Once a weasel, always a weasel!

Wyden is a weasel because now he is probably grossing more than $250k a year in income. HE wouldn't want to pay 39% of that instead of a mere 36%.
"Progressive" my aunt Fanny!

How about everybody paying the same tax rate - % of what they make - in taxes?

What's so radical or unfair about that?

The fact is that right now the very rich and the very poor do not pay taxes.

That's one reason the tax rates are so high for the middle class: Those who do not pay taxes don't have any problem voting to increase taxes on those who do pay them.

The fact is that right now the very rich .... do not pay taxes.

Source on that?

Obama's no prize himself.

No kidding John.

The rich not only pay their share, they pay all the shares, and more, of half the country who pay nothing.

We can have some heated debates about how much we all should pay but let's stay somewhere near reality.

The rich (which we will define for now as those making over $250,000 per year total income...Meaning investment income, etc.)
AS PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEY MAKE (not total dollars paid in taxes) pay almost nothing in taxes.

There are many examples:
1. Social security tax (FICA) If you make $100,000 per year you pay about 15% of what you make in taxes. If you make $1 million you pay 1.5% of what you make in FICA taxes.

2. Income from different sources (investments as opposed to wages for example) is taxed differently. Why isn't all income taxed at the same rate?

3. Most of the state and federal income tax code is written not to impose taxes but to exempt certain people from paying them.

4. Why are offshore bank accounts allowed to exist? If congress wanted to eliminate loopholes they could but they don't and won't.

There is much more that could be written on this subject but I'll stop here. Any more questions?

Ben, what you say would be true if we had a flat tax and the same tax rate for all income regardless of the income source.

But we do not have a flat tax and different income is treated differently under the tax laws.

Just ask Jack Bog. He's a tax attorney and knows much more about the subject, I'm sure, than both of us put together.

Maybe we should focus on cutting spending; bring all the troops home, get rid of agriculture subsidies and a bunch more.

It's pure political calculus on the part of hid'n Wyden of old New York, as it almost always is. Huffman isn't going to get the Progressive vote, and so, it naturally falls to Wyden. Wyden takes a key conservative issue and rides the fence to take some votes away from Huffman. Wyden also talks of exempting Oregon from ObamaCare, but it's another smoke screen to attract some independent votes away from Huffman. Then there is his so called healthy forest bill to increase timber harvests, and indeed some eastern Oregonians are falling for this largely toothless effort. (Same thing was tried under the Clinton administration, and the moss still grows heavy on timber harvest.)

Wyden should man up and debate Huffman at the very least as the electorate's requirement for re electing him to another term. But Wyden's been a hid'n from such debate.

As for taxing those with incomes over $250k at the pre Bush tax rate, I'm again' it. Doctor's get hammered for any extra hours they put in under the pre existing rates. thirty nine point 6% marginal federal income tax rate plus Oregon's 11 percent marginal rate plus 3 percent or so for extra medicare tax (ObamaCare) with talk of eliminating the cap on payroll taxes. If I am doctor under these marginal rates, I cut back my hours or retire earlier than otherwise so as to avoid paying over 50% of any extra dollars I make back to the government rat hole. Other small business owners are similarly impacted. I would favor a constitutional admendment making it a right for the individual citizen to keep at least 50% of each marginal dollar he or she earns actively or passively with the tax jurisdictions having to pro rate the marginal tax rate reduction.

The Laffer curve is real although you progressives probably laugh thinking you're entitled to Peter's money.

Here's a suggestion that will raise everyone's ire...
How about a 25 cent a gallon gas tax?
The Canadians have high gas taxes, paying roughly $4 a gallon for gasoline. It sure helps pay for the things we all say we want the government to do up there.

Relax, it's always this way when corruption destroys an empire.

The Ben vs. Britt debate is very telling.

Should we measure tax burden in absolute terms (i.e. Billions of dollars paid by a specific subset of taxpayers, which can be converted into a % of total tax revenue paid by each subseet), or

2. Relative terms (billion of dollars as a percentage of that subset's total income).

The first method will always be preferred by the wealthy, as they certainly pay the bulk of taxes levied on people.

