primitives squibble-squabble about taxes

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022284206

Oh my.

ErikJ (2,161 posts)   Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:21 PM

Washington State's poor pay 605% higher tax rate than top 1%.

‘Fundamentally Unfair’: How States Tax The Richest 1 Percent At Half The Rate Of The Poor

The poorest Americans are subject to a tax rate at the state and local level that is twice as high as the tax rate paid by the wealthiest earners thanks to “fundamentally unfair” state tax laws, according to a new report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). Middle-class taxpayers also pay higher effective rates than the wealthy.

When state, local, property, and sales taxes are taken into account, the poorest 20 percent of Americans pay an average effective tax rate of 11.1 percent, the report found. The middle 20 percent pays a 9.4 percent rate, while the rate for the top 1 percent is just 5.6 percent. The lack of progressive income taxes and an over-reliance on consumption taxes are the primary culprit, the report says.
 
In the 10 most regressive states, the poorest 20 percent pay a rate as much as six times as high as the rate for the richest 1 percent. Four of those states — Washington, Texas, Florida, and South Dakota — have no income tax; one, Tennessee, has a limited income tax that only applies to dividends and interest. In these five states, half to two-thirds of revenue comes from sales and excise taxes, well above the national average of one-third.
..............................................

after which image of a chart

Still, Republicans across the country are pushing tax plans that would replace income taxes — typically the only form of progressive taxation at the state level — with sales taxes. Republicans in Nebraska, Kansas, North Carolina, and Louisiana have advanced such plans, even though their state tax systems are already regressive.
 
In Louisiana, worst of the four, the poorest 20 percent pay 9.2 percent of their income in sales taxes, while the wealthiest 1 percent pay just 1.3 percent. Even in North Carolina, the best of the four, the poor pay six times as much of their income in sales taxes as the richest one percent. Shifting to a tax code that relies solely on sales taxes would make these states even worse.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/30/1514461/states-tax-rich-half-poor/

And Washington state's run by who?

lumberjack_jeff (23,488 posts)   Wed Jan 30, 2013, 03:15 PM

3. I try to point this out every time some dumbass points to sales taxes as a panacea.

Sales and use taxes, property taxes, no income tax, and fee for service are why Washington sucks as a place to be working class or poor.
 
Most of our tax revenue comes from those least able to afford it.

Jeff Bezos, Howard Schultz and Bill Gates live here because poor people will pay their taxes.

JDPriestly (35,660 posts)    Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:48 PM

10. Sales taxes are needed in addition to very progressive income taxes.

Why? Because sales taxes are the only way to prevent placing a tax burden on products made in the USA that is not borne by products made in other countries.
 
Sales taxes are imposed in European countries, especially Germany to make sure that some of the costs of the social safety net are imposed on goods produced in other countries.
 
We do need more, not fewer, sales taxes. What we need to do is to use some of the sales taxes to pay for our social safety net -- for Medicaid and better education for example.

^^^one hopes the priestly primitive points that out to the pie-and-jam primitive, the grasswire primitive, who's upset about having to pay income taxes on income earned via eBay sales.

lumberjack_jeff (23,488 posts)    Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:54 PM

12. Whaa?

This would make some minimal amount of sense if and only if domestic products were exempt from sales taxes.
 
Sales taxes suck in every way.

indepat (18,353 posts)    Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:01 PM

4. Republican state legislatures generally pull out all stops to soak the poor while assiduously protecting the wealthy and large corporations, a wholly corrupt and despicable practice antithetical to the doctrine of promoting the general welfare.

<<<wasn't aware Republicans controlled the Washington state legislature.

Anybody else not aware of this?

lumberjack_jeff (23,488 posts)    Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:55 PM

13. That isn't the case in Washington.

Our state supreme court has ruled that an income tax is unconstitutional, and the Democratic leadership lack the courage (or the support from the public) to fix it.

KT2000 (9,448 posts)   Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:02 PM

5. voters won't accept an income tax

It is nuts! It is political suicide for any politician to suggest a change to an income tax in Washington.

This is really the fault of ignorant voters.

ROBROX (373 posts)    Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:28 PM

15. FLAT TAX IS NOT GOOD EITHER

I thought the tax on gasoline in California was HIGH, but this tax goes to pay for some excellent roads. The states without income tax have HIGH sales tax and other tax's to run their government. I can tell these people do not get much for their money.
 
I hope the people in those high sale tax states WAKE up and become more PROGRESSIVE and decide to have an income tax so the 1% pay their fair share. What about those states which have TOLL roads. In California the work FREEWAY is very popular.
 
I am glad after all these years California can finally balance the budget with a new 0.25% sales tax increase. We have to pay the bill or the state will become a third world area like some those state which do not have a state income tax.

^^^

[thundley4]

lumberjack_jeff (23,488 posts)    Wed Jan 30, 2013, 04:54 PM

12. Whaa?

This would make some minimal amount of sense if and only if domestic products were exempt from sales taxes.
 
Sales taxes suck in every way.

This sounds like a DUmmie that sucks off the taxpayer teat, and the only tax they actually have to pay is a sales tax.

[jukin]

Greedy SOBs that want to pay ZERO taxes and suck out as much as possible. The time is coming when these moochers get cut off the hard way.

[thundley4]

Greedy SOBs that want to pay ZERO taxes and suck out as much as possible. The time is coming when these moochers get cut off the hard way.

They keep saying that they want to bring back the 90% tax rates that existed before JFK dropped them in 1963, but they ignore the fact that the bottom tax rate for everyone was 20% at that time. That meant that someone making even a $1000/year was paying $200 in taxes.

