Jeff Sessions: Saying Millionaires Should Share Pain Is 'Rather Pathetic'

[Riceball]

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

che?

[PowerSlave]

https://www.ehow.com/about_5038114_suta-tax_.html

[Riceball]

Wow you guys have a market for everything!

[PowerSlave]

I'm not sure about a market for everything but, we do seem to have a tax for everything. I think that might be one of our biggest issues. Our government has come to see us more as a revenue stream than a constituency.

[Super Dude]

I mean, I can't exactly think of any other way to get the money for, say, unemployment checks...

[PraXis]

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Expense (tax on the money)
Inventory Tax I
RS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Taxes Toll
Tunnel Taxes
Trailer Registration
Tax Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers’ Compensation Tax

Not all of these are federal taxes but, I dare anyone to make an honest claim that any reasonable amount of people in this nation can escape paying atleast a few of the taxes on this list. I'm sure that you can find someone somewhere but, it won't be anywhere close to the 51% number that's been tossed around in here. And before anyone claims that they're only speaking about income taxes I'd like to know what other means than income people are able to pay taxes with.

51% do not pay federal income taxes. I never said 51% do not pay taxes. Plus, there's a huge difference in the 40k stolen from me every year from my salary compared to the $2k in fees paid by Joe Sixpack in the 51%.

[PowerSlave]

You implied that the 51% were mooches that didn't pay their way and sucked their way through life off of your income. Your words, not mine.

Now, if you want to complain about people that are life time welfare abusers or are social security cheats then I'm willing to listen to your complaints/arguments. But you're going to have to adjust your numbers for that one. And as I stated before, any tax that's imposed on the people of this nation is an income tax. Infact, the SUTA tax that was briefly discussed could also be considered an income tax on an employee because it directly effects the amount of pay that my employer is able to give me.

[PraXis]

True, but perhaps I was not specific enough. I should have said 51% have no federal income tax liability. Basically, with all the deductions available at tax time, 51% end up owing nothing. Now, all 51% are not extreme moochers, obviously.. but there is lots of abuse at the state level when it comes to welfare.. these are the people that I consider parasites.. the ones who make no effort to improve, but just leetch, not people in troubled times who are working hard and trying to make ends meet. It all started with the gov't supporting single motherhood as if it was a good thing...here we are after the spiral..

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't not OWING taxes different than not paying them? because income taxes are deducted from your paycheck without your consent anyway.

What I get from you is that 51% of americans aren't paying federal income taxes. which i just don't see

[Super Dude]

And all other considerations aside, it kinda makes sense to take more money from the people who have more money, and less money from the people who have less money.

[Scheavo]

True, but perhaps I was not specific enough. I should have said 51% have no federal income tax liability. Basically, with all the deductions available at tax time, 51% end up owing nothing. Now, all 51% are not extreme moochers, obviously.. but there is lots of abuse at the state level when it comes to welfare.. these are the people that I consider parasites.. the ones who make no effort to improve, but just leetch, not people in troubled times who are working hard and trying to make ends meet. It all started with the gov't supporting single motherhood as if it was a good thing...here we are after the spiral..

The rich benefit from the loopholes much more than poor people. Also, as already pointed out, that's because 51% of the country doesn't own that much. All you're pointing out is how poor 51% of the country is, and you're blaming them for not paying more in income taxes. And as otherwise pointed out, those poor people do pay taxes that go to the federal government. Also, anyone with a paycheck pays social security and medicare, automatically. Those don't get refunded at the end of the year.

[Riceball]

And all other considerations aside, it kinda makes sense to take more money from the people who have more money, and less money from the people who have less money.

Outstanding.

[Super Dude]

Hey, to some apparently that sounds like an outrageous idea, so I just thought I'd put it out there.

[bss4life15]

I say big corporate CEO's who move all jobs over seas should have to pay more in taxes.

[Riceball]

Hey, to some apparently that sounds like an outrageous idea, so I just thought I'd put it out there.

Haha I'm actually agreeing with you, it was a double dose of sarcasm.

