The liberal vultures are circling.

[Thor]

Have you ever looked into turning someone in who is on disability?  I did.  I was going to turn this guy in but there is a slight problem.  IF you turn them in and they determine this person deserves it .... you can be fined for harassment.

KC

I suppose that's where pictures or videos and witnesses come into play..........

But, NO, I've never known or witnessed anybody that was on SSDI and held an actual job on the side or under the table.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I appreciate you civility and temperate style as well.

You can believe it or not as you see fit, however at the 70% marginal rate I SAW people decline work because their very limited takeaway from it just wasn't worth the effort and use of their time for the return involved.  It was a pervasive-enough issue that I even remember a shot being taken at the situation in a television sitcom (Which one eludes me, however) over a plumber doing exactly that in a subplot issue, this was not as preposterous as it may sound since union scale, overtime, and the fact that Carter's inflation problem had moved many high-earning tradesmen into 'Rich' for tax code purposes while ensuring they weren't really 'rich' at all in purchasing power. 

The New Deal and Eisenhower eras were really a different kettle of fish, with WWII and the Korean War, unpleasant as the high marginal rate was, there was at least an apparent reason for it, and of course the tax code and tax shelters were comparable to those obtaining today in only the most conceptual of ways. 

To that point, your graph is fine as far as it goes, but really has very limited validity.  The way taxes actually worked through the very long time period it covers changed drastically, every major burp in that graph reflects major changes in the way the entire tax code functioned, this or that Tax Reform Act of 19XX, new programs such as Earned Income Credit, expansion and contraction of deductions, credits, loopholes, exemptions, and definitions of taxable income, not to mention the expansion of other federal taxes such as FICA and lesser withholding taxes like unemployment and Medicare.  The reliance on the bare marginal rate alone yields a wildly inaccurate picture of effective taxation and per capita impact.   

[Texacon]

I suppose that's where pictures or videos and witnesses come into play..........

But, NO, I've never known or witnessed anybody that was on SSDI and held an actual job on the side or under the table.

I don't know that he's working on the side.  He has built a privacy fence around his home.  He has resided his home.  He has re-roofed his home.  I watched him building a dog house the other day.

I don't know if he is working for pay for someone else but I suspect he takes cash here and there for odd jobs.  Catching someone like that is beyond difficult.

Not to mention this dude got $30,000 in 'back pay' because they denied him what was rightfully his for a couple of years.

I got online and looked it up.  I can't afford to turn him in.

KC

[USA4ME]

Okay, here's a concept I simply DO NOT understand. How can any business be "too big to fail"? That's nuts and anti-capitalist.

While I agree, it's a domino effect.  There's just no way to transfer all the things a big corp does to other on-going corps or create a new corp (or corps) to pick up the slack fast enough before things start falling.

A good book to read that can explain this much more concise than I would is called "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" by William Greider.  I don't agree with everything in it, but it does explain real life situations that happened where they bailed out these corps, and it explains in detail why.

But from an overall capitalistic viewpoint, I'm in full sympathy with what you said.

.

[Karin]

Hey DAT, thanks for going into a bit more detail in your last paragraph about what I last posted about the tax code being much different with each shift in the graph.  I'm having a busy day and had no time to elaborate. 

[DumbAss Tanker]

No prob, I agree with everything you said but I couldn't let that graph go without throwing in my own $.02.

[Texacon]

An example of what I was talking about;

The government does not prevent nearly enough fraud within our programs. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, US programs lose 7% of their money to corruption. That means before Uncle Sam even wrote the first check for the huge $787 billion stimulus package, taxpayers could already expect to see $55 billion get stolen.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/is-the-mortgage-fraud-crackdown-the-start-of-addressing-economic-cancers/?p=13084/

This is $55 billion out of one program.  I'm tired of paying for this crap.

