Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    14,012
    vCash
    1500

    The New York Times: Tax Burden for Most Americans Is Lower Than in the 1980s

    This was an incredible and informative article.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us...pagewanted=all

    BELLEVILLE, Ill. — Alan Hicks divides long days between the insurance business he started in the late 1970s and the barbecue restaurant he opened with his sons three years ago. He earned more than $250,000 last year and said taxes took more than 40 percent. What’s worse, in his view, is that others — the wealthy, hiding in loopholes; the poor, living on government benefits — are not paying their fair share.

    “It feels like the harder we work, the more they take from us,” said Mr. Hicks, 55, as he waited for a meat truck one recent afternoon. “And it seems like there’s an awful lot of people in the United States who don’t pay any taxes.”

    These are common sentiments in the eastern suburbs of St. Louis, a region of fading factory towns fringed by new subdivisions. Here, as across the country, people like Mr. Hicks are pained by the conviction that they are paying ever more to finance the expansion of government.

    But in fact, most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes — federal, state and local — than they would have paid 30 years ago. According to an analysis by The New York Times, the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980.

    Households earning more than $200,000 benefited from the largest percentage declines in total taxation as a share of income. Middle-income households benefited, too. More than 85 percent of households with earnings above $25,000 paid less in total taxes than comparable households in 1980.

    Lower-income households, however, saved little or nothing. Many pay no federal income taxes, but they do pay a range of other levies, like federal payroll taxes, state sales taxes and local property taxes. Only about half of taxpaying households with incomes below $25,000 paid less in 2010.

    The uneven decline is a result of two trends. Congress cut federal taxation at every income level over the last 30 years. State and local taxes, meanwhile, increased for most Americans. Those taxes generally take a larger share of income from those who make less, so the increases offset more and more of the federal savings at lower levels of income.

    In a half-dozen states, including Connecticut, Florida and New Jersey, the increases were large enough to offset the federal savings for most households, not just the poorer ones.

    Now an era of tax cuts may be reaching its end. The federal government depends increasingly on borrowed money to pay its bills, and many state and local governments are similarly confronting the reality that they are spending more money than they collect. In Washington, debates about tax cuts have yielded to debates about who should pay more.
    I think it is time that those that are wealthy pay more. We need the revenue to keep our basic functions of government and infrastructure running but we must also make some changes to our entitlement programs to keep them financial stable.
    Last edited by SportsAndrew25; 11-30-2012 at 09:02 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,775
    vCash
    1500
    I think more burdening than the tax is the things that the tax money is used on. I wouldn't mind paying even 50% tax if that meant our entire population had legitimate access to decent healthcare, education, food, and shelter. If cities didn't have cesspools of crime and poverty. If gov't entities weren't run like businesses with profiteers sitting at the top.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,115
    vCash
    1500
    What's interesting to me is the reference to the 1980s, and now. Made me assume they were talking about Reagan and Obama. Funny part is, the reference is actually to 1980, before Reagan's policies took effect. What would thy be in 1988, after tax rates started to go back up? And its also interesting they cinlude taxes other than income.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,365
    vCash
    1500
    Statistically, we have not had this low of tax rates since the early 1930s. The corporate tax rate has steadily gone up but the individual rate has gone down substantially since 1945. Below is a very nice chart:

    http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.c...ains_Rates.png

    I tried to find information on the average (of all 50 states) rate of income taxes by year for comparison of actual tax rates but I didn't see anything.

    I can accept the premise that tax rates should go down, but I think we need to gut deductions for all instances and start at 0% and work your way up to either 25% or 30%. But that will include capital gains as your income.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,839
    vCash
    1500
    This all totally and completely discounts the inflation tax. Perhaps the most destructive...

    We've tripled our money supply over the last 5 years. That newly created money is always paid for by diluting the existing currency.

    These numbers are totally irrelevant when they can just print what they need and smack us with the debt of it.

    Also consider what raising taxes on the rich does... the rich are not stupid...

    In Britain’s tax year 2009-10, over 16K people declared income exceeding $1 million pounds. Right after the country’s next election, Gordon Brown instituted a 50% tax rate on those top earners. The following year, only 6,000 in Britain earned the $ million pound mark. Many Britons moved abroad to avoid the ridiculous tax. Others who stayed simply earned less intentionally. Conservatives use this example to show that raising taxes too high actually reduces revenues to the government. It is a perfect way to explain the Laffer Curve which tries to determine at exactly which rate of tax provides the most revenue to the central government.
    Our Political Right Blog-

    Maryland has also failed at a millionaire’s tax recently. Tax experts estimate that Maryland lost $1.7 billion in tax revenues by chasing their wealthy across state borders. California, the worst managed state in the nation (and also the most Liberal) just raised taxes on the wealthy, and many think the state has just started this process. What Liberals fail to understand is that a flat tax rate across ALL citizens provides for the highest revenues as countries who do so (Hong Kong for example) also have the strongest economies. The trick is to determine which flat tax rate is at the optimal level on the Laffer Curve- the rate that brings in the most receipts. Our current elected government won by dividing the US into the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ on a notion that all will be fine by taking money from those who have more. First of all, it won’t work and history has shown that. Second, the rich will always be rich and the poor will end up suffering more than any other group. Third, it does not pay down the debt which is the ultimate goal. Obama’s plan only pays for 8.5 days of current government spending levels. We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
    http://ourpoliticalright.com/us-and-...-rich-failure/
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,365
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by whitesoxfan83 View Post
    This all totally and completely discounts the inflation tax. Perhaps the most destructive...

    We've tripled our money supply over the last 5 years. That newly created money is always paid for by diluting the existing currency.

    These numbers are totally irrelevant when they can just print what they need and smack us with the debt of it.

    Also consider what raising taxes on the rich does... the rich are not stupid...



    http://ourpoliticalright.com/us-and-...-rich-failure/
    The money supply bit is not true at all. The M2 number is currently about 10000 billion ($10T) and it reached one-third of that value in roughy 1990.

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2

    Also considering the first paragraph of that article makes a false statement about the Laffer curve, I don't know how well I would trust it. Look up the Laffer curve on Google and tell me what it suggests the idea tax rate is...I can wait while you search.

    Here's a hint, it doesn't. You will notice that it doesn't have a recommendation in it. Don't confuse it with the Phillip's curve, which shows up when you Google Laffer curve.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,101
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by whitesoxfan83 View Post
    This all totally and completely discounts the inflation tax. Perhaps the most destructive...

    We've tripled our money supply over the last 5 years. That newly created money is always paid for by diluting the existing currency.

    These numbers are totally irrelevant when they can just print what they need and smack us with the debt of it.
    What are you talking about? Inflation is incredibly low. It has been for a long time.

    Also consider what raising taxes on the rich does... the rich are not stupid...
    You apparently have not met enough of the rich. Paris Hilton would like a word.
    “We learn from history that we do not learn from history”
    ― Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •