CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:22 pm
 


http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/29/408562 ... ayers.html


Quote:
By Dan Walters
dwalters@sacbee.com

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011 - 12:00 am

It's difficult to divine exactly what the Occupy demonstrators in California cities and on university campuses are protesting.

The former appear to be denouncing the greed of the "one percent" – those with the highest incomes – while the latter are opposing fee increases that university boards are imposing to compensate for reductions in state appropriations.

Whatever the underlying rationales may be, the media have lumped both varieties together and issues have been subordinated to verbal clashes over occupation tactics and official responses, some of which have been needlessly violent.

If there is a connection, at least in California, between the on- and off-campus occupations, it's to be found in tax system dynamics. And it's less a connection than a dichotomy.

The off-campus protesters, apparently, are incensed that those sitting atop the economic pyramid enjoy so much of the bounty.

In California, according to the most recent Franchise Tax Board data (2009), those with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more – just 34,000 tax returns out of 14.6 million – had 11.8 percent of the $881 billion total.

That may sound outrageous to some, but as recession gripped the economy in the last few years, the number of top-drawer taxpayers and their incomes dropped sharply – by more than 27 percent just from 2008 to 2009, for example, far more than any other income category.

We needn't weep for the wealthy; they can take care of themselves. But their incomes are much more volatile than those of us who earn paychecks because they are much more dependent on capital gains from stocks and other investments, and when recession hits, their income streams decline sharply.

That's where the effect on college fees comes into the equation.

California has a particularly progressive personal income tax system, which means that it's extraordinarily dependent on high-income taxpayers.

In fact, the top 1 percent of taxpayers generate about half of the state's income taxes, and income taxes constitute about 60 percent of the state's general fund revenues.

When incomes of those at the top decline, state income tax revenues take a beating and the state budget gets squeezed, forcing governors and legislators to either reduce spending or engage in funny-money financing.

And college and university appropriations are one of the few areas of the budget not protected by constitutional provisions, such as K-12 school aid, or subject to federal law.

Logically, therefore, those campus demonstrators should be praying for the much-despised one-percenters to enjoy big increases in their taxable incomes so that higher education appropriations could be increased and fees could decline.

Somehow, one doubts that will occur.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:25 pm
 


So if we get rid of all that awful 'income inequality' that Andy bitches and whines about then we also get rid of more than 50% of government revenues.

Then what? Do we raise taxes on everyone else (including the poor) to finance Andy's welfare state or do we cut government budgets?

Because once you deal with 'income inequality' then you'll get to deal with the government budget crisis that follows.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13354
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:16 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Re: Dan Walters: Are high-income taxpayers the enemy?


Only if they refuse to pay their fair share.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:08 pm
 


bootlegga wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Re: Dan Walters: Are high-income taxpayers the enemy?


Only if they refuse to pay their fair share.


1% of the taxpayers are footing about 57% of the tax bill. How much more do you want from them?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13354
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:20 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Re: Dan Walters: Are high-income taxpayers the enemy?


Only if they refuse to pay their fair share.


1% of the taxpayers are footing about 57% of the tax bill. How much more do you want from them?


I'm not particularly religious, but in this case, Luke 21:1-4 is very apt.

Quote:
1 As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury.
2 He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.
3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others.
4 All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:26 pm
 


Wow you can quote from a book you don't believe in. Good for you.

Now care to answer my question?

How much more do you want from the 1% who already pay 57% of the tax bill when 47% of the people pay nothing?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:32 pm
 


A cautionary word. That 47% pay nothing is income tax. The poor pay apartment property tax, sales tax and a like. In Canada the Council of Canadian for Policy Alternative have calculated taxes are nearly flat in Canada. Finally we are looking more for victims for the tax system, not "fair" taxes - and the rich seem to be at bat.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:29 pm
 


Fine. Then Canada is most welcome to put taxes through the roof on the 'rich' who can then move a few miles south where they will be most welcome.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:03 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Fine. Then Canada is most welcome to put taxes through the roof on the 'rich' who can then move a few miles south where they will be most welcome.


Bart that's obviously one of the restraints on high taxes. A little more time composing with you comments please.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13354
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:32 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Wow you can quote from a book you don't believe in. Good for you.

Now care to answer my question?

How much more do you want from the 1% who already pay 57% of the tax bill when 47% of the people pay nothing?


I never said I don't believe in it - I just said I'm not very religious. Hypocritical people are what turned me off of organized Christianity, not God.

Anyways, I think that the 1% could pay more - say up to 70% or so. The top tax rate used to be much higher half a century ago, and that didn't prevent the US from being the strongest economy in the world (even after Europe rebuilt itself and started competing).

As far as the notion that the poor pay nothing, they may pay little/no income tax, but there are plenty of other taxes which they pay.

I'd say that in an ideal world, there would be a fairly high sales tax, coupled with lower income taxes for everyone (start the basic deduction higher than it is now). That would allow the wealthy to buy whatever they wanted (sports cars, luxury homes, caviar, yachts, etc) and they'd still pay their fair share, while the poorer parts of society would pay less when they bought canned food and minivans.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30248
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:42 am
 


bootlegga wrote:
Anyways, I think that the 1% could pay more - say up to 70% or so.


And welcome to the real world where the wealthiest people are also the most mobile. If you raise your taxes to 70% on these people then they can just jump on their yacht and move to someplace that taxes them less.

Like I said, you go ahead and raise your taxes on these people and then see what happens to your tax revenues.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17702
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:45 am
 


bootlegga wrote:

Anyways, I think that the 1% could pay more - say up to 70% or so.



ROTFL


not going to happen


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14682
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:21 am
 


Bruce_the_vii wrote:
A cautionary word. That 47% pay nothing is income tax. The poor pay apartment property tax, sales tax and a like. In Canada the Council of Canadian for Policy Alternative have calculated taxes are nearly flat in Canada. Finally we are looking more for victims for the tax system, not "fair" taxes - and the rich seem to be at bat.


Don't forget FICA


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4525
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:53 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
bootlegga wrote:


Like I said, you go ahead and raise your taxes on these people and then see what happens to your tax revenues.


Exactly.

Companies and people will move for better tax rates. Companies do it all the time.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13354
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:29 pm
 


OnTheIce wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
bootlegga wrote:


Like I said, you go ahead and raise your taxes on these people and then see what happens to your tax revenues.


Exactly.

Companies and people will move for better tax rates. Companies do it all the time.


I didn't say that.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.