 However, even then the wealthy had ways of hiding their money from taxes.  Do the DUmmies really want to go back to that?

[Carl]

In short all they ever say is tax everyone but me.
**** you leeches.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Frankly the math of this sounds cockeyed, the only way you can get to results like that is assuming that ALL taxpayers buy equal amounts of items subject to consumption taxes (Which is ridiculous) and then also fail to account that the dollars used by the poor for the purchases weren't hit at all, or were hit at the lowest rate, by income tax, while every dollar the wealthy spend on goods above and beyond subsistence is an after-tax dollar which became available only after paying the maximum marginal rate of income tax on it. 

The calculation would also have to completely ignore real and personal property taxes, in addition to lying through bad assumptions about consumption taxes.

[Vagabond]

They're not thinking this through. 

The rich (people with disposable income) are more likely to purchase a good as part and parcel of a service.  Let's say a rich man wants to keep his lawn in shape.  He doesn't have time to maintain it himself so he hires ABC lawn and garden to make it look good.  Well, ABC L&G looks over his lawn and property and makes recommendations about landscaping and agrees to maintain it once a week, with the owner taking care of watering the plants daily.

ABC L&G then makes the necessary purchases at the local nursery, sod grower, garden center, and perhaps quarry before returning to install the agreed upon landscaping.  All of the items were billed at cost on ABC L&G's invoice, and perhaps plus, to the rich man, he bought it.  It would look like he didn't pay a dime in sales tax when he indirectly paid for all of it.

The same thing if he hires a maid service who provides all the cleaning solutions it will use.

DUmmies can't think past the first layer.

[Zeus]

Frankly the math of this sounds cockeyed, the only way you can get to results like that is assuming that ALL taxpayers buy equal amounts of items subject to consumption taxes (Which is ridiculous) and then also fail to account that the dollars used by the poor for the purchases weren't hit at all, or were hit at the lowest rate, by income tax, while every dollar the wealthy spend on goods above and beyond subsistence is an after-tax dollar which became available only after paying the maximum marginal rate of income tax on it. 

The calculation would also have to completely ignore real and personal property taxes, in addition to lying through bad assumptions about consumption taxes.

Read the words carefully. The assumptions are primarily based on Taxes as part of disposable income.

[sybilll]

But isn't this the same argument they use that illegal aliens PAY TAXES?   

[diesel driver]

They're not thinking this through. 

The rich (people with disposable income) are more likely to purchase a good as part and parcel of a service.  Let's say a rich man wants to keep his lawn in shape.  He doesn't have time to maintain it himself so he hires ABC lawn and garden to make it look good.  Well, ABC L&G looks over his lawn and property and makes recommendations about landscaping and agrees to maintain it once a week, with the owner taking care of watering the plants daily.

ABC L&G then makes the necessary purchases at the local nursery, sod grower, garden center, and perhaps quarry before returning to install the agreed upon landscaping.  All of the items were billed at cost on ABC L&G's invoice, and perhaps plus, to the rich man, he bought it.  It would look like he didn't pay a dime in sales tax when he indirectly paid for all of it.

The same thing if he hires a maid service who provides all the cleaning solutions it will use.

DUmmies can't think past the first layer.

 

Better, and more truthful.

Gawd, these people are STUPID!

[BlueStateSaint]

In short all they ever say is tax everyone but me.
**** you leeches.

Just the opposite of what they think about free speech . . .

[md11hydmec]

Frm what I read of the idiots assumptions, they are talking in percentages of income.  If a "rich" person bought the same things as a "poor" person then according to what their income is yes the "rich" person paid less of a percentage in taxes.  This is back to the whole Buffetts secretary thing.  Its stuoid to look at it that way because a person with more disposable income can purchase more things thus actually paying more in taxes.  They use this to promote class warfare.

[Rebel]

ROBROX (373 posts)    Wed Jan 30, 2013, 06:28 PM
 
I am glad after all these years California can finally balance the budget with a new 0.25% sales tax increase. We have to pay the bill or the state will become a third world area like some those state which do not have a state income tax.

Gotta be a mole.

[franksolich]

Gotta be a mole.

You perhaps also saw the comment by the bugman, the mike_c primitive, in another thread here, boasting about how secure his CALPERS pension is?

Yeah, right. We'll see.

[Wineslob]

I am glad after all these years California can finally balance the budget with a new 0.25% sales tax increase. We have to pay the bill or the state will become a third world area like some those state which do not have a state income tax.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/has-california-really-balanced-its-budget-xSZTj4SdR3iYg6onnmoH1w.html


Typical smoke and mirrors being blown up the asses of the all too ready DUmmies.


It's not even close, DUmbasses.

[Rebel]

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/has-california-really-balanced-its-budget-xSZTj4SdR3iYg6onnmoH1w.html


Typical smoke and mirrors being blown up the asses of the all too ready DUmmies.


It's not even close, DUmbasses.

These are the idiots that come up with BS like this:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dems-tout-claim-best-looking-contraction-us-gdp-youll-ever-see_698863.html

It's doublespeak, and they're masters at it due to the stupidity of their constituency. It's the same way they change names of shit to make it more aesthetic to their idiot constituents. We're not fooled, but their voters... "Gun control" now "violence control". Global Warming now "climate change". The handlers have to push this because they know their constituents can't sway a conservative while at the same time looking like complete morons...and they still can't sway them.