The AWOL Romney Tax Returns - what's the holdup?

[Mavric]

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax.

Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009):

Top 1% - 36.7%

Top 5% - 58.7%

Top 10% - 70.5%

Bottom 50% - 2.25%

How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be?

 

[Mavric]

as for my prior argument, you sort of contradict yourself. the bottom 47% are protected from taxes yet we are taking away money from "everyone and giving it to someone". i explained it fairly well, but it is better to give money to spenders (consumers) than do nothing at all or tighten the government purse-strings when it comes to recovering from a recession. by allowing mitt and other millionaire's huge tax breaks, all you are doing is giving money to people who will spend no more and export the money out of the country to protect it from taxes. we lose the benefit of tax revenue and consumer spending. recessions are so bad because they are cyclical: people lose jobs, have less money, spend less, more people lose jobs who have less money, spend less... to reverse this, people have to have money to spend.

By "everyone" I meant every tax payer. I should have been more precise but I thought that would have been obvious.

It is a overly simplistic to say giving money to people will help the economy. Where did that money come from in the first place? Out of the economy. So money is removed from the economy, the middle people take their cut, then it is placed back into the economy. Even if there was not a cut taken out, that is - at best - a zero sum game.

Not to be a jerk, but I shouldn't need to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy. Regardless, I said Private hospitals so they do belong in this conversation, US oil companies haven't always made record profits, for a while they even had losses. The only way they made profits is due to investors risking their own money to help pay for oil rigs, pipelines, and other improvements that set them up to make profits. That creates jobs for people who make oil rigs, who built pipelines, and who run those sites.

why should you not have to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy?

the stock market is a scam. it is not based on the value of a company or its production. it is based on speculation and artificial forces.

when oil companies do operate at a loss, they get to write that off. that is the incentive. you either profit or write-off your loses.

are most hospitals not public or non-profit? and if it is private, usually it is insanely profitable.

You continue to act like income made by the rich goes into some black hole. What do they do with it? Hide it under their mattress? Where do companies get money to hire more workers? I'm not saying that rich investors are the paragons of virtue but to insinuate that all that money is somehow gone from the economy is ridiculous.

 

[sd'sker]

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax.

Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009):

Top 1% - 36.7%

Top 5% - 58.7%

Top 10% - 70.5%

Bottom 50% - 2.25%

How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be?

that is more of an issue regarding wealth inequality than anything. that has nothing to do with tax rates or what the super rich actually pay.

 

[Mavric]

The reason the rich are given tax breaks, because they risk capital to build companies. Do you know how much it costs to finance a new wing for a private Hospital? Or the cost of expanding drilling operations into new fields and the sea floor? Rich people get a tax break for putting their money into companies with the possibility of getting a ROI, and also there is a possibility they wont get anything back. That investment helps build our economy, it does create jobs, and it does it efficiently. If Warren buffet paid the same tax rate as his secretary it would increase his tax payment by a little more than 6 million dollars for a total of 14+ million a year in taxes. That more than probably this whole board will pay in taxes in their lifetimes combined. But if he wants to put more money into the government I don't think the IRS will care.

how do hedge funds, the stock market, or selling short help the economy or anyone other than the investor? why should we subsidize their risk when they refuse to subsidize the infrastructure and means to take such risks? and you are switching back and forth between people and corporations. also, that is why you can write of losses, but why should we subsidize oil companies making record profits? their record profits are not enough for the r&d? finally, i am not sure hospitals really belong in this conversation.

So no one is employed in managing hedge funds, buying and selling stocks, running the NYSE, etc.?

They "refuse" to subsidize infrastructure? You do know what subsidize means, don't you? Are you saying they are refusing to pay the taxes they owe?

 

[Mavric]

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax.

Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009):

Top 1% - 36.7%

Top 5% - 58.7%

Top 10% - 70.5%

Bottom 50% - 2.25%

How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be?

that is more of an issue regarding wealth inequality than anything. that has nothing to do with tax rates or what the super rich actually pay.

Please explain.

 

[sd'sker]

as for my prior argument, you sort of contradict yourself. the bottom 47% are protected from taxes yet we are taking away money from "everyone and giving it to someone". i explained it fairly well, but it is better to give money to spenders (consumers) than do nothing at all or tighten the government purse-strings when it comes to recovering from a recession. by allowing mitt and other millionaire's huge tax breaks, all you are doing is giving money to people who will spend no more and export the money out of the country to protect it from taxes. we lose the benefit of tax revenue and consumer spending. recessions are so bad because they are cyclical: people lose jobs, have less money, spend less, more people lose jobs who have less money, spend less... to reverse this, people have to have money to spend.

By "everyone" I meant every tax payer. I should have been more precise but I thought that would have been obvious.

