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.

 

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

page: 13
33
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gab1159
There are many more techniques to make money that aren't considered as income...


Name some please.

This top 1% has 99% of the wealth? They should pay 99% of the taxes..




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by buster2010
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 dont understand what you mean. So you think the 10% rich people should not be paying 71% but the same amount as every other income group but on the other hand you think the rich dont pay their share? Please clarify.


The question is what proportion of their income is paid, and whether or not someone who has benefited tremendously from the society we have set up should pay more (which is going to be of smaller consequence to them, having a higher salary) than someone who has not fared so well and proportionately pays a higher rate of income tax.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,



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?


Firstly, you failed to say how you believe these things should be paid for, good dodge there. Secondly, you show that you have absolutely no idea how roads are paid for. Roads are funded primarily by the states and the fed. The county does not pay for roads as much as the cities do and they are different beings. As for putting toll booths on roads, that is illegal. You probably didn't know that, the roads are not owned by the cities and counties, they only have public easements most of the time. State highways are owned by the states because they take the underlying property through purchase or eminent domain. You also are wrong about how most roads were built, most roads are built as a requirement of developing property and they are done by private contractors. As for the money used to maintain the public easements that we call roads, when cities do it, it does not come from property tax as that usually goes to a county, it comes from the general fund (mostly from sales tax).



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Maybe people would be less inclined to worry about tax paid by individuals, if the companies they own were paying their way in the first place. The income they earn, and tax they pay, is based on a fallacy that their business operates appropriately in the first place.

49 of Fortune 500 companies had negative federal tax rate in Obama’s first year


Citizens for Tax Justice tracked $222.7 billion in federal tax subsidies granted to 280 of America’s most profitable companies, which its report said “earned almost $1.4 trillion in pretax profits in the United States” between 2008 and 2010.

More than $114.8 billion went to just 25 of those companies, each receiving more than $1.9 billion.


In effect many do not pay tax on what they are REALLY worth because their true income and benefits are not revealed. Many of these top earners funnel income through foundations etc, and shuffle it around here and there. Not to mention the loop-holes and executive fringe benefits which are rarely obtainable for middle class workers bar maybe use of a company car. Wish I had a private company jet I could jump in and jetset off to where-ever ... a plane I would be able to use at will, but never need to officially acknowledge as my property. And maybe not-so-much a private plane, but have the company pay my plane ticket on commercial flights, my accomodation and meals while Im away --- jobs like this are few and far between, but these benefits are absolutely available to top-execs. And this is just one example of how things are different for big company execs in comparison to middle-class workers and small business owners. Additionally, I know if I started a company, would it not fail if not profitable? I dont understand why big corporations are propped up so much in a capatalist society - propped up by public taxes. Ultimately these top percenters earn these huge incomes via companies that probably would not earn as much if they operated appropriately in the first place.



edit on 22/2/2012 by MsVen because: clarity



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 





Firstly, you failed to say how you believe these things should be paid for, good dodge there.


I did not "fail" to say how I not only believe but how I know much of this is being paid for. You actually quoted me as explaining this to you just to then make the deceitful comment you made. It ain't me who's dodging, sport.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
if i made $100 million and i paid $90 million i wouldn't like it, but i wouldn't complain because i would still have $10 million in my bank account free to enjoy.

that is more than 99% of the world would see in 10 life times.

what i would be complaining is what the government is using and squandering the $90 mill. i worked hard to earn.

but if i was making $40,000 a year and barely struggling to support a family, mortgage, food, car payments, phone, cell, cable, internet bills, electricity, water, gas and heat, insurance and to top it off had to pay 25% of that to the government, i would be complaining.

and after paying all that and having $7.25 in my bank account, i could imagine how those $10,000 paid in taxes would make me feel like a millionaire.

but as it is now, people making $100 million are lucky if they pay more than 10%.

so the article says they paid 71% of income tax, which i believe is a total lie, it would still be just 10% of their total earnings and therefore not paying their fair share, if someone making $40k pays 25%-30% of their meagre earnings.



edit on 22-2-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Investment income is different and is taxed at 15%
It's done that way as a REWARD for those who invest in our economy and who create jobs.


Let me fix this for you:
Investment income /in Multinational companies/ is different and is taxed at 15%
It's done that way as a REWARD for those who invest in /other economies/ and who create
jobs /in China/.

