Why taxes are important
by Linda Beale
why taxes are important
from ataxingmatter
When I started this blog several years ago, I wrote in my inaugural post that I thought it was important for people to be informed about taxes–how they work, who pays them, and why we need a tax system to support our governmental programs. I thought it might be worth repeating parts of that, given all the misinformation abounding now about taxes. For just a tip-of-the-iceberg indicator of the misinformation and lack of understanding that many Americans have about taxes, see Mark Thoma’s Economist’s View posting on Bruce Bartlett’s analysis of the tea partiers’ views about taxation: The Misinformed Tea Party Movement. (In short, they think that the average American with $50,000 in income pays between 20-25% of gross income in federal taxes, whereas the actual amount is much less–less than 7% in federal income taxes and less than 15% in federal income taxes and social security taxes; they think that taxation raises revenues equal to about 40% of GDP, whereas in reality it is less than 1/4th that, they think taxes have increased under Obama whereas in fact they went way down because of the economic stimulus package that Obama and the Democratic Congress pushed through right after Obama took office.)
The following is from my inaugural post:
We Americans, like all other humans, are social creatures. We live together in communities and are bound to total strangers by both shared values and shared risks. We pay taxes to support a system that will ultimately benefit us, our children, our neighbors and, yes, even those strangers on the other side of town or the other side of the continent. We do so because our shared community cannot exist without resources–to pave the streets, pay the police, support medical research that may someday save us or a loved one from one of the terrible diseases of the twenty-first century, provide a chance for artists and musicians to flourish, and give at least temporary support for those who have lost their homes to a tragedy or lost their jobs to outsourcing. We know there will always be some programs we may not approve of, and some expenditures that could be handled more efficiently in another way, but we understand that consensus government of a diverse population requires some mutual trust and mutual give and take. Let’s hope that this discussion can grow, so that we do not find ourselves burdened in the future with a tax system funded entirely off the backs of those who work, while the leisure class that lives mainly on inherited wealth and capital investments reaps the lion’s share of the benefits of a free America without carrying a fair tax burden.
If our government is honest with us, we are willing, even eager, to pay our fair share of the tax burden to support it. When our government is dishonest with us, or hides the true goal of governmental provisions behind meaningless platitudes or false promises or untrue distortions, we worry whether the overall system is truly fair.
crossposted with ataxingmatter
Just checked that tax rates for 2009. 25% for single taxpayers for 50k and 15% for those filing jointly at 50k. Add in social security, medicare, state and local taxes and what do you think you have left? Add in taxes on cable, telephone, sales etc. and what do you have left?
You’re not calculating; you’re shilling.
Ah kevin….what do inaccurate %’s of have to do with anything? And aside from your obvious disatisfaction with something you think you are not getting from taxes or some notion maybe taxes are too high somehow compared to what, what is your point?
Just checked that tax rates for 2009. 25% for single taxpayers for 50k
1. That is a marginal rate. 2. Some parts of your income, such as that protected by deductions, incur no tax at all.
Trolls need to be better at math.
25% is a marginal rate, not including deductions and exemptions. Her post cites an average american with 50K in income so he probably has an average number of deductions and exemptions.
Her post is about misinformation and lack of understanding regarding Federal Income Taxes. Your attempt to bring in the red herring of SS, cable and telephone taxes etc to the discussion add nothing except possibly help illuminate the source of this misinformation.
We can insult this poor Kevin all we want, but sadly enough he is illustrating the average comprehension level of the average Republican, and possibly the average person on the street. What we need to push for to maintain our democracy is education, with courses in logic and logical fallacies, statistics for the non-statistically inclined and so forth.
In other words, although I agree that Kevin is trolling, we need to take a closer look at why so many “liberals” disconnect with so many people. The answer is that too many people don’t understand the issues and can’t discuss them rationally, and we need to do something about that.
Real numbers for my 2009 1040 (filed jointly):
Ajusted gross income: 76,121
Taxable income: 51,660
Tax due: $6901
Effective tax rate: 9.07%
I have to be honest, I’m about as pro-big-government, pro higher taxes as they come. However I always assumed that the average anti-taxer really didn’t care about the details. Even if they only had to pay and fully understood that they paid 1% it would still be too much. I figured that all anti-taxers are essentially anarchists with exceptions for roads, air traffic controllers, and other infrastructure.
Pleased to discover this website. Appreciate the discussion. What needs to be emphasized is the net return, that is what we have after taxes. Considering this, the citiezens of the so-called socialist countries are big winners and Americans are big losers. Europeans get education, healthcare, child care, & excellent transportation, to name just a few. Americans get big bills for war and violence including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and who knows where else as well as very, very big bills for prisons and high crime. I say so-called because at its peak, in terms of standards of living, namely the 1950s, America was a real balance between capitalism and socialism. Hence, the very high taxes on the rich. This, of course, followed the socialism of Social Security and the fabulous gains for workers including the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, vacation time, sick-leave and the rest which, of course, was won by union leaders or the socialists of the day. Lots of Americans seem to think that they will soon be the modern day industrialists with all kinds of wealth. In fact, they are fast becoming the new age peasants and serfs.
The effective tax rate for the “fortunate 400”, IRS’s top 400 returns, is around 16%. (Average income in 2006 about $360 million.) Almost their entire income is dividends or capital gains. (Google for the WSJ story for the exact numbers.)
Since payroll tax is capped or only on earned income that 16% is their total tax load.
If TomR’s income is mostly earned then payroll tax (7.5%)takes his federal rate up to 16.5%. Now add in all the regressive state and local taxes and we have a systen where TomR is paying a much higer total tax rate than someone making a million dollars a day.
Think we need some changes?
So, your post didn’t conclude whether the level of taxation today is fair in your opinion. You, and the comments, illustrate how progressive the income tax is – that’s good in your opinion, no?
I would prefer the leisure class pay a greater share, rather than Obama’s defined “rich” as married wage earners exceeding $250K. I don’t have a problem with a cap gains increase. Better yet, we should not be excluding cap gain from sale of a residence! I believe dividend income should be taxed at regular income tax rates.
