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: 28
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by buster2010
Why? It was giving the breaks in the first place that led to the downfall of our economy. When the upper class paid as much as everyone else the economy always does better.


You promote Ron Paul in your Avatar. I recommend you go read some of his books.

The reason I say taxing the rich should not be the only thing that comes to mind for the Government to have more money, is because it undermines other way for the Government to make income. The Government can also make money by saving and by investing and by working.

On a small scale, if you run out of money, do you first think about getting it from someone who has more than you,
or do you think about working?


You can support someone without supporting 100% of their policies. You do understand this don't you? I support RP for his stand on national defense and foreign policies. But we are being taxed right now and in a country where everyone is supposed to be treated equally then they should also be taxed equally. RP said if you couldn't get rid of the tax then it then it should as low as possible for everyone not just a certain few.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by LErickson
 



I am with you. Why the hell should I work more, just to make more, just to pay more taxes? Who the hell wants a $500,000 tax bill? Sure, I had another half a million to spare but I paid a half a million.


This coming from the poser who keeps yammering on about simple math. The simple mathematical problem with jumping up in tax brackets the way I did was that earning gross income of $1,000 generally meant take home pay of $700 for a 40 hour work week, but that 70 hour work week meant a $2,000 gross income and roughly $1,100 take home meant an increase of only $400 dollars which meant those hours I worked were ultimately for less money per hour than if I worked only 40 hours for $1000. Of course, and here is the simple math of it, even if I did decide to keep working for 70 hours a week to take home roughly $55k a year, this would never amount to the ludicrous figure you offered.

Here's the deal, if the IRS came to me and offered me a job for a million dollars a year but the catch was that I would have to start filing and pay 90% income tax, but I am guaranteed employment with benefits and a solid retirement package, I would seriously consider taking that gig. However, if all I have on the table is some stupid sales job that after working a year of 70 hour work weeks can only generate a take home pay of $55k a year and that's pretty much the ceiling, then it is clearly time to start looking for another job, for one thing, and if the value placed on time comes to more than the value paid for that time after 40 hours then the rational person is going to stay with what has more value.


Obviously you missed my point and all you are offering is your personal view of what you feel your time is worth. Some of us would just rather have that extra $400 dollars for things like medication instead of the 30 hours back. Sometimes it is not a choice. Some people are just greedy. That is all completely subjective and I think you know that.


Look, I find it stupid when people say they don't pay the lottery because if they won half would go to taxes, and under this circumstances 50% of something is far better than 100% of nothing, if that something only cost the purchase of a single lottery ticket or relatively few compared to the winnings. That's playing the lottery and that is nothing at all like earning an income. You may have the right to gamble your money, but you have a demonstrable necessity to earn income. And, of course, this is really simple math too, in order for your strange logic to have any validity we must necessarily presume that all people who earn income are made liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax".


Um...ok?



You want to yammer on about how necessary taxing lotteries are, I'm all for that!


You lost me, pal. You seem to have me confused with someone else. This post is a mishmash of responses that make sense and ones that seem from another thread altogether.


If, however, you want me to pretend that liability and the rule of law are irrelevant and have nothing to do with taxation just long enough to go along with you on this notion that I can't possibly earn a million dollars and not be liable for an income tax, you're dreaming, sport.


Who are you responding to here?



Let's say I make a million dollars and clearly you have assessed my liability regarding income taxation, so let's say you're the tax collector. You've come knocking on my door and have presented me with a $500,000 dollar bill and I look at you like you're some insane con artist and I ask you; "What is the subject of this tax?" What's your simple math answer to that question, sport?


Well that is not a math question, SPORT.
How the hell do you expect me to explain the subject of something with math?

Did you read my post and some other posts and get them all confused together in your head?




The law, just like math, is simple. If you are going to ask me to presume with you that I am actually liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax", my answer is no. If you are going to insist that I am liable regardless o what I say, then my answer is; Prove it! Without that proof, your nonsensical math games of earnings and tax rates is meaningless.





Uh cool.
No clue what you are "yammering" on about. Hell, who brought up taxing lotteries?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

LErickson..... you gave up a half million dollars a year for a job that pays 12k....over taxes...... really? Thats incredibly foolish most of us would give our left arm for that opportunity. (im incredibly skeptical... i believe youre trying to make a point)


Unfortunately I thought that was obvious but since no one even flinched at the idea of choosing to live off of 12k a year, I am guessing this thread is not all that in touch with reality save maybe a few posters.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by MidnightTide
My time is better spent just staying at home.....and this is what will happen with those who produce.

Why work so others don't have to.



If you do not have to work, can afford to just sit home, then why are you not doing that now? There are a lot of people that would be happy to earn a paycheck right now. Perhaps all you complaining about the money you earn and threatening to stop earning it should finally make good.


Someone has to work to pay for the rest of you sitting on your asses collecting government checks. I like working to further myself, not the rest of you.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
flag from me... I could say a lot but I will refrain because I will probably get attacked.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


well then all your arguments became moot
as youre not putting your money where your mouth is and have yet to explain how higher taxes would be a deterrent to work more provided youre still making money in excess of your needs.

