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.

 

So You Think "The Rich" Aren't Paying There Fair Share"

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111


. If I would have made 42mil I would have paid 9 mil in taxes right?


Not necessarily. That is assuming you didnt workaround them with all kinds of loopholes, as is common practice.

Regardless, why should they not pay the same percentage as you? The rich in America are able to gain such enormous sums of wealth because of the many perks they enjoy by living in this nation. Why should they not contribute proportionately?

Concentrated wealth is detrimental to the well being of an economy.




posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ShogunAssassins
 


Thanks for the reply. I understand, but just because they are in a position to help out and yes it may be the morally just thing to do, I still don't believe they should be made to do it. And besides, our income tax goes to pay the FED. So, do away with the FED and the IRS, make a flat 20% tax across the board with no tax breaks, just 20% no matter what. Problem solved right? Semantics I guess, because we'll still be bitching about this in 20 years. If the US is still around.......



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
This is a very old issue and has been the beginning of the end for many empires. When too much wealth is accumulated at the top, the bottom rises up and takes it down. The French revolution saw a lot of rich heads roll and their holdings looted. I expect the same for the simple rich here also.The wealthy however are virtually untouchable and have been for thousands of years. And yes they are parasitic burdens not creators of anything but conflict from which they profit in ways that can't be measured in money any longer they are so broad and large.
seed



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ADVISOR
 


WOW! I don't feel that "rich"! I live pay check to pay check for god sake!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Concentrated wealth is detrimental to the well being of an economy.


Very true, I agree and so do many researchers. But not only is it bad for an economy, it is putting the rest of those who don't have assets at risk.


According to a report from Scorpio Partnership, the world’s high-net-worth investors (with $1 million or more) have an extra $10 trillion lying around that they refuse to turn over to their wealth managers. Granted, these investors have $16.5 trillion invested with private banks and wealth-management firms–up from $14.5 trillion at the end of 2008, largely reflecting market gains.
How afraid are the wealthy right now?




edit on 31-7-2011 by ADVISOR because: because I couldnt resist the urge...to post the above.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ren1999
 


Ain't that the truth!

It is just ridiculous that this is the case, it makes me so mad. I think that people in the top 1 per cent should be taxed more, no one needs a billion dollars and if they do happen to have a billion they should certainly have to pay more in tax than a family living on $36,000 a year.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


awful analogy

what is being discussed is capital gains taxes, which are 15%. most americans pay double that for their regular salary
edit on 31-7-2011 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Political Science for Dummies
DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone.
REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
BUREAUCRACY, CANADIAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pour the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows.
You are surprised when one cow drops dead.
You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You drink some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You drink some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.
IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.
FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for theblack one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the bestlooking cow.
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make realCalifornia cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


I am stealing this and posting it everywhere!!!!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atom12
What some people love to forget is that rich individuals can leave. They don't have to live in your state or this country. They are being driven out to states with lower taxes and/or other countries with lower taxes.
So very greedy to expect the rich to subsidize waste and handouts to people who are perfectly capable of working but won't. Enough socialism already. The rich people I know worked darn hard for it - they didn't just find a big pile of money on the floor.


Not true at all

A lot of these billionaires rely on the government and the people to extract their wealth from.
If they left, they would loose their source of income as well.

Take a look for example at this hedgefund manager.


Top Billionaire Hedge Funder Sees Himself As a Hyena Devouring Wildebeests
We're ruled over by people who despise us and think of us as prey and themselves as hyenas, busy devouring everything they can.

Ray Dalio is a billionaire hedge fund manager who makes more money in a single day than most Americans will earn in their entire lifetimes. That’s because hedge funds are the top of the Wall Street food chain — and Dalio runs the largest hedge fund of all, Bridgewater Associates. Life’s good at the top of this food chain: in 2008, a bad year for most Americans, Dalio took home $780 million.



People like Ray are parasites and exist only because of those retirement investments and pensions etc that American's put into the stock market, which many of them blew up also.


Are how about John Mack whom was being investigated for insider trading, and before they got to close, he called his boss's who then called the investigators boss to lay off, and had the investigator at the SEC fired.

Or how about the number of people on Wall Street that rotate constantly between the private and public sector in our government, changing rules or making up new ones to benefit themselves and their buddies.

I could go on and on with example after example on how our government and those in the big corporations and Wall Street are in bed together, raping the rest of America.

We don't live anymore in a democracy but a plutocracy controlled by the wealthy at the expense of the other 99% and people would be blind not to see this.

This will not be allowed to go on much longer. It will be Hell on earth if it does.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


A smaller and smaller % of the American population controls a bigger and bigger % of its wealth.

The American middle class is strangled and struggling, meanwhile the super rich just get more rich.

Yes, thats a problem.

Its the inequity



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
finance.yahoo.com...


Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

So, let me get this straight. If a person is making poverty line wages, you want them to support the infrastructure of the nation more than the sales taxes, property taxes, and bus fares they already pay (or assuming they drive a car, the gasoline taxes and registration fees). I mean, how much would you have them contribute? To the point that they are even more destitute? How does that help a society? How can they go and buy the goods and services that keep the top wage earners (the corporations) prospering if their customer base is whittled down like that?

No, the top corporations get to benefit from being able to sell their products to more people at a larger percentage of the time, so they, in that case, are the ones that need to pay taxes to support the system that benefits them most.


Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15. (emphasis mine)


In this glaring example of abuse, a family of 4 with a $50,000 income made a whopping $31 off the federal government. I think when we factor in 4 individuals, two of which need school supplies and cannot support themselves, this is not some lavish lifestyle for the family. The $31 is moot.



www.usatoday.com...

Here's a nice little break down.


