Elizabeth Warren

[RandyForRubio]

So this lady, the one who is always saying the rich need to pay more, need to do their part, etc etc...well after making $700k in one year (I think that would qualify as being rich), she chose not to pay a higher tax. See, in Massachusetts, you can voluntarily choose to pay a slightly higher tax (5.85% vs 5.3%). Oh the wonderful hypocrisy.

This is old news (2011), but I still find it hilarious. All these people are the same. Take somebody else's money, just don't take mine.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So this lady, the one who is always saying the rich need to pay more, need to do their part, etc etc...well after making $700k in one year (I think that would qualify as being rich), she chose not to pay a higher tax. See, in Massachusetts, you can voluntarily choose to pay a slightly higher tax (5.85% vs 5.3%). Oh the wonderful hypocrisy.

This is old news (2011), but I still find it hilarious. All these people are the same. Take somebody else's money, just don't take mine.

I'll take the fact that everyone on Wall Street despises Liz Warren over the one time that she declined the voluntary choice to pay a higher tax 5 years ago.

Also, the problem of black-and-white thinking continues. To take an example like this, and say "goes to show that all politicians are completely bought" is just foolish, in my honest opinion. There's an entire spectrum of politicians who feel differently on how Americans across all strata should be taxed.

Either way, Warren is a heavyweight, and will likely win a Democratic primary at some point in her life. But this election is about Bernie-- and I implore anyone to find evidence that he is even 1% as bought as all of his competitors across both parties.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I said that Warren was bought? Man, there really must be a huge difference in Canadian English.

I was just pointing out her hypocrisy, that's all.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I said that Warren was bought? Man, there really must be a huge difference in Canadian English.

I was just pointing out her hypocrisy, that's all.

no, you were saying that "all these politicians are the same"-- that's what I'm responding to largely. Speaking in binaries is just inaccurate simplification.

Because choosing to pay 5.3% tax instead of 5.8% is the same as Republican politicians unabashedly promoting legislation that further enable Wall Street corporations to avoid paying taxes, and continue with stock transactions/speculations tax-free, due to their donors.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Lol. You're really stretching it man, but that's what you do.

This is simple, even if you don't want it to be. I shouldn't have said all politicians, you're right, I'll say most politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, are fine with taking other people's money, as long as it isn't theirs. She says the rich need to pay their fair share, that they need to give more, but then she can't do the same?!

Meanwhile a man running for governor in Montana pays his very large share of taxes, and gives over 50% of his income to charities. Some people are better at walking the walk I guess.

 

[NAOS]

How much money did Warren contribute to charity in the same year? Does that get her up to or beyond the higher tax threshold? I'm sure Hants has done the research.

 

[RandyForRubio]

How much money did Warren contribute to charity in the same year? Does that get her up to or beyond the higher tax threshold? I'm sure Hants has done the research.

I'm not sure, but she did say she didn't contribute to any state charities.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Good question btw Naos.

 

[fishonjazz]

5.3% 5.8%??????

I lose about 35% of each paycheck (the difference between gross and net)
I understand that some of that goes to ss and insurance and that I get some back on tax returns but I think I'm still paying WAY over 6%.

 

[fishonjazz]

Actually looks like ss is a tax (according to my pay check stub)

So I took out the insurance, 401k, and union dues and I am getting taxed over 21% each paycheck.

My tax return was less than 1% of what I was taxed throughout the year according to my W-2.

So I'm getting taxed about 20% and I don't make much per year while someone who makes 700,000 gets taxed about 6%?

That can't be right. I'm confused

 

[Stoked]

Actually looks like ss is a tax (according to my pay check stub)

So I took out the insurance, 401k, and union dues and I am getting taxed over 21% each paycheck.

My tax return was less than 1% of what I was taxed throughout the year according to my W-2.

So I'm getting taxed about 20% and I don't make much per year while someone who makes 700,000 gets taxed about 6%?

That can't be right. I'm confused

SS as in Social Security? If so then yes it is a tax. It often shows up as "FICA" on a pay stub.

 

[fishonjazz]

SS as in Social Security? If so then yes it is a tax. It often shows up as "FICA" on a pay stub.

