http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/l ... %20ratings

Pew is listed. All you had to do was read a little further. Its tenth of all pollsters that conducted at least 10 polls.
Its average raw error from prediction to results was -.06%.

rickyp wrote:http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/pollster%20ratings

Pew is listed. All you had to do was read a little further. Its tenth of all pollsters that conducted at least 10 polls.
Its average raw error from prediction to results was -.06%.

Actually, Richard, that's a different link altogether. Then again, I wouldn't expect you to notice some small detail like that. This study was done BEFORE the 2010 election.

Seriously, do you read your own posts?

And, for your post to have ANY validity, it would have to discuss Pew's use of "adult" polling, since that was the origin of the debate.

Or, you could ask does Pew do "likely voter" surveys? The answer would be "yes."

Anyway, thanks for contributing . . . nothing . . .

danivon wrote:I've spotted one incorrect 'fact' in that. Individuals of the top decile are on over about $150,000. $250,000 kicks in at about 95%.

Not sure what you are saying here. Just to make sure I am reading it right, you are saying the top 10% equals people/couples making $150,000. Sure I agree with that. However, that makes it even more likely that people will change their opinion about "taxing the rich"

The reason is that the top 50% includes anybody making more then $55,000. Most of those people being polled will think that $150,000 for a married couple is in reach (rightly or wrongly) and they won't want "their" taxes raised.

danivon wrote:When you tell them that people on much less than $250,000 also pay about 35%, and that people in the top decile are earning far more than 70% of income, perhaps also they'd be less inclined to change their minds.

Well not really. But then we can also tell people that the bottom 50% only pay 5% of income taxes. That will piss them off more.

Archduke Russell John wrote:people currently making over $250,000 a year (top 10%) already pay 35% income tax

I have to correct this again, because it continues to be wrong, no matter how often it is repeated. 35% is the highest marginal tax rate. It is a rate no one pays, because it is only paid on ordinary wage and salary income, and only after deductions. As Warren Buffet famously pointed out, his Federal tax rate was 17.7% in 2007. Unless they are someone like Dick Cheney, who voluntarily paid the highest marginal rate when he was running for VP, NO ONE pays 35% of their income in taxes, so stop saying they do.

geojanes wrote:I have to correct this again, because it continues to be wrong, no matter how often it is repeated. 35% is the highest marginal tax rate. It is a rate no one pays, because it is only paid on ordinary wage and salary income, and only after deductions. As Warren Buffet famously pointed out, his Federal tax rate was 17.7% in 2007. Unless they are someone like @#$! Cheney, who voluntarily paid the highest marginal rate when he was running for VP, NO ONE pays 35% of their income in taxes, so stop saying they do.

And I will say you are wrong because Warren Buffett is averaging the taxes he pays on dividends and interest into that calculations. This money is not currently not considered income but rather as capital gains.

What does this mean. It means that any money Warren Buffet makes as "income" are taxed at 35% (as long as it is over the bracket amounts) but is only taxed at 15% on dividends and interest. Since the reality is that Buffet most likely makes more in capital gains then income it lowers his over all tax burden down.

However, Warren Buffet still pays 35% on his Income taxes. Further, when you ask people if rich people's taxes should be raise, I will bet any amount of money the common person will assume you mean income tax rate. Therefore, my positions are 100% correct.


Now if you want to argue that dividends and interest should be considered income that is a different discussion. But like I said above, nobody asked that question thinks about that.

Sorry Duke, you clearly don't do tax law.

Cap gains and dividends ARE income. I'm not arguing it, it's what the IRS says. You're saying that they're not and you're making that up. You have ordinary income and you have capital gains and you have dividends. They are ALL income and they are all subject to INCOME tax. They are just taxed at different rates.

And, I'll say it again, no one will ever pay 35% on ordinary income because you pay 35% on ordinary income AFTER DEDUCTIONS, which allows you to keep some money you earned tax free. Since everyone has some deductions, they MUST pay less than 35% of their income in taxes, sometimes A LOT less. It's just math.

It's a very frustrating topic for me because smart people like yourself are stating opinions and talking like you know something when you're making shit up. Just because "most people" believe something, doesn't mean that it is right. What's really important when it comes to income tax policy in America is that the very richest among us pay the lowest tax rates. I believe that's grossly unfair, and you may not, fine, but to boil this discussion down to top marginal rates without a corresponding discussion of cap gains/dividends and deductions is a red herring,

geojanes wrote:Sorry Duke, you clearly don't do tax law.

No I am a land use and municipal law attorney (at least that was my intent in law school) with a side interest in Con Law (that I am hoping will become a job if one of my application pan out) All of my tax law is remembered from Fed Tax class 5 years ago.

geojanes wrote:Cap gains and dividends ARE income. I'm not arguing it, it's what the IRS says. You're saying that they're not and you're making that up. You have ordinary income and you have capital gains and you have dividends. They are ALL income and they are all subject to INCOME tax. They are just taxed at different rates.