Damn patriotic if you ask me.

edit on 2/22/2012 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/22/2012 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

I will make it simple, don't talk around it. How should we be taxed, not how much. A sales tax, a use tax, an income tax a tax on how much breathe. Picky any, it is not hard, you have already said that there should be some government and it must be paid for.

You completely ignored roads and that is probably best for you. Go to your cities Consolidated Annual Financial Report and you can see how roads are repaired not built. You are simply wrong and never concede a point, that arrogance. You hate the income tax, what do you prefer?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


That is for income......

There are other taxes and other forms of payment.

Most pay less income tax since they make significantly less than the top 5%.

The top 5% have many forms of income that are not just based on salary. The fact is the top 5% only really show a small percentage of their wealth for many reasons. This is no secret..



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
In place of income tax, people could be taxed a small percentage, say 1% (I dont know, Im not an economist), on withdrawls from their bank. No tax or fees on deposits, but only on withdrawls.

This idea has been proposed by Australia's Australian Sovereignty Party in place of income tax and the other 120+ taxes paid in our country.

Debit Tax
Debit tax vs Income tax



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
i always enjoy these money'd threads...
quite apart from all those tasty lies, lies, and damned statistics,
they make great yardsticks for measuring which fellow forumites care about other people,
and which ones care more for this game of monopoly we have been tied to for so long.
the fact that i'm onto the THIRTEENTH PAGE of this nonsense
and still no one can agree on what tax is, or means, or even what these bare numbers actually represent....
well let's say that's a telling fact.

i don't think this system can be 'fixed'
and i don't think this system is going to go much further.
perhaps what we need is a diffrent solution entirely.
fighting tooth and nail to accrue more small pieces of paper, arguing about who gives more of them to the government each year,
and especially blaming "the rich" or "the poor" is not going to help.
you should know this by now.



a couple of more specifically aimed comments on things that no one else caught;
@Neo, re:comments on page 4; are you genuinely comparing thousands of people sharing in medical support to the personal earnings of a handful of CEO's?
you really are a caution.
@skyfloating, re: comments on page 5; not to be rude, but that is not the effective brainwashing of slogans. that is you persistently not actually using that grey stuff between your ears to make logical sense of the words in said slogan. and when i say 'you' i mean approximately 99% of the population. or so it would seem.
@mastahunta, re: comments on page 9; i cannot believe it took nine pages for somebody to say what i have been reading this thread waiting for; becoming rich is definitely NOT an expression of freedom...



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage

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


Obviously a comment where the only motivation was jealousy. Jealous of the rich kids are we? Jealousy is curse. You obviously have never "earned" real money as you would not feel that way if you had.


And neither do the "rich" earn their money either: They are born into it. They use their pre-existing wealth to block and obstruct the market. They act as perpetual "middle men", adding nothing of value or worth to the economy at all.

For example: Most of the US Wealth is concentrated into a few corporations/people. Yet the majority of US Citizens are employed via the wealth outside the control of the "rich". Meaning if the rich didn't use their pre-existing wealth to bully their way into the market(and hoard an ever increasing amount of wealth), more money would exist on main street to employ more American's.

Donald Trump is a perfect example of a person who is rich, but should really be working at McDonald's or be homeless. But due to the wealth and connections he was born into, no matter how many times he destroys multimillion dollar businesses, he will never be held accountable for his actions(face negative consequences that a entrepreneur from the "lower classes" would face if they filed for bankruptcy multiple times).



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by MsVen
In place of income tax, people could be taxed a small percentage, say 1% (I dont know, Im not an economist), on withdrawls from their bank. No tax or fees on deposits, but only on withdrawls.

This idea has been proposed by Australia's Australian Sovereignty Party in place of income tax and the other 120+ taxes paid in our country.

Debit Tax
Debit tax vs Income tax



The income tax in America was only ever intended for the Rich. It was the Democratic Party that extended the tax onto every American.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Again, I did not completely ignore roads and stated that roads and streets were generally paid for through property taxes, and their maintenance and upkeep through traffic and parking fines. You seem to want to make it appear as if there is only one way in which government can tax at any given time and people have to choose which one way of taxation they want to live with. Nothing can be further from the truth and government will tax "on" income, tax your property, tax certain specified activities, and even tax any inheritance you may leave behind. Government not only will, government does.

This issue of taxation is most assuredly an issue of cost of government and that cost - by any reasonable fiscal standard - should not place any burden upon the people. As Chief Justice Marshall once said: "The power to tax is the power to destroy" and this is certainly what taxation can do when its only purpose is the generation of revenue to continue to pay for an expanding government that increases its debt with no regard for how they generate the revenue.