The second method will generally be preferred by progressives, as it demonstrates that the wealthy retain more income than they pay in taxes (up to a 50% effective tax rate), which can be manipulated to make it appear the wealthy (with lots of passive income) pay very little tax compared to a high income W-2 wage earner. Simply put: taxes on income are generally higher than taxes on investments/real estate/dividends/royalties.

Bluecollar - for once I pretty much agree with you - cut military spending (check), cut agricultural subsidies - except I'd limit that to subsidies for agribusiness not family farmers... I don't mind a few subsidies there in small quanities - cut tax free retirements for congress people and senators and other government types (one of those other things), cut pork for light rail and other boondoogles, and if I had more time I'd have a longer list.

If I am doctor under these marginal rates, I cut back my hours or retire earlier than otherwise so as to avoid paying over 50% of any extra dollars I make back to the government rat hole.

If you're a doctor and find yourself cutting back on your hours to avoid paying an extra 3% in taxes, maybe we're better off without you.

Might there be a doctor who would cut back prices to avoid paying 50% of any extra dollars back to the government rat hole?

Lets not forget that if you tax your employer out of existence, you dont have a job any more.

Bob Clark says: Wyden also talks of exempting Oregon from ObamaCare ...

Yeah, but that's not to get the independent vote. Warbucks Wyden is seeking an exemption because he wants Oregon to be the first single-payer state in the U.S.

Lets not forget that if you tax your employer out of existence, you dont have a job any more.

Ah yes, trickle down. It's worked so well.

Single Payer, Yes! But, Wyden would never help make that happen.

Hit the Reset Button on Health Care - In Defense of Disruption
by Russell Mokhiber
http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber08102009.html

In Hawaii’s Health System, Lessons for Lawmakers
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html

Excerpt:

But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.

"Lets not forget that if you tax your employer out of existence, you dont have a job any more."

Yeah, I am sure the Fortune 100 is struggling on $216,000,000,000 in profits last year. Mind you, 3 of them (AIG, Freddie and Fannie) lost $104B alone.

Just one of the many reasons I am, and will remain, "Not Affiliated With Any Political Party"...NAWAPP

If I am doctor under these marginal rates, I cut back my hours or retire earlier than otherwise so as to avoid paying over 50% of any extra dollars I make back to the government rat hole.

Fine! Let another doctor who needs the income have the work. I remember Bill O'Reilly a few years ago threatening to retire if the Bush tax cuts were rescinded early (as some Democrats were then talking about doing). That alone is a good reason to let them all expire.

Britt,
Why is it that you can't simply deal with the fact that the rich pay so many shares for those who pay nothing?
For some reason the left can't acknowledge that the rich pay for most of our government.
It appears to be because they can't stand the fact that the rich have so much left over for themselves after doing so?
Does the share they pay need to be painful for them to satisfy the left?
Or is it the intent to have the rich pay enough so that more people can pay nothing?
And what about those rich?
There's lots of people who make near and/or above 100K and pay big time taxes.
Are they rich and should pay even more?
Why? Because they can and many who less fortunate want them to pay more?
And why should we give our mission creeping dysfunctional government at any level more money?
So they can expand more and demand more?
Why does the EPA have 16,000 bureaucrats and a 10 billion budget?
Why does ODOT have 5000 employees?
Why does the Metro region have 500 planners?

Ben, here, have a blood pressure pill. Now calm down.

Yes, those who are able to pay more should pay more. They've been getting away with murder for the last decade.

And yes, government spending is also too high.

A) Almost all of Federal Taxes now go to pay off the debt to private banks (Federal Reserve) that control our currency.

B) If the US issued its own money (repeal the Federal Reserve act of 1913), we wouldn't need to have high taxes.

C) Wyden because his name starts with a W (and thus votes close to last) can always wait and see how the vote is going before making his choice. A true weasel.

Ben that line about 50% not paying taxes ignores payroll taxes etc.

In addition it counts as a "taxpayer" anyone who earns over $5400yr like college students delivering pizzas and painting houses etc.

