The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax

The U.S. donates the most amount of money to foriegn countries.. but it's a much smaller percent of our GDP than most developed nations.

If I make 10 dollars a year and pay 3 dollars for taxes.. and you make 1,000 dollars a year and pay 30 for taxes.. Just because you paid 30 of the 33 total amount of tax dollars doesn't mean your having to sacrifice more.

The only thing I know is the middle class gets screwed.

The rich have loopholes, the poor don't pay anything - its left to the middle class to take care of those who don't put anything into the system.

But hey, why would I want to work when the government pays better then a 15/hr job.

Here is a chart showing the income of a single parent with two kids:




Do there have to be changes to the tax system? Sure thing, but so do the entitlements. So screw the rich, and screw the poor - I work hard for my money, AND I WANT TO KEEP IT FOR MYSELF.

assuming 71% is correct
then they pay 71% of the taxes and command over 90% of the wealth.... still seems just a tad imbalanced
but thats just me

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I found a chart sourced from the IRS that shows how the top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax. This is pretty interesting because it would mean that all those calls that the rich should pay more taxes or that they dont pay enough taxes are wrong. The 10%ers seem to be paying plenty of taxes.

Thoughts?

The people saying they don't pay their share is right. Everyone should be paying the same percentage in taxes. Everyone that cries they pay too much just looks at amounts never percent of income.

I agree... that means of course no more tax breaks, credit and refunds for the poor. They should pay the same rate as the rich. No one pays more as a percentage than the Middle Class.. I still feel cheated by the whole system.

reply to post by AQuestion

How quick you are to put words in the mouth of others, clearly all knowledge begins and ends with you. I don't live in a fantasy world, I live in this one and the rule of law is no longer followed by the rich or the poor.

And how quick you are to impose your twisted world view on others. Clearly your vision of the world begins and ends with you. The rule of law is enforced on a regular basis in the United States and generally done so because some individual somewhere knew the law and didn't let all the propaganda of "real world views" cloud their knowledge of that law. Helplessness and despair is for the ignorant.

You twist everything, even twisting my assurance that the United States of America is not a democracy into being a dismissal of Aristotle simply because I acknowledged his assertions. That is hardly intellectual honesty. When a Constitution has been established that is demonstrably anti-democratic it is meaningless to point to any authority on what democracy is, even if it is Aristotle. Aristotle also pointed out that A is A. Things are what they are and the Constitutional republic formed by the United States is not the democracy Aristotle speaks of. A is A.

You are so desperate to somehow be right in your assertion that the rule of law is no longer followed that you actually think you can paint me as a pro-government the systems just fine as it is advocate. It does not matter how many people ignore the rule of law, under our Constitutional basis of government the rule of law must be obeyed and if it is not being obeyed this is because government is gaining permission from the only ones who posses the political authority to ignore the rule of law and that would be the holders of the inherent political power We the People. In other words, much of the shenanigans that government gets away with they do so by first obtaining direct permission from the actual holders of political authority, the people, and they do this one individual at a time.

When a police officer asks you if he may search your vehicle or frisk you he is asking you permission because without it he has no lawful or even legal jurisdiction to do so. When applying for a drivers license, the DMV will insist your signature is required so they have actual proof of contract and agreement, and without it their authority becomes dubious at best, and finally in regards to this thread, have you ever wondered why it is you are signing under penalty of perjury that "all the above is true and correct" when filing a valid tax return? Has it never occurred to you that "filing a valid tax return" is synonymous with "taxpayer" which is synonymous with "made liable"? Has it never occurred to you that the only thing that serves as any evidence to your liability to an income tax is your own signature on valid tax returns?

Perhaps this has never occurred to you because you are perfectly A-Okay with an income tax in perpetuity and would gladly pay the tax liable or not. Perhaps it has never occurred to you because you have just never really considered the facts. Whatever the reason, it is an undeniable fact that your own signature on a valid tax return is prima facie evidence of your liability for that tax, and that my friend is how government can follow the rule of law and still screw you over, then only difference is that in order for them to screw you over they need your permission first, of which most who live in this "real world" readily do because they "know" that the "rule of law is no longer followed" and that they have to what their told to do regardless of the truth.

You keep making straw man arguments that have nothing to do with what I argue. I speak to individualism and you continually attempt to frame this as anti-community and "every man for himself" ideology, and then laughably wonder why I think you're a collectivist. Only a collectivist would argue that people who live in a community cannot be individuals. You do all this while claiming the system set in place has failed. A system designed to empower the individual at all levels of government and designed to protect them from the awesome machinery of the state is failing and so you argue for a new and improved version, but would this new and improved version of yours protect the rights of individuals? I'm having a hard time buying that.