[Super Dude]

I dunno, I just read that post as you suggesting that I was stating the obvious.

[PraXis]

I say big corporate CEO's who move all jobs over seas should have to pay more in taxes.

Why? It's not your job, it belongs to the company. The company belongs to the shareholders. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should pay the same rate (i.e. flat tax). If they can't pay with money, they can pay with time (i.e. community service, cleaning streets, etc).

We are all equal under the law. If some guy makes $1 billion a year, GOOD FOR HIM! You have no right to his property, just like I have no right to your property (and vice versa).

[Adami]

Praxis, when you said flat tax, do you mean same amount of money? Or same percentage?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I say big corporate CEO's who move all jobs over seas should have to pay more in taxes.

Why? It's not your job, it belongs to the company. The company belongs to the shareholders. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should pay the same rate (i.e. flat tax). If they can't pay with money, they can pay with time (i.e. community service, cleaning streets, etc).

We are all equal under the law. If some guy makes $1 billion a year, GOOD FOR HIM! You have no right to his property, just like I have no right to your property (and vice versa).

Now, see, the problem with that is that you put a LOT of people in the lower income range in a tight spot. Sure, they could pay the same taxes, but at the cost of what else? Living? It's getting more expensive just to do every day things.

Flat taxes favor the wealthy. Because they can already afford everything else they need. I, for example, would be pretty fucking broke if I had to pay a flat tax

[Scheavo]

[PraXis]

I say big corporate CEO's who move all jobs over seas should have to pay more in taxes.

Why? It's not your job, it belongs to the company. The company belongs to the shareholders. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should pay the same rate (i.e. flat tax). If they can't pay with money, they can pay with time (i.e. community service, cleaning streets, etc).

We are all equal under the law. If some guy makes $1 billion a year, GOOD FOR HIM! You have no right to his property, just like I have no right to your property (and vice versa).

Now, see, the problem with that is that you put a LOT of people in the lower income range in a tight spot. Sure, they could pay the same taxes, but at the cost of what else? Living? It's getting more expensive just to do every day things.

Flat taxes favor the wealthy. Because they can already afford everything else they need. I, for example, would be pretty fucking broke if I had to pay a flat tax

A flat tax is the most fair because of equal protection under the Constitution.

However, the income tax should be abolished and completely replaced with the FairTax. It is a consumption tax. You only pay tax on what you spend. All products already have embedded taxes, and the FairTax is the most fair. It helps the poor too because the poor would get a pre-bate based on how much tax they would pay to meet basic necessities.

fairtax.org if you're curious

The problem with the FairTax is that it would take away power from the politicians and truly put everyone on an even playing field.

The FairTax eliminates ALL federal taxes and the IRS. In a nutshell, the average embedded tax of all products is 21%.. the FairTax is 23%.. prices won't go up.. it simply means you go to the store and spend $100.... the store pays the gov't $23 on that transaction. If your state has a sales' tax then you would pay the 7% (using NJ as an example) just like you already do for that $100 purchase today. Millions of dollars were spent in researching the FairTax. It is THE solution.

If your salary is $50,000/y, that's how much you earn over the year (minus state taxes). There's a reason TX is flourishing while CA is crashing... simpler tax codes.

[Riceball]

oooooooooooooooh tax policy debate
Consumption taxes are fantastic, like you said they fall equally amongst tax payers, are easy to implement and difficult to evade.
Problem is, it can be argued they are a regressive tax, as they hit those on lower incomes who have to use a greater percentage of their spending for consumption purposes than higher income earners.

We are never, ever going to see a world with no income tax. Its impractical, despite the theory which says something like a FairTax may be more efficient (which it is, in theory). However, governments earn so much of their revenue from income tax that it would be nigh on impossible to one day say, 'hey, lets do away with income tax and just tax spending'; critics will say 'you'll never raise as much money' or 'you guys are puppets for the rich' etc etc.