Finally a top rate of 39.6% is not 70% like it was until 1981. The rich have done very very well over the last 30 yrs-the top 1% share of income has increased stratospherically.

Why does the EPA have 16,000 bureaucrats and a 10 billion budget? Why does ODOT have 5000 employees? Why does the Metro region have 500 planners?

"How many roads must a man walk down?"

Seriously, the answers are that even Oregon's a big state with three million people in a country with more than a hundred times that many people.

ODOT, for instance has almost 70 DMV offices around the state, from Albany to Woodburn. I suppose a bunch of them could be closed and people in Lebanon could just drive into Albany. Or folks in Cottage Grove could drive to Eugene or Springfield.

But assuming an average of five workers at each office (and that's just a guess, I don't know how many people work at Canyonville or the Salem Business Regulation offices) that would be 350 people right there. If the average is higher, that goes up pretty quickly. And that's just the DMV arm of ODOT.

Oh, and Wyden's a weasel.

The top 20% pay 80% of federal income tax while the bottom 40% pay no federal income tax. The top 5% pay the bulk of that 80%. Notice, I said income tax and not tax. The bottom 40% is paying other taxes.

Keeping taxes low benefits everyone equally. Our cities/counties/state/federal problem is an addiction to spending other peoples money. Since I don't see a 12 step program to solve this we have to do it at the ballots.

Inasmuch as the top 20 percent owns 80 percent of this country's wealth, I'm not quite seeing the hardship imposed by a 3% raise on what would be a portion -- and in many cases, a small portion -- of their taxes.

May I take a shot at answering Britt Storkson ??|

1. Social security tax (FICA) If you make $100,000 per year you pay about 15% of what you make in taxes. If you make $1 million you pay 1.5% of what you make in FICA taxes.

FICA is supposed to be (I know it is not really) a scheme where you pay into a fund to pay for your retirement/disability. Higher earners don't get larger benefits than the $100K people.

2. Income from different sources (investments as opposed to wages for example) is taxed differently. Why isn't all income taxed at the same rate?

Let's say you own an asset you paid $100,000 for 10 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, that $100,000 in today's dollars is worth around $76,000. If you sold that asset for $120,000 you would pay a 29% capital gains tax on the $10,000 gain but the $120,000 you got is actually buys less than the $100,000 would have bought in 1999. You lost money but paid taxes on the "gain". The lower-than income tax rate is suppose to help compensate for this.

3. Most of the state and federal income tax code is written not to impose taxes but to exempt certain people from paying them.

I don't get your point.

4. Why are offshore bank accounts allowed to exist? If congress wanted to eliminate loopholes they could but they don't and won't.

Because congress people have off shore accounts themselves. BUT, I don't see how the US could stop foreign banks from opening accounts any more than another country could tell US banks that they cannot accept deposits from anyone they choose.

In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant. ~Charles de Gaulle

Wow!

33 comments so far and not one from Tenskwatawa.

Where is The Prophet these days?

john: Two supreme court rulings have established that nobody can expect to get ANYTHING back from Social Security.

1. That means that Social Security is not a retirement plan but another tax.

2. Why doesn't everybody pay the same rate on the same income. What is so unfair about that.

3. Why do we exempt anybody from taxes? If we have a tax everybody should pay the same rate.

4. The point is that tax loopholes are not an accident. They are purposely designed to allow certain people to escape taxation.
That's why a minimum wage college student often pays more in taxes AS A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEY EARN than many millionaires.
How is that fair or just?

The top 20% pay 80% of federal income tax while the bottom 40% pay no federal income tax.

You view this as a sign that the tax rates are unfair. I view it as a sign that the top 20% are making one hell of a lot more money than the bottom 40%.

To all of those who think that there is nothing wrong with enforcing different tax rates on different different people:

Please state your full name and address so we can impose a 100% tax rate on your income in upcoming legislation.

That's not fair you say? Well then how is it fair or just to have different (or non-uniform) tax rates for anybody?

We just, fairly recently, got away from treating people differently based on their race. Thankfully we moved away from that ugly chapter of our history.

Then why do we treat people differently for purposes of taxation? Why do people pay different tax rates based on their income and where they get it from?