It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quit Complaining -- $100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

page: 8
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Greven
Far too many people don't seem to understand that marginal rates work like this. I've seen stories of people NOT wanting to earn a little more money because it would put them in a higher tax bracket, which they assumed would mean they would earn less due to higher tax rates. This, obviously, is stupid and wrong - but even highly educated individuals like medical doctors have had this idea.


Not exactly. There are hard cutoffs in income wherein subsidies, tax breaks, and credits vaporize. Especially taking the Obamacare subsidies into account, there are very real situations where an extra $500 in earnings can end up costing you a couple grand in extra taxes.




posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


An America that never was?????

Yea, seems to be that this existed before the welfare state was created.

Oh what short memories people have. Or lack of understanding history.

Oh, so the handup retort. I guess I could use a "hand up" as well.

Talk about hyperbole.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
An America that never was?????

Yea, seems to be that this existed before the welfare state was created.

Seems I'm right.


Oh what short memories people have. Or lack of understanding history.

Because it doesn't match up with yours? Maybe you're the one that is wrong.

Just check out Shay's rebellion or the whisky rebellion and see how the system was way back when.


Oh, so the handup retort. I guess I could use a "hand up" as well.

That is what they are there for. If you really needed it and it's there, it would be pretty dumb not to use it.


Talk about hyperbole.

Somehow your use of the word here doesn't quite fit the definition.




edit on 17-4-2014 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Did YOU look up the income tax rate of a person earning $200K in taxable income? It's most certainly not 33%.

Our system is based on marginal income tax rates. Do you know what marginal income tax rate means? It means, in a bracket, you pay X% on income earned in that bracket. This means parts of that $200K is taxed at different rates.

Here's what it would look like using 2013 brackets for a single individual return (it's a LOT different for married)-
10% $0 – $8,925
15% $8,926 – $36,250
25% $36,251 – $87,850
28% $87,851 – $183,250
33% $183,251 – $398,350

So, on the first $8,925, he has to pay 10% ($892.50). On the next $27,324, he has to pay 15% ($4,098.60). On the next $51,599, he has to pay 25% ($12,899.75). On the next $95,399, he has to pay 28% ($26,711.72). On the final $16,749, he has to pay 33% ($5,527.17).

Total income is $200,000 and total tax liabilities is now $50,129.74, which is barely over 25%.

Far too many people don't seem to understand that marginal rates work like this. I've seen stories of people NOT wanting to earn a little more money because it would put them in a higher tax bracket, which they assumed would mean they would earn less due to higher tax rates. This, obviously, is stupid and wrong - but even highly educated individuals like medical doctors have had this idea.


Certainly I used the basic rates to keep it simple, however, regardless, the example enumbra used about the guy paying more of his income than the higher earner was still wrong and disingenuous even taking into account your point. Thus, you really missed the point, yes?
edit on 17-4-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
the example enumbra used about the guy paying more of his income than the higher earner was still wrong and disingenuous even taking into account your point.

My example, was for nothing more than to explain the faulty mathematics behind the headline and an explanation as to why nobody should be listening to the propaganda farms in the media.
edit on 4/17/2014 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Seems I'm right.

Uhhhhh okay then?



originally posted by: daskakik
Because it doesn't match up with yours? Maybe you're the one that is wrong.

Just check out Shay's rebellion or the whisky rebellion and see how the system was way back when.

Are we talking about the welfare state? Or are you just offering historical events like shouting out random numbers during math class?


originally posted by: daskakik
That is what they are there for. If you really needed it and it's there, it would be pretty dumb not to use it.

Guess I don't like that in order for me to get the "Hand-up", the money was stolen from my neighbor first.
It must not bother you that other people are funding poor life decisions of people.



originally posted by: daskakik
Somehow your use of the word here doesn't quite fit the definition.


Maybe go back and review your statements. Like the hand-up, or many others.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: macman


That is the Progressive mindset. Cloaking envy with fairness.

BS.

You have no idea what 'Progressives' are about. Stop spewing the word, look it up!, and correct yourself. Stop listening to Limbaugh and Beck, and suck it up. The rich RUN this country, and OWN the government as well as the rest of us.
We are ENTIRELY at their mercy.

I should not have come on this thread - but I'm sick to death of Progressives being demonized.

THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE - CORPORATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OFF-SHORE HAVENS. Money =/= Speech. Or at least it wasn't entirely until this week.

Taxpayers are subsidizing the megacorps like Walmart and McDonalds by pulling up the slack between what they SHOULD be paying (enough for employees to live on) - I don't want to help Walmart get richer by allowing them to pay pennies and the rest of us having to pitch in for what they need to SURVIVE.


edit on 4/18/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The Rich are Progressives as well.

Maybe it is you that should research the Progressive movement.