[PowerSlave]

The rich and poor are certainly not equal under the law in this country. There have been strides made over time but, it wasn't even equal at the outset. Rich/white land owners were the only ones that could vote and poor people certainly didn't own slaves so they couldn't use them as 3/5's of a vote. In more recent times (within the life-times of some of the people that frequent this board) the rich could purchase their children's way out of the military draft. Those are just a couple of examples and I know that this is completely off topic and probably doesn't belong here but, the idea of equality needs to quashed now. It's never existed in any society (even the failure that is communism that was supposed to equal the playing field for all people has failed miserably at this) and most likely never will. Best for another topic most likely.

Back to the topic at hand. Let's say that we went to a flat tax rate in this country. How long would it be until someone raised the same old arguments that we already hear today? Someone on the right would argue that the rich are being unfairly burdoned because their (for the sake of argument) 30% is so much larger than everyone elses 30% and it should be cut down because they pay so much more. Then someone on the left will argue that the poor are unfairly burdoned because they can't afford this and that ect. ect...We'll end up right back to where we are now with our politicol "leaders" holding the country hostage because of empty rhetoric. One thing will remain certain. The middle class will get fucked either way and it will be their own fault because most of them are either too stupid or too lazy to vet any of the people that they choose to represent them.

Another certainty and this one doesn't require any speculation. Every damn one of us should be extremely worried about the fact that over half of this country doesn't make enough money to be required to pay an "income tax". Rather than trying to categorize the 51% and label them, we should thinking about what lead us to the point that over half of our citizenry are in serious financial trouble.

Why has the costs of education increased so dramatically? The community can't even afford to go to the community college anymore!
Why is health-care and prescription medicine so expensive? Better hope I don't get sick, Praxis. Because if I do then I will be taking your tax money. There's not a damn thing I can do about it and my barely above minimum wage temp-job with no benefits won't cover the costs.

Those are just a couple things we should be talking about and trying to solve. I don't have the answers and I'd like to see the people with far better minds than mine in here take up the conversation rather than participate in the partisan bickering that's infected our national conversation in recent years. There are a lot of intelligent and educated minds in this forum. I know that the result of the conversations could be better.

[ReaPsTA]

I actually don't like the idea of a consumption tax.  It implicitly says it's better to save than to spend, which means taxation is still a form of social engineering.  Plus, what's consumption?  Is buying stocks consumption or savings?  Is putting money in an IRA consumption or savings?  What about a savings account?  Plus, then you have the issue of what institutions need to charge consumption taxes and under what circumstances.  Then they become responsible for collecting taxes for the government.

I'd prefer almost a flat income tax.  The first 10-20k you make shouldn't be taxed at all.  Then, from there, 20% of the income you make above that should be taxed.  So, for example (using 10k as the no-tax ceiling):

Person A makes $15,000 in one year.
15,000 - 10,000 = 5,000
5,000 * .2 = 1,000
Person A owes $1,000 dollars in taxes (6.7% of total income)

Person B makes $100,000 in one year
100,000 - 10,000 = 90,000
90,000 * .20 = 18,000
Person B owes $18,000 in taxes (18% of total income)

Person C makes $2,000,000 in one year
2,000,000 - 10,000 = 1,990,000
1,990,000 * .2 = 398,000
Person C owes $398,000 in taxes. (19.9% of total income)

In a sense this is a progressive tax, because it obviously results in lower tax rates for those with lower income, but it still imposes the same tax standard on everyone.  And, unlike the current progressive tax system, it doesn't discentivise making money by throwing you into higher tax brackets (which means that even though you grossed more, your net income is lower due to higher taxes).

This actually works very well in, of all places, China.  Because the government so actively polices its people, it has no interest in the actual process of taxation being time consuming and expensive, so they simply take 20% from your paycheck and let you keep the rest.

[Riceball]

I see ideologically and theoretically where you are coming from re consumption taxes, but an economic system exists to satisfy the needs and wants of society which 99 times out of 100 is the consumption of "x". I mean, just because you are paying, for arguments sake, 10% on top of the market price for an apple, does that mean you won't consume the apple? If, say, oranges were taxed at 5%; then possibly. But, if a broadbased consumption tax is applied across the entire economy, the effect is neutral in that consumption must occur, and relative prices are not distorted.