In exchange, I do believe the highest income tax marginal rates should come down a couple points.
e.g. Who should pay more tax? The Kennedy descendent whose $300K “income” is from gfits, dividends, and cap gains; or the married couple who met in law school, both from lower income families, whose income is $300K with $150K of student loans?
The answer is simple for me…
A good point. There were a good number of Rebpublicans, back in the days before the GOP became so nutty, who willingly described themselves as socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That fiscal conservatism was not always well considered, but it was principled. There were also some “I got mine” types, but there were plenty of regular Jo(e) types who simply thought balanced budgets were a good idea, and that secondarily, low taxes were a good idea. I remember a good bit of humility from many of those people.
The propaganda-driven group-think in today’s GOP seems to make it harder to think in that principled way. Dogma is now far more common. The teabaggers seem to be a great example – loud, angry, self-congratulatory, and all with the same talking points. The leadership has stayed away from social issues, seeming a bit more like those older Republicans who had room in their brains for progressive social notions, but the reaction to the health care bill suggests that is a tactical stance, not a principled one.
So yeah, the commenter here does represent somebody that thoughtful people need to learn to talk to, but it is going to be a low odds proposition. Thought takes practice, and there are lots of forces working to discourage them from practicing.
Yeah that one has always bugged me: Why can I deduct the interest on my house but not on a student loan?
A: (theory) Realtors have much better lobbyists than students and universities.
The subtext is that taxation shifts expenditures from the household to the public sector. True, kinda. As has been noted by theorists for some time, since the advent of fiat money, governments have had the capacity to operate without taxation. They can simply print the money they need to pay for services, and use government’s coercive ability to assure that the money they print is accepted in return for goods and services.
That would result in redistribution through inflation. Those who hold real assets would do fine. Those who hold cash or financial assets would be vulnerable to loss in real value. Those who hold no assets and live off of wages (or transfers) would gain or lose depending on how quickly inflation was reflected in their income. That seems a good way to distort the economy, so a bad way to finance government.
Taxers serve as a way to avoid inflationary finance of government activity – not always successfully, but that’s the goal. With taxes, monetary policy can have a goal other than financing government operations (or the sovereign’s household outlays). Taxes combine with government spending to redistribute resources. Redistribution can have a more considered goal than just “let the inflation cards fall where they may” as under inflationary finance. There will also be more or less inflation, so some transfer of value that isn’t the result of fiscal policy, but the considered means of redistribution is fiscal policy.
However, with taxes, we know directly what our burden is. The W2 or the tax-farmers demand tells us what we pay in clear terms. We can do math and find out our tax rate. We can compare the figure to the cost of a new car, or the difference between the car we have and the car we want.
Those who bellyache about taxes are provided ammunition by the choice to finance government in what is potentially a less distorting manner than simply printing money. The think that most governments have realized is the responsible approach to fiscal operations is the thing that lays them open to criticism of fiscal operations. Damn.
Actually, you have Saint Ronnie to thank for that one. Until the 1980’s all interest was deductible. The rich of course do not pay interest–why borrow money if you have more than you need? As part of the GOP assault on the middle class, they lowered rates across the board but limited medical deductions and made only the interest on homes tax deductible. Of course even that deduction is skewed in favor of the wealthy. My example is that when my daughters went off to college, I took out a mortgage on my previously paid for house in order to fund their education. I had some savings but not enough and scrapping together the tuition every semester was going to be a real problem. Interest rates were low–when I bought my house in 1983 my initial mortgage was a 30 year fixed at 13.75% so 5.5% seemed almost free–so it seemed like the thing to do. I put the money in CDs which came due a month before tuition payments were due so there was no danger of spending it on anything other than tuition. It worked like a charm, my daughters have graduated, and I will finish paying off the mortgage before I hope to retire in 8 years, but I could not deduct the interest paid on the part of the mortgage over $100K (no longer a problem, but last year was the first year that happened) and I was immediately subject to the AMT. In other words because I was not wealthy enough and did not have a large enough income to just pay for my kids education I got to pay an extra 1% in taxes and could not deduct all the interest I paid on a home mortgage. As i have said previously on this site, I do not mind paying taxes provided they are fair and the y are used by the government wisely. The current system satisfies neither of those criteria.
So let’s sum up some well made and interesting points from above:
Taxes on the wealthiest Americans are a far less burden than taxes on the average American.
In fact taxes on the wealthiest Americans seem to be no burden at all. Let’s see, 84% of
$340 million is only $285 million. And that’s annual. Can someone really spend that much
money in a single year?
Taxes serve a worthwhile purpose iin that we do need good roads, bridges, clean water etc.
Unfortunately taxes also go to pay for useless activities like wars of adventure and empire.
What is unsaid is that whatever tax revenues are spent on that money is flowing back into the economy and often into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans through their ownership of virtually everything in America.
Taken together all these points would seem to raise the question, Where is Robespierre when
he’s needed most?
***Just checked that tax rates for 2009. 25% for single taxpayers for 50k and 15% for those filing jointly at 50k.***
Look up the difference between marginal and overall tax rates — also the difference between gross income and taxable income.. Then get back to us.
Yeah…a corrective reply would be better, but the schilling thing was so demonstrative of kevin’s intent…I hate drivebys.
***Actually, you have Saint Ronnie to thank for that one. Until the 1980’s all interest was deductible.***
Lord knows, I’m no fan of Reagan. But to his credit and that of the politicians of his day, the deal that enacted his preposterous fiscal policies included cleaning up the tax code which Jimmie Carter described as a disgrace to the human race. And they actually did a credible job. Regretably 30 years of malgovernance seem to have brought the tax code back to about the same state it was in in 1980. Highly complex, full of ill-considered credits and penalties, etc, etc, etc. As I recall, the limit on interest rate deductions was part of an attempt to give the illusion of fiscal responsibility to Reagan’s program of handing everything in the country not nailed down to the wealthy.
Probably it’s time for another housecleaning, but as KHarris points out, the current Republican party is pretty nutty. I don’t see how it is possible to address the tax code in an intelligent manner when 40% of the elected representatives can’t think, can’t add, and believe that paying taxes is unAmerican.
