Skip to main content

Yep that's right, you were told that the rich paid all the taxes. Well it seems that the government gave them 400 billion with which to pay their taxes.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...-1417018513.html?x=0

A very telling statement:
quote:
"At a time when the economic downturn has left so many low- and middle-income families struggling to get by, we simply can't afford a wealth-building strategy that primarily helps those who are already wealthy," said Robert Giloth, a vice president at the Casey Foundation.



It's all a part of the erroneouseconomic philosphy that the economy is built from the top down, or "trickle down". This belief says that whatever is good for Wall Street is good for Main Street. Wall Street is the enemy of Main Street and the enemy of America. It needs severe reformation.
That will not happen as long as corporate America is the primary donor to BOTH political parties. We must first reform the campaign laws to eliminate corporate money all together from the political process. Only then can we address our political inequalities and repair the damage done to this country by these ravenous beasts.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

In case you have not been told this before, the top 5% pay 50% of the taxes already.


Who Really Pays Income Taxes?

by Andrew Chamberlain

Do wealthy taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes? Polls consistently show Americans believe they don't. But are they right?

The U.S. Treasury Department recently released a memo (PDF) that sheds some light on the issue:

...[A] small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. In 2002, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

From the memo, here's the projected breakdown of income tax payments by income group for 2005:

Projected Share of Individual Income Taxes and Income in 2005 (U.S. Treasury Estimate)

Top--- 1% Top--- 5% Top--- 10% Top --- 25% Top--- 50% Bottom--- 50%
Percent of Income Taxes--- 33.7--- 54.1 --- 65.8--- 83.6 --- 96.4 --- 3.6
Percent of Income --- 16.5--- 31.0 --- 42.1--- 64.7 --- 86.1 --- 13.9

With the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paying roughly 33.7 percent of income taxes and earn just 16.5 percent of income, it's hard to argue they're not paying a fair share by any reasonable definition of "fair."
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Who should pay the majority of the federal income taxez??? Divide the fedgov budget of $3trillion by the 180million taxpayers? Thats only $17,000 per person.


$ 17,000.00... Ummm... that would be the case it it was a "balanced budget"... only spending what you REALLY expect to take in. That's something congress hasn't REALLY done in decades. Obviously congress spends much more that will be collected in revenue.

When you ask a question like, "Who should pay the majority of taxes?", you set the stage for the premise that someone or some group should pay the majority based on non objective criteria. So I ask you, who do you think should pay the majority of taxes?


quote:
What we find is that the tax code really didn't explode in complexity until World War II, which we observe in the large jump from being just 504 pages in length in 1939 to 8,200 pages in 1945, the final year of the war. Since then, we find that the number of pages in the U.S. federal tax code have grown at a near-steady exponential rate of 3.28% per year, which as of 2010, means that the U.S. tax code has ballooned to be 71,684 pages in length!
http://politicalcalculations.b...-us-federal-tax.html

I suspect that some of those pages contain tax shelters and deductions for the rich that were passed by Democratic Congresses and signed by Democratic Presidents as payment for campaign contributions. It doesn't matter what the official tax rate is, the über-rich have always had ways to hide income. If Obama does raise the official tax rate on those individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making $250,000, he will only likely extract a few dollars from highly compensated professionals (like medical doctors) and small business owners.

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."-Leona Hemsley
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
With the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paying roughly 33.7 percent of income taxes and earn just 16.5 percent of income, it's hard to argue they're not paying a fair share by any reasonable definition of "fair."


Is that income gross income or taxable income (after deductions, shelters, etc)?
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
ith the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paying roughly 33.7 percent of income taxes and earn just 16.5 percent of income, it's hard to argue they're not paying a fair share by any reasonable definition of "fair."


Is that income gross income or taxable income (after deductions, shelters, etc)?


The wealthiest 1% own 40% of the nations wealth. The top5% own 60% of the nations wealth. The top 20% own 80% of the nations wealth.

