IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Tax tables tell you that.
Under a certain pay 15%, next bracket is 20, next 28 then 33 then 35, or something like that.

Again, its not the base code that is the problem.

Buffets example is crap because its not about income taxes...its about taxes in general. He might as well throw in gas tax, sales tax, local school tax, property tax, state and local income tax etc.

It makes no sense to argue for a change in the >income< tax code using all that other stuff in your argument.

If his argument is simply that all taxes period need to be reformed, then maybe. But that doesn't appear to be what he is saying. When the bottom 50, in general, pay NOTHING in income taxes, you either go negative, which he appears to support, or call it a day and look at other ways to bring up revenue...like closing loopholes and ending certain deductions.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Here is that data
[link|http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html|http://www.infopleas...ipa/A0923085.html]
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New A snapshot isn't very enlightening.
If one is concerned about the present tax distribution and burden, it probably makes the most sense to compare the current situation to history.

I think Table 8 [link|http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html|here] is enlightening:

Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980-2005 (% of AGI paid in income taxes):

Year\tTotal\tTop 1%\tTop 2-5%\tTop 5%\tTop 6-10%\tTop 10%\tTop 11-25%\tTop 25%\tTop 26-50%\tTop 50%\tBottom 50%
1980\t15.31%\t34.47%\t21.71%\t26.85%\t17.13%\t23.49%\t14.80%\t19.72%\t11.91%\t17.29%\t6.10%
1981\t15.76%\t33.37%\t22.08%\t26.59%\t18.16%\t23.64%\t15.53%\t20.11%\t12.48%\t17.73%\t6.62%
1982\t14.72%\t31.43%\t20.44%\t25.05%\t16.61%\t22.17%\t14.35%\t18.79%\t11.63%\t16.57%\t6.10%
1983\t13.79%\t30.18%\t18.77%\t23.64%\t15.54%\t20.91%\t13.20%\t17.62%\t10.76%\t15.52%\t5.66%
1984\t13.68%\t29.92%\t18.41%\t23.42%\t15.57%\t20.81%\t12.90%\t17.47%\t10.48%\t15.35%\t5.77%
1985\t13.73%\t29.86%\t18.44%\t23.50%\t15.69%\t20.93%\t12.83%\t17.55%\t10.41%\t15.41%\t5.70%
1986\t14.54%\t33.13%\t19.10%\t25.68%\t15.99%\t22.64%\t12.97%\t18.72%\t10.48%\t16.32%\t5.63%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
1987\t13.12%\t26.41%\t18.13%\t22.10%\t14.43%\t19.77%\t11.71%\t16.61%\t9.45%\t14.60%\t5.09%
1988\t13.21%\t24.04%\t17.85%\t21.14%\t14.07%\t19.18%\t11.82%\t16.47%\t9.60%\t14.64%\t5.06%
1989\t13.12%\t23.34%\t17.97%\t20.71%\t13.93%\t18.77%\t12.08%\t16.27%\t9.77%\t14.53%\t5.11%
1990\t12.95%\t23.25%\t17.60%\t20.46%\t13.63%\t18.50%\t12.01%\t16.06%\t9.73%\t14.36%\t5.01%
1991\t12.75%\t24.37%\t17.10%\t20.62%\t13.96%\t18.63%\t11.57%\t15.93%\t9.55%\t14.20%\t4.62%
1992\t12.94%\t25.05%\t17.21%\t21.19%\t13.99%\t19.13%\t11.39%\t16.25%\t9.42%\t14.44%\t4.39%
1993\t13.32%\t28.01%\t17.48%\t22.71%\t14.01%\t20.20%\t11.40%\t16.90%\t9.37%\t14.90%\t4.29%
1994\t13.50%\t28.23%\t17.93%\t23.04%\t14.20%\t20.48%\t11.57%\t17.15%\t9.42%\t15.11%\t4.32%
1995\t13.86%\t28.73%\t18.19%\t23.53%\t14.46%\t20.97%\t11.71%\t17.58%\t9.43%\t15.47%\t4.39%
1996\t14.34%\t28.87%\t18.68%\t24.07%\t14.74%\t21.55%\t11.86%\t18.12%\t9.53%\t15.96%\t4.40%
1997\t14.48%\t27.64%\t18.78%\t23.62%\t14.87%\t21.36%\t12.04%\t18.18%\t9.63%\t16.09%\t4.48%
1998\t14.42%\t27.12%\t19.14%\t23.63%\t14.79%\t21.42%\t11.63%\t18.16%\t9.12%\t16.00%\t4.44%
1999\t14.85%\t27.53%\t19.68%\t24.18%\t15.06%\t21.98%\t11.76%\t18.66%\t9.12%\t16.43%\t4.48%
2000\t15.26%\t27.45%\t20.07%\t24.42%\t15.48%\t22.34%\t12.04%\t19.09%\t9.28%\t16.86%\t4.60%
2001\t14.23%\t27.50%\t19.12%\t23.68%\t14.89%\t21.41%\t11.58%\t18.08%\t8.91%\t15.85%\t4.09%
2002\t13.03%\t27.25%\t18.15%\t22.95%\t13.87%\t20.51%\t10.47%\t16.99%\t7.67%\t14.66%\t3.21%
2003\t11.90%\t24.31%\t16.58%\t20.74%\t12.22%\t18.49%\t9.54%\t15.38%\t7.12%\t13.35%\t2.95%
2004\t12.10%\t23.49%\t16.95%\t20.67%\t12.28%\t18.60%\t9.26%\t15.53%\t7.01%\t13.51%\t2.97%
2005\t12.45%\t23.13%\t17.36%\t20.78%\t12.37%\t18.84%\t9.27%\t15.86%\t6.93%\t13.84%\t2.98%


IOW, the percentage of AGI paid by the top 1% has dropped significantly more over the recent years compared to the percentages paid by the other groups. (E.g. compare 2001 to 2005 - -4.4% for top 1% versus -2% for top 50%.)