This issue of taxation is most assuredly tied to the size of government and the bigger government is, the more taxes are needed to sustain that beast. You disingenuously claim to want a "return" to the Constitution, but you speak of hospitals as if this were some kind of Constitutional mandate. You have disingenuously attempted to frame me as some sort of pro establishment sort of person, all the while you are clearly advocating what is all ready in place and continuing, which is the gross expansion of government and the ridiculous costs that come with such a beast.

Down in that rabbit hole you will stumble upon Cheshire Cats who will insist you are mad because all who stumble down the rabbit hole are mad and since you are down that rabbit hole it follows you must be mad, so you keep stumbling through this madness and stumble upon mad queens who declare they think of as many as six impossible things before breakfast and life just gets curiouser and curiouser, but what you'll never do as long as you stay down in that rabbit hole is effectively describe the world out here, outside of that strange wonderland of a rabbit hole you so proudly inhabit.

All that makes no sense - down that rabbit hole - suddenly makes sense and all that once made sense makes no sense at all!

Even a limited tax on income with a clear target and once the target is met the tax repealed is a tax government has a legitimate claim to make. A perpetual tax on income, however, is an absurd tax and can only accomplish what it has, a bloated, greedy, ambitious government with a very predatory eye towards a modern empire. All of which has nothing at all to do with the Constitution that created this monstrous beast.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The 10%ers seem to be paying plenty of taxes.

Thoughts?


Yes. Many rich people like the idea of flat tax. I have a better idea: how about a flat salary?

Now we're all paying an equal amount of income tax.... Problem solved.

We're all about equality right?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Its quite a simple process.

If you earn this amount you are to pay this percentage of tax
If you earn this other amount you are to pay this other percentage of tax

Trying to avoid paying tax means your trying to skimp out on everyone else and thus increase the tax burden on others and force the government to find other ways to gain more revenue, such as extra taxes on little things you cant avoid paying tax on like that GST...

It matters not how much you actually pay in tax. The percentage you pay should be the same as everyone who earns that amount.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The 10%ers seem to be paying plenty of taxes.

Thoughts?


Yes. Many rich people like the idea of flat tax. I have a better idea: how about a flat salary?

Now we're all paying an equal amount of income tax.... Problem solved.

We're all about equality right?


I am. I believe in the human spirit and think we all have it in us to achieve whatever possible idea we concoct about what it is we want to do with our life. I think if everyone knew a way they could be making an important positive contribution to the whole of earth and how they uniquely would be rewarded and recognized for it,,,,we'd have utopia. I also know that the world I was born into doesn't always seem that way, and definitely not everyone has a fair shot. We in the United States have been born into a culture of excess, and that fattens alot of minds. I try to keep my mind empty of bull so I can fill it up with something useful someday, but looking at the way it exists now makes me think some serious reform is necessary.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

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.

Thoughts?


While the top 10% pay 71% of the income tax, they also control 80% of the US wealth.



Top 1% Control 42% of Financial Wealth in the U.S

The remaining 90% of Americans have only 20% of the wealth but pay 29% of the income tax.


edit on 22-2-2012 by ollncasino because: formatting



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The 10%ers seem to be paying plenty of taxes.

Thoughts?


Yes. Many rich people like the idea of flat tax. I have a better idea: how about a flat salary?

Now we're all paying an equal amount of income tax.... Problem solved.

We're all about equality right?
Who would get to determine the salary level?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
GOOD!

It's a percentage equation...the top 10% also MAKE THE MAJORITY OF THE MONEY!

So THEY SHOULD PAY THE MAJORITY OF THE TAXES!

Making people pay equal amounts when everyone doesn't earn the same is impossible The rich can and WILL always pay more. Unless they are Mitt Romney and they know how to cheat and find loop holes to actually pay a SMALLER percentage than the average American.

The Rich can afford to pay high dollar accountants to basically cheat their way out of paying their fair share. The average American can BARELY AFFORD to pay an idiot at H&R Block to prepare a simple 1 W-4 form! On top of that they end paying most of their annual income to taxes! Where food is actually being taken off of table! Clothes for children are not being bought! Health Insurance is not affordable! This money could have gone to THINGS THEY NEED! Not things they want...the Rich want another Mansion or another piece of property to buy.

Tax the # out of the Rich...they won't feel it. If they do, then good...welcome to America.



new topics




 
33
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join