Notice it says "...who pay no income tax". That's a pretty interesting statement if you think about it. It says that only 1.5% of people earning more than $1,000,000 pay no income tax. So, what do the other 98.5% pay? I'm guessing it's closer to "no income tax" than not. But that is an interesting way of making it look like the rich are already burdened and just another good example of how even something like stats that we take for granted to be pure and objective can still be manipulative in their usage.



www.cbsnews.com...



That will be an opportunity to gut the current system and replace it with something simpler and fairer. After all, if government is important enough to force most of us to work until April 13 to pay its bills, why shouldn't everyone share the pain?


The assumption about the metaphor "shar[ing] the pain" is that it only can refer to the tax burden. Yet, I think that if you have no income, or income at or below the poverty line, you are already sharing the pain. Why should have to share more pain to make a system operate that - other than the entitlement programs that keep you afloat - is doing very little for your wellbeing.



money.cnn.com...





This one is even better. There are 63 million people (or families) making less than 50k a year who pay no federal income taxes. I also wonder why the combine all the way up to 50k, unlike the other graph. Let's see why with a little math.

Figure (based on the first graph) that the following percentages are true:

below 10k -- 99.8%
10k to 20k - 83.6%
20k to 30k - 61.8%
30k to 40k - 47.5%
40k to 50k - 35.7%

According to the second image, all of those groups combined are 63,500,000 people. If we end up with an average percentage of 69.5%, looking at the numbers above, would you say that most people are closer to 10k or 50k in that 63.5 million population?

This is very deceptive. The first image does not give population statistics, only the percent within that income bracket that pay no income tax (again, this does not imply how much the remainder pays allowing your partisan opinion to fill in those semantic gaps through framing, I suppose). The second image tells you population figures, but then groups the lowest wage earners together with the lower-middle income folks. What effect does that have on a quick analysis of that second graph?

Would the analysis by your average reader be one of "oh, well that makes because there are more people in the population who fall below the poverty line"; or, would it be "see, all those deadbeats making 50k not paying their fair share"? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the bulk of those 63.5 million people are 20k or below owners (not to mention how many people fall under each of those household incomes - i.e., family of 4).


yep yep only all those evil rich people dont pay taxes.


It's not a question of evil. There is probably a morality issue to be made, but I don't need to even get into that. The truth is the rich are rich because of the system. If you make $10 million a year, we'll go with a random number, say 10% (=$1,000,000) is taken away from you in taxes (after all of your cushy loopholes, that is), then you are still sitting pretty with $9,000,000. But if you are making $12,000 a year and we take 10% from you, you are certainly not sitting pretty with $10,800.

**I am completely aware that these figures are not realistic ones. I don't know every tax rate that exists. I used 10% for the facility of the analogy. You can insert the real numbers and incomes if you wish but I think you'll find the same will be true. If a person earns millions and they pay a percentage, they are still sitting on millions. If an empoverished person barely makes it past the poverty line and pays a similar or even lower percentage it's not like they can sell their vacation home to tighten their belt or something?

Let's get real people.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Sphota because: clarity



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 


Excellent!!

Humor is always the best medicine. Humor that mirrors truth is sometimes the cure.

edit on 31-7-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
yep anyone has links




The U.S. Treasury Department estimated that extending just the middle-class tax cuts would cost about $3 trillion over 10 years. Adding tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would cost roughly another $680 billion, according to the treasury.





The top 1 percent: Americans who earned an adjusted gross income of $410,096 or more accounted for 22.8 percent of all wages. But they paid 40.4 percent of total reported income taxes, an increase from 39.9 percent in 2006, according to the IRS.
The top 5 percent: Americans who earned $160,041 or more accounted for 37.4 percent of all wages in 2007. But they paid 60.6 percent of the country's total reported income taxes, up from 60.1 percent a year earlier.
The top 10 percent: Americans who earned at least $113,018 pa



usgovinfo.about.com...


anyone has links everyone bring a link the more the merrier!!!



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


dude pm me what you said in that other thread that got 404d if you want



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You actually think the argument and example you presented here holds water? LOL.

How about we start with this fact - that the amount of money held right now by US corporations in off-shore tax exempt bank accounts - money made by US corporations through money earned and spent by US citizens - is more than what has been spent on both the Iraq and Afghan wars combined. Put that in your bong and smoke it.
There has never been more money in our country's history than there is today - and there has never been less taxes paid as a percentage.It's not only a travesty, its criminal.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I would rather have the rich pay more, than me, the working class.
They have so much more to spare, sheesh, those extra 15 bucks out of my paycheck, I could of bought my daughter a pair of shoes with that.
But no, you know, it's okay the rich need their mansions with 10 rooms, luxury cars, rollex watches. etc.
It's all good, I guess I can starve a little, wear my clothes with holes much longer, just so they can have their luxuries. They MUST need it after all, since they can't spare more money.
edit on 31-7-2011 by celimonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mrsoul2009
 


nah dude the prevailing opinion in this thread is the rich dont pay their fair share in taxation.

even tho that evil person who makes 1 million dollars who is paying out $300k in taxes isnt paying his or her fair share

nothing to see here carry on.

everyone is right here but me



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by celimonster
 


of course hell make everyone else pay who doesnt use social services pay for all those who do

yep thats the fair and the american way!!!

apple pie and all that



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosis111
 


That's some reasoning you have there. Our income tax goes to the Fed yes - but it also goes to our military and our safety, health care, education, environmental protection, social security, food safety and inspections, law enforcement, the judicial system, sanitation and waste disposal, roads and bridges, power grids, railroads, the postal service, etc. Why is it so hard for some people to embrace the fact that we should take care of our own?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join