Don't listen to either, I don't have the time. I am too busy working a job and running a business so I can provide for everyone else.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Dude, I've been studying it for years. YEARS. Decades. You don't know what you're talking about - you're just repeating Bill O'Reilly nonsense. You even admitted it!!




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: macman

Dude, I've been studying it for years. YEARS. Decades. You don't know what you're talking about - you're just repeating Bill O'Reilly nonsense. You even admitted it!!



I don't even watch O'Reilly. I haven't had time to watch TV for about 2 years now. Where do I admit that I watch him?

Got any other predictable retorts to throw my way??? Maybe that I should stop watching Faux News? Or maybe that I work for the Koch brothers?

And which is it. Years or decades?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

It's DECADES. And if you have enough time to sit there and read posts and bash on Progressives, you have enough time to LOOK IT UP.

Here's a vid from just one Progressive source, a 1:13 second explanation.


The main theme? "We're here to defend the public interest AGAINST PRIVATE GREED."

You have a problem with that?

I'm middle-aged+, now, and have been working since I was 12 years old. Mostly in the trenches. Good luck with your business. Good for not watching O'Reilly. Please stop condemning "Progressives" - you admitted that you don't know what Progressives really stand for.

You said you don't have time to learn about it. So why spend time vilifying it?
edit on 4/18/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: macman AND to xuenchen:

Here's what HISTORY shows:

for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in "normal" capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.

You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.

This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years.


The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.



This is the main reason why, when GM was our largest employer and our working class were also in the middle class, CEOs only took home 30 times what working people did. The top tax rate for all the time America's middle class was created was between 74 and 91 percent. Until, of course, Reagan dropped it to 28 percent and working people moved from the middle class to becoming the working poor.

Other policies, like protective tariffs and strong labor laws also help build a middle class, but progressive taxation is the most important because it is the most direct way to transfer money from the rich to the working poor, and to create a disincentive to theft or monopoly by those at the top.

History shows how important high taxes on the rich are for creating a strong middle class.

If you compare a chart showing the historical top income tax rate over the course of the twentieth century with a chart of income inequality in the United States over roughly the same time period, you'll see that the period with the highest taxes on the rich - the period between the Roosevelt and Reagan administrations - was also the period with the lowest levels of economic inequality.


You'll also notice that since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.


Yeah. Capitalsim. woohoo. A sure route to exactly what we have today.

Thom Hartmann: How America Killed it's Middle Class


We have to make a choice. Social upheaval (already happening), or tax reforms. Oh, and btw, I said I worked in the trenches mostly - and that is true. The irony? I am a PROFESSIONAL, with an advanced degree in this stuff.

Please, take the time to read the article. It's not just one guy's rant; he cites facts and other sources as well.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


It's DECADES. And if you have enough time to sit there and read posts and bash on Progressives, you have enough time to LOOK IT UP.

I have looked into it. I never stated I haven't. Clearly reading my responses is not your strong suite.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Here's a vid from just one Progressive source, a 1:13 second explanation.

Oh goody. From the depths of the Progressive dungeon, a spokesperson from Madison.
Thanks for the video and 1:12 minutes of my life I will never have back.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
The main theme? "We're here to defend the public interest AGAINST PRIVATE GREED."

What a lovely Alinsky style of delivering a blubbering message. So, basically against personal freedoms.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
You have a problem with that?

Yes, yes I do. Very simple really. You and her and the others that follow this crap think that YOU get to define what is greed for others. You are authoritarian in nature. Very simply freedom only for those that think just like you. Very "progressive".


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I'm middle-aged+, now, and have been working since I was 12 years old. Mostly in the trenches.

In the "trenches"??? Do you dig ditches? You are really reaching into the whole "Grapes of Wrath" angle. You will offer me a cigarette???


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Good luck with your business.

Thanks....I think. But seeing as I am doing it to create wealth for myself, I am sure you will have an issue with that.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Good for not watching O'Reilly.

Thanks Mom. I really needed that boost in life.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Please stop condemning "Progressives" - you admitted that you don't know what Progressives really stand for.

I admitted no such thing. You keep telling me that I am saying this. Don't know if you aren't paying attention, or purposely stating this because you believe it.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
You said you don't have time to learn about it. So why spend time vilifying it?

Again, I never stated such a thing. I have learned about it.
I don't need to vilify it. The Progressive movement does that on it's own.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

We have to make a choice. Social upheaval (already happening), or tax reforms. Oh, and btw, I said I worked in the trenches mostly - and that is true. The irony? I am a PROFESSIONAL, with an advanced degree in this stuff.

Oh well why didn't you say that in the first place.
I will now just sit down and listen to this BS...er I mean higher learned information because you are a "professional" with an advanced degree.
I am betting a college professor maybe? With the holier than thou attitude it fits.




originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Please, take the time to read the article. It's not just one guy's rant; he cites facts and other sources as well.

