 |
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
As a subscriber to the WSJ, I have to say that its news is excellent. Its editorial page, however, is more like the comics page in most newspapers. You just scan though it trying to get a chuckle or two.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
GePap, do you even read the WSJ??? Obviously not, or else you would've become bored senseless with the wide range of tax options discussed on the WSJ opinion page, including the sales tax which has received positive (read, for) editorial stances.
Sava, you also don't seem to read the papers much or able to Google search, as this chart will show. The top 1% of income earners ($313k+) pay 37% of the income taxes, the top 5% pays over half at 56%, and the top 25% of wage-earners ($55,000) pays 84% of the nations individual income tax bill. The bottom 50% pays less than 4% of the TOTAL income tax bill. I'd call this progressive by any stretch of the imagination, Sava/GePap!
I wonder what the percentages for European countries are. How many of them demand the top 25% of taxpayers pay for 84% of the total income tax bill?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
What the Journal is trying to do is find a way to rationalize Bush raising taxes when there are no longer any Democrats around to take the fall.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
GePap: "I would never read the WSJ. Besides the fact that Wall Street news don't interest me, the fact that they are right of Atilla the Hun in their editorials puts me off."
It's not just "Wall Street" news, it's the news of commerce and industry. You know, "work."
The reason I asked is that you made a couple of assertions that just were just flat out inaccuracies and lies. The statements that the WSJ has never run an editorial slanted for progressive sales tax proposals, and that the paper no longer uses "GOP" are patently false. On a personal man-to-man note, you will find that your arguing position is vastly enhanced when you actually know what the fvck you're talking about, OK?
Regardless, the rightest slant of the WSJ's editorial board no more prevents them from being the premiere daily newspaper about American Industry than the fact that the Washington Post leftist editorial bias doesn't prevent them from being the premiere daily newspaper about the US Government.
Dolphin:
code:
Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Next 40% Lower 50%
2000-01 23% 41% 51% 38% 11%
2001-02 23% 42% 53% 37% 11%
2002-03 23% 42% 52% 37% 11%
Compared to the NTU numbers ( http://www.ntu.org/links/FAQs/whopaysincometaxes.php3 ), I think it is obvious that the US's personal income tax rates are far more "progressive" than the UK's. The middle class and the poor pay a higher percentage of the income taxes in the UK than they do in the US. Hell, compared to US millionaires, the ones in the UK pay 40% less in income taxes! Is the UK the newest tax haven for the super-wealthy? 
I know, I know: ya'll screw them over other ways - BBC taxes (amazing!), VAT taxes, sales taxes, etc. etc.
Any other countries want to post their rates? Roland? 
Sava, you do seem to argue a lot without knowing the numbers. I'm going to start confusing you with GePap if you're not too careful! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
I did find the article last night, but forgot to bring it in to the office this morning so I won't be able to quote directly. It is in the Wednesday, November 20th newspaper, on the very top left of the two-page editorial section. (There's also a number of repetitions of "GOP" in section A, btw. But I digress.) It's position makes it, I think, the "official" position of the WSJ editorial board.
The article was a mixture of what I said earlier this thread and what was reported by DanS, and it drew two conclusions:
1. That a situation where 50% of the country can vote themselves freebies out of other peoples pockets is an inherently unstable position. They don't know the true cost of government and have no financial stake in it's wisdom.
2. That any policies designed to attract votes by tinkering with income tax rates automatically excludes any benefit for 50% of the people and is becoming a decreasingly effective vote getter. In short, income tax reform as a vote-getting tool has passed the point of diminishing marginal returns and the White House had better realize that fact.
They mentioned payroll taxes in passing, but that's OK. The subject of the article was income tax payments, and payroll taxes were outside its 500-word domain. Trust me, the WSJ will bemoan payroll taxes in time - it is their destiny.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
Certainly there are those who want to take without paying, and this has a corrupting effect on government.
Without taxation, there wouldn't be the revenue to fund government contracts. A provision in the "Homeland Security" bill would have excluded corporations that hide income by reincorporating offshore, etc...in other words, those who want others to pay, while they themselves do not.
Unfortunately, the lucky duckies managed to get this dropped from the bill before it was passed, thus voting themselves freebies out of other peoples pockets.
So, yeah, we need to do something about this. It's a very high priority, and I hope the WSJ can spare the time and editorial space to look into it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
I can draw some conclusions above and beyond what the WSJ talks about (I haven't read the editorial--I have come to my opinions on my own).
First and foremost, in order to have greater buy-in for "Republican" policies, we need to have greater stock/bond ownership by those in the bottom 50%. This is so that, as Jules points out, business-friendly policies will have wider impact. For instance, removing the double taxation of dividends would be a good thing for American business overall, but presently would mean no immediate benefit for about 40-50% of the population.
