This is in response to Brian Huot's letter, printed July 11.
Huot claimed that the expiration of the George W. Bush-instituted tax cuts in January 2013, "will be the highest (tax) increase in our nation's history." He also stated that the taxes for Obamacare would lead to smaller paychecks for everyone.
Here are the facts:
President Obama does want the Bush tax cuts to expire in January, but only for those making more than $250,000 per year. Those making $300,000 will pay a higher (about 4.5 percent) tax on only the $50,000 difference.
Sound fair?
Also, Obamacare will not raise taxes. The "tax penalty" applies only to those people who can afford health insurance but do not purchase it. Those free riders depend on others to pay for their emergency room care.
Does that seem fair?
Huot was correct on one thing — "People need to do their research so they will know the truth."
Michael Grover, Greene
Report a correction
Mark - Remove all Doubt
Post your Federal and State taxes on the Internet, then we can calculate your effective tax rate.
Otherwise you are merely all hot air.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Countries With The Highest And Lowest Taxes
Mark;
For all your pizzing and moaning, where could you move to where you would have a more advantageous tax structure???
Recently Forbes ran an article contributed by 'Investopedia' - here's a link:
Countries With The Highest And Lowest Taxes
"The Lowest
Surprise! Despite endless American complaints about over-taxation, the U.S. has one of the world’s lowest marginal income tax rates, at 27%. Along with what, by comparison with the high rates cited above, seems a relatively low rate, the U.S. has the world’s biggest economy, with a GDP of over $1,400 billion. The next largest economy, China’s, is only one third as large. The U.S. national debt, however, is now seen as an impediment to economic growth, and an ongoing unemployment rate of about 9% threatens to further damage the economy. (To learn more about GDP, read What is GDP and why is it so important?)
Switzerland, long a tax haven for the wealthy and a nation with once inflexible banking laws regarding secrecy, has one of the lowest marginal tax rates on working people, at 20%. Unemployment in the nation, as of 2009, stood at less than three percent.
U.S. neighbor, Canada, imposes a marginal tax rate of 31.2% on its labor force. Like the U.S., Canada has struggled with an unemployment rate of 7.10%, as of Oct. 2011, the lowest since 2008. Although Canada’s tax rate is relatively low, the nation offers a program of national health care.
Australia imposes a 31.5% marginal tax rate on workers, and has performed throughout the recent recession better than most other economically developed countries. The country encourages entrepreneurship and business investment, which have contributed to Australia’s general economic health.
The Bottom Line
The cost of running a country, providing services, maintaining a military, supporting and repairing the infrastructure, and all the other essential functions of government, is immensely expensive. Taxation, along with selling government bonds, assessing fees and imposing tariffs, are the principal means by which governments raise money to meet these expenses. Therefore, taxes are inevitable, but if you're living in the U.S., your share of the tax burden is among the world's lowest."
So Mark - It appears Switzerland beckons. Otherwise the U.S.is as good as you can expect. So what's your problem????
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dear Potty Mouth Riml, You
Dear Potty Mouth Riml,
You are selective in which data you want to present. Some of these countries in the study do not have the equivalent of state taxes. A better comparison is to add state and local tax burden to the federal marginal tax rate of 27%. This will give you a number more like 38-43% depending on which state you live in.
The difference is not that much when you have the complete picture.
Funny that you use state and local taxes to support your neo Marxist argument for taxing the rich, but exclude state and local taxes when you present this argument. How come?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.There you go again - BS'er in Chief.
No-one is being taxed 38-43%
None of the figures presented so far have supported that. The wealthiest 20% are only paying approximately 30% of their income in taxes.
38-43% - as you calculate it - may be the maximum rate for the uppermost bracket. But who is paying that percentage of their total income as taxes?? As you say - one must look at the 'complete picture' - not 'snippets' as you do.
Cites, please???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Tax Foundation State and
Tax Foundation State and Local Tax burden tables. Like I said, state and local tax burden is ostensibly state specific. Simply pick a state and add it to your 27% marginal US tax rate. I picked two states that are likely to have a higher persentage of people in the 27% percent marginal tax bracket, like New York and California.
Better living through low taxes.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So you created a 'Possible Hypothetical'
Now try dealing in reality for a change.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.State and local tax burden
State and local tax burden for New Jersey residents is 12.2% [1], so just simply add the two numbers 27% + 12.2% = 39.2%.
[1] http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-all-states-...
This data is from the IRS. These number don't include user fees, which only adds to this number.
To be fair, the average tax rate for top 1% in 2009 was 24%, not 27%.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You reasoning is far off.
A person in tax bracket n does not pay n(taxable Income) that amount of taxes.
Remember that taxes collected on lower amounts of income are collected at a lower rate.
Schedule Z — Head of Household
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ronald, By definition what
Ronald,
By definition what you present is the marginal tax rate. State and local tax burden, as defined in the reference, is marginal tax rate.
Moreover, many states, such as Maine, puts people in the top tax bracket with little income - $20K AGI in Maine.
To the best of my knowledge units on both data are the same – marginal tax rates. Moreover, the 24% number for 2009 I gave you is actually based on AGI which is after deductions are subtracted.
Perhaps the sources of information differ for the same analysis. I trust the tax foundations numbers because they use data provided by the IRS - no interpertation like with the data you provided earlier.
My numbers are fair and reasonable based on IRS reported data.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Then provide concrete citings
which substantiate your claims from the sources you quote.
Along with your IRS filing for evidence.
The ball is in your court.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You know that is an
You know that is an inappropriate request; therefore, you know I will not acquiesce.
All that said, you can stop asking.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.It's highly appropriate in view of your incessant complaining.
Have you in fact been wounded to the quick, or merely scratched???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ronald, I’m smart enough not
Ronald,
I’m smart enough not to post personal information on the web. Moreover, I’m incrementally smart enough not to ask others to do so.
I can tell you that I pay too much in Federal income taxes and way to much combined with state and local taxes as well as user fees.
If it is more than 15% of my gross income, it is too much. If it is over 20% of my gross income, it is way too much. That is about as much as you are going to get.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Yep...
Merely scratched yet bellowing like a hog getting his throat cut and bled out......
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Michael, Did you do your
Michael,
Did you do your research?
Did you know that the top 10% of the taxpayers pay 70% of the Federal income taxes – is that fair?
Did you know that the bottom 50% of the taxpayers pay about 2% of the Federal income tax – is that fair?
Is it fair to disproportionally tax one group from another?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Michael, Did you do your
Michael,
Did you do your research?
Did you know that the top 10% of the taxpayers pay 70% of the Federal income taxes – is that fair?
Did you know that the bottom 50% of the taxpayers pay about 2% of the Federal income tax – is that fair?
Is it fair to disproportionally tax on group from another?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.The 'Big Lie' -
He we go again. Keep repeating it often enough, and perhaps people will begin to believe.
Mark, for some reason, chooses only to refer to Federal Income Taxes when he references 'Tax Fairness' He conveniently neglects to mention all of the other taxes with which people are responsible for paying.
Sales tax, property tax, fuel tax (gasoline, heating, etc) communications excise taxes, the list goes on and on.....
The IRS may not be the 'Gestapo' - but you, Mark, are certainly quite similar to the Joseph Goebbels of propaganda when it comes to telling the slanted story of tax burdens upon Americans.
It is obvious that you fail to do your research.
Who Pays Taxes in America?
"It’s often claimed that the richest Americans pay a disproportionate share of taxes while those in the bottom half pay nothing. These claims ignore the many taxes that most Americans are subject to — federal payroll taxes, federal excise taxes, state and local taxes — and focus instead on just one tax, the federal personal income tax. The other taxes are mostly regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from a poor or middle-income family than they take from a rich family.
Many Americans do not have enough income to owe federal personal income taxes, but do pay these other taxes. The federal personal income tax is a progressive tax, and the combination of this tax with the other (mostly regressive) taxes results in a tax system that is, overall, just barely progressive. Total tax obligations are, on average, fairly proportional to income."
Mark - You manipulate the numbers to make the taxes appear greatly unfair to the wealthy. They are not at all. Why do you do that?? Your manner of doing that is greatly dishonest.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What is your beef?
“Sales tax, property tax, fuel tax (gasoline, heating, etc) communications excise taxes, the list goes on and on.....”
Again Ronald, your graph shows that higher income earners do in fact pay more of these consumer-based taxes, so what is you beef again?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ronald, I thought I would
Ronald,
I thought I would hear from you sooner than this. Yes there are other taxes all people pay; that said, it is hard to quantify all those ancillary taxes because many are contingent on consumption patterns.
Take fuel tax for example. I rich person may purchase a luxury car that gets much less gas mileage per gallon compared to my Toyota Corolla. Therefore, they still pay more in taxes.