It is a overly simplistic to say giving money to people will help the economy. Where did that money come from in the first place? Out of the economy. So money is removed from the economy, the middle people take their cut, then it is placed back into the economy. Even if there was not a cut taken out, that is - at best - a zero sum game.

Not to be a jerk, but I shouldn't need to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy. Regardless, I said Private hospitals so they do belong in this conversation, US oil companies haven't always made record profits, for a while they even had losses. The only way they made profits is due to investors risking their own money to help pay for oil rigs, pipelines, and other improvements that set them up to make profits. That creates jobs for people who make oil rigs, who built pipelines, and who run those sites.

why should you not have to explain how investing in stocks is good for our economy?

the stock market is a scam. it is not based on the value of a company or its production. it is based on speculation and artificial forces.

when oil companies do operate at a loss, they get to write that off. that is the incentive. you either profit or write-off your loses.

are most hospitals not public or non-profit? and if it is private, usually it is insanely profitable.

You continue to act like income made by the rich goes into some black hole. What do they do with it? Hide it under their mattress? Where do companies get money to hire more workers? I'm not saying that rich investors are the paragons of virtue but to insinuate that all that money is somehow gone from the economy is ridiculous.

you act like the super rich or the wealthy hire a person for every windfall they gain. that is not how the economy works. demand creates jobs, not rich people having more money. it start with consumers. they need more demand, not tax breaks, to entice them to hire more people. that is my point. the rich are not just going to open businesses and expand their operations because they have more money, they only will if the middle-class consumers are spending. if the middle class is not spending, the rich do just sit on their money. that is why this recovery is so slow, it is a jobless recovery. many corporations are doing fine, but not spending or hiring because consumers are being extremely cautious. there is no reason to give the rich obscene tax breaks, but it makes sense to make them pay their fair share and shift the tax burden from the middle class to the wealthy. you think tax breaks for the rich makes them feel more secure and less risk adverse? it does not change their behavior one iota. all the focus should be placed on a strong middle class, it is enlightened self-interest.

 

[Mierin]

This is exactly what makes a flat tax regressive, and a bad idea.

just to be clear, i agree with this. that is what i was getting at; that our tax system is effectively not progressive and in practice is regressive. as well, i am not in favor of a flat tax.

Taxes Paid by Earning Percentiles (2009):

Top 1% - 36.7%

Top 5% - 58.7%

Top 10% - 70.5%

Bottom 50% - 2.25%

How can that possibly be considered regressive? How much more progressive would you like it to be?

that is more of an issue regarding wealth inequality than anything. that has nothing to do with tax rates or what the super rich actually pay.

Please explain.

I will explain. The wealthiest 10% are paying 75% of the taxes because they are that much wealthier than the average person. Your post doesn't really make any point about tax rates. If the wealthy were taxed 5% they would still be paying a huge portion because the gap in wealth is that astronomical. (On a semi-related note, meritocracy does not account for billionaires. How can one billionaire have worked thousands of times harder than everyone who isn't a millionaire? People don't get that loaded just from "working hard." Screwing other people and luck are also variables most of the time).

Anyhow, if the following data wasn't the case, the top 10% would be paying a lower % of the taxes and the bottom 50% a higher:

Keep in mind that the graph is top 1% vs bottom 80%. Imagine how big the difference would be if it was top 10% vs bottom 50%. And it's from 10 years ago.

 

[sd'sker]

The reason the rich are given tax breaks, because they risk capital to build companies. Do you know how much it costs to finance a new wing for a private Hospital? Or the cost of expanding drilling operations into new fields and the sea floor? Rich people get a tax break for putting their money into companies with the possibility of getting a ROI, and also there is a possibility they wont get anything back. That investment helps build our economy, it does create jobs, and it does it efficiently. If Warren buffet paid the same tax rate as his secretary it would increase his tax payment by a little more than 6 million dollars for a total of 14+ million a year in taxes. That more than probably this whole board will pay in taxes in their lifetimes combined. But if he wants to put more money into the government I don't think the IRS will care.

how do hedge funds, the stock market, or selling short help the economy or anyone other than the investor? why should we subsidize their risk when they refuse to subsidize the infrastructure and means to take such risks? and you are switching back and forth between people and corporations. also, that is why you can write of losses, but why should we subsidize oil companies making record profits? their record profits are not enough for the r&d? finally, i am not sure hospitals really belong in this conversation.

So no one is employed in managing hedge funds, buying and selling stocks, running the NYSE, etc.?

They "refuse" to subsidize infrastructure? You do know what subsidize means, don't you? Are you saying they are refusing to pay the taxes they owe?

so their only value to society is the relatively few people they employ? that is worth risking people's pensions, ira's, 401(k)'s? the car industry produces cars and employs people, that is how an industry should work.

sub·si·dize/ˈsəbsəˌdīz/

Support (an organization or activity) financially.

Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

 

[Mavric]

I will explain. The wealthiest 10% are paying 75% of the taxes because they are that much wealthier than the average person. Your post doesn't really make any point about tax rates. If the wealthy were taxed 5% they would still be paying a huge portion because the gap in wealth is that astronomical. (On a semi-related note, meritocracy does not account for billionaires. How can one billionaire have worked thousands of times harder than everyone who isn't a millionaire? People don't get that loaded just from "working hard." Screwing other people and luck are also variables most of the time).

Anyhow, if the following data wasn't the case, the top 10% would be paying a lower % of the taxes and the bottom 50% a higher:

Keep in mind that the graph is top 1% vs bottom 80%. Imagine how big the difference would be if it was top 10% vs bottom 50%. And it's from 10 years ago.

That was a great explanation to a question I didn't ask. You both realize there is a difference between wealth and income, right? If either of you would like to explain how that distribution is regressive, please feel free.

 

[Mavric]

how do hedge funds, the stock market, or selling short help the economy or anyone other than the investor? why should we subsidize their risk when they refuse to subsidize the infrastructure and means to take such risks? and you are switching back and forth between people and corporations. also, that is why you can write of losses, but why should we subsidize oil companies making record profits? their record profits are not enough for the r&d? finally, i am not sure hospitals really belong in this conversation.

So no one is employed in managing hedge funds, buying and selling stocks, running the NYSE, etc.?

They "refuse" to subsidize infrastructure? You do know what subsidize means, don't you? Are you saying they are refusing to pay the taxes they owe?

so their only value to society is the relatively few people they employ? that is worth risking people's pensions, ira's, 401(k)'s? the car industry produces cars and employs people, that is how an industry should work.

sub·si·dize/ˈsəbsəˌdīz/

Support (an organization or activity) financially.

Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

I didn't say that was their only value and you were the one who said they didn't anyone other than themselves.

Did you want to answer my questions?

 

[sd'sker]

I will explain. The wealthiest 10% are paying 75% of the taxes because they are that much wealthier than the average person. Your post doesn't really make any point about tax rates. If the wealthy were taxed 5% they would still be paying a huge portion because the gap in wealth is that astronomical. (On a semi-related note, meritocracy does not account for billionaires. How can one billionaire have worked thousands of times harder than everyone who isn't a millionaire? People don't get that loaded just from "working hard." Screwing other people and luck are also variables most of the time).

Anyhow, if the following data wasn't the case, the top 10% would be paying a lower % of the taxes and the bottom 50% a higher:

Keep in mind that the graph is top 1% vs bottom 80%. Imagine how big the difference would be if it was top 10% vs bottom 50%. And it's from 10 years ago.

That was a great explanation to a question I didn't ask. You both realize there is a difference between wealth and income, right? If either of you would like to explain how that distribution is regressive, please feel free.

you did ask that question. that was the point i was making and you asked to explain. wealth begets wealth (just as poverty begets poverty). the problem is with capital gains taxes and other protections investments receive. i am sure moiraine can better explain this.

 

[sd'sker]

how do hedge funds, the stock market, or selling short help the economy or anyone other than the investor? why should we subsidize their risk when they refuse to subsidize the infrastructure and means to take such risks? and you are switching back and forth between people and corporations. also, that is why you can write of losses, but why should we subsidize oil companies making record profits? their record profits are not enough for the r&d? finally, i am not sure hospitals really belong in this conversation.

So no one is employed in managing hedge funds, buying and selling stocks, running the NYSE, etc.?

They "refuse" to subsidize infrastructure? You do know what subsidize means, don't you? Are you saying they are refusing to pay the taxes they owe?

so their only value to society is the relatively few people they employ? that is worth risking people's pensions, ira's, 401(k)'s? the car industry produces cars and employs people, that is how an industry should work.

sub·si·dize/ˈsəbsəˌdīz/

Support (an organization or activity) financially.

Pay part of the cost of producing (something) to reduce prices for the buyer.

I didn't say that was their only value and you were the one who said they didn't anyone other than themselves.

Did you want to answer my questions?

didn't what? help? by employing themselves, yes they only help themselves. i am saying they can hide the gains and money to avoid paying taxes. are you asking if they do not pay what they owe as in legally or morally? legally, well i can not answer because i do not have access to their tax returns (even the ones running for president). morally, i can unequivocally say that they are not paying what they owe.

but to be quite honest, i am not even sure what you are asking anymore.