Well first, @#$! you on the accusation of making stuff up. The difference here is you are arguing definitions and I am arguing perceptions. Investment income is not currently taxed at income tax rates. Therefore, if the "Income Tax brackets" are increased from 35% to 38% there will be no change in amoung of taxes paid on the capital gains and dividends. When the common voter is thinking about raising taxes on rich people they are thinking about increasing the brackets.

geojanes wrote:And, I'll say it again, no one will ever pay 35% on ordinary income because you pay 35% on ordinary income AFTER DEDUCTIONS, which allows you to keep some money you earned tax free. Since everyone has some deductions, they MUST pay less than 35% of their income in taxes, sometimes A LOT less. It's just math.

Ok, I am not sure I understand this. The 35% bracket starts at approx $380,000. Anybody that makes over that in ordinary income after deductions pays 35%. Your position is that nobody pays that because they get enough deductions to bring it down to below $380.000. My father-in-law retired from E-Y as the Director in the International Business Technology Dept two years ago. I believe at the time he had an annual salary close to $500,000 a year (I could be wrong about that). Your telling me that he was able to come up with $121,000 in deductions to take him out of the 35% tax bracket? I find that math hard to believe.

geojanes wrote:It's a very frustrating topic for me because smart people like yourself are stating opinions and talking like you know something when you're making shit up. Just because "most people" believe something, doesn't mean that it is right. What's really important when it comes to income tax policy in America is that the very richest among us pay the lowest tax rates. I believe that's grossly unfair, and you may not, fine, but to boil this discussion down to top marginal rates without a corresponding discussion of cap gains/dividends and deductions is a red herring,

Again @#$! you for accusing me of making shit up. And again, You are arguing laws. I am arguing perceptions. The common voter has no understanding of the difference between ordinary income, capital gains and dividend income. When you ask them about raising taxes on rich people they are thinking about raising the rates on ordinary income from 35% to 40%. Further, I am not arguing for or against either position. I am telling you how it will be played in the campaigns, i.e. discussing the perceptions.

However, given that neither Democrats nor Republicans will change the laws to put cap gains and dividends back into the ordinary income definition, discussing it would be a waste of time. Even if Democrats did try to make it an issue it would fail. They can't sell it. First off the whole concept is mind numbingly dull so nobody would pay attention. All the Republicans have to counter with is bottom 40% pay no income taxes at all. Second, the lobbying to oppose it would be too great.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:I've spotted one incorrect 'fact' in that. Individuals of the top decile are on over about $150,000. $250,000 kicks in at about 95%.

Not sure what you are saying here. Just to make sure I am reading it right, you are saying the top 10% equals people/couples making $150,000. Sure I agree with that. However, that makes it even more likely that people will change their opinion about "taxing the rich"

The reason is that the top 50% includes anybody making more then $55,000. Most of those people being polled will think that $150,000 for a married couple is in reach (rightly or wrongly) and they won't want "their" taxes raised.

Oh, boy! I am saying that $250,000 is at about the 95th percentile for individuals (people/couples? you do know that the measures are 'individuals' and 'households', right?)

Which means that when a question talks about taxing about $250,000, it won't affect the whole top 10%. The erroneous fact was your 10%, not the $250,000 limit.

Sure I know that the American Dream is a persuasive myth, that people on $50,000 are somehow duped into thinking they are just a little under those on $150,000 and $250,000. But it's a loooooong way up.

Well not really. But then we can also tell people that the bottom 50% only pay 5% of income taxes. That will piss them off more.

Perhaps. Again, it depends on how selective your facts are. Just tell them how much of the nation's assests the bottom 50% own, compared to the top 10%.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Well first, @#$! you on the accusation of making stuff up. The difference here is you are arguing definitions and I am arguing perceptions.

Actually, I think GJ is arguing reality as opposed to perceptions.

Ok, I am not sure I understand this. The 35% bracket starts at approx $380,000. Anybody that makes over that in ordinary income after deductions pays 35%. Your position is that nobody pays that because they get enough deductions to bring it down to below $380.000. My father-in-law retired from E-Y as the Director in the International Business Technology Dept two years ago. I believe at the time he had an annual salary close to $500,000 a year (I could be wrong about that). Your telling me that he was able to come up with $121,000 in deductions to take him out of the 35% tax bracket? I find that math hard to believe.

No, it means that you only pay tax after deductions. So, it you are on $500,000 and have $50,000 in deductions, you only pay tax on $450,000. If that's at 35% (it's a little lower, but let's keep it simple), then your tax bill is 157,500. Which is 31.5% of your actual income.

The mai way that the very rich avoid paying the 35% on their income is by having income declared as something else, followed by finding all possible deductions. It's what they pay tax accountants for (and it's worth it!)

However, given that neither Democrats nor Republicans will change the laws to put cap gains and dividends back into the ordinary income definition, discussing it would be a waste of time. Even if Democrats did try to make it an issue it would fail. They can't sell it. First off the whole concept is mind numbingly dull so nobody would pay attention. All the Republicans have to counter with is bottom 40% pay no income taxes at all. Second, the lobbying to oppose it would be too great.

I guess that's what they want us to think. It's boring, the poor are stiffing us, and just to make sure the rich will throw money at it. Ahh, an informed electorate!

