Sean Hannity (-__-)

Quote from andyfico : How do you get people who supposedly can't afford to pay any fed income taxes and get more back than they pay in to start paying?

Change the law...?

Quote from Count_Chocula : no boob pics here. wtf?

sorry here is 6 boobs for you

Quote from TRNT : So let's see if you would agree with this: If half of present taxes are paid by the top 1% and if we want to keep the distribution of the burden of taxes between the top 1% and bottom 99% the same, then half of the new revenues must come from the top 1%. If you agree with the above, then show me the math that says increasing taxes on the to 1% result on amount that are "a drop in the bucket." Because if you agree with the above then you must agree that such amounts is one half of the amount if we increased taxes on all. Here is another simple indisputable mathematical fact. No matter how much you reduce expenditure, one half of every dollar to pay down the debt (debt and not the deficit) must come from the top 1%, unless you want to shift the burden. Those who say taxing the super rich does not produce appreciable revenues are dastardly liars or incompetent fools.

Look, I have no problem with your original statement as a general statement of fact. I don't even have a problem with it at a mathematical level subject to some specific wording and conditions. The only reason that we got started down this long and torturous path was your continuing insistence that I demonstrate that your original statement was not an infallible mathematical truth. Which, against what should have been my better judgement in getting into it to begin with, I did. And I really don't have any interest now in starting over again with some variations of the same. lol So I'm not going to...

That said, best that I can tell after cutting through all of the other stuff is that your position appears to be that any increases to taxes should be shared at no worse than an equal level between the "1%" and "99%" so that whatever ratio exists now does not change in favor of the 1%. That's fine if that's your position and certainly you can make that work from a math standpoint in the abstract. Furthermore, you believe that on this same basis the contribution to the total by the top 1% would be substantial.

Have I got it right so far? Assuming so...

As I tried to explain earlier is there is some *practical* limit to the extent to which you can satisfy 50% of increases in revenue requirements with taxes from that 1% group. I don't know exactly what that number is but I do know that there is some *practical* limit. Your condition that the relative burden not change requires that it is possible to extract 50% of required revenues on a *practical* basis. You cannot satisfy a requirement for 50% of N with less than 50% of N. If that amount of money is not there, then you have to get it somewhere else. Since you're already inclusive of the top, the only place to look is down from there. If you make it up below, then you change the relative burden at whatever level. The top 1% receives somewhere between ~16% and ~21% of total income depending on what and how you count (remember that for tax purposes we're talking income not wealth) so somewhere between ~84% to ~79% exists below that.

Now I have no idea what the exact numbers are or where the break-point is. As far as I know there is nothing proposed on the same 99%/1% basis which takes into account all of the various considerations that come into play in determining what that limit might be. As earlier, I used Obama's budget as an indication of real-world limits which suggests that you need to extend at least to the 2% level and that still leaves +$1 trillion deficits (I'm not even getting into debt, way too complicated). There's a ton of other stuff out there. You're the one who's claiming that it's possible to maintain a 50% split. Go find something or pull the numbers and work them yourself and present them. Again, I have no real basis on which to make any kind of reasonable assessment beyond a variety of sniff-test data points and I doubt that you're relying on anything beyond general belief.

Quote from bridgeburner : Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Hannity. Everyone should pay the same flat % tax, regardless of income. Consider. 1% tax. You make $100 a check, you keep $99. You make $1000 a check, you keep $990, and so on. How is that unfair? The rich should pay more money in taxes (because they make more) but they shouldn't have to pay a higher or lower percentage than the poor. Everyone should pay the same rate. It's just like paying sales tax. Sales tax doesn't magically adjust because you're rich or poor. Everyone pays the same % of sales tax. The only thing that changes is the amount of money based on how much you spend.

Your position is one I've made here for years. A million dollar income earner should pay 20 times more in taxes than a 50 thousand dollar earner. No exemptions, no loopholes.

Unfortunately, since that doesn't feed the need to punish the evil rich, (even though it would cause some of them to pay more in taxes that they currently do), many can't embrace the ultimate fairness of that system.

Quote from bridgeburner : Change the law...?

Obviously. But that wasn't what I was getting at. People have been paying no tax or getting more back than they paid for so long that it is going to be very difficult to change the law. Look at the responses we see here on TP whenever it is suggested that everyone pay something. Combine that with the fact that some politicians benefit by having people not paying fed income taxes and it will be very difficult to change the law.

Quote from Mike A. : Look, I have no problem with your original statement as a general statement of fact. I don't even have a problem with it at a mathematical level subject to some specific wording and conditions. The only reason that we got started down this long and torturous path was your continuing insistence that I demonstrate that your original statement was not an infallible mathematical truth. Which, against what should have been my better judgement in getting into it to begin with, I did. And I really don't have any interest now in starting over again with some variations of the same. lol So I'm not going to... That said, best that I can tell after cutting through all of the other stuff is that your position appears to be that any increases to taxes should be shared at no worse than an equal level between the "1%" and "99%" so that whatever ratio exists now does not change in favor of the 1%. That's fine if that's your position and certainly you can make that work from a math standpoint in the abstract. Furthermore, you believe that on this same basis the contribution to the total by the top 1% would be substantial. Have I got it right so far? Assuming so...

Not at all. Not even close. "Should" is usually used for subjective and ethical notions. My ethics tells me more than half of the new revenues "should" come from the top 1%.

What I have been trying to demonstrate all this time was how absurd the claim that taxing the super rich amounts to "a drop in a bucket" is. That is, whether or not that is true, that indeed is a simple indisputable mathematical fact.

From the beginning I said "roughly" half must come from the top 1%. Later on to be more precise, I added the condition of not changing the relative burdens.

Now finally to your "practical limitations." Indeed there is a mathematical limitation. You cannot tax people more than 100%. So say the super rich are already being taxed at say 75%. Then obviously their taxes cannot be increased another, say, 50%. That too is a simple indisputable mathematical fact. But we are nowhere near that mathematical limit. There other limits too. I hear economists say if you tax some people beyond a certain level, they just stop working hard and that would hurt the society as a whole. I am not informed enough to tell you whether or not we are close to that limit. However my gut tells me that we are not.

I am sorry for this long winded back and forth. I am sure I share some of the blame. But at least it seems we have converged to some degree. The claim that taxing the super rich amounts to a drop in a bucket is one of my pet peeves that boils my rhetorical blood. That is all.