Footwedge;923887 wrote:Where did I ever say the system is "inherently regressive". If you want to debate economics with me...quit deliberately misquoting me. That's 5 times in one thread.

Inherently regressive < actually regressive. It's NOT regressive, nor is it designed in such manner that it would be inherently so. Make sense now?

My apologies if I've misquoted you, but can you come up with ONE example, much less 5? Or is this the tactic you resort to when you have nothing intelligent or correct to say on a matter? I don't believe I've misquoted you, and I can't debate economics with someone who clearly knows none.

gut;924618 wrote:Inherently regressive < actually regressive. It's NOT regressive, nor is it designed in such manner that it would be inherently so. Make sense now?

My apologies if I've misquoted you, but can you come up with ONE example, much less 5? Or is this the tactic you resort to when you have nothing intelligent or correct to say on a matter? I don't believe I've misquoted you, and I can't debate economics with someone who clearly knows none.

You had better start deleting your posts then...because you continually misquote me. And I'm a little bit tired of it, sleuth.

gut;924591 wrote:So in addition to economics, you struggle with the English language as well? Do you deny saying that the income tax is regressive? You are wrong, as stated in Boatshoes post from the IRS: "Though true regressive taxes are not used as income taxes, they are used as taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, jewelry, perfume, and travel. "

You are welcome to put your economics "knowledge" up against me any time, but first you'll have to demonstrate you have any.

Yes, I do deny stating the US tax income tax is regressive. I never said that. You need to knock off the crap you spew. If you quote me, get it right.

What I DID say was that a PART of it is regressive...if you can't understand that, then go back to remedial school,.

gut;924591 wrote:So in addition to economics, you struggle with the English language as well? Do you deny saying that the income tax is regressive? You are wrong, as stated in Boatshoes post from the IRS: "Though true regressive taxes are not used as income taxes, they are used as taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gasoline, jewelry, perfume, and travel. "

You are welcome to put your economics "knowledge" up against me any time, but first you'll have to demonstrate you have any.

.... From post number 103. I said the following:

"The IRS runs a progressive tax for most Americans and a regressive tax for the ultra wealthy...."

So knock off the garbage that I claim the tax structure is regressive...and quit misquoting me.

gut;924618 wrote:Inherently regressive < actually regressive. It's NOT regressive, nor is it designed in such manner that it would be inherently so. Make sense now?

My apologies if I've misquoted you, but can you come up with ONE example, much less 5? Or is this the tactic you resort to when you have nothing intelligent or correct to say on a matter? I don't believe I've misquoted you, and I can't debate economics with someone who clearly knows none.

Get out your calculator...since you suck at math. What is the highest income tax bracket today? Answer...just a shade under 38%. The Warren Buffets of the world do not get renumerated with salary (for the most part)...but instead defer their income through capital reinvestment. If and when they sell, they get taxed at 15%. Which is less? 15% or 37%? If I've insulted your intelligence...then so be it. You deserve it.

fish82;924042 wrote:The top set are from the IRS. I've posted the link almost a dozen times, including this thread. The bottom set is courtesy of our boy Paul Krugman. The IRS numbers are income taxes only, not payroll taxes. The bottom set include payroll taxes.

Can you think of a reason why IRS numbers wouldn't include capital gains?

Why yes indeed. Um....maybe because the chart posted clearly states that the rate includes only income tax and payroll tax.

Footwedge;929792 wrote:Why yes indeed. Um....maybe because the chart posted clearly states that the rate includes only income tax and payroll tax.

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

It's been a long time since I've seen you get your ass kicked this badly. I'd move on....unless you have access to some new tax law stating that capital gains don't count as income.

fish82;929831 wrote:Uh huh. :rolleyes:

It's been a long time since I've seen you get your ass kicked this badly. I'd move on.

Silly Fish declaring victory again?

Footwedge;929790 wrote:Get out your calculator...since you suck at math. What is the highest income tax bracket today? Answer...just a shade under 38%. The Warren Buffets of the world do not get renumerated with salary (for the most part)...but instead defer their income through capital reinvestment. If and when they sell, they get taxed at 15%. Which is less? 15% or 37%? If I've insulted your intelligence...then so be it. You deserve it.

LMAO, you don't even understand how taxes work. Capital gains are double taxed - after the corporation is taxed the investor gets hit with another 15%. Again, capital gains is a different animal - everyone pays the same and the reason is to encourage investment. Doesn't make any of your arguments remotely accurate.

Footwedge;929787 wrote:.... From post number 103. I said the following:

"The IRS runs a progressive tax for most Americans and a regressive tax for the ultra wealthy...."

So knock off the garbage that I claim the tax structure is regressive...and quit misquoting me.

LMAO, I didn't misquote you - you quote yourself SAYING the tax system is regressive, you're making a distinction without a difference you just don't have enough command of the Enlgish language to realize it. Saying the tax system is regressive for the wealthy is saying the tax system is regressive! And, by the way, you've been proven wrong - the distribution of income matters and capital gains are subject to double taxation.