The bottom 20% own less than 1% of the nations wealth.
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
With the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paying roughly 33.7 percent of income taxes and earn just 16.5 percent of income, it's hard to argue they're not paying a fair share by any reasonable definition of "fair."


Is that income gross income or taxable income (after deductions, shelters, etc)?

Sorry, forgot to put the link. AGI

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html
quote:
The bottom 20% own less than 1% of the nations wealth.


quote:
(CBS) On April 15, don't be surprised if the line at your local post office is a bit shorter than usual. That's because your neighbors may not be paying any income taxes this year.

An astonishing 43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. The number of single or jointly-filing "taxpayers" - the word must be applied sparingly - who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million, out of a total of 151 million.

Those numbers come from an analysis published yesterday by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Neither is a low-tax or conservative advocacy group; the Urban Institute was created under the Johnson administration during the Great Society era, and it receives most of its funding from the federal government.

"You've got a larger and larger share of people paying less and less for the services provided by the federal government," says Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. "The concern is that the majority can say, 'Let's have more benefits, spend more,' if they're not paying for it. It's 'free.' That's not a good thing to have."

By historic standards, today's situation is an aberration. Between 1950 and 1990, the number of owe-no-money federal tax returns averaged 21 percent, dipping to 18 percent in 1986, according to Tax Foundation data. In the 1990s, the owe-no-money percentage hovered around 25 percent of taxpayers.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...ey/main4945874.shtml

The way that Democrats in charge of Congress keep pushing back any vote on extending any of the Bush taxes, I suspect that Leona Hemsley will be right again.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
...the government gave them 400 billion...


I'm replying without reading any of the responses...so I'm not sure where the discussion is going...But I wanted to point out, this whole mentality is THE problem...the basic problems addressed in Jug's post and article isn't because of the "evil" of wal street, the rich, etc...it's government interference in the market.

It says the "giving" of 400 billion was acomplished by "tax breaks, tax credits and preferential tax rates....

First of all...politics aside...how the hell do you give somebody money...by letting them keep their own money?!!!

This automatically assumes the government "owns" all of our money/productivity...and decides how much we get to "keep".

But once again the root of the entire problem is not "evil" rich people...it's government doling out favors to special interest groups...whether they be ACORN/Union types or Wall Street types.

A government restricted and chained down by the Constitution would not have the power to hand out these special favors...And a market free of government influence...only influenced by the free choices of consumers and producers...would not support such corruption.

That's why partisans on BOTH sides don't want to reduce the power of government...because as long as they can use the force of big, centralized government for their purposes, it's "good".
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
What are/should be the objective criteria for taxation??? Should it be wealth-based instead of income based???


With the exception of the un-constitutional Lincoln income tax during the war (for/to prevent) Southern independence...this country funded it's constitutional role...and in some cases an un-constitutional role without an income tax up until 1913.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
What are/should be the objective criteria for taxation??? Should it be wealth-based instead of income based???


What about doing away with income or possession based taxation altogether? Everybody makes purchases.


Sales taxes are regressive. They burden those who make less unfairly. A person who makes a low income will spend 100% of their income, or close to it, on necessities. I on the other hand, will spend a lower percentage than that including luxury purchases, recreation, and travel. I am free to then hoard the rest tax free AND earn money on it. Therefore, either the poor would be taxed on 100% of their income or the necessities would be excluded, which means people will ***** that they are not paying their fair share.

While a flat tax seems more fair, I would still be paying a bundle for services that I do not use. I do not have children and do not need schools. I only put out my trash once every 2-3 weeks and then the can is still only half full. The only really fair system would be pay for what you use. The rich could then pay for all the additional services their additional possessions and properties require, people who insist on having 9,000 kids can pay for them themselves, and I can pay only for the services I use. Unfortunately, that horse is so far out of the barn, it could never happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
...the government gave them 400 billion...



First of all...politics aside...how the hell do you give somebody money...by letting them keep their own money?!!!



BINGO!!!

