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

reply to post by MightyQuincunx


Gee, who should we ask?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


lets lower income taxes on the top earners so they pay the same amount as everyone else
seriously i would be happy to do it if only so people could see how quickly things would fail


oh wait thats whats happening now isnt it?

There are serious problems with this type of tax system.

One, with very little or no monetary contribution from a majority of citizens there is very little demand for government fiscal restraint. Without accountability, the government will inevitably become mired in spending and entitlement problems.

Two, the unintended hit to revenue problem. If I as a business owner make $500,000 per year I pay an effective blended income tax rate (including payroll taxes) of about 40%. My assistant on the other hand who makes $35,000 per year pretty much only pays payroll taxes, so her effective tax rate is about 8%. When the economy stumbles my income goes down by 30%, to $325,000. Now I'm not exactly starving at $325,000, and I didn't have to lay off my assistant so she still makes $35,000. But because the government shifted nearly all the tax burden on to me it's revenue from my earnings goes down over 30%. Now like I said, if I planned correctly I can still be comfortable on my lower earnings, but the government on the other hand used my pre-recession earnings in it's spending model and is now running a 30% deficit. So in effect by making it's tax system highly progressive the government has made it's revenue stream much more volatile (like a high income earners income), where if it simply would have required more out of my lower income assistant it would have experienced less of a recessionary hit to revenue. This is exactly what is happening in CA, which is largely why they are insolvent.

Like Maggie Thatcher said, "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

That looks bad, IF you don't take something very important into the picture...

That the top 10% take in more than 71% of the income...

The top 10% take in more than 90% of the national income. So them paying 71% of the income tax is actually low.

reply to post by beezzer

Somebody needs to report how much of the disposable income they made, if it's less than 71%, then yes they pay too much. However if it's over 71% then they need to pay more....

reply to post by Skyfloating

I too have read these stats. I agree. On it's face it seems sad. But, consider this, knowing the loopholes and shelters that many of the ultra and regular rich have, they still pay the largest amount of tax. Now how could that possibly be fair? Everyone knows that a fair tax is in order. We could all agree on say, 10%... without loopholes.

Then, what do we have? We still have the ultra and regular rich paying the most in taxes. The interesting thing is they would not have a shelter for extra income nor would they be able to lobby their way into a tax free status (i.e. GE). Balance is the key here and unfortunately, the scales are tipped towards the higher earners. Not to degrade their monetary earnings but, to simply count all dollars and tax them accordingly.

One key note.. I despise taxation.

Also, the IRS should be disbanded. Like any one hit wonder of the 80s... their time has came and went.

Originally posted by taswashere
reply to post by beezzer

 

Somebody needs to report how much of the disposable income they made, if it's less than 71%, then yes they pay too much. However if it's over 71% then they need to pay more....

This thread is propaganda, plain and simple.

The top 10% earn 90% of the overall income. They ARE paying too little.

reply to post by AQuestion

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.

Members of this sovereignty movement have no qualms about making it known they identify with that movement. There are plenty of members in this site who claim membership in this movement and none that I know of need wait to be disingenuously "asked" by someone before declaring their affiliation. I have made friends with many of them but I have also made clear my primary concern about their movement and that concern is their proclivity towards embracing legalese to the point of burying or obfuscating law. It is too difficult not to. Once you go down the rabbit hole all bets are off and in this fantasy land you seem to think is the "real world" the rule of law is not followed, only the nasty Queen of Hearts rule by law.

Further, this sovereignty movement is often highlighted on lists compiled by so called "watchdogs" such as the SPLC, and the ADL, among many other organizations who regularly make an effort to demonize the so called "Sovereignty movement". If you hope to pull off a magic trick you are going to have to better at your misdirections than you are because the tell was quite clear from the get go what you were attempting to do by simply "asking".

Here is the direct answer to your question. No. I am not a member of this so called "Sovereignty movement", and whenever I find myself confronted by an ordinance, or act of legislation, or simply just unconstitutional behavior by a government official, I tend to take the opposite tact that the Sovereigns seem to take. It strikes me that their answer is to overwhelm the government with documents of case law and legislation that compel the government to - at the very least - consider standing for such arguments. What this means is that the "Sovereign" can find justice and players who play by the rule of law but they have also, many times, placed any burden of proof that once belonged to the state or federal government squarely on their own shoulders. By making the assertions they make they wind up having to prove in court of law what they say is true.