I would recommend futzing with the "third rail" of politics--social security reform, in order to put stocks/bonds in people's pockets. If the discussion doesn't kill the Republican party in the short run, it can't help but be better for America and the GOP in the long run.
Last edited by DanS on 05-12-2002 at 23:03
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
I can draw some conclusions above and beyond what the WSJ talks about (I haven't read the editorial--I have come to my opinions on my own).
First and foremost, in order to have greater buy-in for "Republican" policies, we need to have greater stock/bond ownership by those in the bottom 50%. This is so that, as Jules points out, business-friendly policies will have wider impact. For instance, removing the double taxation of dividends would be a good thing for American business overall, but presently would mean no immediate benefit for about 40-50% of the population.
I would recommend futzing with the "third rail" of politics--social security reform, in order to put stocks/bonds in people's pockets. If the discussion doesn't kill the Republican party in the short run, it can't help but be better for America and the GOP in the long run. |
While I agree that this would be a good thing, my guess is the greater public at large would not have the same degree of buy-in to a Social Security mutual fund/index fund as they would have say in their 401-k's as normally have direct control over investment stratgies within the 401-k. Whether the overall public opinion and subsequent policies to the US industries would become more favorable depends greatly on the communication of the vested interest all folks would have. I'm not sure that concept would translate well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Dolphin:
Compared to the NTU numbers ( http://www.ntu.org/links/FAQs/whopaysincometaxes.php3 ), I think it is obvious that the US's personal income tax rates are far more "progressive" than the UK's. The middle class and the poor pay a higher percentage of the income taxes in the UK than they do in the US. Hell, compared to US millionaires, the ones in the UK pay 40% less in income taxes! Is the UK the newest tax haven for the super-wealthy?
|
UK income tax is 40% for all and everyone earning over ~$50,000, 22% for ~$9,000-$50,000, 10% for ~$7,000-$9,000 and nil% below ~$7,000. What are the US tierings?
Unless your figures are hugely different what I think what is clear from the stats is that the rich-poor divide in the US is greater than in the UK.
I think the reason the rich are footing most of the tax bill is because they are also getting most of the income. If the rich earn a lot more relative to the poor then they pay a lot more in taxes. The figures for comparative tax bills are not indicative of progessive taxation differences, but of income distribution differences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
I wonder what the percentages for European countries are. How many of them demand the top 25% of taxpayers pay for 84% of the total income tax bill? |
FYI, in France :
About half of the households don't pay the income taxes as they're under the threshold. The tax is progressive and reaches 54% for the highest incomes. This max. rate has been lowered some years ago, I don't remember what the max. was before.
However, our politicians have bypassed the "problem" in all hypocrisy : there are 2 new taxes taken by the state, officially to pay back the debt of our social security : "Contribution Sociale Généralisée" and "Remboursement de la Dette Sociale" take about 9% of all incomes, coming from work or from capital.
European pressures and presidential demagogy mean income taxes will lower in the upcoming years. The government told us taxes were lowered by "5%". I don't know the details, but it seems the people paying 54% of their income are the most favored by this change.
Income tax represent about 20% of the State's income.
Also, since we're talking about sales taxes in this thread, the French "Taxe sur la Valeur Ajoutée" (TVA) is 19,5% IIRC on all products except food, medication, and cultural goods (5,5% in this case). There used to be a higher TVA for luxuries, but I don't know if it continues.
TVA is 40% of the income for the state, being the most rewarding tax. TVA is a "hidden" tax, because all prices are written with all taxes included : you have to look twice on your bills to know how much you paid to the state. OTOH, income tax is obvious : one has to fill a complex form every year or more to pay his income tax, and eventually knows precisely what he paid.
Of course, politicians cynically raise TVA whenever they want a boost of popularity by lowering income taxes. This is consistent with EU demands.
There are also specific sale taxes for cigarettes / alcohol, and for fuel. They are significantly higher than TVA (about 80% of the fuel's price is taxes)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
"That's my opinion, but I think most people in favor of progressive taxes hate VAT/TVA as much as I do."
I think I grok the political dynamics.
It seems unlikely that nice socialists like yourself would be for increasing the income tax rate for the lower tax brackets nearly enough to make up for the loss of TVA/VAT.
Your politicians understand that because of this, the higher earners would be taxed at an outrageous rate (rather than the 63% that is implied now--i.e., 54% + 19.5% of the remainder), so they take the expedient route and go TVA/VAT.
In the US, we just soak the rich, believe it or not. We can do this, because the overall tax burden on society is smaller.
For instance, if you lived in Maryland/Montgomery County, you would pay the 38.6% marginal federal income tax rate + 23% marginal state income tax rate = 61.6%. Then add FICA, which is about 8% paid by the employee (and 8% paid by the employer) on the first $75,000 in income. Then real estate taxes at .838% of your home's value. Then sales tax at 5% on some items.
Last edited by DanS on 06-12-2002 at 02:59
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2002 04:35
|