Not taking someone's money and giving someone money are not the same thing. Suppose you and a buddy walked out of a bar with $200 each and got mugged in the parking lot. The mugger takes your $200 but, for whatever reason just takes $100 from your buddy. Would you say the mugger gave your buddy $100?

The tax system, and taxes in general, are used for leverage to achieve socio-economic results desired instead of payments for services rendered. In simplistic terms...it costs the government the same to pick up a man's garbage whether he makes $250K or $20k a year. How many times have you heard "do it this way or we'll withhold federal funds". NEWSFLASH: People are not the same. One guy will sit on his couch playing video games when he gets home for his burger flipping job while his neighbor delivers papers on the way to his construction job then delivers pizzas at night. It costs the government more to keep up the lazy guy than it does the hard worker. And who pays for it? The hard worker.
quote:
We must first reform the campaign laws to eliminate corporate money all together from the political process. Only then can we address our political inequalities and repair the damage done to this country by these ravenous beasts.


For an Alex Jones fan, you really come up with some draconian solutions to problems.

I have said this before. Concentrating so much power in the hands of so few will always lead to corruption. No amount of campaign finance law, or tax rate changes will level the playing field. The bad guys will always be one step ahead of what ever changes the government makes, or they will be a part of the government. The way to remove corruption from politics is to remove the incentive for corrupt people to get into politcs. Take away the power.
quote:
I suspect you are right, except I suspect both parties are equally guilty. This is in no way a Democrat issue.


Correct, that is why the words "some of" preface the subject of that sentence. But then again, I don't think it has been the Republican party that has championed the policy of punishing the rich. Given that even those who profess to hate the wealthy have no interest in taxing the rich into oblivion, the only thing left is to decrease the level of spending.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
Who should pay the majority of the federal income taxez??? Divide the fedgov budget of $3trillion by the 180million taxpayers? Thats only $17,000 per person.


Looks to me like we're spending way too much.


Unfortunately, living beyond our means is now the American way. The American dream now involves racking up as much credit card debt as possible and living beyond anyone's means. Sad thing is, you lose the real joy and sense of accomplishment from actually working for something. When that need for accomplishment goes unfulfilled, we just spend more to try and fill the hole. But of course, we are simply repeating the cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
What are/should be the objective criteria for taxation??? Should it be wealth-based instead of income based???


What about doing away with income or possession based taxation altogether? Everybody makes purchases.


Sales taxes are regressive. They burden those who make less unfairly. A person who makes a low income will spend 100% of their income, or close to it, on necessities. I on the other hand, will spend a lower percentage than that including luxury purchases, recreation, and travel. I am free to then hoard the rest tax free AND earn money on it. Therefore, either the poor would be taxed on 100% of their income or the necessities would be excluded, which means people will ***** that they are not paying their fair share.

While a flat tax seems more fair, I would still be paying a bundle for services that I do not use. I do not have children and do not need schools. I only put out my trash once every 2-3 weeks and then the can is still only half full. The only really fair system would be pay for what you use. The rich could then pay for all the additional services their additional possessions and properties require, people who insist on having 9,000 kids can pay for them themselves, and I can pay only for the services I use. Unfortunately, that horse is so far out of the barn, it could never happen.


If you would take the time to read the FairTax book/proposal you would find out the poor do get a exemption for necessities. In fact all tax payers would get the same exemption.
quote:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/aafairtax.htm

Overview of the Fair Tax
In place of all current federal taxes, the FairTax would place a 23 percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services. Exports and business inputs (i.e. intermediate sales) would not be taxed.

Individuals would file no tax return at all. Businesses would only need to deal with sales tax returns. The IRS and all 20,000 pages of IRS regulations would be abolished.

Under the FairTax, no federal taxes would be withheld from employees' paychecks. Social Security and Medicare would be funded by sales tax revenue.

