Millionaires Pay Four Times as Much as the Regular

[Maxflex]

Millionaires Pay Four Times as Much as the Regular Joe

From CNBC:

"According to new data from the IRS, people who make $1 million or more had an average tax rate of 20.4 percent in 2010. Tax filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 paid an average rate of 4.8 percent, while those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7 percent. Those making under $30,000 had a negative effective rate, meaning they paid no federal income taxes after deductions and credits. Put another way, millionaires pay a rate that’s more than four times that of the middle class."

Are there exceptions like Warren Buffett? Of course. But on average, the wealthy, those who are creating jobs and investing in our economy, are paying their "Fair Share."

Being honest and losing an election is still better then lying and cheating to win one.

[george1861]

Remeber, The TaxCode is supposed to raise required amount of revenue with as little economic disruption as possible. The train wreck of a Tax Code is just the opposit. Primarily a mass of disruptive Laws to try to affect the people's spending, to reward or hurt favored/disfavored Industries, favor businesses or even a single plant in a polititian's District, ect. Buffet's tax situation is a reflection of it. For decades Dems & Reps have known the value to the economy of lower taxes on investment return. As a result Buffet takes no salary, therefore he pays a lower rate than his Secretary who is taxed at the higher rate for wages. Dems are hyping this to push Class Envy & Class Warfare, once again to the detrimint of the economy. The Tax Code stacked up on end would be over 11 feet tall w/o anything new added, at an enormous cost & warpage of the economy.

[Maxflex]

Sounds like a good debate for flat % tax on income, be it state or federal. Everyone pays the same percent on there earnings.

[msguide]

I'm in favor of a flat tax that acts more like a user fee. Everyone pays. No deductions, no loopholes. You owe the money, so get a job and pay up.

[Maxflex]

Nov 26, 2012 5:49:33 GMT -8 msguide said:

I'm in favor of a flat tax that acts more like a user fee. Everyone pays. No deductions, no loopholes. You owe the money, so get a job and pay up.

Perhaps there may be no exceptions on earn income ... sadly there would be exceptions elsewhere.

Who is willing to give up (earn income credit for one) Where if you make X amount of dollars you are Allowed Z amount of dollars? Oh I know I was more then willing to stop my refund at what I had paid into it in taxes. But others have gotten use to getting back more then they have paid into the system.

It sure would be nice if we could place a life time cap (and temp time limit for each use) on earn income credit, welfare, and other "credits" which is just a form of vote buying.

Of course there would need to be an exception on taxes which (social security, medicare) are taken out by the government for a stated reason.

[george1861]

I'm a huge fan of "The Fair Tax" a consumption tax that taxes everyone equally @ 23%, while abolishing the income & corporate tax train wreck. Naturally there would be people who gain/lose benefits of the twisted system we have now. We would be better off in the long run.

[Maxflex]

While I see a need for the states and federal government to have a steady source of income (best achieve by taxing income since it is the more steady source of income), I also see a need for local taxes.

But this would require a re-write of the duty's or function of the government.

1. Put Federal Government back to a representation of the U.S. to the world, and a defender of our rights. This means we no longer pay off others to let us have what we see as out rights, but a willingness to fight when our rights are stepped on. A bit simple maybe, but a start back to how our government was set up.

This does not mean we can not help others (even our own states) but restrict the help to funds on hand, set aside for just this function. Of course a vote needs to be taken before each and every act of help given.

2. States will oversee the counties with in there borders. This does not mean a complete takeover of there functions.

3. Now we are down to local government. Where the most money should be needed. It too needs to be a steady income. So a consumption tax would have way too much different from month to month. But should it be limited to whatever the local government can collect in taxes, or should the state be allowed to tax all its people and balance out the needs with-in its borders?

~sigh~ It is really way too much for us to figure out in a short time frame. But the savings in government employees would be worth it in the long run.

[george1861]

Nov 26, 2012 9:14:04 GMT -8 Maxflex said:

While I see a need for the states and federal government to have a steady source of income (best achieve by taxing income since it is the more steady source of income), I also see a need for local taxes.

