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.

 

As he promised, Trump's tax plan helps the middle-class...

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Trickle down economics. Been there, done that, and we've learned nothing. It doesn't work. You look at income inequality since the 1980's, it's gone far worse and this was after the mega-tax cuts the wealthy got after Reagan came in and the Bush tax cuts of the 2000's.

What do the wealthy do with tax cuts? They hoard it, they add it to their wealth. They don't typically put it back in the economy. For the middle and lower classes, those tax cuts are sure to go back into the economy as people need income to survive, spend on what they need. This isn't rocket science.

And for those saying the wealthy pay the majority of taxes, that's because they own and earn the vast majority of the wealth, in fact they own a larger piece of the income pie than they pay in taxes.

The last stats I saw, top 10% earn 80% of the wealth yet they pay 65%. The lower classes actually pay more taxes in proportion. It's basic math. But some people are too simple to actually do the math, they'll stick to something as simple as saying the wealthy pay more taxes, without looking into the context.




posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: jtma508

Trickle down economics. Been there, done that, and we've learned nothing. It doesn't work. You look at income inequality since the 1980's, it's gone far worse and this was after the mega-tax cuts the wealthy got after Reagan came in and the Bush tax cuts of the 2000's.

What do the wealthy do with tax cuts? They hoard it, they add it to their wealth. They don't typically put it back in the economy. For the middle and lower classes, those tax cuts are sure to go back into the economy as people need income to survive, spend on what they need. This isn't rocket science.

And for those saying the wealthy pay the majority of taxes, that's because they own and earn the vast majority of the wealth, in fact they own a larger piece of the income pie than they pay in taxes.

The last stats I saw, top 10% earn 80% of the wealth yet they pay 65%. The lower classes actually pay more taxes in proportion. It's basic math. But some people are too simple to actually do the math, they'll stick to something as simple as saying the wealthy pay more taxes, without looking into the context.


The last stats you saw were wrong...

From Schulyer's post...

AGI = Adjusted Gross Income. So to put this in story problem form:

The top 1% earned 20.70% of the income, but paid 38.02% of all income taxes.
The top 5% earned 34.73% of the income, but paid 58.72% of all income taxes.
The top 10% earned 45.77% of the income, but paid 69.94% of all income taxes.
The top 25% earned 67.38% of the income, but paid 86.34% of all income taxes.
The top 50% earned 87.25% of the income, but paid 97.30% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% earned 12.75% of the income, but paid 2.59% of all income taxes

Now let’s put that in perspective.

The top 1% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $380,354.
The top 5% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $159,619.
The top 10% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $113,799.
The top 25% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $67,280.
The top 50% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $33,048.
The bottom 50% means your adjusted gross income is below $33,048.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Alright, here's a source with regards to total wealth earned:


The research by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman [pdf] illustrates the evolution of wealth inequality over the last century. The chart shows how the top 0.1% of families now own roughly the same share of wealth as the bottom 90%.

The picture actually improved in the aftermath of the 1930s Great Depression, with wealth inequality falling through to the late 1970s. It then started to rise again, with the share of total household wealth owned by the top 0.1% rising to 22% in 2012 from 7% in the late 1970s. The top 0.1% includes 160,000 families with total net assets of more than $20m (£13m) in 2012.

In contrast, the share of total US wealth owned by the bottom 90% of families fell from a peak of 36% in the mid-1980s, to 23% in 2012 - just one percentage point above the top 0.1%.

www.theguardian.com...

When arguing portion of taxes paid, it's important we recognize how much the higher classes earn in comparison to the lower classes. The source above, from The Guardian, notes the top .01% own more wealth than the bottom 90%. Even I find this extreme and alittle hard to believe, I'd put it more to 1%. This is why I find it funny that people argue that it's the wealthy paying well beyond what they need to. You just have to look at who owns the majority of the wealth to understand. And yes 45% of the working force pay little to no income taxes and this is because they barely earn enough as it is to survive. They also pay other Federal taxes.
edit on 5-12-2016 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

Dear Sir or Madam-

I can probably save You a lot of time and energy and it just 'may' keep You from getting "irked"...

Unless You are in either the "Upper" or "Lower" class it'll be Your $$ used to do all the great things... We'll ALL do wonders and snip cucumbers...

"They" (those who make the rules yet don't abide by those same rules) are once again trying to make "Haves" out of "Have Nots" and it'll be our dough they attempt this with.. Sure, it'll FAIL (again) and Your kids won't have the same Life You had because "They" will keep pushing laws and taxes until You welcome "death" or run out of $$$ and become a Ward of The State...

I'm still shaking My melon at the folks who thought Herr Drumpf wasn't part of "The Establishment".. Well, by the folks He is choosing to be His Staff, He'll be 'establishment' before Spring Training and Pitchers/Catchers report in Feb.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Edumakated

Alright, here's a source with regards to total wealth earned:


The research by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman [pdf] illustrates the evolution of wealth inequality over the last century. The chart shows how the top 0.1% of families now own roughly the same share of wealth as the bottom 90%.

The picture actually improved in the aftermath of the 1930s Great Depression, with wealth inequality falling through to the late 1970s. It then started to rise again, with the share of total household wealth owned by the top 0.1% rising to 22% in 2012 from 7% in the late 1970s. The top 0.1% includes 160,000 families with total net assets of more than $20m (£13m) in 2012.

In contrast, the share of total US wealth owned by the bottom 90% of families fell from a peak of 36% in the mid-1980s, to 23% in 2012 - just one percentage point above the top 0.1%.

www.theguardian.com...

