Ron Paul on taxation?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...more of the total tax burden shifted to the rich...

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means as a total percentage of taxes collected, the rich are now paying a bigger share than they were before.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've engaged in similar discussions on this forum before here and here.

I'll just quote my response from the first thread:

[ QUOTE ]
...it was discussed that the total share of income tax paid by people earning more than $200,000 did go up between 2002 and 2004. But so did the number of people earning more than $200,000, as did the average income of those earning more than $200,000. Furthermore, filers earning more than $200,000 paid, on average, 4% less federal income tax in 2004 than in 2002, even though they earned on average 10% more. Similar trends can be found by looking at those earning more than $1,000,000 per year.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

So in your mind households making over $200,000 in income are automatically catagorized as being rich. Well that's better than iron81's $80,000.

[maxtower]

OP,

I believe many programs RP expects to cut will be picked up at the state level. Education for instance is constitutionally not a responsibility of the federal government. The federal income tax should be reduced and spending on education at the federal level should be eliminated. I imagine, states would still want to provide the same education services, so they would probably increase their own tax rates.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...more of the total tax burden shifted to the rich...

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means as a total percentage of taxes collected, the rich are now paying a bigger share than they were before.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've engaged in similar discussions on this forum before here and here.

I'll just quote my response from the first thread:

[ QUOTE ]
...it was discussed that the total share of income tax paid by people earning more than $200,000 did go up between 2002 and 2004. But so did the number of people earning more than $200,000, as did the average income of those earning more than $200,000. Furthermore, filers earning more than $200,000 paid, on average, 4% less federal income tax in 2004 than in 2002, even though they earned on average 10% more. Similar trends can be found by looking at those earning more than $1,000,000 per year.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
So in your mind households making over $200,000 in income are automatically catagorized as being rich. Well that's better than iron81's $80,000.

[/ QUOTE ]


Misfire didn't specify further when he said "the rich." Neither did PokerBobo. Define it however you want, just let me know what definition you're using and we can work from there.

Honestly, these arguments are tedious enough without bickering over definitions. Let's all try to be very explicit if we say things open to interpretation, like "rich" or "fair" or whatever.

Besides, I even wrote that:

[ QUOTE ]
Similar trends can be found by looking at those earning more than $1,000,000 per year.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yes, I am willing to categorize those earning more than $1,000,000 per year as "rich" barring some extraordinarily rare (and entire negligible, I'd guess) circumstances.

[adios]

So when Democrats scream about tax cuts for the rich we should just accept that as hyperbole. Why is $200,000 significant since you used that number?

[pokerbobo]

In many cases, I think the dems use 80K as the income needed to be considered "rich".... I consider 80K solid middle class in this day and age....but that's just me.

So when I hear tax cuts for the rich, I say hooray! cause according to them, I am "rich".

[natedogg]

Ron Paul's tax plans are the best of any of the candidates. They would result in a devastated federal govt capable of doing little more than defending the border and leaving almost everything else up to the states. Which is how it should be.


natedogg

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
So when Democrats scream about tax cuts for the rich we should just accept that as hyperbole. Why is $200,000 significant since you used that number?

[/ QUOTE ]
Look, I'll go through this step-by-step.

Misfire wrote:
"You're confusing tax cuts and tax rate cuts. Bush didn't get taxes cut, he got the tax rate cut. The largest rate cut went to the lowest tax bracket, more of the total tax burden shifted to the rich, and actual taxes collected went up."

Note the he didn't elaborate when he wrote "the rich" or provide any further information to justify his statement, so I'm left to take it on face value.

I asked:
"Could you elaborate on what you mean by this statement? ('...more of the total tax burden shifted to the rich...')"

pokerbobo replied:
"It means as a total percentage of taxes collected, the rich are now paying a bigger share than they were before..." He didn't really provide any additional information, other than an unsourced statistical tidbit ("no time to look up exact numbers") that described (presumably) current income tax burden distribution.

What's important here is that even if pokerbobo's statistics are correct (who knows, as he had "no time to look up exact numbers) they do not have anything to do with misfire's claim that "the total tax burden shifted to the rich [under Bush's tax cuts]" or his claim that "the rich are now paying a bigger share than they were before."

To determine if misfire and pokerbobo's statements are true it is necessary to make some sort of comparison, which neither of them did. To be fair, pokerbobo was apparently responding to the statement "the 'rich' are not paying their fair share" and determined that it "is crap." (I'm not sure who made the statement, but hey, there it is.)

So, barring any clarification as to what they meant by "rich" and what they were comparing, I provided links to previous threads that went over similar claims. Debating whether income of $200,000 or more is "rich" or not is, as I wrote earlier, is just bickering over definitions, which I find tedious and pointless.

Instead, in the first thread I linked to there was a discussion of a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece which made the claim:

[ QUOTE ]
Between 2002 and 2004, tax payments by those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $200,000 a year, which is roughly 3% of taxpayers, increased by 19.4% -- more than double the 9.3% increase for all other taxpayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that thread, I wrote that using this information to argue that the Bush tax cuts "Soak[ed] the Rich" (their choice of words, not mine) was disingenuous, since it ignores the fact that the number of people earnings more than $200,000 also increased, as did their average income. A more relevant fact , in my opinion, is that filers earning $200,000 or more paid 4% less in 2004 than they did in 2002, even though they earned 10% more, on average.