I, on the other hand, want to spend as little time as possible in a court of law, so if what I am being confronted with is clearly a violation of my right being presented as legal authority I will begin by respectfully challenging the jurisdiction of any law enforcement personnel who think it prudent to violate my rights. Generally, when it comes to law enforcement trampling over rights it is one of two things; an enforcement of an ordinance or act of legislation that has no Constitutional validity, or they are misapplying an ordinance or act of legislation in an imprudent attempt to expand jurisdiction to areas where none exist. Most of the time it is the latter and usually in regards to menial "crimes" such as "leashing laws" or "jaywalking" or "trespassing" in a public park because it was "after hours". These kind of ordinances or statutes may be Constitutional as written, but as they are written they all too often run the risk of law enforcement personnel applying them unconstitutionally.

When a cop stops you because you don't have a leash on your dog and you respectfully have a discussion with that cop on rights, jurisdiction, and the oath of office that cop took, and if you're real smart and have the good graces to offer that cop opportunity to save face by pointing out that he or she has the power of discretion in this matter and they are not bound by any law to cite you, your chances of walking away uncited and unmolested are better than good. Conversely, if you point your finger and poke a police officer in the chest while insisting you know your rights, your chances of walking away without a citation, or walking away at all just greatly decreased.

Not all cops are bright enough to understand the dilemma they face when they attempt to enforce a questionable ordinance or statute. Those not that bright will cite you, but you, of course, will not go to your arraignment to enter a plea, you will instead continue to challenge the jurisdiction and within minutes watch the judge dismiss the case for want of subject matter jurisdiction. It is rare to find a judge so stupid that they think they are immune from challenges of jurisdiction. If they do not use their clear authority to dismiss, then the jurisdiction must be proven on record before the trial can go forward.

Of course, much of what I have just described most "Sovereigns" know so I guess for people who lack skills of discernment it would be no different than a Southern Redneck declaring that all black people look alike, for that same lack of discernment to determine individual rights advocates are "Individual Sovereigns".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

There are plenty of members in this site who claim membership in this movement and none that I know of need wait to be disingenuously "asked" by someone before declaring their affiliation.

Nothing disingenuous about asking you and clearly you agree with much of what they believe. In fact, I have only recently become aware of them and saw similarities in your writing. You have now explained how you act, Please, explain how you think government should be organized and who should pay for it. I gave my answer, you should contribute in the same that you benefit from it. I think that is fair. If you like, I very much believe in use taxes; but, states are free to have state income taxes and it is constitutional. I think states should have more control than the Federal government because then we have the freedom to move to states that we agree with more than we disagree with.

As you have explained yourself, I will assume that you believe the Occupy Wall Street Movement had the right to protest in public spaces even if you disagree with their beliefs. Do you believe that we should have welfare at all, do you believe we should have a military and if you do, does that make you a collectivist too? How much should we contribute to society and what can we expect in return is the essence of the tax debate. Please address that issue.

Originally posted by taswashere
reply to post by beezzer

 

Somebody needs to report how much of the disposable income they made, if it's less than 71%, then yes they pay too much. However if it's over 71% then they need to pay more....

Why this obsession with how much people have is beyond me.
The wealthy are taxed more, because they have more.
What they have left, after taxes, is still too much in many opinions.
And it should be none of anyones business.

That's what irks me.

ahh, statistics... so many different ways to twist the numbers to support whatever perspective you happen to be championing

learned all about it in Psych 101 as it's very common in research studies too. i'll be as objective as possible of course, but with all of the information i've been exposed to over the years regarding income disparity (highest in the US among all industrialized nations), how capital works, the concentrated control of global money supply... blanket, logically fallible statements and conspicuous manipulation of numbers presents little challenge of my existing knowledge anymore. some truths can't be denied once you're operating from a less-biased perspective, and the headline of this post made me laugh, and little more.

Taxes shouldn't be based on what income percentile you're in, they should be based on the amount of wealth you control.

If the top 10% of "wage earners" (as if they're actually earning anything) control 71% of the wealth in the country, then they should pay 71% of the taxes.

Of course, the top 10% control something like 90% of the wealth. So, in a perfect world, they would be paying 90% of the taxes. 71% is way too low.

