My math is excellent, and I don't have to resort to mischaracterizing minor tax increases as "class warfare."
Obama's tax plan: 'Fair share' vs. 'class warfare'?
- Thread starter WoodPeckr
- Start date
That's W, the current POTUS simply didn't have the fortitude to raise them before or after the mid-term elections... he has cut the payroll taxes, (something Reagan increased) which will further endanger Social Security (again, class warfare).The current president has delivered lower tax rates for individuals than Reagan. Was Reagan a class warrior?
Clinton's rates were higher and produced a booming economy.
You have a cute McCarthite talking point...but the facts don't come close.
OTB
class warfare?...lol...how bout the middle class has been losing that war for the last 20 years...time for the rich big wigs to start paying....it's only fairThat's W, the current POTUS simply didn't have the fortitude to raise them before or after the mid-term elections... he has cut the payroll taxes, (something Reagan increased) which will further endanger Social Security (again, class warfare).
OTB
So you argument is now that Obama is making class warfare on the poor?That's W, the current POTUS simply didn't have the fortitude to raise them before or after the mid-term elections... he has cut the payroll taxes, (something Reagan increased) which will further endanger Social Security (again, class warfare).
OTB
Do you have the playbook?
Here are the facts:
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press | AP – 2 hrs 52 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay."
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, but all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting, which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press | AP – 2 hrs 52 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay."
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, but all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting, which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.
so the article is saying those who are paid with wages will be taxed more that those who have made money thru investment...sure sounds like the poorer man who is paid by a boss in wages is being taxed more than the rich investment banker or business owner....Here are the facts:
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER - Associated Press | AP – 2 hrs 52 mins ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries.
"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said Monday. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
The data tell a different story. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
In his White House address Monday, Obama called on Congress to increase taxes by $1.5 trillion as part of a 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He proposed that Congress overhaul the tax code and impose what he called the "Buffett rule," named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett.
The rule says, "People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay."
"Warren Buffett's secretary shouldn't pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it," Obama said. "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million."
Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most, however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes.
"People who are doing quite well and worry about low-income people not paying any taxes bemoan the fact that they get so many tax breaks that they are zeroed out," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "People at the bottom of the distribution say, but all of those rich guys are getting bigger tax breaks than we're getting, which is also the case."
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates.
"So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said.
It is an interesting academic discussion, if investment income should be taxed higher or lesser than earned income. In north america, investment income , i.e. capital gains and dividends are taxed at a very preferential rate, while in more socialist countries, investment income is taxed at a higher rate than earned income.so the article is saying those who are paid with wages will be taxed more that those who have made money thru investment...sure sounds like the poorer man who is paid by a boss in wages is being taxed more than the rich investment banker or business owner....
No, it means those who have an income of "$X" a significant portion of which are Capital Gains, therefore have more income taxed at a lower rate than those who have non-Capital Gains income. So for instance the Chairman of the Board of Berkshire Hathaway is taxed largely on Capital Gaines while Physicans or Lawyers are taxed largely on earned income. Those with more income of either type still pay a greater percentage of income as tax than those with less income.so the article is saying those who are paid with wages will be taxed more that those who have made money thru investment...sure sounds like the poorer man who is paid by a boss in wages is being taxed more than the rich investment banker or business owner....
Which goes in part to explain European Tax Havens.while in more socialist countries, investment income is taxed at a higher rate than earned income.
Which tax havens?Which goes in part to explain European Tax Havens.
Switzerland, Monaco, Malta, (although not part of the E.U.) are three that come to mind.Which tax havens?
I find that very, very hard to believe, unless they are overseas dividends and investments and deliberately being hidden through shells. Every bank in the U.S. (and most overseas) and Corporation has to report to the IRS to whom that interest and those dividends have been paid.In addition the IRS estimates that it taxes about 99% of earned income, while only catching about 70% of dividends and investment income.
It appears that the rich are pretty good at hiding their income and underreporting it.
NY Times...but if you trust the IRS on one, surely you must trust them on the other.I find that very, very hard to believe, unless they are overseas dividends and investments and deliberately being hidden through shells. Every bank in the U.S. (and most overseas) and Corporation has to report to the IRS to whom that interest and those dividends have been paid.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.
All I can say is what I said.
When you set up a bank account, or purchase shares of stock you have to provide identification sufficient to allow the IRS to match interest and dividends to you the taxpayer. (That has applied in Canada and the U.K. as well), so don't ask me how they are only able to send insufficient tax notices to 70 percent (more or less) of those who receive interest or dividend income unless the other 30 percent (more or less) are deliberately attempting to hide income from shares and accounts held overseas and held through shells.
When you set up a bank account, or purchase shares of stock you have to provide identification sufficient to allow the IRS to match interest and dividends to you the taxpayer. (That has applied in Canada and the U.K. as well), so don't ask me how they are only able to send insufficient tax notices to 70 percent (more or less) of those who receive interest or dividend income unless the other 30 percent (more or less) are deliberately attempting to hide income from shares and accounts held overseas and held through shells.
I don't claim to know the mechanisms. CRA knows about every stinking penny I make.All I can say is what I said.
When you set up a bank account, or purchase shares of stock you have to provide identification sufficient to allow the IRS to mach interest and dividends to you the taxpayer. (That has applied in Canada and the U.K. as well), so don't ask me how they are only able to send insufficient tax notices to 70 percent (more or less) of those who receive interest or dividend income unless the other 30 percent (more or less) are deliberately attempting to hide income from shares and accounts held overseas and held through shells.
So what's your point/ We should tax all upper-income people more because we suspect some of them cheat? That's brilliant strategy. Cayman here we come.NY Times...but if you trust the IRS on one, surely you must trust them on the other.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html
That is not my point at all. Others were suggesting that "the well off" were paying perhaps more than there fair share based on IRS numbers. I was pointing out that even the IRS admit that they are catching a lower portion of income that is paid to the wealthy than the average or poor. If you want to look at numbers you need to do it fairly.So what's your point/ We should tax all upper-income people more because we suspect some of them cheat? That's brilliant strategy. Cayman here we come.
What are suggesting, that tax evasion is a virture?
So what's your point/ We should tax all upper-income people more because we suspect some of them cheat? That's brilliant strategy. Cayman here we come.
...how about they got some slack cut over the past few (8+ years) and it's time for everyone to pitch in?