(and dont kid yourself im sure most people understood you were just talking bs but were too polite to call you on it)
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by LErickson
 


well then all your arguments became moot
as youre not putting your money where your mouth is and have yet to explain how higher taxes would be a deterrent to work more provided youre still making money in excess of your needs.p


So you still did not get my point at all?
My point was pretty much the point you are trying to make here in response.
Do we need special font for this?


(and dont kid yourself im sure most people understood you were just talking bs but were too polite to call you on it)
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


Actually from the responses I got it appears only one person actually understood what I was saying and why but pat yourself on the back for getting it wrong.

Sometimes you need to read the post that is being responded to in order to understand. Maybe that is what you missed.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide
Someone has to work to pay for the rest of you sitting on your asses collecting government checks.


Who the hell are you talking to?


I like working to further myself, not the rest of you.


Bully for you.

Now what is this about me sitting at home collecting government checks?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 

i would rather believe nobody took that seriously and maintain some semblance of sanity....

as long as were on the same page here im good (always healthy to argue even if you agree though so not upset about that ....but yeah silly haha)
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


its hard to tell whos being serious and not

im sorry i associated you with the crazies
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


You can always move to China, that seems to be the ideal place for the free market types.

They can pretend to still believe in market economics.



Plenty of people avaiable to work, low low wages, China seems to confirm the popular economic models.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I paid a good chunk of money last year, about 31k in federal taxes. I'm not bitching about it, but I need to ask a question... how much should it cost to be an American? For some it cost a lot for others it cost nothing...not sure if this is fair either.

I'm for a flat or fair tax system than the huge and cumbersome tax system we have now, but class warfare is a propaganda ploy of the left to get votes. They demonize the upper 10%ers as if they do not pay their fair share, while offering the lower 50%er promises they can never pay for.


Quoted for truth, especially the last sentence.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne
Wow, the ignorance expressed on the first page of this thread is staggering, but this comment deserves a special award for complete and utter cluelessness. The upper 10% of wage earners pay a HIGHER percentage of their income in taxes than anyone else. How do I know? Because I am one, and believe me when I say that the government exacts its pound of flesh from me each and every year without fail. You people seem to think that the upper 10% of wage earners in this country are free-wheeling gazillionaires, but you're totally wrong. Many of you may be in the upper 10% and not even know it. Here's a chart showing the yearly income it takes to land your family in a certain bracket:

Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048


Excellent post. Im somewhere up in the top category too but am by no standards "rich" because of the amount of tax I pay. I wouldnt know anyone who makes $159 000 and considers themselves "rich".



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
This just shows that more money is in the hands of the rich than ever before in history.


So kudos to them, right?




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Well...I think we can pretty much disregard the information as being from a credible source almost immediately given that it comes from a lobbying firm & conservative think tank "study".




Luckily other sources are generously sprinkled throughout the thread, one of them just two posts above yours.



"Dissmisal without eximination is the height of ignorance" - Albert Einstein



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by LErickson
 

i would rather believe nobody took that seriously and maintain some semblance of sanity....


I will stick to my belief that the one person intelligent enough to get the sarcasm and what it meant is more representative of the real world I live in and be thankful for that. You seem to be confusing taking something seriously for something not having a point.


as long as were on the same page here im good (always healthy to argue even if you agree though so not upset about that ....but yeah silly haha)
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


its hard to tell whos being serious and not

im sorry i associated you with the crazies
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


The fact that it was hard for anyone to not see the obvious sarcasm when I say I gave up millions to live so far below the poverty level I can barely see it just to avoid paying taxes scares the hell out of me.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
They went to the right schools and kissed the right people's behinds, ruthlessly stole from everyone they could, and when that wasn't enough, they went to third world countries and engaged in slavery.


The 10% who make a little over $100 000 a year "ruthlessly stole from everyone?".



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Excellent post. Im somewhere up in the top category too but am by no standards "rich" because of the amount of tax I pay. I wouldnt know anyone who makes $159 000 and considers themselves "rich".


What can the rest of us barely getting by on $40,000 a year and paying our fair share of taxes do to help you feel more rich?
Maybe you should take a pay cut if the taxes are such a burden?
I am guessing there is a reason you do not voluntarily make less money.
No?

Trying to paint the poor as somehow benefiting off the hard work of the rich only works when you actively choose to become poor to better your situation. Until you do, nothing you say holds any weight in this matter.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by poet1b
They went to the right schools and kissed the right people's behinds, ruthlessly stole from everyone they could, and when that wasn't enough, they went to third world countries and engaged in slavery.


The 10% who make a little over $100 000 a year "ruthlessly stole from everyone?".


What 10% is that and where did it come from?
Is this just toss out random number day?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Oh blah, Blah, Blah... stop all of the bleeding heart "Woe is us for being rich" crap.

You say that the top 10% are paying 71% of the income taxes.... and that may be true, but it is only half the story.

What percentage of all of the income are they *EARNING*?



Im glad someone posted the data in this thread. The Top 1-10% earn something between 100 000 and 159 000. Not that much actually.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson
What 10% is that and where did it come from?
Is this just toss out random number day?


Funny how they all just ignored this post. I guess political bias filters out whatever isn't convenient.




top topics



 
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join