My original point was that if a consumption tax is applied selectively, then it can distort relative prices and alter free market outcomes.

Its less "discriminatory" (I don't think income taxation is discriminatory, however is a purely theoretical sense, it probably is moreso than a consumption tax) than income taxation, particularly a progressive income tax regime, as income tax reduces the incentive to earn an income. You could probably argue that a consistent, broadbased, flat income tax would be indiscriminatory*, but how in the hell would you realistically implement something like that.

*I thought I had better add that I am a strong advocate for a progressive income tax system, my arguments here revolve around the theoretical argument for various tax regimes.

[Super Dude]

The rich and poor are certainly not equal under the law in this country. There have been strides made over time but, it wasn't even equal at the outset. Rich/white land owners were the only ones that could vote and poor people certainly didn't own slaves so they couldn't use them as 3/5's of a vote. In more recent times (within the life-times of some of the people that frequent this board) the rich could purchase their children's way out of the military draft. Those are just a couple of examples and I know that this is completely off topic and probably doesn't belong here but, the idea of equality needs to quashed now. It's never existed in any society (even the failure that is communism that was supposed to equal the playing field for all people has failed miserably at this) and most likely never will. Best for another topic most likely.

Back to the topic at hand. Let's say that we went to a flat tax rate in this country. How long would it be until someone raised the same old arguments that we already hear today? Someone on the right would argue that the rich are being unfairly burdoned because their (for the sake of argument) 30% is so much larger than everyone elses 30% and it should be cut down because they pay so much more. Then someone on the left will argue that the poor are unfairly burdoned because they can't afford this and that ect. ect...We'll end up right back to where we are now with our politicol "leaders" holding the country hostage because of empty rhetoric. One thing will remain certain. The middle class will get fucked either way and it will be their own fault because most of them are either too stupid or too lazy to vet any of the people that they choose to represent them.

Another certainty and this one doesn't require any speculation. Every damn one of us should be extremely worried about the fact that over half of this country doesn't make enough money to be required to pay an "income tax". Rather than trying to categorize the 51% and label them, we should thinking about what lead us to the point that over half of our citizenry are in serious financial trouble.

Why has the costs of education increased so dramatically? The community can't even afford to go to the community college anymore!
Why is health-care and prescription medicine so expensive? Better hope I don't get sick, Praxis. Because if I do then I will be taking your tax money. There's not a damn thing I can do about it and my barely above minimum wage temp-job with no benefits won't cover the costs.

Those are just a couple things we should be talking about and trying to solve. I don't have the answers and I'd like to see the people with far better minds than mine in here take up the conversation rather than participate in the partisan bickering that's infected our national conversation in recent years. There are a lot of intelligent and educated minds in this forum. I know that the result of the conversations could be better.

A few things:

1. First of all I'd just like to say that even though you and I have had our disagreements in the past (and certainly where we point our fingers in the situation at hand is probably rather different as well), this is a really brilliant post: it's bipartisan, it gets down to the real problems that I think most people can agree on, and as such is a wonderfully accurate reflection of our nation's problems as they exist in the real world.  Thank you for being awesome.

2. I've also had trouble with that problem of "no matter what we do, there has always been exploitation of equality" and once or twice I have indeed come to your interesting conclusion.  However I think we still have to try; otherwise, instead of 51% of people being barely able to afford the income tax, we might have 70% who can't or worse.  And then what if the poor have their civil or political rights revoked?  No, I think equality is still the way to go, at least in *some* capacity.

3. And y'know honestly, even the brilliant minds are having a great deal of trouble with this, probably because the political discourse has gotten so vicious and - at least I think - confused.  There's so much confusion of values I think that political junkies like myself really aren't the ones to turn to.  Hell, once in a while I'm confused about which side I'm on!  Maybe that just reflects the need for a new third party or the dissolution of the Democrats and the Republicans or something, I don't know.  One of our local economists might be the ones to turn to, but then I'm not certain how much they know about policy and politics.