Which part of the income tax system is regressive, since you insist I misquoted you? And how do the uber wealthy pay LESS tax (i.e. regressive) on another dollar of uber income?

So quit whining about being misquoted when you haven't been and learn to construct an argument.

Bigdogg;930283 wrote:Silly Fish declaring victory again?

We're talking about numbers and stuff here. The Muppets thread is a page or two down.

fish82;930478 wrote:We're talking about numbers and stuff here. The Muppets thread is a page or two down.

Are you making fun of Bigdogg's intelligence or GW's appearance?

fish82;929831 wrote:Uh huh. :rolleyes:

It's been a long time since I've seen you get your ass kicked this badly. I'd move on....unless you have access to some new tax law stating that capital gains don't count as income.

LOL:laugh:

I Wear Pants;930792 wrote:Are you making fun of Bigdogg's intelligence or GW's appearance?

I definitely think the muppets comment was for dubya

I Wear Pants;930792 wrote:Are you making fun of Bigdogg's intelligence or GW's appearance?

LOL.

It&#8217;s hard to pin down where the inequities might lie in Ohio because the Internal Revenue Service only reports state income tax data for returns up to $200,000, and those at $200,000 and above. It doesn&#8217;t break out results for those reporting income of $1 million or more, where most capital gains are concentrated. Still, the state data shows that the wealthier the taxpayer the more likely they are to have less of their income in salary and wages and more of it counted as capital gains.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/both-sides-dig-in-on-tax-debate-1267590.html

fish82;931033 wrote:LOL.

Don't give up your day job fish.

[video=youtube_share;8ejypIv8zSA][/video]

Bigdogg;931151 wrote:Don't give up your day job fish.

[video=youtube_share;8ejypIv8zSA][/video]

LOL...it's fun to watch you keep trying so hard. Keep up the good fight!

I'm curious to know how you think your post above is relevant to the conversation at hand. Are you even aware what Wedge and I are discussing?

fish82;931286 wrote:LOL...it's fun to watch you keep trying so hard. Keep up the good fight!

I'm curious to know how you think your post above is relevant to the conversation at hand. Are you even aware what Wedge and I are discussing?

It's hard to tell what you are talking about, your always all over the place. The original subject of this thread is about the "rich" paying their fair share of the tax burden. That's what my post is about. What the hell do you think it is "enlightened" one? You kill me with some of the shit that you say on here. Typical know-it-all.

The whole concept of creating a stew of the various taxes (income, payroll, capital gains) with differing rules, caps, etc. and attempting to make comparisons between people at varying income levels (and types) is a failure from the beginning. Pick a tax and argue for or against its fairness, then move on to the next one.

queencitybuckeye;931332 wrote:Pick a tax and argue for or against its fairness, then move on to the next one.

Well and it really boils down to the capital gains tax. I'm in favor of going back to 20%, of course this is also going to hit the "middle class". But I believe the capital gains has been as high as 25-28%.

There's other implications, as well, to raising the capital gains. The biggest is the impact it will have on the attractiveness of investing in the US markets vs abroad (not just the wealthy putting more to work overseas, but foreign investors finding other markets more attractive as a result).

Something else you won't see but is not insignficant - tax-exempt bonds. Primarily muni's, but eliminating the tax-free status would have the effect of increasing the interest rates on those, which would in effect be a tax on everyone locally where that specific muni is issued. Maybe that's not a bad thing, as the argument could go the rest of the country is subsidizing CA's interest rates and thus, indirectly, their local taxes.

"Something else you won't see but is not insignficant - tax-exempt bonds. Primarily muni's, but eliminating the tax-free status would have the effect of increasing the interest rates on those, which would in effect be a tax on everyone locally where that specific muni is issued."

Well, in a sense this has already happened with the AMT, certain in-laws of a certain poster here bought a crap-ton of munis with gains tax-free in normal tax tables yet subject to the AMT without consulting said poster. They got stuck with a $40,000+ '09 tax deficiency as a result.

On the other hand I don't feel too sorry for them, you don't pay taxes on a gain without a gain. Better than the capital losses we've had the last three years.

gut;931343 wrote:Well and it really boils down to the capital gains tax.

Payroll taxes are also an opportunity used to mislead, as you have Mr. Buffet's secretary paying on every dime of her earnings while Warren only pays on a tiny fraction of his. Of course, there are (at least) two perfectly logical reasons for this.

queencitybuckeye;931378 wrote:Payroll taxes are also an opportunity used to mislead, as you have Mr. Buffet's secretary paying on every dime of her earnings while Warren only pays on a tiny fraction of his. Of course, there are (at least) two perfectly logical reasons for this.

True, and in theory FICA is paying yourself, so it's a deliberate attempt to distort reality by including payroll taxes. The 47% or so who will pay no federal income taxes this year have nothing to bitch about.

Truthfully the response to people whining about how much millionaires pay in taxes should be "then go make more money". I fail to see how the govt taxing millionaires more is going to make my paycheck get any bigger. And actually, since some of those taxes will hit the middle class, my take home pay will only get smaller.

gut;931382 wrote:so it's a deliberate attempt to distort reality

That's a good description of the entire discussion.