Here's another;

MIAMI – A federal program designed to help impoverished families heat and cool their homes wasted more than $100 million paying the electric bills of thousands of applicants who were dead, in prison or living in million-dollar mansions, according to a government investigation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_electric_bill_fraud

And we're supposed to just overlook this kind of 'accounting error'.  I guarantee you if this was a private enterprise 1.)  This wouldn't have happened and 2.)  If if DID somehow manage to happen heads would roll.

KC

[Laelth]

I actually enjoy talking to liberals and happen to like them on Hannity's board, it's nice when you talk to someone of a different ideology who has common sense on issues and you and Soleil fit the meaning of what liberalism once was, but since it "evolved" into progressivism it seems like common sense has gone out the window. Glad to see that they seem to be the minority of the party. It's been a pleasure talking to you and reading what you've posted.

That's very kind of you, and the pleasure has been mine.  Thanks for indulging me in some honest, civil discussion.

 

-Laelth

[soleil]

That's very kind of you, and the pleasure has been mine.  Thanks for indulging me in some honest, civil discussion.

 

-Laelth

What are your feelings about DU these days? I ask that as a former DUer. I left because it has turned to crap.

[Laelth]

One other thing.  When you become a very successful and 'powerful' attorney ..... please do come back and tell us all how much you love paying your income tax.  Make sure you don't take any deductions because that would constitute stealing from the poor.

I don't make a lot of money and I'm far from rich but I can assure you I'm taxed out the ass.  We should stop withholding and force every American worker to write their own tax checks every month.  There would be a tax revolution in this country by the end of the first month.

Which, by the way, is why they won't let companies do it that way.

KC

Honestly, I think you have a good idea.  It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who dramatically jacked up our FICA taxes, and I think if we had to write a check for them every week (or month) there might be some national desire to adopt a more fair tax system.  FICA taxes, after all, are highly regressive.  There are a lot more poor and middle-classed people than there are wealthy ones.  Being reminded that we are being soaked with taxes might do us some good.

For my own part, I am still paying Federal self-employment taxes from 2008.  You'd think the tax code would make it attractive to run your own business, but it doesn't.  All the politicians' rhetoric about favoring small business is complete bunk.  Their actions favor big business, and a small-business owner like me is not even on their radar.  Self-employment taxes are really steep.

-Laelth

[Texacon]

Honestly, I think you have a good idea.  It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who dramatically jacked up our FICA taxes, and I think if we had to write a check for them every week (or month) there might be some national desire to adopt a more fair tax system.  FICA taxes, after all, are highly regressive.  There are a lot more poor and middle-classed people than there are wealthy ones.  Being reminded that we are being soaked with taxes might do us some good.

For my own part, I am still paying Federal self-employment taxes from 2008.  You'd think the tax code would make it attractive to run your own business, but it doesn't.  All the politicians' rhetoric about favoring small business is complete bunk.  Their actions favor big business, and a small-business owner like me is not even on their radar.  Self-employment taxes are really steep.
-Laelth

Yes they are.  I've been self employed for 15 years. 

KC

[Karin]

The government hates when you go into business for yourself.  They can't control and tax you as easily as when you just turn in a W2.  But, the way the job market is today, the enterprising among us have no choice but to make our own job. 

[TheSarge]

It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who dramatically jacked up our FICA taxes

Reagan merely signed the bill.  Congress was the one that sent the FICA taxes through the roof.

And he signed the bill because of promises made...and then reneged on by the Dems to cut spending...something like $2 dollars of cuts for every $1 in spending.

Dems never have been able to keep promises.

[USA4ME]

Yes they are.  I've been self employed for 15 years.  

KC

I've owned and operated my own business for almost 25 years, too.  I agree paying the 15.3% can be a bite, especially considering I'll never see it again.  Add to that your Federal Income Tax rate and it mounts up.  But as a Sub-S Corp, I use the law to my advantage.  Let's say I make $500K.  I pay myself a base salary of $100K (on which I owe the 15.3% and any applicable Fed Income Tax) and I pay the remaining $400K as Sub-S dividends, which is currently taxed at 15% and no SS taxes are garnished.  You might do the same thing already for all I know.