Duke, no offense meant, but you were just making that part up about dividends and cap gain not being income. Just look at your tax form. There is a section called "Income" and it clearly includes dividends, cap gains, wage and salary, and even tax exempt income. It's all income.

Regarding your question about deductions Dan's close, but not quite there. Let's say you're married and have $500K in wage and salary. What percentage of that are you paying in taxes? 35%? Not even close. Let's say you have $100K in deductions & exemptions (mortgage interest, local taxes, charitable deductions, dependents, dependent care, 401K, etc.) so you're down to $400K. Tax rates are graduated, of course, so our taxpayers top marginal rate is 35%, but that's not what he's paying.

The first 17K is taxed at 10%, between 17 and 69K is taxed at 15%, and so on until $379,150 which is when the 35% top marginal rate kicks in, so if you do the math our taxpayer is paying about 27.5% of the taxable income in taxes, but his effective rate, before deductions and exemptions, is about 22%.

Now his actual effective tax rate is going to be lower, because I have only included wage and salary in the example, which is taxed at the highest rate. His dividends and cap gains are only taxed at 15% no matter what he earns. His tax exempt income is taxed at 0% of course. Nice deal for those with a lot of passive income.

I'll say it again. The top marginal rate is a red herring. There is an intelligent debate to be had about the tax code, but it's not about the top marginal rate. The real issues with the tax code is that 1) we tax people who work, who do productive things, more than people who sit on a pile of passive income. Crazy. 2) Because of this preferential treatment of passive income we have the very rich paying the lowest income tax rate. Again that's just crazy.

geojanes wrote:Duke, no offense meant, but you were just making that part up about dividends and cap gain not being income. Just look at your tax form. There is a section called "Income" and it clearly includes dividends, cap gains, wage and salary, and even tax exempt income. It's all income.

Again @#$! you on the accusation that I was making up crap. I was trying to explain the differences in tax rates between ordinary income, capital gains and dividends. Most people do not understand that differences. What they understand is Income Taxes (i.e. the tax brackets) and whether that income is taxed under those rates.

Let's put it this way. Are capital gains taxed at the Income tax rates? My understanding is no. Therefore, the political perception is that capital gains are not income. Seriously Geo. Stop thinking like a tax accountant and start thinking like a typical H&R Block customer.

danivon wrote:Oh, boy! I am saying that $250,000 is at about the 95th percentile for individuals (people/couples? you do know that the measures are 'individuals' and 'households', right?)

Which means that when a question talks about taxing about $250,000, it won't affect the whole top 10%. The erroneous fact was your 10%, not the $250,000 limit.

Ok, so you are saying I should have said 5% not 10%. Well if I remember my numbers correctly, the top 5% pay 50% of the income taxes collected. So my point is still valid.

danivon wrote:Sure I know that the American Dream is a persuasive myth, that people on $50,000 are somehow duped into thinking they are just a little under those on $150,000 and $250,000. But it's a loooooong way up.

The thought process is that it isn't really all that far. Look at the typical dual income household. Each spouse may make close to the median of $55,000. i.e.Husband works as Teacher making $65,000 and the wife is a nurse making $55,000. Individually, they are $100,000 away from the top 10%. However, combined they are $30,000 away. They are going to look at that and say $30,000 is possible Whether it is or not, that is the way they are going to think.

danivon wrote:Perhaps. Again, it depends on how selective your facts are. Just tell them how much of the nation's assests the bottom 50% own, compared to the top 10%.

And this is exactly my freaking point. People's answers change depending on the numbers given. The question who is going to sell it better.

[edit] and to edit my math. I added 65 and 55 came up with 120 and then said it was only 20 away from 150 - there is a reason I didn't go into tax law.]

(let me quote you exactly from another thread)

::::banging head against he wall:::;;

The point is that if you approach the issue of taxes like an H&R Block customer, you're going to be talking about the wrong things. Again, I didn't mean to offend, but my point is that even smart, educated people like yourself oversimplify to the point of making errors because you don't fully get what the really important issues are.

Back on topic: If the political debate on taxes is stuck on the issue of the marginal rate, if its 33% or 35% or 40%, because that's the only thing the "people" understand, then we all lose, because that's not the important issue. Raise the top marginal tax rate to 40, hell 50%, the ultra rich will continue to pay a smaller rate than the average working man. Cut it to 30% and treat all income the same, and the uber rich will scream and holler, because they've gotten used to their exceptional treatment.

Here's an idea, count all income streams (dividend, etc) as total income. Tax it all at the same rate with no deductions. Let the poor see how it is to have to pay as well. Could you imagine the family of 4 w/ an income of 30K have to pay $9,000! There would be an uproar! How about coming up with an equal percentage, that all will pay.

b

How about coming up with an equal percentage, that all will pay

.

Equal or relatively equal? The whole point of a gradual increase in tax rates is that a certain base income is required just to provide the essentials of life. And that those who earn enormous amounts both benefit from society in greater degree and owe something back to a greater degree... (I essentially agree with a very simple tax code though)
And if you want to count capital gains, you have to include capital losses... Equally. Geo isn''t the creative use of captial losses a great way to avoid taxes?