FMB42

That's a noble thought. However, our government and certain politicians, have been both promoting and enlarging the number of "weakest members" to the point that there are more people on assistance than there are those who pay for such benefits.

katsrevenge

Or, that we have allowed actual wages to fall so far behind the cost of living that so many people have the choice between getting help or going homeless/foodless.

Or, that we have set up the tax system so that individuals are now expected to pay out far more than companies.

Or, that some of the most profitable companies in the US pay no taxes.

Or, that a person earning 40,000 a year pays a far larger chunk of their earnings than the guy who makes 200,000.

...we all have our little talking points, Mr. Romney.

RPK79

Or, unicorn meat is the most tastiest of all meats.

I actually prepared quite a few tax returns this year and if I compared the taxes paid by an individual making $40k to the taxes paid by someone making $200k not only would I see the higher income earner paying more in taxes than the lower earner made all year, I would also see them paying a larger percentage of their income.

katsrevenge

The Buffett Rule | The White House

This may help you. Effective tax rate is not some much a number as it is a percentage of the total money earned and the total taken in taxes.

Quote:
"A full 22,000 households that made more than $1 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their income in income taxes — and 1,470 managed to pay no federal income taxes on their million-plus-dollar incomes, according to the IRS. And, the very wealthiest American households are paying nearly the lowest tax rate in 50 years— some are paying just half of the federal income tax that top income earners paid in 1960. But the average tax rate for middle class families has barely budged. The middle 20 percent of households paid 14 percent of their incomes in 1960, and 16 percent in 2010."

MEversbergII

Err...that's not really related to what I was saying. If we are all pulling together, I expect everyone to actually be pulling together. In a proper group, everyone looks out for everyone; you can't slack off and expect others to work extra to maintain the standard. We work for all the people.

No, I saw it. My statement stands, however. As I said, taking art classes is one thing; selling an expensive degree package to impressionable kids is another. A friend of mine is an artistic type (we refer to him as a "Drawist"). He has taken one art class - the rest is personal practice.

I work in the IT field. To work the job I'm moving into, you need an MCSA in a server platform the lab supports and a COMPTIA Security+ minimum. This is a DoD directive (8750, specifically). Those two speak for my ability to perform the level of IA work I do, because I passed examination by authorities that the DoD recognizes as being competent. My company, however, requires a Bachelors because it allows them to claim value added - not because the bachelors degree necessarily makes me better at my job...though in my specific circumstance, it has helped in some ways but maybe not quite the price of the classes. Lots of that training can be found on YouTube for love's sake!

If I want to go into business as an artist, I don't understand how your personal portfolio wouldn't be your certifying authority. Maybe a demonstration interview (much simpler than in the IA/IT world). There aren't any industry standards an artist really has to live up to. Company standards, maybe. There should not be a need for people to get a degree in art.

M.

EDIT: Regarding taxes, I think we are by and large rather undertaxed. The middle class has an unfair burden because they pay relatively more than the other two classes. Even as a kid in a poverty-ridden family subsisting off food stamps I wasn't jiving with the idea of getting credits for kids and having the government pay US, considering we use services and the like. Maybe better to not tax people at all until they're making something above the poverty line, maybe not, but I disliked how we were basically paid to be poor.

RPK79

Seriously? I have an accounting degree and own a tax business and you have the gall to assume I don't know the difference between effective and marginal tax rates?

Now, explain to me the difference between income tax and capital gains tax and how investment plays a role in the economy as a whole. After explaining that to me please discuss corporate cronyism, bailouts, and government picking winners and losers through tax code and then tell me how that is somehow better than a true capitalist society.

katsrevenge

Interesting. I personally love how so much education is now found online. Ever hear of Coursera? Fiancée is taking logic classes and I'm learning about physics and we have world class instructors. Great stuff, technology. It is annoying about the trend towards certification and unnecessary degrees. Example, I tinker with and build computers for fun. But, most shops won't accept a demonstration. Ah well.

I think that working/lower class taxes are probably where they should be. It's hard enough making ends meet around the poverty line. Growing up, child credits generally went to house and car repairs, school clothes- and one year mom bought us bikes with it, LOL! But mostly, they went straight into costs of living. Kids are not cheap, not at all.
I think middle class taxes are, percentage-wise, too high. And I think that upper class taxes need a serious overhaul. Capital gains are income and should be treated as such.

Hmm... That's the thing about art. There are 'industry standards' of a sort...even if they are not readily apparent. In 2-D art you need to understand just how color, shape and form co-exist to make a meaningful image. You must also have some sort of understanding of modern life, politics, hardship..something... to put into your work. (When I was an art student, a huge chunk of my classes had to be in sciences, in humanities and other disciplines..really, I was getting a typical 'classical' education. Then I went dual philosophy/psychology and had to narrow down to my fields.) And, to succeed at higher levels, you must also be able to BS like a boss. It's like any other industry in that way.