When arguing portion of taxes paid, it's important we recognize how much the higher classes earn in comparison to the lower classes. The source above, from The Guardian, notes the top .01% own more wealth than the bottom 90%. Even I find this extreme and alittle hard to believe, I'd put it more to 1%. This is why I find it funny that people argue that it's the wealthy paying well beyond what they need to. You just have to look at who owns the majority of the wealth to understand. And yes 45% of the working force pay little to no income taxes and this is because they barely earn enough as it is to survive. They also pay other Federal taxes.


Wealth is not the same thing as income. You can have little to no income and be considered impoverished by the government and still be a millionaire asset wise.

Income is how much you earn in a given year, wealth is what you have accumulated over a lifetime.

Federal taxes deal with income, not wealth. This is why the uber and very rich don't care about tax rates going up because they've already earned all their money and thus the taxes don't directly affect them. An actor or CEO or businessman who is worth $100 million doesn't care about income taxes. However, the upper middle class working stiff like me who is technically part of the one percent does because it has a measurable and real effect on me.

You can be part of the 1% income wise and NOT be a millionaire.

Regardless, your point was proven wrong. The higher income brackets pay far more than their share of income earned in a given year.

The entire meme of the rich not paying their fair share is bunk. PERIOD.



posted on Dec, 5 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: jtma508
... it just helps the upper class and 1% elites a lot more.



Using "dynamic scoring" estimates Republicans favor, the more conservative Tax Foundation still shows the greatest benefits at the top. In the Foundation's model, the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers would see after-tax incomes rise by 6.9 percent to 8.1 percent, depending on how the Trump administration resolves ambiguities about some features of its plan.

The middle 20 percent would get 7.7 percent to 9 percent. The top 20 percent would get 8.7 percent to 12.3 percent, and the top 1 percent would see a 12.2 percent-19.9 percent boost in after-tax income.


So where is the support for the middle/working class he promised? Did we all just not read between the lines? Was what he was really saying more like 'I'm going to help the working class. But I'm going to help the One-Percenters a lot more.' Is this what people expected from his campaign rhetoric?

As a disclaimer, I did not support nor did I vote for either HRC or Trump. I did read 'The Art of the Deal' and to me, Trump's entire campaign was just an execution of the business strategy laid-out in that book. So, were the American people snookered?

And for the love of God and all things righteous, please don't embarrass yourself with 'But Hillary...'. This isn't about Hillary, The Clintons, Obama or anyone else. This is about Trump's tax plan.


Generally speaking, any tax cut is going to favor the wealthy as it is the wealthy that pay the most in taxes. It is basic math. You can't get a tax cut if you already aren't paying taxes.


The wealthy have the ability to hide the lion's share of their income in tax shelters that aren't available to most people. Many corporations don't pay taxes and yet still get a refund applied to their tax returns.

The only fair tax system would be a flat tax applied evenly throughout the entire income spectrum.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


You can have little to no income and be considered impoverished by the government and still be a millionaire asset wise.


So you're saying those 45%, 95 million, are all secret millionaires asset wise? No, of course not, that would be a silly thing to argue right?

Yes, there are a afew out there who are asset rich and income poor, but this is a small portion. We're talking about working class families that live from pay check to pay check, nearly half the working population. We're not talking about asset rich folks here, this should be very apparent.


However, the upper middle class working stiff like me who is technically part of the one percent does because it has a measurable and real effect on me.


If you'e in the top 1%, you earn at least $400,000 a year (which I assume is your case). Currently your income tax rate is 39% the last time I checked. This is the top income tax rate. That means you pay $156,000 which means you have $244,000 you earn. This is still more than enough to live on, still enough to buy all those fancy things you need. This here is in contrast to the average working Joe who may earn $35,000 a year, that's $673 a week. After the bills there's barely any free spending income, especially if you have a family. Even for a dual income it's difficult. You seen the cost of healthcare?

You want to talk about trickle down economics, how effective have tax cuts for you and your buddies on the top been for the rest of the nation? The stats are clear, the top 1% have seen their wealth and income increase by 280% meanwhile the lower classes have seen their wages, their incomes stagnate:

blogs-images.forbes.com...

Do you know when the 1% started to see their income shoot up? while the bottom 90% saw little to no change? It started in the 80s with Reagans hyper tax cuts for the rich. Meanwhile the poor stayed where they are, the working class continued to struggle, jobs continued to be shipped off. But you're sitting here insisting you deserve more tax cuts, and for what? It clearly only benefits people like you. It's not about what will economically benefit the country, it's about you.

The idea that the rich need to pay their fair share is based on fact. They've seen their wealth more than double since Reagan, the lower classes have seen little to nothing to change their circumstances. It's time the wealthy pay more of their fair share and that includes you. This isn't about your sense of entitlement, it's about what will work for the economy and americans overall.



posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek


The wealthy have the ability to hide the lion's share of their income in tax shelters that aren't available to most people. Many corporations don't pay taxes and yet still get a refund applied to their tax returns.


There's also the fact many in the top 1% who have their businesses in the US benefit from the major tax cuts, subsidies the government gives them. There's also those tax loop holes.


The only fair tax system would be a flat tax applied evenly throughout the entire income spectrum.


A flat tax would only serve the top 1%. Essentially they see their taxes more than halved and those in the lower 50% see no real change at all. I get the idea of the flat tax, to simplify the tax system, but there's other ways than just the flat tax. And no, you won't see much of those tax cuts trickle down to the bottom percent if the wealthy got their taxes at the same rate as everybody else. We've seen what difference Reagans tax cuts did to the lower classes over the past 30 years. It only really made the rich richer.
edit on 7-12-2016 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join