So I will need to dedicate another 10 minutes in reading crap from a Progressive pitching BS???
Doe she at least have a "degree" in this?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That has a striking resemblances to things defined by the Marx writings?

Part of the famous "10-Planks" maybe.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Yeah, whatever. Read my last post before this one. No, I wasn't 'digging ditches', and sure, you can have a cigarette. I worked for decades with the disenfranchised, the poor, the mentally ill. HELPING THEM. Rather than sitting on my high throne ordering others around and just flinging money at politicians or attending fancy-assed 'fundraisers'. I wrote - and GOT - a grant for a program designed to help inner-city youth get out of substance abuse, learn life skills, and be more productive citizens.

Still think I'm a blubbering ditch-digger with poor reading comprehension? You said you don't have time to pay attention.
Whatever. This forum makes my blood boil. My husband and I are both educated, we are in the 'middle class' for now. But if SHTF again, we won't be able to survive more than about a month on our current assets, because when we were both out of work a few years ago for OVER A YEAR, we drained ALL of our savings, cashed in our retirements (and paid the hefty fines to do so), and had to start back at square one.

We WILL, however, survive because he knows how to hunt, and I know how to garden and forage, and we both know how to make fires, preserve/cook food, build structures and make do with what we've got to work with.

But you don't care about the dilemmas of anyone else, so......
for a third time. Whatever.

I'm out.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: NavyDoc
the example enumbra used about the guy paying more of his income than the higher earner was still wrong and disingenuous even taking into account your point.

My example, was for nothing more than to explain the faulty mathematics behind the headline and an explanation as to why nobody should be listening to the propaganda farms in the media.


You explain faulty mathematics by using faulty mathematics? It's a very simple fact that higher wage earners do indeed shoulder the bulk of income tax already.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


That has a striking resemblances to things defined by the Marx writings?

Yes, it does.
Are you familiar with the Bolshevik revolution(s)? Do you know WHY they happened? And do you know HOW Marxism failed, even when it was a perfectly logical ideology?

I've just been studying it, as a matter of fact. It wasn't Marx's policies that failed. They would have worked. They could work now. Progressives are NOT Communists. If you'd like more info I'll dig out the link I was reading yesterday about how the USSR failed. And it was NOT because of Marxist principles. It was about CORRUPTION among the people who took over. They dropped the ball entirely.

I've been looking at your threads for years here now, xuenchen, and you come across as an alarmist bulldozer. Like I said, I should've left this thread alone. I never agree with you - and I'm so tired of the repetitive vilification.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Yeah, whatever. Read my last post before this one. No, I wasn't 'digging ditches', and sure, you can have a cigarette. I worked for decades with the disenfranchised, the poor, the mentally ill. HELPING THEM. Rather than sitting on my high throne ordering others around and just flinging money at politicians or attending fancy-assed 'fundraisers'. I wrote - and GOT - a grant for a program designed to help inner-city youth get out of substance abuse, learn life skills, and be more productive citizens.

I think I can see the chip on your shoulder through the internet.
So, you wrote programs that used tax payer money to "help" people. Okay then.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Still think I'm a blubbering ditch-digger with poor reading comprehension? You said you don't have time to pay attention.
I didn't say you were this, I said the woman on the video. You seem to have related one to the other. I wonder why when I called the statement from the woman in the video, you came across as it being a statement about you?? Are you the woman in the video?



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Whatever. This forum makes my blood boil.

I know. It is hard in life when people don't capitulate to your pitched BS. A nice Chamomile tea might help.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
My husband and I are both educated, we are in the 'middle class' for now. But if SHTF again, we won't be able to survive more than about a month on our current assets, because when we were both out of work a few years ago for OVER A YEAR,

Sounds not only like you made a poor choice for your chosen career field, but also that you are very angry about that as well.
So much for your "education". Seems to not be worth the paper it was printed on.





originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

we drained ALL of our savings, cashed in our retirements (and paid the hefty fines to do so), and had to start back at square one.

And that means what to me??



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
We WILL, however, survive because he knows how to hunt, and I know how to garden and forage, and we both know how to make fires, preserve/cook food, build structures and make do with what we've got to work with.

I thought you stated above that you couldn't survive??? Are you confused?




originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
But you don't care about the dilemmas of anyone else, so......
for a third time. Whatever.

Not really. I don't think that I get to determine how people live their life.



originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I'm out.


is that a promise?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

LOL! Oh, one other thing now that you've stooped to ad hominem insults. No, not a college professor. A hands-on helper.
Excuse the hell out of me for existing.

I thought you stated above that you couldn't survive??? Are you confused?

I said we couldn't survive for month JUST ON OUR SAVINGS/ASSETS.

I didn't say anything about well-rounded skills (and didn't mention that we have firearms and know how to use them, along with military training Mr. Soldier Silhouette.)

You just get more pleasant with every post.
NOT. Must've struck a nerve. Go back to work.




edit on 4/18/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)







 
18
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join