But this would require a re-write of the duty's or function of the government.

1. Put Federal Government back to a representation of the U.S. to the world, and a defender of our rights. This means we no longer pay off others to let us have what we see as out rights, but a willingness to fight when our rights are stepped on. A bit simple maybe, but a start back to how our government was set up.

This does not mean we can not help others (even our own states) but restrict the help to funds on hand, set aside for just this function. Of course a vote needs to be taken before each and every act of help given.

2. States will oversee the counties with in there borders. This does not mean a complete takeover of there functions.

3. Now we are down to local government. Where the most money should be needed. It too needs to be a steady income. So a consumption tax would have way too much different from month to month. But should it be limited to whatever the local government can collect in taxes, or should the state be allowed to tax all its people and balance out the needs with-in its borders?

~sigh~ It is really way too much for us to figure out in a short time frame. But the savings in government employees would be worth it in the long run.

I was talking about funding the Fed. Govt. Didn't follow exactly what you meant in #1, but the States/Ind Republics sat up the Fed. Govt. to oversee things of National importance. A unified Defence (War & Navy Dept), unified national currency, though States were able to issue their own(Treasury Dept) & a National foriegn policy(State Dept). The Fed. Govt has gone astray by trying to do everything. There's no way the Fed. Govt. should be funding the National Cowboy Poetry Festival. In most places local Govt isn't funded by Income Taxes, where it is it should be abolished. Local Govt is funded by Property Taxes, sales Taxes, Ect. When I was talking Fair Tax I was talking @ the Fed. level, but it should be adopted by the States also. I think sales tax would be as stable as an income tax, when earnings go up, so do purchases. Traditionaly any charitable hand outs done by Govt. was done @ the local level because it was thought that they could be better @ supervising @ that level.

[Maxflex]

Nov 26, 2012 16:38:46 GMT -8 george1861 said:

Nov 26, 2012 9:14:04 GMT -8 Maxflex said:

While I see a need for the states and federal government to have a steady source of income (best achieve by taxing income since it is the more steady source of income), I also see a need for local taxes.

But this would require a re-write of the duty's or function of the government.

1. Put Federal Government back to a representation of the U.S. to the world, and a defender of our rights. This means we no longer pay off others to let us have what we see as out rights, but a willingness to fight when our rights are stepped on. A bit simple maybe, but a start back to how our government was set up.

This does not mean we can not help others (even our own states) but restrict the help to funds on hand, set aside for just this function. Of course a vote needs to be taken before each and every act of help given.

2. States will oversee the counties with in there borders. This does not mean a complete takeover of there functions.

3. Now we are down to local government. Where the most money should be needed. It too needs to be a steady income. So a consumption tax would have way too much different from month to month. But should it be limited to whatever the local government can collect in taxes, or should the state be allowed to tax all its people and balance out the needs with-in its borders?

~sigh~ It is really way too much for us to figure out in a short time frame. But the savings in government employees would be worth it in the long run.

I was talking about funding the Fed. Govt. Didn't follow exactly what you meant in #1, but the States/Ind Republics sat up the Fed. Govt. to oversee things of National importance. A unified Defence (War & Navy Dept), unified national currency, though States were able to issue their own(Treasury Dept) & a National foriegn policy(State Dept). The Fed. Govt has gone astray by trying to do everything. There's no way the Fed. Govt. should be funding the National Cowboy Poetry Festival. In most places local Govt isn't funded by Income Taxes, where it is it should be abolished. Local Govt is funded by Property Taxes, sales Taxes, Ect. When I was talking Fair Tax I was talking @ the Fed. level, but it should be adopted by the States also. I think sales tax would be as stable as an income tax, when earnings go up, so do purchases. Traditionaly any charitable hand outs done by Govt. was done @ the local level because it was thought that they could be better @ supervising @ that level.

Oh, sorry. I am looking at the complete problems with government. I did not limit it just to Federal.

But yea, before WWII income tax was different. Paid by just the top percent.