<br>
<br>
<p>The post that I was responding to was talking about people in this thread. I wanted a quote of someone in this thread that thought that things are fine across the country because of what they see locally. I think that the people on this thread are a lot more realistic than that.</p>
<p>Are you saying that Newt is posting here?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the middle class is going away. I doubt that our economy will get better without middle class consumers. Interesting graph that I’m not technologically capable enough of posting from it’s original source:</p>
<p><a href=“Redirecting...”>Redirecting...;
<p>^^ I’m pretty sure Newt is taking some time away from CC at the moment. No proof of that of course!</p>
<p>What I was trying to convey, poorly it appears, is that a disproportionate number of national leaders seem to believe “All’s OK.” Not “I’m doing well but others may not be” but rather “I’m doing well, so the economy must be fine.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Perhaps you could list these national leaders that think that everything is okay. I can’t think of any off the top of my head.</p>
<p>Newhope33…uhhh…those solutions are not that similar…</p>
<p>The first solution …will not work.</p>
<p>The second solution…mentions nothing about cutting social programs. The second “solution” as you put it, deals with the fact that many top 1 percenters complain about increases in taxes while they are actually getting subsidized too. They complain about deficits…but if their taxes are 30% of income and government spending is 40% of GDP…they are contributing to the deficit.</p>
<p>GTalum…that’s a great chart…</p>
<p>And I agree …we need middle class consumers for the economy to get better…for society as a whole. Some people will do fine even if the middle class stagnates.</p>
<p>“I’m pretty sure Newt is taking some time away from CC at the moment. No proof of that of course!”</p>
<p>Good one, I’m sure you’re right!</p>
<p>Busdriver11, </p>
<p>“But I know they answer will always be some example of a billionaire paying less than his secretary or some other case that has nothing to do with the majority. I can never get a straight answer to this one.”</p>
<p>I just wanted to let you know…
that my post NewHope33 commented on…was your straight answer…if you are paying taxes at a rate of 30%… you are paying less than your fair share…</p>
<p>No talk of billionaires… Or secretaries.;)</p>
<p>“How is it again that the supposed class warfare being waged is from the bottom up?”</p>
<p>I’m rather bemused by the fact that there are constant complaints, generalizations and references to the “1%” on this thread, and all over the news. And that you guys can’t see the class warfare waged in that.</p>
<p>Why 1%? Is it a catchy phrase, 99%/1%? Why not 2%? How about the people that are in the 1.000001? Are they footing the bill so the top 1% can get rich? Hey, how about someone in the top 5% who is paying next to nothing in taxes so they can rearrange their taxes? Really, if you guys can’t realize that class warfare is being waged upon people because they make X number of dollars, you don’t have your eyes open. Is it good enough that some in that category pay 40%, if you include payroll, medicare, state, property and income? No, they should pay more and everyone else should pay less?</p>
<p>It’s just the ridiculousness of generalizations and labels. Advocate for tax reform. To get rid of loopholes, even raise tax rates if you like. But honestly, to rant against people because they dare to make 380K or more (instead of the much more dignified 379K) is pure silliness, as is blaming them for the rest of societies ills.</p>
<p>You know, it seems every economic thread turns into a complaint against the 1% who are doing well.</p>
<p>Okay, dstark, I give you credit for a straight answer. So if you are making 380K/yr, then you think you should be paying 40%. What if you are already paying that, with all the taxes you pay? Still not enough? How much more is fair?</p>
<p>You are still not paying your share…</p>
<p>The reason…it is the 1 percenters thst are being highlighted is because they have the money…they have been receiving the income gains…and many of them are not paying enough taxes.</p>
<p>It could be the .1 percenters…maybe the 2 percenters…</p>
<p>But…that just obfuscates the argument…the bottom line is …people in the top 1 percent are not paying enough…those at the top are not paying enough.</p>