Robespierre? Y Aou wouldn’t like the results.
An imprecise and poorly phrased, leading question, and an equal answer and the left’s arrogance is served. But, was it? From the HR Block site: http://taxes.about.com/od/preparingyourtaxes/a/tax-rates_2.htm
How to read these tax rate charts. First, find your filing status. Second, find your income level. A single person making $50,000 would be in the 25% tax bracket, for example. On this income, the person would pay tax of $4,681.25 plus 25% on income over $34,000. The $4,681.25 amount covers taxes calculated on income that falls in the 10% and 15% brackets. The 25% amount covers taxes calculated on income only within the 25% bracket.
Single Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50
Married Filing Separately Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-2, Internal Revenue Code section 1(d)]
10% on the income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $68,650; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $68,650 and $104,625; plus $13,343.75
33% on the income between $104,625 and $186,825; plus $23,416.75
35% on the income over $186,825; plus $50,542.75
Head of Household Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Z, Internal Revenue Code section 1(b)]
10% on the income between $0 and $11,950
15% on the income between $11,950 and $45,550; plus $1,195
25% on the income between $45,550 and $117,650; plus $6,235
28% on the income between $117,650 and $190,550; plus $24,260
33% on the income between $190,550 and $373,650; plus $44,672
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $105,095
The point was: ” (In short, they think that the average American with $50,000 in income pays between 20-25% of gross income in federal […]
Robespierre? You wouldn’t like the results.
An imprecise and poorly phrased, leading question, and an equal answer and the left’s arrogance is served. But, was it? From the HR Block site: http://taxes.about.com/od/preparingyourtaxes/a/tax-rates_2.htm
“How to read these tax rate charts. First, find your filing status. Second, find your income level. A single person making $50,000 would be in the 25% tax bracket, for example. On this income, the person would pay tax of $4,681.25 plus 25% on income over $34,000. The $4,681.25 amount covers taxes calculated on income that falls in the 10% and 15% brackets. The 25% amount covers taxes calculated on income only within the 25% bracket.
Single Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]
10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000; plus $1,675
25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300; plus $9,362.50
28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250; plus $26,687.50
33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650; plus $46,833.50
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50
Married Filing Separately Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-2, Internal Revenue Code section 1(d)]
10% on the income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $68,650; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $68,650 and $104,625; plus $13,343.75
33% on the income between $104,625 and $186,825; plus $23,416.75
35% on the income over $186,825; plus $50,542.75
Head of Household Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Z, Internal Revenue Code section 1(b)]
10% on the income between $0 and $11,950
15% on the income between $11,950 and $45,550; plus $1,195
25% on the income between $45,550 and $117,650; plus $6,235
28% on the income between $117,650 and $190,550; plus $24,260
33% on the income between […]
“they think that taxation raises revenues equal to about 40% of GDP, whereas in reality it is less than 1/4th that,”
Well, that statement is entirely bullshit. Come on now, anyone really want to try and defend the idea that total taxation in the US of today is less than 10% of GDP?
Federal taxation is (depending upon how you count it….is borrowing simply deferred taxation or what?) at least 15% of GDP and possibly 25%. Add State, county, local….sorry, but the idea that taxation is under 10% of GDP is dribbling insanity.
This may have a lot to do with how people are wired. People often say that they hate change, but yet they crave it, and partiicpate in it daily.
Psychologists discovered that people have two separate brain functions—a rational function and an emotional one.
Many people hate taxes, but crave certain servuices provided by taxes. The hate is obviously emotional. But the rational one might say, I don;t mind the taxes so long as there are benefits that I can SEE. When the peerception is that governmnet wastes a lot of tax revenue, and they do. Until teh governmnet does a better job spending wisely, and making sure teh benefits are visible, then many people will hate taxes.
CoRev,
Learn how to read a question. It asked about the average taxpayer with a gross income of $50K. So that pretty much means we’re talking about people filing a married/joint return. The Teabagger quiz was on how much tax is paid on a gross income of $50K. A person filing joint/married and having a taxable income (not “gross income”) of $50K would pay about 13.4% effective tax rate. But if your gross income is only $50K, then your taxable income is going to be a lot lower. So at most your taxable income would only be $38.6K, which would make your effective tax only 9.9% of the $50K gross income. And if you’ve got kids under 17, you’ll get tax credits, so that effective tax rate will be a lot lower. So Bruce Bartlett’s point stands. Teabaggers are math challenged. Next headline story: Dog bites man!
The larger point of Bruce Bartlett’s article wasn’t just that Teabaggers are clueless dolts, which they are; but that they are totally clueless about the one issue that they feel most passionately about. If you’re animated by government spending & high taxes, as the Teabaggers continually tell us they are, then you really ought to be familiar with the basic facts. And it wasn’t just personal taxes where the Teabaggers flunked; they were even more clueless about the govt budget and foreign aid. Senile old folks shouldn’t be allowed to wander around the Capitol grounds.
Wow, a sample size of 57 taken in an extremely unscientific environment. Impressive. I wonder what I could get 57 die hard liberals to say if I went around polling on South Las Vegas Blvd between Flamingo Road and Tropicana Avenue?
Sigh!!!! 2slugs, I quoted the comment in this article “(In short, they think that the average American (that’s singular) with $50,000 in income pays between 20-25% of gross income in federal taxes,…” ” while adding my own explanation of singular.
I also claimed this was a poorly fomed question and comment and got the response it deserves. But, you go ahead and make your rephrased agrument and comment on it if it enhances your superiority in your own mind.
Sheesh!!!!!
OASDI tax is capped on wage income, but Medicare/Medicaid tax is uncapped. The Fortunate 400 are also not the same 400 year after year, with only 25% showing up more than once from 1992-2000 and only 13% showing up more than twice. They also give away more than 85% of their wage income (the portion essentially taxed at the top marginal tax rate if they have effective tax planning) to charities.
Payroll tax receipts are regressive, but considering the other side of the coin – benefits – the programs are holistically progressive.