How was I to know you are who you are? Most people who I've had this discussion with only see that Mr. Lower Bracket paid 5Gs while Mz Higher Bracket paid 20Gs.

And that's the great thing about this kind of discussion. I don't have to. The tax related details are only important to me in how they affect actual living people living actual lives. We have gov't to blunt the effect of greed...at least when it is doing its job. We've tried actual laissez-faire capitalism in the past. Seven year olds running cotton looms and worse was the end result of that. Why on god's green earth would anyone want to go back to that??

RPK79

So the details are only important to you to the extent that they validate your anecdotal view on life and actually looking at how an economy works doesn't matter?

The actual role and job of the government is to protect the people's rights and property not to blunt the effect of greed. I'm pretty sure the country can institute capitalism in this day and age without instituting child slavery. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

Spld cyclist

I know the government did pick a winner when they decided that capital gains would be taxed at a much lower rate than income. That means that you pay lower taxes when buying something, waiting for it to increase in value, and then selling it than you would by: (1) investing in your education and getting a higher-paying job; (2) buying a machine that makes widgets and selling the widgets at a profit; (3) starting a company and selling goods or services; (4) conducting R&D and inventing something of value, etc. Why did the government decide to reward buy/hold/sell above other activities that are actually the engines of our economy?

(I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, just trying to reframe the debate.)

Joe Perez

Presupposing that you are arguing with a weasel, yes.




Truer words have not yet been posted in this thread.

I often make this same argument against labor-unions in the present day; they have outlived their original function of protecting workers from physically dangerous conditions in an era before tort relief was easily accessible to the common man through the courts, and have been re-cast as tools of economic oppression, serving to enrich the union bosses who rise and sleep each day under the blanket of the very tyrrany which the union originally sought to oppose.


It's funny, actually. In the 21st century, the only societies in which it's still commonplace to find exploitative child labor and horribly oppressive working conditions are those in which precisely the opposite of laissez-faire capitalism is the standing rule: nations such as China and North Korea, which feature centrally-planned economies operating under the banner of communism.



On-topic: Chinese automaker Chery continues to face opposition and technical hurdles in introducing its passenger-car lineup to the US market, though they have made significant progress in penetrating the European market, with facilities in both Italy and Turkey.

MEversbergII

I feel you on the child tax credits. Subsidy is not, by their very nature, evil. Subsidizing childbirth, however, is dumb.

When I was a freshman in high school, my dad got injured on the job. It was stale pie for many months...food pantries tend to suck. I'm ~hoping~ to alleviate that a bit where I'm at soon by donating palatable, nourishing foods to the local soup kitchen as soon as I hear one way or another on this house buy. I haven't had an opportunity to really get a feel for how they operate, so it'll have to be after I put in an evening or three to see what they like.

I think one of the churches near me runs a food pantry (I am wedged between, no joke, 5 churches in easy walking distance). I don't think there's one of those "helping hands" type secular pantries unfortunately. I'd consider starting one but I don't have confidnce I would have time to run it properly. I would probably get better mileage interfacing myself as an individual to the local homeless shelter (which invokes it's own special ire from me...but maybe I can fix it...)

I have a slight complex, almost a reflex, regarding "charity" - to use the term loosely. I grew up on it (and hated it). I currently live pretty lean (better now than the last few years, however, so there's that). My paycheck is derived from tax payer money (defense contractor). Thus, I have this urge to "pay it back" in some way. Hell, the government paid for my schooling (both public school that taught my bogan ass to read, write, and know that cells are a thing AND almost all of my college degree). Said schooling allows me to get more money off them in the form of my paycheck. I actually pay taxes now (which hurts my brain, considering the taxes pay for my income...incomerecursion!), so I guess they're slowly getting a return on investment.

M.

RPK79

So, you're saying that we should eliminate corporate tax rates so that business owners can draw a reasonable salary taxed at income tax rates and then take the rest of the earnings as dividends taxed at capital gains rates without getting hammered with the double taxation inherent in that tax structure?

Or, are you saying that capital gains should be taxed at income tax rates thus disincentivizing capital investments?

wphamilton

That's your idealized goal about the actual role of the government, and I might not disagree with the ideal. But the actual role hasn't been limited to this for some time. If ever.

Unrestrained greed by people with enough resources is problematic for capitalism and the free market. Those problems arise which tend to injure the peoples' rights and property. Therefore in order to protect people's rights, the greed must be constrained. QED.

wphamilton

I can't speak for him, but this sounds like a pretty good idea. But wouldn't it be more logical if all of the money that the owners paid themselves from the business be taxed as regular income?

RPK79

It's actually laid out pretty plainly in the Constitution what the federal government's role is. That role has been spread and been distorted over time though.

