of 2003 - probably worse by now)

27% burden shifted to the population that has only 43% of the wealth and splits it 99 ways. The very bottom portion of that group having so little wealth that they can't afford any tax burden and get it all back.

[Yupster]

23. But you're mixing wealth and income

Don't you see the difference? This is apples and oranges you're talking.

If a peron had a trillion dollars in tax free munis and you raised the income tax level to 90 % he'd still pay zero taxes. Don't you see that?

[Tigress DEM]

25. Well since only the Uber Rich can dodge their taxes in Bahamas

or other such type of tax dodge, why should it be up to me to pay their tax share at any rate?

By striking the Capital Gains tax the rethugs have opened this can of worms. If there is no check and balance on wealth accumulating and causing these people to OWN our country with their wealth, then they should pay through the nose for that right.

[Yupster]

30. Well then you need a wealth tax

because no matter what income tax rate you impose you will not hit your target as the uber rich make very little income relative to their wealth.

So who has some ideas for taxing wealth?

[Jayhawk Lib]

10. I am not sure they are not.

I do not know how you determine what different individuals are paying. You do not know what I pay and I do not know what you pay and I really do not know how you would find out. Anybody can make a wag but can you really tell?

I can not remember the exact figure but it seems that the top 20% pay 80% of the taxes. If that is true, they are paying plenty.

If I find the website and the chart I will post it

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

14. "The top 20% pay 80% of the taxes?"

Yes, please...find the Web Site and post it.

I don't believe that for a minute.

[Yupster]

18. The difference is the difference between

wealth and income.

The top 20 % do indeed pay 80 % of the income taxes. That's right off the IRS website.

However this study is not talking income. It's talking wealth which is a very different thing entirely.

A very wealthy family often makes very little taxable income. Its money is in land and tax free municipal bonds and stock, none of which are taxable as income.

People need to understand the difference between income and wealth.

When people say they want to incrase the incpome tax rate on the very wealthy, they are often missing their target entirely. The very rich don't make income or much of it. That's probably why so many of the uber rich don't nmind if the upper income tax rates get raised. They don't make taxable income so what do they care.

[Benhurst]

19. Bottom line:

the super rich do pay a lot of taxes; but they pay a lower percentage based on their incomes and assets than those in the middle class with less. (And don't forget their is an upper limit on social security taxes.)

Why do you think they support the Bush Crime Family? They are getting what they have paid for. They may be rich, but they aren't stupid or particularly civic-minded.

The super rich aren't paying anywhere near 80% of the taxes; but last time I looked they were paying well over 50% of the total, but still not a fair percentage based on income and assets.

The burden of taxation is being shifted to the middle class under Bush and company.

[Tigress DEM]

22. That is a VERY old number I learned in the 1980's.

It was the 80/20 rule from basic civics classes.

80% of the population have 20% of the wealth and 20% of the population has 80% of the wealth. At that time I believe the tax burden was something like 60/40, so the wealthiest have always felt the need to shift at least 20% of their burden onto the rest of us, but there was a larger middle class then contributing to charity and charity didn't have the nearly sole burden of providing relief programs.

[mcscajun]

24. More Tax Rate info...

From a post I made in January 2005:

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964.

1964 - the top rate was decreased to 70%, and then to 50% in 1981.
1986 - the top rate was reduced to 28%.

During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.

2001 - the top rate was cut to 35%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2966401#2969009

There's LOTS of room in there for the UBER-Rich to pay more...LOTS.

[liberal N proud]

26. What blows my mind it the low or middle income idiot think that

what the rich pay is not fair and they should pay less.
These idiot buy into the bu$h and rich rhetoric that if the rich pay less taxes the economy will improve.

Well guess what, that expensive experiment has already failed time and again.

[Tigress DEM]

31. Trickle Down Economics - Not just a bad theory - the RUIN of US

Trickle UP Economics is SOLID.

Give a person who has no money $500 a month. They pay rent, buy food, clothes and necessities. Everything they get goes back into the economy.

Give a person who has millions that same $500 a month and it goes into their bank and stays their or is spent on their pet - who eats better than most working class poor people do, nutritionwise. (No I'm not advocating dog food for the poor.)

Give a middle class person $500 extra a month and since they are close to the pain of poverty they will likely contribute slightly more towards programs that help eliviate the problems they have to see all the time and deal with in real life terms.

The UBER Rich have as a group lost the concept of or never understood what it means NOT to be able to SURVIVE in this Country that has SO MUCH. Bush could never live on $500 a month. Some say that would be his best punishment.

[yurbud]

36. It's like the trickle of sewage through a shantytown

[liberal N proud]

37. Yeah, Now sell that to the idiots in this country.

[Nutmegger]

38. We live in a society

If you made millions then you have a duty to give back to the system that gave you your wealth. Especially in this country where universal health care is something that's not even heard of and we're in the middle of a "war".

Throw some crumbs down here!