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who doesn't accept that FICA vs general taxes is apples and oranges, btw...)
[link|http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006978452673906630972%3A_5xhnlvpsn4|IWeThey Custom Search Engine]
New Re: A snapshot isn't very enlightening.
Pretty marginal change of 4.4 % considering the top marginal dropped from 50 to 28% before creeping back to the 35% it stands at now. And its my opinion that most of that 4 points is because they brought back the cap gains tax as a loophole.

And I still don't know how you can compare a flat tax with income capping (FICA) to the progressive income tax schedules (which I've already supplied the data to show). The FICA impact is CLEARLY regressive and needs to be changed. (as stated above, the income limitation needs to be raised or eliminated) To include it in discussions of general wage taxes, though, doesn't make sense. Remember Gore's "lockbox" speech? Its a separate tax going to a separate fund to serve a separate purpose. (in theory at least :-/)

And again, there's a strong argument to support that the burden on the less fortunate is justified because they are also the largest beneficiary from the program. This is where I think the burden should be shifted..and the rich should not see limitations of FICA contributions..and that boost to the SS fund would help rescue the system. Also, I believe there should be an opt-out to allow someone like Warren, who has no need of Medicare and SS, to opt out of the benefits completely..forfeiting his contributions for the greater good.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New I'll agree with that last bit
But I think that when you're talking to the people paying the tax, they don't give a rat's ass which fund which piece ends up in. It's all tax that comes out of income. Splitting them up is a game to play with the numbers. Whether fixing it means just fixing that bit, or treating it all as a whole, taxpayers are going to look at it as one cohesive amount.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New We're talking past each other.
My take on this thread is that Warren Buffett was talking about the federal payroll taxes on individuals in a hearing on the estate tax. He was saying that the estate tax is an important source of revenue (in addition to being a social good), and that it would make much more sense to reduce the total federal tax burden on the bottom 20% than to eliminate the estate tax and give a windfall to billionaires like himself.

I'm including FICA because Buffett was including FICA. As a general principle, someone who sees 30% of her paycheck disappear in taxes before she gets the money doesn't really care if some/most of it is going to SSA, Baltimore, MD 21235 or IRS, Washington, DC 20221. It's still money that she won't see again for a long time (if ever - lots of poor people die before they can collect benefits).

Allowing people to opt out is a bad idea because it weakens the insurance system. (What happens if Warren's billions go up in smoke? Saying tough luck won't cut it - we decided in the 1930s there needs to be some baseline income insurance for elderly people.) Means testing is a good idea because it helps to ensure that the benefits go to those who most need them.

Cheers,
Scott.
[link|http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006978452673906630972%3A_5xhnlvpsn4|IWeThey Custom Search Engine]
New To both
the general public's lack of understanding about taxes only allows the inside the beltway crowd and the Buffets of the world to say stupid crap like this and get away with it...and it also creates more problems because they forgive increases in taxes which hurt them more in the long run.

If you ask the average joe whether he would take a 1% increase in FICA or a 5% increase in his income tax rate...he'd probably say he'd take the 1%...but in all likelihood that 1% increase would result in him paying more overall taxes because he's paying nearly 0 after arriving at AGI. This is the case for 1 of every 2 filers.

And this is how the Fed works. They've created something that noone understands so they can manipulate it without arousing suspicion.

People want a progressive income tax system. We have that. They want the rich to pay more. They do.

If you want to reform the OTHER taxes then make damned sure thats what you talk about clearly. Allowing the taxes to be muddled together only increases the chance that they will continue to get worse and not better.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New No they don't.
They tell you the initial tax rate, not the effective tax rate after deductions, credits, etc.

Anything that shows up on a Federal income tax form should get used, not just a cherry-picking of one particular thing.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
     Let's Hear It for Warren!!!! - (imqwerky) - (17)
         But he's being simplistic and possibly going senile! - (a6l6e6x) - (16)
             He must pay his receptionist well - (bepatient) - (15)
                 The ABC story is ambiguous. - (Another Scott) - (14)
                     There's even a problem with that - (bepatient) - (13)
                         Yeahbut... - (Another Scott) - (12)
                             I am one - (bepatient) - (10)
                                 Fun with statistics... - (admin) - (8)
                                     Tax tables tell you that. - (bepatient) - (7)
                                         Here is that data - (bepatient) - (5)
                                             A snapshot isn't very enlightening. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                 Re: A snapshot isn't very enlightening. - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                     I'll agree with that last bit - (admin)
                                                     We're talking past each other. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                         To both - (bepatient)
                                         No they don't. - (admin)
                                 Oh, Warren is, too. - (Another Scott)
                             I love a tax which, once you are rich enuff you dont pay -NT - (boxley)

The website with matched socks.
50 ms