Yes social security.

So what gives? What am I missing?
Why does it seem that I'm being taxed at a much much higher rate than someone who makes way more money than me?

 

[str8line]

Actually looks like ss is a tax (according to my pay check stub)

So I took out the insurance, 401k, and union dues and I am getting taxed over 21% each paycheck.

My tax return was less than 1% of what I was taxed throughout the year according to my W-2.

So I'm getting taxed about 20% and I don't make much per year while someone who makes 700,000 gets taxed about 6%?

That can't be right. I'm confused

The 5.3/5.8% is probably just the Mass. state tax.

I don't see a hypocrisy here. One persons choice to give more than they owe shouldn't be compared to their position on a tax. If the law changes she will pay more.

 

[Stoked]

Yes social security.

So what gives? What am I missing?
Why does it seem that I'm being taxed at a much much higher rate than someone who makes way more money than me?

We are probably missing a lot of things to be honest.

What loop holes does she qualify for that we don't?
Was this just a strict income tax %?
What other taxes does she pay? Property? Capital Gains?
Are things like FICA (which is capped included in the reported %?

 

[Stoked]

The 5.3/5.8% is probably just the Mass. state tax.

I don't see a hypocrisy here. One persons choice to give more than they owe shouldn't be compared to their position on a tax. If the law changes she will pay more.

I see it as mild hypocrisy.

But I think dala is right in that she is a rising star on the left. She will be around for a while barring some scandal or something.

 

[fishonjazz]

We are probably missing a lot of things to be honest.

What loop holes does she qualify for that we don't?
Was this just a strict income tax %?
What other taxes does she pay? Property? Capital Gains?
Are things like FICA (which is capped included in the reported %?

Ya you are probably right. We don't know how many dependents she claims either

 

[Eminence]

It may be a hypocrisy, but it's a small one. I also believe in a higher tax rate to provide a larger safety net for all in our country(we're getting replaced by machines in the next couple centuries anyways), but that doesn't mean I'm not going to claim every exemption I can until that tax rate rises. Intentionally putting myself at a disadvantage in order to lay claim to the moral high ground is stupid at worst and meaningless at best.

 

[Gameface]

Fish, I think the confusion here is that Howard is only talking about her state income taxes. I'm not looking it up, but Utah state tax is considerably less than federal and I think is usually less than FICA. So just look at what you've paid to Utah.

 

[Gameface]

And I think it is beyond silly to look at this the way Howard framed it. If I'm part of a system, like being a state taxpayer, I can advocate for changes to that system that I think are better or more fair. But in advocating for an improvement to that system I in no way obligate myself to go it alone and try to make the system better all by myself, while everyone else continues to benefit and/or suffer under the way the system is set up.

Like if you go out to eat with 9 random people and get split checks, and you say "I think we should leave a good tip" but half the people stiff the server and most of the rest leave 10% or less, you're not obligated by the fact that you felt everyone should leave a good tip to then make up the difference for everyone else. You pay your 20%+ on your bill and leave it at that.

 

[Deleted member 848]

And I think it is beyond silly to look at this the way Howard framed it

It really is.

Lol. You're really stretching it man, but that's what you do.

bro, you're just providing general critiques without getting to the substance of the words that I'm typing out. Simply saying "you're wrong" isn't exactly compelling.

This is simple, even if you don't want it to be.

It isn't.

I shouldn't have said all politicians, you're right, I'll say most politicians, including Elizabeth Warren, are fine with taking other people's money, as long as it isn't theirs. She says the rich need to pay their fair share, that they need to give more, but then she can't do the same?!

She has put forth years worth of legislation that would disadvantage herself along with everyone else in her income-earning bracket. Weren't you the one arguing to look at issues in terms of context, instead of taking one incident out of context? She has built a career fighting to regulate and tax high earners. I don't care if she declined to voluntarily spend an extra 0.5% of tax, most humans would.

Meanwhile a man running for governor in Montana pays his very large share of taxes, and gives over 50% of his income to charities. Some people are better at walking the walk I guess.

not sure what this has to do with anything. Would also echo the question that NAOS proposed.