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: 32
33
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Kali74
 


Great screen grab. On the top it says

"The Top 10 percent of income earners paid 71% of federal Income Tax."

The truth shall set you free.

The rich are making lots of money and they are paying their - fair share - in taxes.

What are you nitpicking about?


----------
If you think that headline is bogus, go tell Media Matters. They might offer

you a job. This could be your first big scoop!

- A scandal was discovered on the ATS messageboard today.-


Why are you defending the rich???

As opposed to defending the middle class or the poor???


This is important. The rich are the capitalists.

They start up companies and grow the economy.

Growing the economy is a good thing.

We want the private sector to grow the economy not the government.
-----
It comes down to a simple question.

Are you a capitalist or an anticapitalist?

Think long. Think hard. Make your choice.


How about the people who spend their money with the company, which is where the money
comes from in the first place?

Are you anti capitalist?

How are companies going to survive if people do not have money to spend with the companies?


Think long. Think hard. Make your choice.



Use General Electric as an example.

How are companies going to survive if people do not have money to spend with GE?

What does that mean?

seriously that was a terrible example
they got bailed out
and on top of that you fail to understand the situation presented instead of understanding it as how are companies going to survive if their own employees cant afford the product you somehow got???

something about companies failing if money isnt spent on ge....?

i dont even know
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: add quote


reading comprehension is our friend
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


They get Corporate Welfare, they'll be just fine.


GE will be fine?

The GE employees will be fine?

I think they will both prosper.$$$

Capitalism is the best path for prosperity. Think about it.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Laokin
Are you for or against the super rich?

Cuz I'm against them.



Im not "against" anybody, including the poor and rich. Live and let live.




I wasn't asking you, but it seems to me you don't understand the mantra "live and let live."

It means to not interfere with others as you would have them not interfere with you.

The super-rich are interfering with our lives purposefully, so they aren't living to let live, they are living to live their own lives as fat as possible.


Live and let live equates to turn the other cheek -- however, how often in practice does turning the other cheek work?

It's a great practice if you like to get beat up. That's about it.



Personally, I've got two black eyes with no cheeks left to turn.

I.E.

I'm broke because of class disparity, not because of education or ambition.

It's lack of opportunity, and with opportunity, there lacks upward mobility, which is being removed by the top class. 1%.


Often times you have to be the one who is having the problem to realize it exists.

With that said, I've officially retired from this thread.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Kali74
 


I understand that this is confusing but if no one can directly refute this info



The top 10% earned 45.77% of the income, but paid 69.94% of all income taxes.


then it's clear that as a whole the top 10% pay a disproportionately high amount of the total income tax collected.


Clearly, the Top 10% pay more than their fair share.

So much for class warfare. What do we do now?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I did directly refute it here.



Equals about $577,329,590 from the 5% to the 28% tax rates (minus capital gains, I added those to the 28% and up) and about $483,086,092 from the 28% and up group (including all Capital Gains).


Does $483,086,092 = 71% of 1,061,283,363? No.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


just a question
i dont mean to be insulting im honestly just curious
do you view this as a game and you really just enjoy arguing positions that are incredibly disadvantageous so you can bask in the glory of what you think of as a win in an incredibly handicapped position thus proving your superiority?

again not trying to insult or insinuate this is the case if it isnt i would just really like to know
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Please understand what I'm saying here. You have presented an argument of apparent contradiction without direct refutation.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
reply to post by peck420
 

When I say "Uber-rich" I mean the ones that own this country and benefit from how it currently is run. Not the 2 - 10%, the 1 - .01%.


I know exactly who you were referring too.

The problem is that there is only around $9.759 Trillion dollars in circulation.

Debt is $15 Trillion + at current (and $117 Trillion + unfunded).

The US Government would have to start liquidating citizens assets to cover all of the debt. And, the 'uber-rich' don't have enough assets inside the US to cover the shortfall.

Not to mention that all of the liquidation would have to be to foreigners (or at least in foreign funds).

The path that the Government is on will lead to a wholesale of the US...and may not cover all obligations. There is NO way to tax yourself out of this, there must be expenditure cuts involved.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


Well, at least the good graces to admit you're clueless. Of course, as an admitted clueless one it was rather disingenuous to suggest I missed your point. You obviously missed the point that I got your point but since it was my time being valued, your input on the value of my time was unsolicited. Neither you, nor anyone else has the right to impose some aggregate or collective need on anyone regarding how they value their time.

Here is the thing, you did spend an awful lot of time presenting yourself as the "simple math" police, then when I give you a simple problem, you foolishly declare it is not a math problem. Arguably all problems are math problems, but let's just focus on the problem at hand.

I asked you what the subject of the tax you keep yammering on about is. This is most assuredly a math problem, and like any math problem it you want to make sure you carefully read the problem underlining all clue words, comparing it against similar problems so that you may ask yourself what it is you need to discover, what facts you have now, and how this will help you device a strategy to solving your problem. Next you develop your strategy to solve the problem. Once you solve your problem you are finally left with the most crucial part of the equation, which requires at least a modicum of critical thought, and that is reflection upon the solution you came up to for the problem.

Did your solution answer the question to the problem? Does it seem probable? These are all mathematical problem solving tools, and simple math.