[PowerSlave]

Thanks for the reply, Super!

I know how you feel about not always knowing which side you belong to. The only thing I know for sure is that I'm not a social conservative. Beyond that I have no idea and I think that there are many people in the public that fall under that category.

About equality. Yes, we should always strive to have equality for all people in this nation. The problem is running into resistance from those that think social justice is a pathway to hell. Things like affirmative action are dangerous but, improving the education system and making it more affordable should be something we all can agree on.

[Scheavo]

I actually don't like the idea of a consumption tax.  It implicitly says it's better to save than to spend, which means taxation is still a form of social engineering.  Plus, what's consumption?  Is buying stocks consumption or savings?  Is putting money in an IRA consumption or savings?  What about a savings account?  Plus, then you have the issue of what institutions need to charge consumption taxes and under what circumstances.  Then they become responsible for collecting taxes for the government.

I'd prefer almost a flat income tax.  The first 10-20k you make shouldn't be taxed at all.  Then, from there, 20% of the income you make above that should be taxed.  So, for example (using 10k as the no-tax ceiling):

Person A makes $15,000 in one year.
15,000 - 10,000 = 5,000
5,000 * .2 = 1,000
Person A owes $1,000 dollars in taxes (6.7% of total income)

Person B makes $100,000 in one year
100,000 - 10,000 = 90,000
90,000 * .20 = 18,000
Person B owes $18,000 in taxes (18% of total income)

Person C makes $2,000,000 in one year
2,000,000 - 10,000 = 1,990,000
1,990,000 * .2 = 398,000
Person C owes $398,000 in taxes. (19.9% of total income)

In a sense this is a progressive tax, because it obviously results in lower tax rates for those with lower income, but it still imposes the same tax standard on everyone.  And, unlike the current progressive tax system, it doesn't discentivise making money by throwing you into higher tax brackets (which means that even though you grossed more, your net income is lower due to higher taxes).

This actually works very well in, of all places, China.  Because the government so actively polices its people, it has no interest in the actual process of taxation being time consuming and expensive, so they simply take 20% from your paycheck and let you keep the rest.

 I think something like this is the most reasonable solution, I would veer towards the first 20k be tax free; and I might argue for a slightly higher rate (say, 25%)

[ReaPsTA]

I think something like this is the most reasonable solution, I would veer towards the first 20k be tax free; and I might argue for a slightly higher rate (say, 25%)

15k Tax Ceiling and a 23% Tax rate?

[Scheavo]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[ReaPsTA]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Let it be known then that, on this day, July 8th, 2011, ReaPsTA and Scheavo agreed on something.

[Scheavo]

Lol, I swear we've agreed before.

[Cool Chris]

ReaP/Scheavo, is this idea of the flat rate include doing away with deductions?

[ReaPsTA]

ReaP/Scheavo, is this idea of the flat rate include doing away with deductions?

That was my idea.  The moment you have deductions, you basically tell people what the government likes and what it doesn't.

The one thing I didn't properly account for was married couples.  If you have a 15k tax ceiling that means two people could live together and have 30k of untaxed income.  I'm not sure what to make of that in terms of a positive or negative standpoint.

[Scheavo]

I would assume do away with deductions as well. For one, they're exploited more by the rich, becuase they have accountants who know about it. It also just muddles up and makes the tax code confusing, and makes filing for taxes something you need an accountant for.

The one thing I didn't properly account for was married couples.  If you have a 15k tax ceiling that means two people could live together and have 30k of untaxed income.  I'm not sure what to make of that in terms of a positive or negative standpoint.

I'm amendable on this. It wouldn't be that confusing to say married couples have a different starting point for taxation (say 20-25k), and add on a few per kid as well(5-8k). Either way, I think it's easy enough to negotiate where the starting position should be, and what kind of modifications married couples and families should get. I think it would be reasonable to make this amount deal with consumer buying power, instead of an arbitrary tax amount.