Also, one of the reasons the wealthy have lower effective tax rates is because of large holdings of tax-free municipal bonds. The yield on these bonds are lower than taxable bonds, so the wealthy are in effect exchanging supporting government spending through taxation for supporting government spending through acceptance of a lower rate of return on their capital.
And this is the question from the Bartlett article: “To follow up, Tea Partyers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes.” And from his comment above this is what 2slugs claims was the question: “The Teabagger quiz was on how much tax is paid on a gross income of $50K.A person filing joint/married and having a taxable income (not “gross income”) of $50K would pay about 13.4% effective tax rate. “
See any difference? I did not see taxable income referenced in the original nor this article. Do any of you see why Kevin answered as he did? Are you all so desperate or insecure that you have to go hyperbolic?
So another rephrase and new argument on the rephrased question. That’s showing a level of desperation that is unnecessary. Those ole senile teabaggers were as correct as 2slugs and many others here.
Double Sheesh for all of you and especially you know who!!!!!
BTW, without going to google, what is the RPM speed for the rear and mid PTOs on a GC2400. Extra credit if you can name several implements that use them.
CoRev,
Even a single taxpayer with gross income of $50K doesn’t pay anything close to 20%-25% of gross income federal taxes. That would translate into $10K-$12.5K in taxes. At most, a person with a gross income of only $50K would pay 14.5%. And that’s the absolute top. In the real world the average single filer would be far less.
Jay,
The whole point is that this is NOT a random sample. The sample is by self-selection highly biased. And the bias is that these are the very people who feel most intensely about the issue and believe most intensely that they know the facts. That was Bartlett’s point. These are supposed to be the smart ones and they’re dumb as dirt.
Just to point out the SS benefits formula its based upon average earnings over 35 years adjusted for wage growth. Then is 90% of the first 761 a month, 32 percent between 762 and 4586 and 15 percent over 4587. This is very much a redistributionist formula, favoring the low paid. This may be the key to the rights anger, they don’t think the rich get a good deal therefore the plan must be abolished.
“These are supposed to be the smart ones”
Bullshit. These are the people that are dumb enough to waste their time standing in D.C. doing nothing constructive. These people are as dumb as those that increase their likelihood of dying in a car accident to go vote in an election in which they have virtually a 0% probability of swinging the outcome.
Go to any rally and you will find the dumbest of the dumb.
VtCodger,
But to his credit and that of the politicians of his day, the deal that enacted his preposterous fiscal policies included cleaning up the tax code which Jimmie Carter described as a disgrace to the human race. And they actually did a credible job.
Reagan actually made two major tax changes. The first was in 1981, and that was a godawful mess shot through with crappy economics. Kemp-Roth. It included almost every boneheaded idea that popped into the head of Club for Growth types. But Reagan deserves a lot of credit for having the good sense to do an about face in 1986 when he signed what was genuine tax reform. He lowered the rates and reduced the deductions and exemptions.
CoRev,
You are using the English language in a most unusual way. When someone asks you for your income, do you respond with your taxable income??? I don’t think so. Everyone understands the question to mean gross income. And you know it.
Besides, based on the how far off the mark the Teabagger answers were to the rest of the questions it’s inconceivable that Teabaggers even know the difference between gross and taxable income. Come to think of it, the crowd around the Capitol looked like a bunch of losers (Jay has a point there), so I kinda doubt that any of them even have jobs nevermind pay taxes. Actually, one of the leaders of the movement does live off a government disability check. You can’t make that stuff up.
Keep working it 2slugs. That ole hole is getting deeper and deeper. Why not answer my question? you claim to live in horse country. Should be really simple. Don’t cheat now, no matter how tempted you might be.
BTW, for the rest of you that question still stands.
Keep working it 2slugs. That ole hole is getting deeper and deeper. Why not answer my question? You claim to live in horse country. Should be really simple. Don’t cheat now, no matter how tempted you might be.
BTW, for the rest of you that question still stands.
http://economicedge.blogspot.com/2010/03/damon-vrabel-renaissance-20.html
“Robespierre? You wouldn’t like the results.“
Don’t be so sure. Granted that he got a bit carried away, but those were difficult times as all true revolutions have been. Robespierre was always a populist, an ideoloque whose ideas were the guiding light which pushed France towards democracy by clearing away the vestiges of the aristocracy that refused to let go its grip on economic power.
Where were all the Teabaggers when it became clear that war in the middle-east was little more than a personal vendetta coerced by economic adventurism? Why no hew and cry over the trillions of dollars wasted over the past decade? Taxes are a necessity in an organized political entity. Government provides services that its citizens require that are outside the scope of private enterprise or beyond the bounds investment for profit. The question is not whether to tax or not, but how to spend the money collected from taxation. It’s the age old choice of guns or butter. Either way the money is returned to the economy. In one case for the good of the people and in the other for no good at all.
The Misinformed Tea Party Movement
VS
ABSOLUTELY DUMB AS DIRT DEMOCRATS
Many liberals don’t have enough political intelligence to light an LED let alone a five watt bulb.
Liberals should be quietly encouraging the Tea Party Movement, not condemning the hell out of it. It may one way for Democrats to pull off more victories in November.
Candidates from the Tea Party will strip votes away from the Republicans. More Tea Party candidates, more successful outcomes for Democratic candidates.
Some liberals and hardened leftists don’t have a clue when it comes to politics. Not the first clue.
Slugs, you’re at the front of the class and some others aren’t far behind. You guys are such blowhards that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
The Tea Party Movement is a gift.
Need conformation? (some would) Read this:
Dems Trail 2-Way Races, But Win If Tea Party Runs
March 24, 2010
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436
ABSOLUTELY DUMB AS DIRT DEMOCRATS may not get it…
.
The Misinformed Tea Party Movement
VS
ABSOLUTELY DUMB AS DIRT DEMOCRATS
Many liberals don’t have enough political intelligence to light an LED let alone a five watt bulb.
Liberals should be quietly encouraging the Tea Party Movement, not condemning the hell out of it. It may one way for Democrats to pull off more victories in November.
Candidates from the Tea Party will strip votes away from the Republicans. More Tea Party candidates, more successful outcomes for Democratic candidates.