Effect of FairTax on families
The FairTax would provide every family with a rebate of the sales tax equal to spending up to the federal poverty level. The rebate would be paid in advance and updated according to the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. Based on the 2003 guidelines, a family of four would be able to spend $24,240 annually tax free. They would receive a monthly rebate of $465 each and every month ($5,575 annually). Therefore, no family would pay tax on essential goods and services, and middle income families would be effectively exempt from tax on a large portion of their annual spending.


After Obama has greatly expanded the IRS and included going after those who don't buy their health insurance, there's no way the government would REDUCE the IRS.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by JuanHunt:
What are/should be the objective criteria for taxation??? Should it be wealth-based instead of income based???


What about doing away with income or possession based taxation altogether? Everybody makes purchases.


Sales taxes are regressive. They burden those who make less unfairly. A person who makes a low income will spend 100% of their income, or close to it, on necessities. I on the other hand, will spend a lower percentage than that including luxury purchases, recreation, and travel. I am free to then hoard the rest tax free AND earn money on it. Therefore, either the poor would be taxed on 100% of their income or the necessities would be excluded, which means people will ***** that they are not paying their fair share.

While a flat tax seems more fair, I would still be paying a bundle for services that I do not use. I do not have children and do not need schools. I only put out my trash once every 2-3 weeks and then the can is still only half full. The only really fair system would be pay for what you use. The rich could then pay for all the additional services their additional possessions and properties require, people who insist on having 9,000 kids can pay for them themselves, and I can pay only for the services I use. Unfortunately, that horse is so far out of the barn, it could never happen.


If you would take the time to read the FairTax book/proposal you would find out the poor do get a exemption for necessities. In fact all tax payers would get the same exemption.




Firstly, ALL taxpayers get the lower rates and exemptions on the lower brackets of income now, yet they still b****.

I am aware of that some have proposed an exemption however, if someone with a lower income spends an additional $2,000 after "necessities" and has no money left afterward and I spend an additional $2,000 out of the $10,000 I have left after necessities, they have paid 10% of their income in taxes and I have paid 2%, assuming a tax rate of 10%. Sounds fair to me. Roll Eyes

And, as I said, folks would still b**** because the poor are not contributing to services. In addition, the rich would still complain that they are being "punished" because they have more to spend. If one person thinks it's fair, there is always going to be someone who thinks it is not.

Basically, there is no such thing as fair to everyone unless it is pay for what you use and that cannot work in the real world.
Last edited by MOBY
http://www.salon.com/wires/all..._tax_cuts/index.html
I would copy outtakes from the Daily Show where Jon Stewart had the sketch "Are we governed by A**holes" but most of you wouldn't get it anyway so I will just wave the white flag. I'm like the black lady at the Obama town hall, I'm tired of defending him and the democrats. I mean the teabaggers ARE ridiculous, and republicans stand for everything that I am against BUT until the democratic party actually grows a pair, there is no hope.
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:


Firstly, ALL taxpayers get the lower rates and exemptions on the lower brackets of income now, yet they still b****.

However, they also get little things like EIC paid back to them. Even those who have more kids, which you just stated in your previous reply should be paying more. Which way do you want it?

I am aware of that some have proposed an exemption however, if someone with a lower income spends an additional $2,000 after "necessities" and has no money left afterward and I spend an additional $2,000 out of the $10,000 I have left after necessities, they have paid 10% of their income in taxes and I have paid 2%,

No you just paid 20% of your earning (2000 of 10000 would be 20% not 2%.

assuming a tax rate of 10%. Sounds fair to me. Roll Eyes

If everone received the first $40K of as necessitated living expenses for a mairred couple, plus $5K for children, and then paid a consumption tax on things bought it would be much more fair. Those who make more tend to spend more, and thus will pay more, which is what the liberals here want anyways. What you are advoacting is already taking place and that is redistribution of wealth. In the end there is no incentive to make more, or work harder, if you have to pay it all back to the government to support someone who may not have the same desire or ability.

And, as I said, folks would still b**** because the poor are not contributing to services. In addition, the rich would still complain that they are being "punished" because they have more to spend. If one person thinks it's fair, there is always going to be someone who thinks it is not.
One thing for sure, the surrent system is by no means "fair", and the current proposals do more to make it even less so.