<p>And the 380,000 is taxable income…the gross income is higher than that…a lot of the income isn’t taxed… Or the Income is taxed at much lower rates than the top rate…</p>
<p>At 380,000… The tax increases might be around 10,000 a year…
That’s onerous? Really?</p>
<p>What is fair? That is what we are arguing about. :)</p>
<p>40% doesn’t work because like I said…people in poverty can’t really afford 40%…so that means others…who can afford it have to pay more…</p>
<p>I have a problem if taxes are higher than 50%…
So somewhere in the low 40s to 50 percent…</p>
<p>And government as a share of GDP needs to drop over time…</p>
<p>Why are you making the assumption that income is not taxed? If you get that as an employee, it is taxed. Many people are not paid as you are. And quite a bit of that could be taxed at 35% + 2.6% Medicare + state income tax. And many people pay high property taxes. Plus deductions are limited and AMT kicks in. additional 10% =38K. I’m not actually objecting to increased taxes on high incomes, I am disputing your assumptions.</p>
<p>BCEagle - As evidenced by the fact they don’t feel it necessary to actually DO anything … except posture.</p>
<p>dstark - Actually I do see the two both statements aiming at the same target … and that target is sustainable functionality. Yes, implementation will be a bear. But what everyone needs is the opportunity to be successful. That requires stability. And it requires that the system in place works well enough that a majority of voters don’t think the system needs “fixing.” It’s hard to get people to support a system they think is broken (or unfair, if you like that term better).</p>
<p>That’s fair…Busdriver11.</p>
<p>Take your gross income…before any deductions…add any income that isn’t taxed…like
Free or subsidized health care benefits. Add in your income from your retirement accounts that isn’t taxed. If employer contributions to retirement accounts aren’t taxed…add in those. (I am not knowledgable in that area and I am too lazy to look things up). Add in gains from tax free exchanges in real estate. Add in any other income that is tax free. </p>
<p>Now…Add up all your taxes… income, property , sales, excise DMV…whatever…</p>
<p>Divide your income into your taxes and if you are paying over 40 percent…you are not subsidized.
People like to take their taxable income and divide that into their taxes…but that doesn’t give a person his/herpercentage of income that is taxed.</p>
<p>AMT is not taxed at 38 percent. The first 50,000 or so…that can be looked up…is not taxed.</p>
<p>I can’t remember…
then With AMT…your tax rate is 25% or 28%…or some combination.</p>
<p>If you are paying AMT…then you are not paying federal income taxes at a rate in the 30’s.</p>
<p>“Why are you making the assumption that income is not taxed?”</p>
<p>Um, if all income is taxed then there should be no objection to closing tax loopholes … yes?</p>
<p>[cross-posted with dstark]</p>
<p>[2010</a> and 2011 AMT Tax Brackets - The Finance Buff](<a href=“http://thefinancebuff.com/2010-and-2011-amt-tax-brackets.html]2010”>http://thefinancebuff.com/2010-and-2011-amt-tax-brackets.html)</p>
<p>I forgot about the phaseouts…the phaseouts suck. :)</p>
<p>How is this for fair, my liquor costs are taxed 6% on sales, then the Johnstown Flood tax of 18% is added on…</p>
<p>What is the Johnstown Flood Tax?
The Johnstown Flood Tax is an 18% tax on all wine and*liquor sales in the sate of Pennsylvania. It is a “hidden” tax that is not printed on any receipt of purchase.</p>
<p>How did it come about?
As a result of the damage from the 1936 Johnstown, PA*flood, the Pennsylvania General Assembly imposed an emergency tax on all alcohol sold in the Commonwealth. The “temporary” 10% tax was initially intended to help pay for clean up, recovery, and assistance to flood victims. Though the recovery was assisted by the federal government and completed within six years of the disaster, the tax was never repealed. The tax was raised to 15% in 1963 and to 18% in 1968, where it stands today.</p>
<p>Where does the tax revenue go?
The $200+ million collected annually no longer goes to flood victims. Instead, it*goes into the general fund for discretionary use by lawmakers.</p>
<p>[Tax</a> Rates on Capital Gains and Dividends Under the AMT](<a href=“http://www.urban.org/publications/1001148.html]Tax”>http://www.urban.org/publications/1001148.html)</p>
<p>I think the AMT…is unfair…</p>
<p>Cap gains gets taxed at rates higher than 15% for some taxpayers because of the AMT and others don’t have this issue…</p>
<p>Our tax system is a mess…</p>