If your cause is so just why are you so compelled to avoid, twist and run from the truth?

The reason they get away with this is because the top ten percent of earners are the politicians(who makes these loopholes of tax collection and bring up legislation to severely punish the average person working over time,missing out on family time and in the end when the paycheque is there you noticed that all the overtime hours you put in went to taxes and you still find yourself living paycheque to paycheque) no matter what, these loopholes are made to rob us of our earnings through taxes in which our masters(politician, CEO's and judges and lawyers and policemen) use that money to gain more power over us. which is why an average citizen will do a maximum penalty for tax evasion and corporations and top money makers get a slap on the wrist. Here is the cartel and their roles.
Bankers(top of the chain). Finance corporations (2nd in command) and buy the most stocks thus making them the owners of corporations. now corporations make a country money so they dictate what a politician should and should not do should they become successful. Politicians are third in command because they get told what to do by corporations or risk losing those corporations to a competition countries and thus leaving people jobless. The politicians now control the average folks(those without tons of money) through laws thus comes the lawyers(4th in command) these people need the politicians to bring forth bills that are essentially an entrapment so that the court system can continue to make money by arresting average citizens and lawyers and judges get paid. judges are 5th in command because they are the ones who are legally allowed to detain people based on their interpration of the laws.now comes the cops. the Hired muscles who go around bidding and following orders given to them by lawyers and judges and arresting people. who in turn are the bottom of the chain. we are sheeps. in the end a sheep get fed, live according to what is told, gets sold, killed and be sold, or used to make more sheeps who in turn are the slaves of the shephard who benefits from the whole thing either way. we are the sheeps. we work(modern day slavery) we get taxed by the billions, and our tax dollars are controled and used to pay off corporations, bail them out when they mess up and make the wrong decisons and used to fight senseless wars which destroy countries so that they can be loaned the money by the bankers to rebuilt. Follow the money trail..

Knowing the tax breaks and loop holes the "top ten %" use when it comes to taxes, this does nothing but prove the income inequality we have in this country.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

Let me guess, you are one of those who believes in the personal sovereignty movement aren't you. You accuse me of being a collectivist; but, then accuse me of not being and just being about myself. Please, make up your mind.

And how quick you are to impose your twisted world view on others. Clearly your vision of the world begins and ends with you.

Please, tell us your solutions to the worlds problems, let your brilliance show us the way or do you believe that things are fine as they are. Extreme libertarians and extreme anarchists are all the same to me. This country became rich because we chipped in together to pay for roads and infrastructure that allowed our manufacturing base to thrive. That bit of collectivism made this country prosper. My twisted world view is a return to the Constitution and cooperation. My "twisted" world view involves making sure nobody goes hungry and that we help people to become educated rather than making fun of them for knowing less. My only caring about myself has resulted in me being a founder of a food pantry for the poor because I think others matter and not just myself.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller

You are pivoting to the validity of the Income tax, why can't you stick to what we were dicussing earlier? The previous spending to GDP was not insane, but I guess you are going to find a way to twist the notions of insanity too. In my opinion 40% secured debt to earnings operational costs is not insane, many companies take on

First of all, and in particular especially because of the fact that the dramatic rise in national debt began after the passage of a perpetual income tax, the validity of the income tax should be the basis of any discussion of government fiscal responsibility or any of the "fair share" arguments others want to make. If we are going to have a discussion on income tax why wouldn't we begin with its validity?

Secondly, when you speak of 40% secured debt to earnings/operational costs you are speaking of business and even then this 40% secured debt can only have validity with certain businesses under certain circumstances and is no cookie cutter formula for all businesses, and most importantly, government is not business and when government operates under this paradigm their expectation of revenue is taxation. However the "taxpayer" is not a stockholder in that they will not see any dividends from any "profit" gained later from secured debt now. None of that has anything to do with how government works and is nothing more than just more gibberish.

I suppose Hitler did not not kill 6 million Jews because he only talked about it, huh? Congress enacted exactly what Regan preached, he signed the budgets, again, he signed the budgets.

The Nuremberg trials demonstrated handily that more than just Hitler were held accountable for that genocide and many Nazi's were hung after that trial for their crimes of genocide. In your analogous world Congress would get a get out of jail free card and only Regan hung. Whatever.