So, that's why I determined that $200,000 is "significant." If you don't think that that counts as "rich" and that my entire argument is therefore invalid, fine. But I did point out that "Similar trends can be found by looking at those earning more than $1,000,000 per year." Again, if you don't think that counts as "rich" and therefore feel you can disregard my entire argument, that's your call.

You can look all this stuff up and make your own conclusions if you want. I was just trying to lead the discussion somewhere productive and away from the typical semantic bickering and unsourced claims that usually show up in threads like this.

"So when Democrats scream about tax cuts for the rich we should just accept that as hyperbole."

Interpret said screams however you want.

[adios]

Wow a one question elicits that response. Your wrote in part:

[ QUOTE ]
In that thread, I wrote that using this information to argue that the Bush tax cuts "Soak[ed] the Rich" (their choice of words, not mine) was disingenuous, since it ignores the fact that the number of people earnings more than $200,000 also increased, as did their average income. A more relevant fact , in my opinion, is that filers earning $200,000 or more paid 4% less in 2004 than they did in 2002, even though they earned 10% more, on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did they post that the Bush tax cuts "Soak[ed] the Rich" because the general complaint that I've heard is that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the rich. There you go again using the number $200,000. It's also in the same context as trying to refute the apparent arguments by Misfire and pokerbobo that the tax cuts "Soak[ed] the Rich." If it's not clear that income of $200,000 for a household indicates a household why use it an argument about the rich?

[ QUOTE ]
So, that's why I determined that $200,000 is "significant."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you determined it was significant because you wanted to quote some statistics. Did they, Misfire and/or pokerbobo, use the figure of $200,000?

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't think that that counts as "rich" and that my entire argument is therefore invalid, fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just would like to know why you're using that number. You quote some statistics that use that number to prove what point? Apparently that the rich aren't being "Soak[ed] but you apparently don't believe that $200,000 is a number the necessarily indicates someone is rich.

[ QUOTE ]
But I did point out that "Similar trends can be found by looking at those earning more than $1,000,000 per year." Again, if you don't think that counts as "rich" and therefore feel you can disregard my entire argument, that's your call.

[/ QUOTE ]

The trend that their marginal tax rates are lower? Yes and so are what people consider to be middle class tax payers as well.



[ QUOTE ]
You can look all this stuff up and make your own conclusions if you want. I was just trying to lead the discussion somewhere productive and away from the typical semantic bickering and unsourced claims that usually show up in threads like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Productive? You quote some statistics and say the numbers are significant because they're contained in statistics you wanted to quote.

[ QUOTE ]
"So when Democrats scream about tax cuts for the rich we should just accept that as hyperbole."

Interpret said screams however you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simple question, what perctange of federal income taxes collected should the highest earning quintile pay?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow a one question elicits that response. Your wrote in part:

[ QUOTE ]
In that thread, I wrote that using this information to argue that the Bush tax cuts "Soak[ed] the Rich" (their choice of words, not mine) was disingenuous, since it ignores the fact that the number of people earnings more than $200,000 also increased, as did their average income. A more relevant fact , in my opinion, is that filers earning $200,000 or more paid 4% less in 2004 than they did in 2002, even though they earned 10% more, on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did they post that the Bush tax cuts "Soak[ed] the Rich"...

[/ QUOTE ]
Misfire: "...more of the total tax burden shifted to the rich..."
pokerbobo: "...as a total percentage of taxes collected, the rich are now paying a bigger share than they were before."

Is this really that difficult?

[ QUOTE ]
There you go again using the number $200,000. It's also in the same context as trying to refute the apparent arguments by Misfire and pokerbobo that the tax cuts "Soak[ed] the Rich." If it's not clear that income of $200,000 for a household indicates a household why use it an argument about the rich?...

LOL you determined it was significant because you wanted to quote some statistics. Did they, Misfire and/or pokerbobo, use the figure of $200,000?

...I just would like to know why you're using that number. You quote some statistics that use that number to prove what point? Apparently that the rich aren't being "Soak[ed] but you apparently don't believe that $200,000 is a number the necessarily indicates someone is rich.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You can look all this stuff up and make your own conclusions if you want. I was just trying to lead the discussion somewhere productive and away from the typical semantic bickering and unsourced claims that usually show up in threads like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Adios:

For (hopefully) the last time: PICK WHATEVER YOU WANT "THE RICH" TO MEAN AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE! Preferably this would be an easily understood threshold that isn't particularly ambiguous, like a number and some sort of comparison, like "greater than" or "more than."

As I've already explained, I used $200,000 as a "significant" number because in a previous thread about the effects of the Bush tax cuts the editors of the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed page used statistics about filers with incomes greater than $200,000 in a piece titled "How to Soak the Rich (the George Bush Way)."

Like I've said multiple times now, if you think statistics relating to filers earning $200,000 are irrelevant to discussion of Bush's tax cuts' effects on "the rich", just say so and let me know what you think would be relevant so we can go from there. Again, this definitional bickering is ultimately pointless.

[ QUOTE ]
Simple question, what perctange of federal income taxes collected should the highest earning quintile pay?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever percentage makes you angriest.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simple question, what perctange of federal income taxes collected should the highest earning quintile pay?

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever percentage makes you angriest.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you have no idea of what you're talking about. You have no clue as to how the tax burden is levied among income groups nor do you have a preference.

BTW you didn't refute the claims by the WSJ, pokerbobo or Misfire.

Here's a link to from the NTU site:

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

Why should the top 1% pay 39.38% of the total income tax paid? Is this too high, too low, or just right in your mind?