Another example would be state income taxes. I recall that Maine has a flat tax rate for AGI above 20K. Again, you earn more, you pay more. Shall I go on?
In a nutshell, an individual that earns more money has a propensity to spend more; thereby incurring a higher tax liability when it comes to consumption based taxes.
I know you like to consider all those “other” taxes since it is near impossible to measure spending behavior and therefore tax liability making it easier to tweak your statistics.
Federal tax liability is measureable.
Even that text you quote (last paragraph) says that the combined tax rate is still progressive, so your own supporting text does not support your claim.
I don’t know what to tell you Ronald, well, I really do know what to tell you, but it is not appropriate for this venue.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You could always say:
You caught me, Ron. But I know you won't admit it.......
BTW - Don't think it is impossible to measure 'spending' behavior. See who pays taxes in this instance....and it's not the 'wealthy'
Tobacco and Socioeconomic Status
"Tobacco Use Among Lower-Income Populations
Smoking is directly correlated with income level and years of education. Since the release of the first
Surgeon General’s Report on smoking in 1964, smoking has become ever more concentrated among
populations with lower incomes and fewer years of education. Whereas the highest income Americans
once smoked at levels even greater than the poorest, they now smoke at barely half the rate of those of
lowest income.
• 28.9 percent of adults who are below the poverty level smoke, compared to 18.3 percent of adults
who are at or above the poverty level.
• Families with the highest income level experienced a 62 percent reduction in current smoking
between 1965 and 1999, while families with the lowest income level only experienced a 9 percent
reduction in current smoking rates over the same time period.
• Among adults under age 65, 31 percent with Medicaid coverage smoke compared to 32 percent
who are uninsured and 16 percent with private insurance coverage.
• 25.1 percent of adults who do not graduate from high school smoke compared to just 9.9 percent
of those with a college education, and 6.3 percent of those with a graduate degree.
• Smoking among non-college bound high school seniors is twice that of college bound high school
seniors (32.2 percent vs. 15.6 percent, respectively).
• An analysis of data on ever smokers from the 2003, 2006 and 2007 Tobacco Use Supplement of the
Current Population Survey found that individuals in poverty had a median duration of smoking of 40
years while those with a family income three times the poverty threshold had a median duration of
22 years. Similarly, the median duration of smoking among individuals without a high school
education was 40 years while it was 18 years among those with at least a bachelor’s degree."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ronald, You point to one and
Ronald,
You point to one and only one consumer tax. Now please provide an aggregate view of spending behavior for all consumer related taxes. Given your graph attempts to include all consumer-based taxes and the linear approximation on the graph is up and to the right. It shows that higher income earners do actually pay more in taxes as a percentage of income, except for the slight dip in the top 1%.
Given that the world is never perfect, this graph pretty much meets your requirements – the wealthier pay more in taxes as an overall percentage of income.
One last point, those people who tend to pay vice based consumer taxes, such as tobacco or alcohol also tend to be lower income. The last bit of data you presented only seems to support lower income earns make more frequent bad choices.Perhaps this is more of a testament of their cognitive abilities that perpetuate their social position.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Sorry - Your turn.
I shot a hole in your assertion that behavior was immeasurable. And I never claimed that the higher income earners did not pay a higher percentage of their income than did the lower-income earners.
You manipulated and distorted statistics to make it appear that the wealthy had a much greater tax burden than the less advantaged did. This was not true. And what you pointed out was certainly not 'unfair'. The top quintile's burden of app. 30% is not even double the bottom quintile's burden of 17.4%. The middle 60% averages 24.9%. - barely 5% less than the top.
If you really believe your Federal Income Taxes are that 'Unfair' - post your last three years returns on the internet. With such transparency, we can examine them and get input from a number of readers here. Otherwise, STFU. You're nothing buy a crybaby who manipulates statistics.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.My assertion is that it is
My assertion is that it is impossible to accurately measure how much consumer-based tax to attribute to a given income level. I still stand by that assertion.
Just because you point to data on one consumer product, tobacco, does not mean that statisticians know how many miles are driven based on income (i.e. gas tax). How many products are purchased based on income level (i.e. sales tax). How big of a home is owned per income level (i.e. property tax).
That detailed level of data is not available.
Lastly, in response to your potty mouth, I'll keep commenting on your neo Marxist approach to taxation. I will keep fighting to have taxes reduce for all income levels. Moreover, I will keep fighting to get the lower income earners to pay their fair share of Federal income taxes. A flat tax is a fair tax.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.