Example... prior to my retiring I made we'll say somewhere around $72,000 gross dollars per year and I paid somewhere more than 28% of my gross income after all my legal deductions in taxes to the government.
Lets pick on Romney for a moment and use him as an example and he admits to making (you notice I didn't say earning) about $57,000 per day x 365 days per year and I can't EVEN bring myself to do the math.. but he only paid 13.9% of his gross income. Adjusted of course by his $10,000 bets he throws around like pennies...
I can tell you I would not care an owls hoot in hell about paying 13.9% of $57k dollars per day if I earned even a few days worth, not to mention 365 days as a multiplier.
In fact I'd likely dance naked in the street as I can only dream of making such an insane amount of money...
I'll bet Romney didn't get threated last year with having his home repossessed, or his car, and was unable to help his kids when they needed a little financial boost or couldn't afford to have his teeth fixed or take the best medications as prescribed by his physician and cardiolgist because he didn't have health insurance or the money pay himself.
Warren Buffet is one of the most wealthy individuals in America, and arguably one of the most successfull businessmen in the world.... and he states openly and clearly that the top 10% of earners in the US, which btw he includes himself in, are paying nowhere near' their fair share of taxes.
OK... I couldn't stand it and I had to do the math and now I want to vomit... the math yields almost $21 million dollars per year that Romney receives from investments.
I'm willing to bet every penny I have that there are few of us in the other 90% who would not gladly pay 40% of this amount of gross income and still be able to share just one year with thier direct families who could then live like fat cats for the rest of their natural lives.
Kings and Serfs...

reply to post by AQuestion

Please, explain how you think government should be organized and who should pay for it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Dear AQuestion;

I did explain but you chose to ignore it. Let me make it harder to ignore. Please read the above Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America.

The establishment of justice is simple in that all Congress need to do is legislate acts that actually describe law and failing that - as in the matter of taxation - enact legislation that is clear and concise in its language making it perfectly clear who is made liable for what tax and what the subject of this tax is. All the Executive branch has to do is enforce the rule of law mandated by a Constitution and all the courts have to do is provide a fair and continued due process of law. This is the simplicity of establishing justice and it does not take taxing the crap out of people in order to accomplish it.

Insuring domestic tranquility means living by the rule of law and ensuring that individuals can have a reasonable expectation of rights protection and failing that a reasonable expectation of remedy for the injury. This does not require a large amount of revenue by government in order to accomplish.

Providing for the common defense means actually protecting our own borders not going to war with nations half way across the world only placing people here at home at even more risk. Standing armies and massive military buildups are not providing for common defense and if they were one would have to wonder what they were thinking with Mutually Assured Destruction. Huge amounts of tax revenue are required to fund MAD and other military "defense" budgets, but 9-11 only underscored how woeful the federal government is at actually providing a common defense. The U.S.'s motto since 9-11 may as well be "the best defense is a strong offense". It is not apparent that this strategy has done anything other than diminish the protection and respect for individual rights and cost the people of the nation countless dollars.

Promoting the general welfare and securing the blessing of liberty for our posterity never meant the government was bound to abide by Marxist principles to a lesser degree and create a "welfare" program funded by revenue raised through levying taxes "on" income. The general welfare has arguably been greatly diminished ever since the federal government declared themselves legal pirates who get to plunder peoples income and play anyone from Jack Sparrow, to Blue Beard and even to the legendary Robin Hood in order to gain public acceptance of this plunder. Rob from the rich and give to the poor! Wait that's not fair! Rob from everyone and give to the poor, but everyone must pay their "fair share" so we can plunder and play Robin Hood with our plunder. Sigh. Some general welfare and secured blessings of liberty this has wrought.

The sharp and clear distinction to a collectivist is that they would have us all believe that collective rights hold supremacy over individual rights and that certain rights belong to a collective only and not to an individual. This supremacy of rights can only work in the reverse, meaning the individuals rights hold supremacy and collective rights can only exist if the individual right exists first. The collectivist would demand sacrifice of the individual for "the greater good" of the collective. The individualist makes no such demands of sacrifice.

But wait, is this where you will come back and equate "sacrifice" with "cooperation"? I hope not. It is difficult to tell where you'll go next since you stubbornly hold to your Socratic method while pouting because I failed to pay enough respect to Aristotle.