What are you arguing anyways?

With you specifically my argument is that your insistence on sloppy language being treated as factual data is not okay, and in a site that prides itself on "denying ignorance", your continued insistence that the national debt began with Regan is ignorance and should most assuredly be denied. I have made this point several times now. Think you'll get it this time?

Recoup means that government spends and does contribute their income to private endeavors, through contracts and liabilities. Regan's fight against the USSR was exactly an exercise in taking on debt to achieve profits at a later date.

The government is not a business and does not function on a for profit basis. It is one thing to make analogies and another entirely to speak of government as if it is just another business. Further, recoup means what it means and if you are seeking to redefine the word then you might want to clarify that.

The Preamble for the United States of America quite succinctly and in easy to understand language puts forth all that government was mandated to do in the United Sates, and your business model is no where to be seen.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Most those reports and the ones I have seen like to manipulate the data to show how much money the rich are paying.

Lets put this way.

1. You and 10 of your buddies own a company in a poor town in Africa and get paid $10,000 dollars a month each and each pay $100 dollars a month in taxes. That is $1,000 dollars a month cumulative taxes you and your friends pay.

2. Your 100 employees work for $10.00 dollars a month and pay $4 dollars in taxes each month for a combined whopping total of $400.00

3. Cost of living requires at least 5 dollars a month to survive.

4. Yeah so your 10 buddies paid more taxes but made more money than the whole staff combined. So yeah they should pay more because they made more then everyone else combined together. However, its still not right.

its not the amount its the percentage that matters. Those making $10,000 a month are only paying 10% and barely feel the pinch of paying taxes. while those making peanuts are paying 40% of their income while barely being able to survive.

Note the 10% and 40% used are arbitrary value to demonstrate the issue but I wouldn't wager that its to far off.

If anything those statistics demonstrate how much of a gap their is between the majority of the middle class and the few upper upper upper class. So much so that a few of them make more then all of us combined, yet we pay quadruple in taxes.

You need to look at the percentage of taxes (income to tax ratio) they are paying and not the cumulative amount.

I don't care how much money they make or if they have trillions but at minimum they need to pay the same percentage as the middle class

reply to post by 1ncegreat


bad argument
sheep dont work they merely live and are harvested much like plants
this kind of argument is why the people in power do what they do

If you go by percentages of income, I'd be interested to see how they match up to the middle class.

Remember, Romney only paid 15%. I know most people in the middle class pay 25-35%.

So when it comes to percentages, it's probably not fair.

reply to post by AQuestion

Let me guess, you are one of those who believes in the personal sovereignty movement aren't you. You accuse me of being a collectivist; but, then accuse me of not being and just being about myself. Please, make up your mind.

Ha! Having a hard time expressing your frustration at being labeled a collectivist are you? Only a collectivist would attempt to find a pejorative to describe an individual who is arguing for the efficacy of natural unalienable rights. Sigh.

My twisted world view is a return to the Constitution and cooperation.

You have no regard for the Constitution and have all ready in an earlier post declared it a "failed system" and you keep insisting the rule of law is not followed. This sentence is, of course, just a sentence getting carried away with itself after following the meaningless rhetoric that came before it. You have been far to contrary in this thread to convince any one paying attention that you have any interest at all in cooperation, unless by cooperation you mean doing whatever you think it is that needs to be done without question. Some might call that cooperation, others might call that acquiescence, and other still might call it surrender.

I notice how some people only look at the rich, how about those who sit on the government dime. Why do they get a free pass? Sure, make the rich pay more, then lets make those who are dependent on the government start paying their share.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
I notice how some people only look at the rich, how about those who sit on the government dime. Why do they get a free pass? Sure, make the rich pay more, then lets make those who are dependent on the government start paying their share.

Well, if the rich weren't becoming rich by raping the country and being the direct reason people are losing jobs, you might have an arguement. But, as it stands, the two aren't mutually exclusive. That's why the focus is being placed on the rich.

Unless they inherited it, it's very likely they are profitting off of others losses. So, if people like the CEO of JP Morgan want to allow homeowners a chance to make payments instead of promising that if they make 2 more they can stay in their homes, but collect the money and kick them out anyway (sometimes illegally)........ then we might be able to work together.

If they paid that much it could only mean they are making so much money.

Why?

How can only a tiny percent of Americans be FILTHY RICH Billionaires while the rest, the MAJORITY of Americans make little or none (and still pay hefty tax on their tiny income).