Some liberals and hardened leftists don’t have a clue when it comes to politics. Not the first clue.
Slugs, you’re at the front of the class and some others aren’t far behind. You guys are such blowhards that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
The Tea Party Movement is a gift.
Need conformation? (some would) Read this:
Dems Trail 2-Way Races, But Win If Tea Party Runs
March 24, 2010
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436
ABSOLUTELY DUMB AS DIRT DEMOCRATS may not get it…
Republicans, be careful for what you wish for on this one. It may bite you.
The Misinformed Tea Party Movement
VS
ABSOLUTELY DUMB AS DIRT DEMOCRATS
Many liberals don’t have enough political intelligence to light an LED let alone a five watt bulb.
Liberals should be quietly encouraging the Tea Party Movement, not condemning the hell out of it. It may be one way for Democrats to pull off more victories in November.
Candidates from the Tea Party will strip votes away from the Republicans. More Tea Party candidates, more successful outcomes for Democratic candidates.
Some liberals and hardened leftists don’t have a clue when it comes to politics. Not the first clue.
Slugs, you’re at the front of the class and some others aren’t far behind. You guys are such blowhards that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
The Tea Party Movement is a gift.
Need conformation? (some would) Read this:
Dems Trail 2-Way Races, But Win If Tea Party Runs
March 24, 2010
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436
ABSOLUTELY DUMB AS DIRT DEMOCRATS may not get it…
Republicans, be careful for what you wish for on this one.
Anyone who feels the need to ignore the employer’s “social security contribution” is simply a liar. Nothing else need be said. You ignore it=You are a liar
That raises the number to 15.3% for SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE.
The fact that the “rebels” here have let the screaming nutters shut them down so much they don’t even mention it anymore is pathetic.
Sorry, Jack, you are lookijng at history thinking it would reoccur. Just remember which portion of this society is the self reliant set. They are already fired up. What would be gained by firing up the Government reliant set? They already have a super majority and control of the Fed Govt. You folks are already threatened by the teabagger movement; therefore, my comment, you wouldn’t like the results.
C’mon November before it does get worse (in all ways.)
MG, I think the models are the uptstate NY election versus the NJ and VA Gubernatorial elections. One was truly split, but the overall effect was caused by a Liberal posing as a conservative. The next two elections will be a confrontation between the liberal/progressives versus the conservatives. Not about party.
As the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist independents vote with the Dems, the conservatives are expected to vote with the Repubs. D/RINOs are targets for the next elections.
Regrettably, we are in for a long political war caused mostly by the failure of all Pols to listen to their constituents versus their main financial supporters.
MG, I think the models are the uptstate NY election versus the NJ and VA Gubernatorial elections. One was truly split, but the overall effect was caused by a Liberal posing as a conservative. The next two elections will be a confrontation between the liberal/progressives versus the conservatives. Not about party. D/RINOs are targets for the next elections.
As the liberal/progressive/socialist/communist independents vote with the Dems, the conservatives are expected to vote with the Repubs. Regrettably, we are in for a long political war caused mostly by the failure of all Pols to listen to their constituents versus their main financial supporters.
CoRev,
Did you read the poll that I linked? I wouldn’t be overly confident that the presence of Tea Party candidates will help the Republican candidates. Quite the opposite may occur.
MG, actually I did. This is one of my key points: “The next two elections will be a confrontation between the liberal/progressives versus the conservatives. Not about party. D/RINOs are targets for the next elections. ” I do not believe there will be a third “Tea Bag” party, but an effort to back conservative candidates regardless of party affiliation. That is based upon the NY Congressional special election. I think the conservative candidate, coincidentally a tea bagger, will win in the upcoming. If I am wrong, then the tea bag effect may be marginalized.
If marginalized I fear for this country’s future. I have never in my many years seen nor heard the “R”evolution word used so often. Better a political movement fought out at the election booth, versus the alternative.
BTW, welcome back to the fray!
Still, I had to get the ADAD Dems sound bite on the blog. Slugs deserved that one.
I am really not convinced that the TPM (Tea Party Movement) will be a net positive factor in many elections. If they do run their own candidate as a Rep or Indep, the net result may not be positive for the Republicans. Maybe, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
MG, this comment does not make sense to me: “If they do run their own candidate as a Rep or Indep…” if they run a candidate as a Repub against a lib Dem or lib independent, and win, then they will consider it a gain. Only in the most one sided Dem district do I see that they would run a true “TPM” candidate. Otherwise I expect them to align with Repubs. while moving that party (and a handful of Dem conservatives) to their core values.
CoRev,
I would take another close look at that polling data.
Social security is not Medicare. Soc. Sec. is not 15.3%. Please come back to correct this mistake.
I spent more time on that poll and still don’t see your point. I think our fundamental difference is the hypothetical question if a TPM 3rd party candidate was running…. I just don’t see that happening.
This is not another Perot phenomenon, no matter how much the Dems wish it. This is a protest against current Dem/Progressive policies. These views are from my personal observations as an active participant.
Well, Rdan, I don’t really care about your sophism.
I suggest everyone read about sophism, as it is one of the standard methods of communication in America today.
In fact, my entire post is basically about sophist tricks. That’s why it upset rdan so much.
“Social Security Contribution” is like Mandatory Volunteer Work.
Pretending since the employer “pays” half, that this somehow doesn’t increase the employers payroll or decrease how much the employee is paid. Hey, why don’t we just eliminate the “Social Security Tax” altogether by making the employer “contribute” the employees 7.75% as well! That will make Social Security taxes 0% for the employee! Everyone in the entire country will get an immediate 7.65% raise!
Sophism and word games.
Oh, and if Medicare isn’t “Social Security” then that’s another mistake the author of this article has made…. as she has apparently left Medicare taxes out of her calculations……
At least she only mentions “Social Security taxes” and as rdan has so deftly pointed out, Medicare isn’t Social Security.
