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.

 

Chart shows low tax burden for rich

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
one possibility, albeit, not feasible for political reasons, is to eliminate all federal taxes. Make the states pay dues to be a part of the union and/or pay fees to allow their citizens to receive certain federal benefits. The states could then decided on their own whether to tax progressive, flat, sales, etc.

Of course, the single biggest problem with this is that it goes against the Agreement of Cession for most, if not all states. It would also require that states have the option of leaving the union and going it alone if they don't want to pay the fees -- some would see a national security issue there.

Anywho, just an idea.




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Oh Boo Hoo !

I think that people should all pay taxes. If you're on welfare, you should get a check just like people that work for a living and there should be deductions for taxes.

I also think that if you're able bodied and are on welfare, after 6 moths on the dole, you should have to report to work every day as day labor. The country that you're in can decide what needs to be done with your labor. If you don't show, you don't get paid.

We need to get rid of welfare as a lifestyle.

If all you can do is work at Walmart, then perhaps you need to better yourself and find a better career. I worked a whole string of crappy jobs while I put myself through college and got my degree and a career. Others should be encouraged to get training and/or degrees that lead to good paying jobs.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Wildbob77
 

You know what they say about statistics and liberals, right?

Wouldn't it have been easier, and more clear, to present the actual burden by income level?
That wouldn't serve a "progressive" agenda, though, would it?

If you look at the actual numbers, the tax burden begins to get a little top-heavy at $67k and above (what a typical 2-earner family with school-age kids earns):



IMO an almost unreadable graph - perhaps by design. Many other ways to present this information.

I too noticed that "the rich" - I guess the blue area to the lower right - starts below $100K in income.

In spite of the fact - ad nauseum - that many have pointed out that the people in that income bracket are the very same small business people that provide most of America's jobs, some still feel the need to promote class warfare.

Seems like the OP is bucking for general in this "war" ...
edit on 3/17/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


How about this? Say you could prove with absolute certainty that by reducing the taxes for those who have annual income above $1M to 5% while leaving all other income level's taxes the same that you could eliminate the deficit in 5 years. Obviously that would greatly increase the difference between the rich and the poor, but would lead to better fiscal health for the country. Would you support it? Many of the folks who are "Tax the Rich" proponents would not. They would not because they are not interested in economics, but rather penalizing the rich.

The vast majority of "rich" folks in this country are small business owners who file individual tax returns, capturing the income from their business as regular income. Of course its not true income, because it has to be put back into the business to maintain and grow it, but the government taxes it as such. The typical rich person is not Paris Hilton or the Wall Street banker with 6 cars and a jet.

As it relates to both Paris Hilton and the banker, they will simply avoid taxes. John Kerry, mr champion of the little people is a billionaire, yet has his yacht registered in Rhode Island to avoid Mass. taxes. The Kennedys pay no taxes. None of these folks pay taxes because all of their money is placed in trust and the trust owns all of their assets. These folks don't own their homes, cars or boats. The trust owns them and tax rates on trusts are negligible. They manage their trusts such that they dollar cost average and take sufficient losses to cancel out the taxes while at the same time building their long term wealth by buying more shares of stock.

Also, the banker will simply take more of his income in forms other that regular cash compensation. They will take deferred compensation, stock options that are treated as income only when exercised and stock, driving the taxes down to capital gains. If the situation gets too severe, they will simply move outside of the US. Why do you think that most new listings are not on the London Exchange? They are on the London Exchange so that companies don't have to comply with nonsense like Sarbanes Oxley and because the executives don't want to be burdened by US taxes. Oh, I know, US citizens (one of the few countries in the world with this tax policy) requires declaration of all income regardless of where it is made. Believe me, there are easy ways out of that and the US banker who lives and works in Dubai, London or Tokyo are not declaring the vast majority of their income. With all of your class warfare talk - you would not either if you could get away from it.

All taxing the rich does is make people feel better



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
When the federal government takes almost 40% of your income right off the top, that is not a low tax burden.

Given that a huge number of people pay no income tax whatsoever, the amount the "wealthy" pay needs to drop.

Simply because they can afford to pay more doesn't mean they should be forced to.



new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join