.

[Laelth]

No prob, I agree with everything you said but I couldn't let that graph go without throwing in my own $.02.

I admit that the graph that lays out the top marginal rate doesn't tell the whole story, and I have no reason to doubt you when you say that some people chose not to work (at some period in our history) because the top marginal tax rate made it unprofitable to do so.  Of course, in this economy we would say "great" to that.  That person just opened up a job that many people are dying to get given the current rate of unemployment.  But, ultimately, I agree that the tax issue is far more complicated than the graph suggests.

I still maintain, however, that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance, and I also believe that those who benefit most are not paying their fair share now.  The working people and the poor are being soaked.  As Warren Buffet observed:

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth

[TheSarge]

I seem to remember too hearing my dad talk about Clinton raising the SS taxes during his tenure...so much so that about '99 my dad said he couldn't afford to pay in the maximum anymore.

[TheSarge]

I still maintain, however, that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance, and I also believe that those who benefit most are not paying their fair share now.  The working people and the poor are being soaked.  As Warren Buffet observed:

*yawn* Liberal talking points.  Spare me the moronic class warfare.  Here allow me to illustrate the stupidity of your claim:



The majority of those workers you so nobly defend don't PAY taxes.

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

You were saying something about "fair"?[/quote]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth

It's not a circus either.  Seriously why punish someone for being successful?  You bust your ass your entire life...work hard and are successful...only to be told by jealous less motivated people like yourself that it's not "fair" that they make all that money?

I'm an E-6 in the Army...should an E-8 or E-9 have a portion of his check taken from him and given to me because I haven't made rank as fast just to make it fair?

Seriously.

Ok so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Who do you think funds all these charities and foundations you Liberals are so fond of championing?

[USA4ME]

I've got no problem with what Warren Buffet pays.  If anything, he pays too much.  Everyone does.

Warren Buffett and his company, Berk Hath (a corp that pays $0 taxes), buy Income Tax Credits issued by the gov't to entice people to give the gov't capital to use on a short term basis.  In return, they don't pay taxes on the money.  The same type of thing happens with tax-free muni's.  These tax incentives exist for a reason, so I can't blame him for using what's been provided.

Everybody here try and pay the least amount of taxes that you can every year, just like I do?  If so, then we're the last people that need to be claiming that someone else not paying a certain amount isn't fair.

For all this talk of the middle-class and poor being taxed too much, I sure don't see the Dems (who claim to be the one's in favor of the middle and lower classes) trying to do away with the sales tax, or the high State and Fed taxes we pay on fuel, or sin taxes, or any other of these that are essentially taxes on the poor.  Here in NC, we just got the the "Education Lottery" a few years ago, and one of the top Dems in Raleigh came out and said he knew good and well it was the poor and lower middle that would be buying the tickets, but that it was justified in that they typically don't own property yet send their kids to public schools, and at least with the lottery they'd be paying something.

So no, cut it out.  The faux-caring crap by those who clearly don't has gone on long enough.

.

[USA4ME]

Ok so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Good points.  And as been discussing here countless times, even when the top marginal rate was 90%, the rich didn't pay it.  Anyone here really believe that Joseph Kennedy paid 90% in taxes on his income that reached that level?  Com'n, who you trying to fool.

.

[Laelth]

OK, I like Laelth LOL. It's so nice to speak with a sane DU'er.

Thanks.  

-Laelth

[Laelth]

Laelth, welcome.  I hope that you don't go full-moonbat on us anytime soon--Hell, at all.  If you do, we'll probably smack each other around a bit lining up to have a shot at ya.

Thanks for the kind welcome.  As for being a moonbat, well, I am sure there are many subjects on which I will disagree with many of the members here, but that's O.K.  Disagreement can foster interesting discussion.  But on this particular subject (the way I make a living) I had every reason to believe that this audience would be receptive to what I had to say, and it appears I was right.