Will she please come back and correct that mistake.
they think that the average American with $50,000 in income pays between 20-25% of gross income in federal taxes
Let’s put paper to pencil. For a $50,000 earner pays in taxes:
Fed Income tax = $6350 (13%) http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax1040.html#calc
FICA Tax = $3800 (7.6%)
Medicare Tax = $725 (1.5%)
Est. Misc Fed Excise Taxes* =$1500 (3%)
Total Federal Tax as % of income = 25.1%
This doesn’t even count employer contributions to FICA or Medicare, nor corporate taxes imbedded in products.
So, it appears the average Teabagger is smarter than you smug libs.
* (Gasoline, Cigs, Alcohol, etc. etc.)
I suggest to you that you and your brethren in the teabagger movement have a twisted view of what our government is truly all about. You complain of the acts carried out by what is the current Democratic Party controlled Executive Branch and Congress, but without recognizing that the policies and acts being carried out are still only those that suit the vested corporate powers that be. Corporate and finance control what our elected officials carry out in the name of good government whether the outcomes are good for all or only good for one. Have you not noticed that both the Fed and Treasury have a small circle of friends at the helms of both? Have you not noticed that the very same major political contributors tend to contribute to both parties? Have you not noticed that the lobbying that goes on in DC has nothing to do with party affiliation? The teabaggers need to wake up and recognize that the new boss is the self same as the old boss, and we are all fools again. Remind me some time how it is that Bush and Cheney were so much better for the prols that shout their angry slogans and hold their silly “parties” trying so hard to convince themselves that they are patriots. They’re patriots that seem to think that there are bogeymen hiding under every government rock. They’re patriots that haven’t a clue as to the actual centers of power in their government. They’re patriots who cheer on the most reactionary ideologies offered to them. Don’t forget to insist that the government keep its hands off of Medicare.
CoRev,
I suggest to you that you and your brethren in the teabagger movement have a twisted view of what our government is truly all about. You complain of the acts carried out by what is the current Democratic Party controlled Executive Branch and Congress, but without recognizing that the policies and acts being carried out are still only those that suit the vested corporate powers that be. Corporate and finance control what our elected officials carry out in the name of good government whether the outcomes are good for all or only good for one. Have you not noticed that both the Fed and Treasury have a small circle of friends at the helms of both? Have you not noticed that the very same major political contributors tend to contribute to both parties? Have you not noticed that the lobbying that goes on in DC has nothing to do with party affiliation? The teabaggers need to wake up and recognize that the new boss is the self same as the old boss, and we are all fools again. Remind me some time how it is that Bush and Cheney were so much better for the prols that shout their angry slogans and hold their silly “parties” trying so hard to convince themselves that they are patriots. They’re patriots that seem to think that there are bogeymen hiding under every government rock. They’re patriots that haven’t a clue as to the actual centers of power in their government. They’re patriots who cheer on the most reactionary ideologies offered to them. Don’t forget to insist that the government keep its hands off of Medicare.
Jack, what was the point in your rant?
MG
I can’t say that I disagree with your assumptions regarding the potential for the teabaggers to interfer with Republican success at the polls. However, it appears that the Republican leadership is veering hard right on its way to make believe in order to appear friendly to teabagger sentiments. Listen to Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, Do they not sound like demogogues? What plan does any Republican offer other than their being against some other plan, any other plan. They offer nothing opther than obstructionism. That may very well appeal to teabagger mentality. If Sarah Palin appeals to the teabagger, what more need be said? But take a serious look at the bright lights of Republican party politics. Michelle Bachman!! Michael Steele! Bobby Jindal! Eric Cantor! Is there a statesperson amongst them? Granted that the Dems don’t run far ahead, but they have manged to keep their feet out of their mouths more effectively lately.
Sammy, jeez, I wish you hadn’t poked that hornets nest. 2slugs should be getting home soon, and Ya’no he’ll correct you.
Since we are talking taxes the first of the many unanticipated consequences by the ignoranti is just happening. In the past few hours companies have been annoucing their 2010 cost projections for their Sarbanes Oxley filings, and the losses due to the new taxes in the HC bill are now approaching and will soon be well over $2B. Some are stating changes in their health plans and perhaps some layoffs will be required to offset the new taxes.
I remember last week Bruce being surprised there were new taxes. Then I listed several, but not these.
Yup! Not gonna cost jobs. My pitootey!
Some of the commentors act as if they get no benefits from paying taxes. Its all take and no give.
Jack,
It’s a tough call at this point, but the TPM shouldn’t swing any further to the right if there is such a place. That is what could bleed off some votes both from their interests and Republican candidates. Some of the Republican candidates should be concerned about this potential problem.
I am pretty sure that the Republicans have some plans, but you may like them whenever they come into view.
I am thankful to be an independent voters. I just couldn’t camp out with either party right now. We can do better.
I’ve really had it with politics. It’s like listening to a bunch of kids fighting on a playground and taking the fight to a sand lot. Too weird for me.
How do people listen to all that carp from both sides?
Beam me up, Scotty.
Jack,
It’s a tough call at this point, but the TPM shouldn’t swing any further to the right if there is such a place. That is what could bleed off some votes both from their interests and Republican candidates. Some of the Republican candidates should be concerned about this potential problem.
I am pretty sure that the Republicans have some plans, but you may not like them whenever they come into view.
I am thankful to be an independent voters. I just couldn’t camp out with either party right now. We can do better.
I’ve really had it with politics. It’s like listening to a bunch of kids fighting on a playground and taking the fight to a sand lot. Too weird for me.
How do people listen to all that carp from both sides?
Beam me up, Scotty.
Jack,
There is no “TeaBagger” movement….Only a Tea Party!
And BTW….If your gonna complain about what you think we believe, why don’t you make some sense of the tripe your spewing about “What our Governemnt is really about?”
Let’s hear it! You tell me what our government is really about based on it’s founding documents…AND CHECK YOUR OPINION AT THE DOOR!
MG,
Liberals should be quietly encouraging the Tea Party Movement, not condemning the hell out of it.
Bad tactics. The teabaggers are very predictable. Tease them and they become even more radicalized, which makes them even loonier. Democrats should not be quietly encouraging teabaggers, they should be loudly encouraging them. And the way you do that is by further marginalizing them. The RNC guy was right…teabaggers are easy to manipulate.