I'm not so naive to believe we should let business run rampant and roughshod over everyone, but the current system of large companies lobbying for special treatments is no way to constrain greed. Government needs to remove itself from business. There shouldn't be government backed home/car loans. There should not be tax incentives for unsustainable 'green' businesses. There should not be bailouts for 'too big to fail' businesses. Big business loves government because government protects big business from competition. They shelter the greedy and allow them to thrive. It is the very regulation portrayed as protecting the lowly citizens that allows the large greedy businesses to stifle their competition and grow to the size that they become too big to fail in the first place.

RPK79

In a S Corp, sole prop, or partnership all the profits are taxed at regular income tax rates (plus SE taxes on top of it). C corps are different as they are separate tax entities and are themselves taxed at corporate rates and then the income distributed to the owners is taxed as dividends (the owners may or may not work at the company so may not be drawing a salary).

Either way the business owners are hit with additional tax that the employee is not.

Roody

There are many interesting ideas on this thread, from both sides of the political spectrum, and people are doing a good job of discussing without insults, stupidity, or trollishness. (Seriously!)

Now it would be fascinating to see who among you participants can best explain how these ideas relate to the overarching theme of carfree living.

RPK79

They don't and I'm honestly surprised this thread hasn't been banished to P&R.

Roody

I don't know...there must be some tie-in between taxation policies and carfree living, or examples of ways that government "interference" impact bicycling. Or something....

RPK79

The standard mileage rate can't be used for business miles ridden on a bicycle. Instead you must use actual expenses.

prathmann

Of course you're only looking at the income tax rate, which is where Romney's talking points also came from. But lower income people pay a higher rate for both Soc. Sec. and Medicare taxes since all of their earned income is taxed rather than just a portion as it is with those who earn above the cut-off levels. Lower income people also end up spending almost all their income and therefore pay a higher percentage of it on sales taxes. And housing consumes much more of their income so they pay a higher effective rate in property taxes (either directly or passed along in monthly rent charges). Gas taxes also hit the lower income groups harder since more of their income is needed to keep their car running.

prathmann

It was hard to figure the true 'actual expenses' for the portion of my bike riding that was for business purposes. I just made a rough estimate at a per-mile charge and used that when filing company vouchers for reimbursement. It was only a fraction of the allowed per-mile charge for cars and I never got any complaints about it from our accounting department.

RPK79

Medicare tax is a set % of income regardless of your income so no one pays a higher rate. SS tax cuts off after you earn a $117k so you have a point there (albeit a small point), but high income earners will also see less benefit from SS as well.

I don't see a problem with consumption taxes. You consume more you pay more tax; you consume less you pay less tax. It's as fair a tax as you can get.

Gas taxes? Well shouldn't everyone be riding a bike anyway?

Joe Perez

Yes, and no.

It's true that social security tax is capped at $117,000 as of this year. HOWEVER, in the long-run, Social Security is massively progressive, since the payouts are adjusted such that people who were low wage-earners during their working years receive a disproportionately high rate-of-return during their retirement years. Those whose lifetime earnings are in the lowest 1/5th of all payers will receive a roughly 165% payout- which is to say that their anticipated lifetime benefit will be 65% MORE than what their total lifetime pay-in was. By comparison, those of us whose earnings are in the upper-most 1/5 of all payers will receive a measly 65% benefit ratio- we will receive 35% LESS in lifetime benefits than they paid in.

So that's de-bunked.


Bear in mind also that high wage-earners are disproportionately represented in the self-employed. I was self-employed for a period of about 4 years, and I can tell you from experience that those of us in that position pay, in addition to all of the regular income taxes, an additional 15% tax on 92.35% of our net earnings. (This is covering the portion of medicare / SS tax which, for most regular employees, is invisibly paid by their employer.)


Also, you are incorrect in that Medicare-taxable income is capped. Not only is there no cut-off for Medicare tax, but higher-income earners actually pay MORE Medicare tax both in absolute numbers and as a percentage. Specifically, you pay an extra 0.9% above and beyond the regular Medicare tax on all income above $200,000 (single) or $125,000 (married, jointly).


So that's de-bunked as well.




All "flat" taxes, including sales taxes, will always be claimed to be regressive by those who wish to appear to be victims of the wealthy. There's simply nothing that can practically be done about this.

katsrevenge

More that I feel that government exists to serve the people. When the laws do not serve the people, or worse, hurts them, then the laws and their minutiae really don't matter.

My grandmother's family was involved in the Battle of Blair Mountain. It was just two years before she was born. The labor wars were not that long ago. Some say they never ended. At least, I'm not willing to trust a wealth-mad Wall Street banker any farther than I can throw him. Give a Koch an inch...

This, so much. Actual work, invention, and education has been devalued in this country. We outsource... which is no good for the long term stability of our society.

Weren't some of these reasons part of the original drive to return part of federal and state taxes to lower income individuals?

Hmmm.... Politics are inherently involved in questions of class and wealth. Wealth and class play a large role in what is typically used as transportation. Car-free living is often tied directly into low class/low income living (right or wrong) and as folk who have chosen to make it car free or car light, we must be aware of all of these strands. Lotta strands to keep in our heads, man. Lotta ins and outs..