Originally posted by ignant
If they paid that much it could only mean they are making so much money.

Why?

How can only a tiny percent of Americans be FILTHY RICH Billionaires while the rest, the MAJORITY of Americans make little or none (and still pay hefty tax on their tiny income).

The current logic, or lack thereof, is that a it's okay for a billionaire to pay 1% in taxes because that's still more than a middle class individual paying 35%.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

You are so full of accusations and provide so few responses.

Ha! Having a hard time expressing your frustration at being labeled a collectivist are you? Only a collectivist would attempt to find a pejorative to describe an individual who is arguing for the efficacy of natural unalienable rights. Sigh.

I asked if you were part of the individual sovereignty movement, funny you find that pejorative. It is what they themselves call the movement, I did not name it. Again, tell us what you believe we should be doing rather than just complaining that you have to pay taxes. As for calling me a collectivist, I don't find it frustrating at all; but, define it. I am neither a Communist nor a Socialist nor a Capitalist, I believe the society should vote on and decide what type of government we will all live under and I believe those laws should be limited as is necessary. I also believe that people should contribute to the system to the same degree that they benefit from the system.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


actually that 1% is many many times over the entire income of a middle class individual

not a nice thought though is it

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller

 

First of all, and in particular especially because of the fact that the dramatic rise in national debt began after the passage of a perpetual income tax, the validity of the income tax should be the basis of any discussion of government fiscal responsibility or any of the "fair share" arguments others want to make. If we are going to have a discussion on income tax why wouldn't we begin with its validity?

Because its validity is a completely different argument that Americans have been bickering

over for 99 years already. Do we really have to have a dead mans argument to talk about

the present and the recent past?

The national debt was being paid down after WWII, by this point had even Carters model stayed

in place, the US government would be in the black, at which time it would make sense to start

cutting taxes. Regans, policies and more importantly the corporate centric ideology behind his

policies changed this trajectory.

It was a choice, an action to change the entire tax structure in such a dramatic way, but you can't

seem to see that it had repercussions.

Secondly, when you speak of 40% secured debt to earnings/operational costs you are speaking of business and even then this 40% secured debt can only have validity with certain businesses under certain circumstances and is no cookie cutter formula for all businesses, and most importantly, government is not business and when government operates under this paradigm their expectation of revenue is taxation. However the "taxpayer" is not a stockholder in that they will not see any dividends from any "profit" gained later from secured debt now. None of that has anything to do with how government works and is nothing more than just more gibberish.

Again, the government was moving towards the black, the 20% - to 50% model was working fine,

GDP was growing, which was reflected in wages, home ownership and a host of other metrics.

It was only when government, under the behest of Regan upped the stakes many fold that this model

and debt begin out clipping GDP and cost of living indexes.

The Nuremberg trials demonstrated handily that more than just Hitler were held accountable for that genocide and many Nazi's were hung after that trial for their crimes of genocide. In your analogous world Congress would get a get out of jail free card and only Regan hung. Whatever.

Your point was to say that Regan was an innocent actor in the implementation of this debt model,

that he was powerless to the congress. But you ignore that he was the one preaching the virtues

of exactly what they did. They you ignore that he signed the budgets. I am not going after Regan

s much as I am going after the ideas that he implimented, a great swath of America still holds

the exact same ideas as virtuous, even though they did not produce the long term results that

were promised.

With you specifically my argument is that your insistence on sloppy language being treated as factual data is not okay, and in a site that prides itself on "denying ignorance", your continued insistence that the national debt began with Regan is ignorance and should most assuredly be denied. I have made this point several times now. Think you'll get it this time?

I mean how unreasonable are you?

Is a person who is 100 pounds over weight as in danger as a person who is 500 pounds over weight?

Comparing disperate figures has always been a method of establishing degrees, but you pretend that

such a concept is invalid. If , Ford ate 3 cookies a day, Carter ate 4 cookies a day and Regan ate 25

cookies a day do you actually think it is unfair to point this dramatic increase out?

The government is not a business and does not function on a for profit basis. It is one thing to make analogies and another entirely to speak of government as if it is just another business. Further, recoup means what it means and if you are seeking to redefine the word then you might want to clarify that.

The Preamble for the United States of America quite succinctly and in easy to understand language puts forth all that government was mandated to do in the United Sates, and your business model is no where to be seen.

The government seems to think it should benefit the economic strength of the entire country or

portions of the country and economy. The government may not be a business, but it seems to

operates like a business and it is subject to the natural economic principles of a ledger.