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
They should pay more and entitlements should be reformed.

And there you have it!
Could have come straight from the Obama administration. The wealthy need to pay their "fair share". And 71% isn't fair enough yet.

To the OP, nice.
Simple, clear and to the point.

It's not, it's clearly misleading. They pay more money, because they make more, but they pay a smaller percentage out of the money they earn than the rest of us.


It just so happens that if you make more money a lower % ends up being a higher figure. This is how math works.

A simple example.

10% of 100 is 10.

10% of 200 is 20.

That means, 5% of 400 is also 20.

This means 5% of 800 is 40.


So if you make $800 and I make $100 and you pay 5%($40) and I pay 10%($10), you contribute more money, even though I paid in more money on what I earned than you who made 8x what I did.

This is not fair, especially once you consider the fact that those with the $800 have more to spare, and those with the one hundred can barely live, yet the ones with the $100 have to pay more on that $100, even though they can't really afford to.

The OPs Figure of 71% is the total amount of taxes paid, NOT the percentage of what they pay on what they earn.

It's really quite simple. If you don't do it this way, the finite amount of resources gets consolidated into the hands of the wealthy and the government, leaving the rest of the country broke, amongst a myriad of other scams living along side of the tax codes and exemptions for those with power money.

edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

Excellent example! And absolutely correct.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Laokin

 

Does my money belong to me? Is it mine? Do you have a right to ask/demand it? Just because you may feel entitled to my money, doesn't mean I have to give it to you.

tell that to
the IRS

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

The collectivist would demand sacrifice of the individual for "the greater good" of the collective. The individualist makes no such demands of sacrifice.

Then I not a collectivist. I already said what I believe, that one should give back to the extent that they benefited. If one does not wish to contribute to the community then they should not use our roads, our schools, our hospitals or our technology, you cannot have it both ways. That is fair. Does the Federal government do too much, we would probably agree on that, I certainly am not in favor of such a large military and even less so of it's indiscriminate use. I am not in favor of the government regulating land use to the extent that it does or personal choices such as smoking, drinking or even prostitution (by this I am referring to consensual prostitution).

Now, please tell us how the government should be funded, should it be by choice? Should we have a flat tax (10% across the board), should we have a VAT as they do in Europe? Perhaps all taxes should be voluntary as they are for those in power now; but, not the rest of us. By the way, I pay a 35% tax rate and don't deduct for charitable payments because I don't want the government involved.

You disparaged Aristotle and now disparage Socrates, wow. Perhaps you can dispense with the bitter complaints and address the issue and the issue was taxes and how they are unequal. Define a correct tax system for us so that we can all understand you better.

Income earners...

Investment isn't considered as income. The "rich" that should pay more taxes are these crazy sharks playing with the economy health of the countries.

There are many more techniques to make money that aren't considered as income...

reply to post by AQuestion

Then I not a collectivist. I already said what I believe, that one should give back to the extent that they benefited. If one does not wish to contribute to the community then they should not use our roads, our schools, our hospitals or our technology, you cannot have it both ways.

You are most certainly a collectivist, which is why you are mixing local, county, state and federal jurisdictions in an attempt to pretend that income taxes pay for all of this. Roads and streets are generally paid for through property taxes, and the upkeep and maintenance of the roads and streets are generally paid for through the raising of revenue through traffic and parking fines. Hospitals are either private businesses or charities or public but there are most assuredly private and charitable hospitals that exist in every state yet you would bully other people and insist that they have no privilege to live in that state because they do not see the value in raising taxes to pay for public hospitals.

You are of course speaking in bold general terms that can allow you maneuverability to back off of things like me calling you on the presumption that I would use public schools or hospitals if I had better choices, and in both instances, I most assuredly do. As to roads and streets, unless you plan on putting toll booths on every road, street, highway and byway made by government, you're going to have to get used to the fact that they are intended for public use not public purchase, and if toll booths were placed upon them, why have government build those roads when private industry can do it more effectively for less money?

That knee jerking up and down reflexively is not your mind. That reflex is not thought. Try to overcome your reflexive urges and think. Stop asking those who do think to pretend that only income taxation alone can accomplish the building of roads, streets, highways and byways. Those who do think know better. In the meantime, don't let that knee smack you in the face, that could smart some.