Thanks for that.   

-Laelth

[TheSarge]

Good points.  And as been discussing here countless times, even when the top marginal rate was 90%, the rich didn't pay it.  Anyone here really believe that Joseph Kennedy paid 90% in taxes on his income that reached that level?  Com'n, who you trying to fool.

.

Nah I don't think Ol Nazi Joe paid near what he probably should have by law in taxes.  But at the time he made his fortune...most of the taxes we pay today weren't implemented yet IIRC.  And by the time they were he was living off of the acrued interest and his kids have all lived off of their respective trust funds.

The very wealthy have always found tax shelters to put their money away in.

Given how Congress views them as a continuous blank check and ignorantly use them as a target of ire at election time I can't really blame them.

They earned that money...they should be able to spend it the way they want to.  Not subsidize welfare queens in D.C. so they can get government paid for cell phones and internet while they sit on their ass and do nothing.

Hell I made a little over 46K last year and I'm pissed about how much the Gov't took from me.

[TheSarge]

I had every reason to believe that this audience would be receptive to what I had to say, and it appears I was right.

You thought we'd be receptive to Liberal class warfare rhetoric/talking points and trying to blame Ronald Reagan? 

You SURE you came to the right website?
 

[DumbAss Tanker]

I still maintain, however, that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance, and I also believe that those who benefit most are not paying their fair share now.  The working people and the poor are being soaked.  As Warren Buffet observed:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth

Well, as I said far, far upthread, I don't fundamentally object to a progressive tax structure, I just don't think our present one is structured in a way (Or headed in a direction) that cause the majority of the voters to have a stake in keeping the spending decisions reined in.  The idea that the poor are being soaked by our current income tax structure is laughable.

I have tremendous respect for Buffet's investment expertise, not so much his political and policy judgment, and I might add that the quotes in the Times when put together the way they are amount to an outrageous lie.  Let's deconstruct this extremely-disingenuous statement a bit:

"17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

Paying 17.7% of $46 million is paying less tax than paying 30% of $60,000?  On what planet does that math work?  Further, under our 'progressive' (*Spit*) tax structure, she is not paying 30% on $60,000, she is paying differing rates on incremental additional income which I am too lazy to look up right now, but let's say zero on the first 10K, 7% on the next 15K, 21% on the next X amount, and ultimately, yes, 30% on some small fraction.  Against this she has the full set of personal and household deductions and credits, very similar to Buffet's except the odds are she has more than he does due to the stages of life they are likely in.  Her effective tax rate is likely under 10%, that is approximately what I pay, and I make more in salary than her.  Set against 46 million dollars (Taxed as it may be at a lower ultimate rate than salary for the policy goal of incentivizing investment), though, those same individual and household deductions have a trivial impact, and therefore 17.7% really is the rate at which that $46 million is diverted to government coffers.

In other words, he's lying with numbers to help out a Clinton.  Shocking, I know, but hey, you have to expect this from Democrat politicians and their powerful backers (Nothing personal, I like individual Dems just fine).  Hillary continues to lie her ass off on the border issue with her falsely-premised gun stats, also no big surprise.  Obama just proved to be better oratorically at lying than Hillary.  I suppose partly that's because he was so innocent of actual facts or economic understanding that he actually believed some of the BS he spewed, but at any rate he sounded better when he was lying than she did.       

[USA4ME]

Nah I don't think Ol Nazi Joe paid near what he probably should have by law in taxes.  But at the time he made his fortune...most of the taxes we pay today weren't implemented yet IIRC.  And by the time they were he was living off of the acrued interest and his kids have all lived off of their respective trust funds.

True.  I just get a kick out of those who spew the "soak the rick like we used to at 90%" nonsense.  They never stop to think that the rich never really paid 90% even when, according to these individuals, they we're in that tax bracket.  In fact, they never think at all, which is the problem.

.