 

[Mavric]

I will explain. The wealthiest 10% are paying 75% of the taxes because they are that much wealthier than the average person. Your post doesn't really make any point about tax rates. If the wealthy were taxed 5% they would still be paying a huge portion because the gap in wealth is that astronomical. (On a semi-related note, meritocracy does not account for billionaires. How can one billionaire have worked thousands of times harder than everyone who isn't a millionaire? People don't get that loaded just from "working hard." Screwing other people and luck are also variables most of the time).

Anyhow, if the following data wasn't the case, the top 10% would be paying a lower % of the taxes and the bottom 50% a higher:

Keep in mind that the graph is top 1% vs bottom 80%. Imagine how big the difference would be if it was top 10% vs bottom 50%. And it's from 10 years ago.

That was a great explanation to a question I didn't ask. You both realize there is a difference between wealth and income, right? If either of you would like to explain how that distribution is regressive, please feel free.

you did ask that question. that was the point i was making and you asked to explain. wealth begets wealth (just as poverty begets poverty). the problem is with capital gains taxes and other protections investments receive. i am sure moiraine can better explain this.

The percentages have nothing to do with wealth (which is what Moiraine said). It has to do with income. They are related but not the same thing. His explanation was wrong.

Then he veers off into a rant on meritocracy. That is an extreme oversimplification of success. I could work 10^10 times harder than anyone on the planet but I still couldn't beat out Rex Burkhead for the starting RB spot or beat Usain Bolt in a sprint. Trying to explain success as "screwing others" is pretty childish.

The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer.

 

[Mierin]

I will explain. The wealthiest 10% are paying 75% of the taxes because they are that much wealthier than the average person. Your post doesn't really make any point about tax rates. If the wealthy were taxed 5% they would still be paying a huge portion because the gap in wealth is that astronomical. (On a semi-related note, meritocracy does not account for billionaires. How can one billionaire have worked thousands of times harder than everyone who isn't a millionaire? People don't get that loaded just from "working hard." Screwing other people and luck are also variables most of the time).

Anyhow, if the following data wasn't the case, the top 10% would be paying a lower % of the taxes and the bottom 50% a higher:

Keep in mind that the graph is top 1% vs bottom 80%. Imagine how big the difference would be if it was top 10% vs bottom 50%. And it's from 10 years ago.

That was a great explanation to a question I didn't ask. You both realize there is a difference between wealth and income, right? If either of you would like to explain how that distribution is regressive, please feel free.

you did ask that question. that was the point i was making and you asked to explain. wealth begets wealth (just as poverty begets poverty). the problem is with capital gains taxes and other protections investments receive. i am sure moiraine can better explain this.

The percentages have nothing to do with wealth (which is what Moiraine said). It has to do with income. They are related but not the same thing. His explanation was wrong.

Then he veers off into a rant on meritocracy. That is an extreme oversimplification of success. I could work 10^10 times harder than anyone on the planet but I still couldn't beat out Rex Burkhead for the starting RB spot or beat Usain Bolt in a sprint. Trying to explain success as "screwing others" is pretty childish.

The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer.

It has almost everything to do with wealth. I would wager that most people in the top 10% income in any given year are the same people who are in the top 10% in wealth. You're going to see very little difference there.

I prefaced the tangent by saying it was only semi-related and I put it in parenthesis. Part of the reason I went on that "rant" is because I assumed someone would reply with the tired "they worked hard to earn that much money, so they shouldn't have to pay millions in taxes" schtick.

I did not explain success as screwing people over. You're oversimplifying my so-called oversimplification. I said that screwing people over is one variable in the equation for most billionaires in becoming billionaires.

Here's a better graph, by the way:

Also, I can give birth.

 

[Mierin]

The question I asked is how is the current tax system regressive. I still haven't seen an answer.

And for the record, I didn't mention whether it's regressive. Or regressive enough. I was merely pointing out that your stats were meaningless. So the top 10% pay 75% of the country's taxes. That tells us absolutely nothing about how regressive our taxes are without more data. So here's another attempt at an explanation:

Bill makes $100 a year

Bob makes $1 a year

Bill is taxed 5%

Bob is taxed 30%

Bill is paying $5, or 94% of the taxes

Bob is paying $0.30, or 6% of the taxes

So Bill is paying a crapton of the country of Billybob's taxes, AND it's regressive. But more to the point, if we only know that Bill pays 94% and Bob pays 6% (as with your statistics) we know nothing. It could be that they're both paying 10% and that Bill earned $940 and Bob earned $60. It could be that they're only slightly regressive, say 30% and 25%, in which case Bill may have earned $376 and Bob earned $20.

Admittedly I don't know a hell of a lot about this, so I might be looking like an idiot now, but the point stands that you cannot know whether or not our taxes are regressive (or too regressive, or not regressive enough) just because you know that the highest earners are paying 3/4 of the taxes. Therefore the data you provided is useless. You gave us no information that we could actually discuss.