BTW, President Bush (#43) was predictable in the same way, which is why he kept getting played for a fool by savvy foreign leaders. If you wanted him to react in a certain way all you had to do was scream at him and warn him not to do it. He would turn around and do…like money in the bank.
Corev,
I agree.. The meetings I have been to..The general consensus is that most involved know full well that running a third party will split the vote, and ensure that the Democratics will maintain more power than they deserve. Most of the talk is coming from the media, and generated propoganda within the Tea Party movement to keep Democratics from being able to align with them.
The origins of the movement were to reject the Democratics agenda, and begin the grssroots organization process.
sammy,
Go read he survey. The question specifically asked about federal income taxes, not total taxes, not FICA taxes, not tariffs, not sin taxes It asked about federal income taxes.
Ignorance is Bliss?
National Debt of 20 Trillion in 2020 years. I wonder what the people who have to flip the bill will have to say about the benefit to tax ratio at that point?
I’m sure your kids or grandkids won’t mind will they?
2slugs,
FICA taxes and Medicare taxes are Federal taxes on income.
“teabaggers are easy to manipulate”
You realize that when you call somebody a TeaBagger there has to be a recipient of the TeaBag…..Would that be you? Do you like to be TeaBagged?
Slugs,
So, you’ll get louder?
Jimi,
That’s $20 Trillion in Debt Held by the Public. The figure is based on CBO projections for 2020.
The Intragovernmental Debt is not included. The President’s budget states that figure as $7.2 Trillion in 2020.
National Debt in 2020 – somewhere north of $27 Trillion.
All is well…
MG,
Why are you so smart? Wanna get a Beer?
“By 2020, the national debt would balloon to 20.3 trillion dollars, or 90 percent of GDP, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said in a report Friday.”
“The Obama administration projects the debt at 18.5 trillion dollars or 77 percent of GDP in 10 years”
“Obama has underestimated the government budget deficit for the 2011-2020 period by 1.2 trillions dollars and the public debt by 1.8 trillion dollars, the Congressional Budget Office said.”
“Under Obama’s latest budget projections, the cumulative deficit over the decade would be 8.532 trillion dollars, or 4.5 percent of gross domestic product, the nation’s economic output.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100306/pl_afp/financeeconomyusgovernmentbudgetcongress
BTW… Did you like how Linda played this little trick, “they think taxes have increased under Obama whereas in fact they went way down because of the economic stimulus package.”
Now what’s wrong with that statement?…..
Well she tries to pretend that….
1.) The stimulus actually did something besides grow government and create more debt
2.) That the short term benefit outways the long term consequence, which it clearly doesn’t, and it will be exponetial pain to pay it back in the future.
3.) That these Collectivist Stunts the Democratics are pushing are going to be hidden till the adults come back to power to clean up the mess.
4.) That average Americans aren’t smart enough to understand that when you bump the spending like this Administration has, sooner or later inflation and dragonian taxes will grab hold.
I think that I’ve made this point before, but it is worth repeating. I don’t see the two parties as opposed to one another. There is a lot of loud noise that sounds like aggressive partisanship, but I think it is intended more for the effect. There is one party that rules our government. One might call it the Party of Wealth. Its constituents are corporations of all types allied with individuals of great personal wealth. Obviously the two are intertwined. The leaders of that party have no political aspirations other than to inluence the ideology and activities of those elected officials who we identify as Republicans and Democrats. And all those involved are focused on one issue. That is their individual and organized acquisition of additional wealth and power.
sammy,
Learn the language. FICA and Medicare are called “payroll taxes”. The term “income tax” refers to what you calculate when working your 1040. You’re obviously scrambling for some bizarre and unconventional interpretations of what the words “federal income tax” mean.
Jimi,
First, the term is “draconian,” not “dragonian.” The term “draconian” refers to a set of especially harsh laws in ancient Greece that were in place prior to Solon.
The stimulus really did contribute to growth. Just about every independent economic forecasting house has come to that conclusion. Can you name a single reputable forecasting organization that has not concluded the stimulus didn’t contribute to economic growth above and beyond what would have been the case without the stimulus?
It is true that paying back the deficit that was incurred will be exponential, but the same is true for the lost output. For example, during the 1981-1982 recession the economy lost the equivalent of about 18 percent of GDP…that’s 18 percent that we will never get back. That loss also compounds exponentially. We see this is some fairly well documented effects of recessions on lifetime earnings of people who first enter the workforce during a recession. Their lifetime incomes are permanently lower than those who entered the workforce during years of economic expansion. Sitting back and doing nothing about a recession carries a very high cost on future productivity.
If by “adults” you mean the teabaggers and far right wingnuts, then thanks for the laugh. Or perhaps by “adult’ you had in mind Dick “deficits-don’t-matter” Cheney?
The average teabagger isn’t smart enough to understand that inflation is a monetary phenomenon and that you do not have to get inflation in the wake of deficit spending. Now you will get inflation if we follow the GOP prescription of no new tax increases down the line to pay for the deficit, but here again that’s because wingnuts can’t be bothered with cracking an econ textbook. There is a risk of inflation, but the risk is all on the side of following advice from GOP politicians.
Jimi,
First, the term is “draconian,” not “dragonian.” The term “draconian” refers to a set of especially harsh laws in ancient Greece that were in place prior to Solon.
The stimulus really did contribute to growth. Just about every independent economic forecasting house has come to that conclusion. Can you name a single reputable forecasting organization that has concluded the stimulus didn’t contribute to economic growth above and beyond what would have been the case without the stimulus?
It is true that paying back the deficit that was incurred will be exponential, but the same is true for the lost output. For example, during the 1981-1982 recession the economy lost the equivalent of about 18 percent of GDP…that’s 18 percent that we will never get back. That loss also compounds exponentially. We see this is some fairly well documented effects of recessions on lifetime earnings of people who first enter the workforce during a recession. Their lifetime incomes are permanently lower than those who entered the workforce during years of economic expansion. Sitting back and doing nothing about a recession carries a very high cost on future productivity.
