openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | reply to CXM_Splicer
Re: Return it to the treasury said by CXM_Splicer:Just out of curiosity, do you consider the current defense expenditures to be excessive and/or wasteful? Since we've gone OT, I believe that we waste a good deal of money "nation building" and sticking our nose in places that we shouldn't be. Given the number of pressing issues in our country, and those of our allies, I believe that we could refocus our efforts in some areas. Do we spend too much on defense? That's a hard question to answer. One could argue that since our sovereignty has survived this long, that we're spending enough on defense. However, I have no doubt that we could cut defense spending (as we are) and still maintain a similar position in the world scene.
Question back at you. Why are you just focusing on defense? What about a lot of the non-discretionary programs that we throw money at hand over fist?said by CXM_Splicer:Admittedly statistics can be made to agree with both sides. As you obviously noted, the definition of 'rich' factors heavily in the determination. But when examined as 'From whom does the majority of the tax revenue come', the answer I usually arrive at is the middle class. Obviously definitions are important, so how do you define "rich" and "middle class"?said by CXM_Splicer:I haven't the foggiest idea... I work for Verizon. I was only commenting on the irony of reversing the general rule of using dollar amounts when discussing who pays what. I'm not sure there's a general rule. Arguing how much a person pays in taxes only becomes relevant when you know how much that person earns.said by CXM_Splicer:Romney pays around 13% in taxes (if we give him the benefit of the doubt)... I pay around 30%. Hence, I pay more taxes than Romney. You contribute a higher effective rate in taxes, you don't necessarily contribute more in taxes. There is a big difference. Having said that, if your effective tax rate really is 30%, you may want to speak with an accountant. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I focus primarily on defense spending because it is the most blatant example of where cuts should be made. Instead, we focus on non-discretionary entitlement spending and actually INCREASE defense spending. It is a ridiculous situation that screams fraud and I don't think anyone doubts that the people making these decisions are (directly or indirectly) profiting from them. By conservatives' estimates, defense spending makes up a full 14% of the budget. The numbers are actually much higher because certain non-discretionary costs are reorganized under other headings (military pensions for instance). They also include the numbers for Social Security under pensions which incorrectly reduces the other numbers.
Ultimately, the US could reduce defense spending to 20% of its current value and be on par with the next highest spender China. Of the top 15 spenders in defense, none of them are threats to US security. Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan... they aren't even on the list!
I don't have a problem with scrutinizing non-discretionary spending and making cuts where warranted but the biggest possible savings will be from defense cuts.
The rich/middle-class question is a little harder because it is so subjective. Living in NYC, I probably have a different view than someone in middle America. But I don't think anyone would doubt that someone making $1M or more is in the rich category. I would tend to put the boundary between top of middle class and bottom of rich somewhere between 500k & 1M. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | I think defense spending is an easy target as you suggest. However, there are easy targets in non-discretionary spending as well, but most people are afraid of impacting social programs. Threats to our national security involve more than just the military might of our potential adversaries. Having said that, I believe our nation still has a way to go to transition out of the "Cold War, force on force" mentality. said by CXM_Splicer:The rich/middle-class question is a little harder because it is so subjective. Living in NYC, I probably have a different view than someone in middle America. Thank you being for realistic and not simply repeating the "$250K" or "top 1%" rhetoric. You wisely acknowledge that income tends to be relative to location and you can't easily assume that a person earning more than an arbitrary threshold is rich. I'm still curious as to how you determine that the a majority of tax revenue comes from the middle class. |
|
|
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| quote:
I'm still curious as to how you determine that the a majority of tax revenue comes from the middle class.
While I dislike the 1% figure too, most of the data available has been formatted to it. For 2009, the top 1% ($343k cutoff) paid 36.7% of income tax collected. The next group, .1% (with a $1.4M cutoff) paid only 17.1 % of income tax collected. With my cutoff of 'middle class' somewhere between them, it is obvious that the 'rich' paid less than 1/2 of income tax collected.
Of course, these figures include the bottom 50% of tax payers (cutoff $32k) which throws the percentages off due to the sheer number of 'poor' people.
The average tax rate is also very telling... the tax rate of the top 5% is 20.46%, the top 1% is 24.01%, the top .1% is 24.28%. Does that seem very 'progressive' to you? It doesn't to me.
These numbers don't include FICA which (technically speaking) is not a tax. If you do include it, it shifts even more of the burden on to the middle class since it is a deductible expense when paid by the employer (not to mention that it is capped) but not deductible to the employee.
Factor in the corporate portion of income tax collected (only 9% for 2010) and it is quite obvious that the majority of tax is paid by the middle class... this includes small business (encouraged not discouraged. (And I don't mean that the new tax loophole should be for large business to divide into thousands of smaller businesses.) Why they bear such a proportionally large burden of the taxes while large & behemoth business gets the breaks is beyond me.
»taxfoundation.org/article/summar···x-data-0 |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by CXM_Splicer:While I dislike the 1% figure too, most of the data available has been formatted to it. For 2009, the top 1% ($343k cutoff) paid 36.7% of income tax collected. The next group, .1% (with a $1.4M cutoff) paid only 17.1 % of income tax collected. With my cutoff of 'middle class' somewhere between them, it is obvious that the 'rich' paid less than 1/2 of income tax collected.
Of course, these figures include the bottom 50% of tax payers (cutoff $32k) which throws the percentages off due to the sheer number of 'poor' people. What about the almost fifty percent that pay zero federal income taxes? Don't they distort the numbers too? (They aren't just the poor or middle class either)said by CXM_Splicer:The average tax rate is also very telling... the tax rate of the top 5% is 20.46%, the top 1% is 24.01%, the top .1% is 24.28%. Does that seem very 'progressive' to you? It doesn't to me. Not really, then again, I'm not necessarily sold on progressive tax structures. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| quote:
What about the almost fifty percent that pay zero federal income taxes? Don't they distort the numbers too? (They aren't just the poor or middle class either)
Yes, those are who I meant. I should have said tax 'filers' since most don't pay any tax. It obviously depends on the particular situation, there are many different stories in that 50%. Some should be paying a lot, some rightfully shouldn't pay anything. |
|