Instead of foolishly declaring that you were not given a math problem you probably would have come off looking smarter if you begged off the "simple math" criticisms and admitted you're not much for math yourself. Instead, you dismissed the problem and incorrectly declared it "not a math problem".

Here is the deal, you knew before I am telling you now that the obvious solution to the problem you were given was to turn to the tax code and try to find the necessary data that would help you solve the data, you just didn't want to go down that road, and instead of being honest, you made the mistake of dismissing the problem as "not a math problem"...sport.

Any fool can pay taxes without question or concern. Hell, it doesn't really even take much critical thought to realize that with every tax comes a subject to that tax. It may take much more critical thought than any fool who pays taxes without question or concern will show to determine that before we can begin discussing tax rates, wages, and earnings, it is most prudent to begin by knowing the subject of the tax. Anyone who knows simple math knows full well the problem with trying to find a solution to a problem without having any basis by which to begin. You cannot determine the sum total of an addition problem if you do not have numbers to add up. You cannot determine the sum total of a multiplication problem without any numbers to multiply to begin with.

To begin with, in regards to taxation, there is a subject to the tax in question. It is imperative we know this subject before yammering on about "simple math" regarding sum totals. Without knowing the subject to this tax all your yammering just doesn't add up.

Can't be bothered to waste your time to find what probably cannot be found in the tax code? I don't blame you, but entrenching yourself in stupidity rather than admit this is just stupid on top of stupid. Do you know what stupid on top of stupid adds up to?




edit on 23-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


just a question
i dont mean to be insulting im honestly just curious
do you view this as a game and you really just enjoy arguing positions that are incredibly disadvantageous so you can bask in the glory of what you think of as a win in an incredibly handicapped position thus proving your superiority?

again not trying to insult or insinuate this is the case if it isnt i would just really like to know
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


The class warfare is a game currently being played out by Team Obama.

I'm sure you have heard the Obama clips.

Fair share - fair shot - fair whatever.....apparently it polls well.
------
This thread blows a hole in the idea that the Top 10% of income earners do not

pay their - fair share-.

It turns out that the Top 10% of income earners do in fact pay more than

their fair share. Liberals who read this thread are recoiling in disbelief and

confusion. They are twisting themselves into knots trying to disprove the

Heritage Foundation headline. It's very entertaining.

The truth is simple. Always remember that.

edit on 23-2-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


I think the PIE chart says it all. 92% of the money is earned by the wealthy, but yet they are only paying 71% of the income. IMO they got a nice tax break.

I have always thought that rich people pay more tax per dollar.
Poor people pay more tax if you base if you base it on percentage.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


ok so youre one of those types
im sorry we both wasted our time
i wish you the best of luck in the coming months



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
reply to post by peck420
 

When I say "Uber-rich" I mean the ones that own this country and benefit from how it currently is run. Not the 2 - 10%, the 1 - .01%.


I know exactly who you were referring too.

The problem is that there is only around $9.759 Trillion dollars in circulation.

Debt is $15 Trillion + at current (and $117 Trillion + unfunded).

The US Government would have to start liquidating citizens assets to cover all of the debt. And, the 'uber-rich' don't have enough assets inside the US to cover the shortfall.

Not to mention that all of the liquidation would have to be to foreigners (or at least in foreign funds).

The path that the Government is on will lead to a wholesale of the US...and may not cover all obligations. There is NO way to tax yourself out of this, there must be expenditure cuts involved.


This is turning into a constructive thread.

There must be expenditure cuts. Okay where?




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 

I have always thought that rich people pay more tax per dollar.
Poor people pay more tax if you base if you base it on percentage.


Rich people do pay more tax per dollar earned.

But, they also have the ability to capitalise on significantly more shelters than the poor can.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
This is turning into a constructive thread.

There must be expenditure cuts. Okay where?



That is a question that Americans must answer.

I know exactly where I would make cuts, but those would be cuts from a Canadian perspective, based around Canadian needs, so not of true value to Americans.

I also know where I would increase and decrease taxes (yes!), but again, from a Canadian perspective.
edit on 23-2-2012 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


ok so youre one of those types
im sorry we both wasted our time
i wish you the best of luck in the coming months


Fair enough.

Lets end on a positive note.

In the United States i see a very bright future.

All we have to do is reduce the unemployment rate down to less than 4%.

We can get there from here.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


good deal (everybody can agree on that)
one last question though
what do you think of that corporate income tax amounting to less than 300billion?
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Sorry, I guess I don't understand what you're saying exactly. The source in the OP claims the top 10% pay 71% of the federal taxes. I think I've shown that they don't, using the same source...2006 IRS data. That seems more than a contradiction to me.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Oh, i heard about Canada. You were in a recession but no longer.

You found oil. Lots of oil around Alberta is creating an economic boom in Canada.


Sorry about the Keystone Pipeline. We tried but failed to get Obama to give it a green

light. Obama will catch hell when unleaded gasoline hits $7 a gallon in Florida.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


good deal (everybody can agree on that)
one last question though
what do you think of that corporate income tax amounting to less than 300billion?
edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)


The IRS tax code is full of holes put there by the lobbyists on K Street.

General Electric has a large army of tax attorneys that have successfully gamed the system.

We need to rewrite the whole system.

The Herman Cain 9 - 9 - 9 idea was a good start. We have to start someplace.

Start there.




top topics



 
33
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join