I couldn't answer this if I tried...I'm not sure I know what constitutes being a republican anymore aside from being an evangelical religious creep.

I couldn't answer this if I tried...I'm not sure I know what constitutes being a republican anymore aside from being an evangelical religious creep.

 

That's pretty blatently false.

 

What's funny, though, is Republicans of 2012 are pretty much Democrats from the 70s and 80s.

I couldn't answer this if I tried...I'm not sure I know what constitutes being a republican anymore aside from being an evangelical religious creep.

Well, that constitutes the liberal view of republicans, and the ones the media likes to show on TV.

That's pretty blatently false.

 

What's funny, though, is Republicans of 2012 are pretty much Democrats from the 70s and 80s.

well that's just not true.

Well, that constitutes the liberal view of republicans, and the ones the media likes to show on TV.

can you enlighten us then, instead of being snarky?

 

or is that part of it too?

People seem to be conflating "Republicans" with "The national Republican Party leadership". Not the same thing.

 

 

People seem to be conflating "Republicans" with "The national Republican Party leadership". Not the same thing.

 

the national republican leadership is a total disaster. they all need to go.

any GOPers wanna actually answer the question??

any GOPers wanna actually answer the question??

 

They can't, because they know I'm right.

 

Anything I once related being Republican with (namely, being more conservative on a fiscal basis), has vanished from the party. They spend just as much as the liberal democrats they play fight with in the policial arena when they're in power.

 

Today, what I see from them is an agenda that when you get to the bottom of it, is almost always driven by some religious belief. Anything else, such as their faux "fiscal responsibility" is a load of nonsense, since when they were in power, the only difference between them and the democrats was tax, borrow and spend.

That's pretty blatently false.

 

What's funny, though, is Republicans of 2012 are pretty much Democrats from the 70s and 80s.

 

Are you saying that the Republican party has moved to the left?

Are you saying that the Republican party has moved to the left?

Yes, that's why they're in favor of returning the top tier tax rate to the 1970's level of 70%, or at the very least hte 1980's level of 50%.

Yes, that's why they're in favor of returning the top tier tax rate to the 1970's level of 70%, or at the very least hte 1980's level of 50%.

 

Let's keep in mind that these were smoke and mirror tax rates anyway.

 

Nobody paid 70% in the 1970's.

 

Just like corporations don't pay 30% now, despite their tax rate being 30%.

Let's keep in mind that these were smoke and mirror tax rates anyway.

 

Nobody paid 70% in the 1970's.

 

Just like corporations don't pay 30% now, despite their tax rate being 30%.

And the top tier don't pay 35% despite their tax rate being 35%...but the middle classes pay pretty close to their 15-20% number.

Effective tax rates used to be higher than they are now, but this is all a distraction from how absurd kap's claim is. The Republicans of the 70's enacted the EPA, for christ's sake.

And the top tier don't pay 35% despite their tax rate being 35%...but the middle classes pay pretty close to their 15-20% number.

 

Ehh, no, we don't.

 

My actual effective tax rate last year was 7%.

 

If you're paying 15-20%...you're doing it wrong. Either that, or you are a single person with no assets, no family, no house, etc...which is possible. Even rich single people in that situation would pay close to their actual tax rate.

Edited December 12, 201213 yr by Y2HH

Ehh, no, we don't.

 

My actually effective tax rate last year was 7%.

 

If you're paying 15-20%...you're doing it wrong.

 

This intrigued me so I looked mine up. 9.22% last year.

This intrigued me so I looked mine up. 9.22% last year.

 

I altered my post to reflect a possibility that he's a single person with no assets, etc...

 

If you're a rich person, making 500k a year, but have no house, no investments, and spend all of your money -- you'd also pay your full tax rate. Only way around that is if you have things in your life that allow you to deduct.

 

Even then, I don't think you'd pay you're full rate...there are always ways around it.

Ehh, no, we don't.

 

My actual effective tax rate last year was 7%.

 

If you're paying 15-20%...you're doing it wrong. Either that, or you are a single person with no assets, no family, no house, etc...which is possible. Even rich single people in that situation would pay close to their actual tax rate.

Are you counting your payroll tax?

Are you counting your payroll tax?

 

If you start counting things like that, rich people also get to count it.

 

I'm counting my tax return numbers. My investments, my income, my dividends, my interest...that equates to an effective tax rate of 7% for me. If I start calculating how much I spend that year on sales tax, payroll tax, etc...I'm sure it's closer to 50% than it is to 20%. But by that same token, rich people can also do that and it'd show they pay just as much as a %.

Rich people can count their payroll taxes, but a portion of it is capped a little above $100k and only wage income is subject to it, so those living off of capital gains and dividends i.e. the really rich pay little payroll tax relative to their income. It's a highly regressive setup.

If you start counting things like that, rich people also get to count it.

 

I'm counting my tax return numbers. My investments, my income, my dividends, my interest...that equates to an effective tax rate of 7% for me. If I start calculating how much I spend that year on sales tax, payroll tax, etc...I'm sure it's closer to 50% than it is to 20%. But by that same token, rich people can also do that and it'd show they pay just as much as a %.

Great. Rich people can happily count the payroll tax as part of their total tax rate. Since the payroll tax only hits the first $110k or so of a person's income, it's enormously regressive, and it winds up being

 

I'm slightly below middle income, and I'm paying around 12% including the portion of the payroll tax that I pay myself. If I factor in the fact that my employer is also paying a chunk of payroll tax on my account, and that's a legit chunk of money that could come to me otherwise, then i'm close to a 16-17% rate.

Rich people can count their payroll taxes, but a portion of it is capped a little above $100k and only wage income is subject to it, so those living off of capital gains and dividends i.e. the really rich pay little payroll tax relative to their income. It's a highly regressive setup.

 

There aren't many people rich enough to live off of capital gains and dividends alone...that's a very very small minority.

 

I'm not talking about hundred millionaires or billionaires.

 

I'm talking about "rich" people that make 250k+ a year. I guarantee they're not living off of cap gains and dividend income.

Great. Rich people can happily count the payroll tax as part of their total tax rate. Since the payroll tax only hits the first $110k or so of a person's income, it's enormously regressive, and it winds up being

 

I'm slightly below middle income, and I'm paying around 12% including the portion of the payroll tax that I pay myself. If I factor in the fact that my employer is also paying a chunk of payroll tax on my account, and that's a legit chunk of money that could come to me otherwise, then i'm close to a 16-17% rate.

 

You should also get a lot of that back.

 

I don't know what constitues middle income, either. According to research, at least I think, median income in the us is what, 43k? I'm not sure what that means, in the scheme of middle income, etc...

Great. Rich people can happily count the payroll tax as part of their total tax rate. Since the payroll tax only hits the first $110k or so of a person's income, it's enormously regressive, and it winds up being

 

I'm slightly below middle income, and I'm paying around 12% including the portion of the payroll tax that I pay myself. If I factor in the fact that my employer is also paying a chunk of payroll tax on my account, and that's a legit chunk of money that could come to me otherwise, then i'm close to a 16-17% rate.

 

fyi that's only true of the SS part, not the Medicare part