Basically, there is no such thing as fair to everyone unless it is pay for what you use and that cannot work in the real world.
Paid propaganda mouthpieces are great. Because of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. We have people who make 25k a year in here arguing to let a rich billionaire keep all his ill gotten gain.
This is tantamount to the slaves in the confederate south fighting for their rich owners to ensure their continued bondage.
And to top it off, when the rich billionaire starts war so he can get richer, you little people will send off your babyfaced sons to get blown apart for the principle of "freedom" while the rich man counts up his new wealth.

Congratulations..... Sucker.
quote:
Paid propaganda mouthpieces are great. Because of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. We have people who make 25k a year in here arguing to let a rich billionaire keep all his ill gotten gain.
This is tantamount to the slaves in the confederate south fighting for their rich owners to ensure their continued bondage.
And to top it off, when the rich billionaire starts war so he can get richer, you little people will send off your babyfaced sons to get blown apart for the principle of "freedom" while the rich man counts up his new wealth.

Congratulations..... Sucker.


You're losing credibility.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Paid propaganda mouthpieces are great. Because of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. We have people who make 25k a year in here arguing to let a rich billionaire keep all his ill gotten gain.
This is tantamount to the slaves in the confederate south fighting for their rich owners to ensure their continued bondage.
And to top it off, when the rich billionaire starts war so he can get richer, you little people will send off your babyfaced sons to get blown apart for the principle of "freedom" while the rich man counts up his new wealth.

Congratulations..... Sucker.


You're losing credibility.


I would rather lose credibilty speaking the truth than be lauded for propagating a lie.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have made themselves wealthy with their propaganda, I'm paying to be here.
quote:
Originally posted by Jugflier:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Paid propaganda mouthpieces are great. Because of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. We have people who make 25k a year in here arguing to let a rich billionaire keep all his ill gotten gain.
This is tantamount to the slaves in the confederate south fighting for their rich owners to ensure their continued bondage.
And to top it off, when the rich billionaire starts war so he can get richer, you little people will send off your babyfaced sons to get blown apart for the principle of "freedom" while the rich man counts up his new wealth.

Congratulations..... Sucker.


You're losing credibility.


I would rather lose credibilty speaking the truth than be lauded for propagating a lie.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have made themselves wealthy with their propaganda, I'm paying to be here.


You're losing credibility because of statements like:

"We have people who make 25k a year in here arguing to let a rich billionaire keep all his ill gotten gain.

This is tantamount to the slaves in the confederate south fighting for their rich owners to ensure their continued bondage."



I apologize for being frank...but that's just stupid.

People with the money of Rush/Gates/Forbes or whoever...these guys paying 35% or 55% doesn't "enslave" anyone.

All billionares are not equal...some get there by hard work and luck...others get there by political favors. Remove the ability to grant such favors (our huge bureaucratic structure) and you remove those who play the system of their "ill gotten gain"...
quote:
I'm paying to be here.


Paying who exactly and for what? Paying taxes, paying the TD News, paying for dinner, etc...

Rush and Sean get paid by how much advertising they get and how many people watch the shows.
Don't like it, don't watch.

Got any proof for those billionaires having 'ill gotten gains'?

All I see from the dems is envy and lust for money.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
Jug is going a bit too far, but are you seriously asking for proof of wrong doing among the wealthiest Americans?


Once again...all "wealthy Americans" are not the same...All this Rich vs Poor...the Rich exploit the poor, etc...leads to the "benelovent" politician riding in to save the day...who then steals from us all.

Not to sound to "jugflier"...but the Federal Reserve, politically connected, super rich and politicians are the ones who make us ALL poor...from the Forbes, Sam Walton types (all though they can better insulate themselves...to the...take your pick...rich local family (Darbys?)...to those schmucks jugflier refes to making 25K or less...We are harmed not by productivity...but by the politically connected.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×