If by “adults” you mean the teabaggers and far right wingnuts, then thanks for the laugh. Or perhaps by “adult’ you had in mind Dick “deficits-don’t-matter” Cheney?
The average teabagger isn’t smart enough to understand that inflation is a monetary phenomenon and that you do not have to get inflation in the wake of deficit spending. Now you will get inflation if we follow the GOP prescription of no new tax increases down the line to pay for the deficit, but here again that’s because wingnuts can’t be bothered with cracking an econ textbook. There is a risk of inflation, but the risk is all on the side of following advice from GOP politicians.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/%7Esaez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf
This paper does a real good job on federal taxes, overall, counting everything ecxcept low income subsidies.
In fact, the $52,000 earner is the mean taxpayer, paying 20% income into Federal revenue.
Bruce bartlett is wrong.
Matt Young,
Reread the questionnaire. It did not ask about total taxes, it specifically asked about “federal income taxes” only. According to the Saez & Piketty data the federal income tax would be 7.3 percent for a tax unit earning $52K. And this gets to another point. The questionnaire did not ask how much an average tax unit pays in federal income tax, it asked how much an average family pays in income tax if family incme is $50K. Obviously an “average family” pays less than an “average tax unit.”
Upset is your wish I suppose. Why? Such an innocuous reply from me…is that what you read into your world?
CoRev, what exactly is your “question” and what do you mean by “self-reliant.” Do you pave your own roads, have your owned armed forces (perhaps you own shares in Blackwater, but then Blackwater gets most of its revenues from Government (U.S. and foreign) contracts), your own fire department, police department, court systems to enforce patent, copyright, and other monopoly rights (Cable, Broadband, and land line)?
Most of the foot soldiers in the T-bagger movement are drawing social security and medicare. But what CoRev and John Boehner mean really when they say “special interests” and “Federal reliant” is “Black and Brown people.” It is the fact that some form of social insurance might be going to a non-white that “burns, burns.” This was Nixon’s clever discovery, that he could combine resentment of “pointy-head” so call liberal elites (in George Wallace’s words) with resentment against the formerly invisible underclasses of Black and Brown America to form a “real majority.” Then use that political power to tear down the New Deal, to the very detriment of the White middle and working classes and return things to way they were in the Gilded Age for the CEO elite. The white middle and working classes go along with it, because in their resentment, they believe the meme that the beneficiaries of everything from student loans to food stamps to social security (and now health care), are those “special interests” even when they benefit themselves after job losses or income declines.
MG, 2slugs won’t get louder just more arrogant and mocking. Of course, with his ego there can be no one or group with nearly as advanced.
Sheesh!
Most of the foot soldiers in the T-bagger movement are drawing social security and medicare.
“Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” said the teabagger to the pol. And one of the state chairmen (I think it’s Georgia) for the Tea Party is living off the govt dole on disability. And doesn’t see the irony or the hypocrisy. Cognitive dissonance.
Well, if Bruce asked me the question I would refer to the report, and point out that he asked a loaded question, which he did. What is he demonstrating with the question? The common sense anwser is the rate of 20%.
2slugbaits,
Reread the questionnaire. It did not ask about total taxes, it specifically asked about “federal income taxes” only.
You are over-parsing. What the respondent would do is say: “I make $4K per month, I bring home $3K, therefore my tax rate is about 25%.” (BTW these are accurate estimates). He doesn’t care that some is FICA, some is Medicare – IT IS ALL GOING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
“Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” said the teabagger to the pol.
Since half (1/2) of Obamacare is to be paid for by cuts in Medicare – said teabagger is being perfectly reasonable.
Jimi,
Don’t expect consistancy or critical thought from the libs when it comes to their policies. Do expect insults and condescension (ie. 2slugs). It’s all about ideology. For some strange reason, they think giving more power to the government is beneficial. They are wannabe dictators that are in for a rude awakening.
Jimi,
Don’t expect consistancy or critical thought from the libs when it comes to their policies. Do expect insults and condescension (ie. 2slugs). It’s all about ideology. For some strange reason, they think giving more power to the government is beneficial. They are wannabe dictators-by-proxy that are in for a rude awakening.
Jimi,
Don’t expect consistancy or critical thought from the libs when it comes to their policies. Do expect insults and condescension (ie. 2slugs). No matter what the data and the evidence, the correct conclusion is to raise taxes and increase government control (ie. 2slugs).
It’s all about ideology. For some strange reason, they think giving more power to the government is beneficial to them. They are wannabe dictators-by-proxy that are in for a rude awakening.
Jimi,
We could get a beer if you lived near me. No question. It would be on me.
Same for Slugs, but I would be calling him a Dumb As Dirt Democrat. Or D3, for short.
Matt – “Well, if Bruce asked me the question I would refer to the report, and point out that he asked a loaded question, which he did.“
Exactly right. I’ve done many television, radio, and print media interviews. You’ve got about 2-3 seconds to respond to a question. Normally, I had my answer down before the question was finished. And if I didn’t, I would say, “I don’t know.”
There wasn’t a single individual identified in the “polling survey” who indicated that he/she did not have an answer. None. The polling results were BS.
There is no way in hell the Tea Party would have known some of those answers off the top of their heads. And the same can be said for Democrats or a whole list of people I know, some of whom think they’re pretty smart.
Slugs, er, D3,
That chairman was from your state and says that he knows you personally. Boy, does he have some stories!
Sammy,
Here’s a link to a very recent Monitor article that seems to throw some doubt on your comment and sheds a lot of light on some reform bill details.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0321/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-will-pay-for-reform
Yes, let’s look at that person with $50,000 and stick with your numbers. Perhaps the problem is that we have a flatter tax in this nation if all money is counted in the year that it is earned as “tax” or “tax deferred”. So, take someone like me with income far, far in excess of this example – I pay almost the same rate as a % of total income. I don’t pay SS all months, I defer all the income possible under law, etc.
I think the major difference is in the states and people just don’t see this. I live in MD and just found out that even my local county has an income tax of 3% of income (flat, except they give someone like me the same deferrals as the feds do), so probably regressive.