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

reply to post by LErickson


Stop being so disingenuous! You clearly thought to use sarcasm as a way to lecture me on what you seemed to think was an attitude that I don't want to work more hours because it would put me in a higher tax bracket. This stupid assumption of yours had to necessarily be based on a presumption of liability when you so foolishly thought to lecture me. Your nonsense means nothing to one who is not liable so that nonsense is only in regards to people who are liable. Lies of omission are still lies.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Can you imagine if a suspect for murder was required "by law" to supply all the evidence necessary to convict him, and if he fails to supply this evidence then he will be convicted of "evasion" or "failure to comply"?

Can you imagine if a suspect for theft was required "by law" to confess their crime and if they "fail' to do so they will be convicted of "failure to confess"?

How often have I heard this argument.




Just as Criminal law is not Civil Law. And Civil Law is not the same as Contract Law;


Tax Law Is NOT the same as Criminal Law.


No matter how much anyone may want to argue that it should be, It Isn't. Sorry.



In your example, a suspect being held for murder would, of course be held under Criminal law; and, in the U.S., a person suspect of violating criminal law is not required to to provide evidence of his suspected guilt.

Or his actual guilt, if he be guilty.

There is the presumption of innocence as provided under the Constitution (or at least there was, until the PATRIOT Acts were passed into law).


But, generally under tax law, you are required to provide the documents necessary to prove your income ( or proof of expenses eliminating your income).


I find it telling, that inherent in the example you've provided is an assumption of guilt; to whit you posit "...all the evidence necessary to convict (emphasis mine)".

Why are you not presuming innocence?

One "confesses" to wrong-doing.

If one is merely providing verification of facts, that can hardly be constued as a confession, can it?

The tax law only requires that the truth be provided and that all claims be substantiated.

Would you have people refuse to provide truthful statements, or substatiate the basis of any claims they might make?

All things (in this case, all forms of law) being equal, how would this work in say, a criminal law case?

Would you accept as a standard for conviction of a criminal offense, the simple assertion that a suspect had committed the crime?


You do realize that this is exactly the same quandry the representatives of the various state and federal tax agencies face? Ironic that you seem to be making their arguement for requiring the very documents you object to providing for them!


In reality, the income and expense documents required are required merely to verify the accuracy of the information being reported.

It is assumed that the information being reported is "complete and correct to the best of your knowledge"; that you are not guilty of anything like "failure to comply" and/or "evasion".



As President Reagan once quoted the old Russian proverb; "Trust, but Verify."

reply to post by Bhadhidar


If someone is actually subject to the tax laws, then under those codes they may be required to provide records, receipts and documents...if they are liable. If someone is not subject to the applicable revenue laws they have no obligation to supply a thing. If someone is challenging the jurisdiction and demanding the tax collection agency show on record how it was they became liable for the tax to begin with, that challenge must be met properly. If someone is dragged into a criminal court for "tax evasion" or some other perceived offense to the tax collectors, then the matter becomes a criminal case.

Wesley Snipes did not have "tax attorneys" arguing his defense. He had criminal lawyers representing him.

If, after challenge of jurisdiction, the tax collection agency produces on record "valid tax returns" signed under penalty of perjury by that challenger, then this contract is more than enough prima facie evidence to push the trial forward, unless the challenger can produce some compelling argument as to why they had filed "valid tax returns" if they were not liable for the tax.

Edit to Add:

I misspoke when I claimed Wesley Snipes attorney was a criminal defense attorney. His lead counsel is Daniel R. Meecham, his law firm specializes in business law, but of the services this firm provides, tax law is not among them. Dan Meecham is not a tax attorney and when faced with criminal charges over tax liability disputes tax attorneys will be no help to that person, or a person like Wesley Snipes. I should have double checked that fact before posting, but it is late.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by LErickson

 

Stop being so disingenuous!

I have been nothing but sincere from the get go.

You clearly thought to use sarcasm as a way to lecture me on what you seemed to think was an attitude that I don't want to work more hours because it would put me in a higher tax bracket.

Did you finally figure that out or did someone have to send you a hint?

This stupid assumption of yours had to necessarily be based on a presumption of liability when you so foolishly thought to lecture me.

Uh no. I am starting to doubt you know what that word means. I know you are no idiot so this must be game of yours. That is really all you have done here. You lie about me and put words in my mouth. Take that up with people that personally enjoy you.

Your nonsense means nothing to one who is not liable so that nonsense is only in regards to people who are liable. Lies of omission are still lies.

If you understood my post you would have given up this liability line a long time ago. You cannot even explain how you think it should fit in my point but clearly you still do not even get that.

Being disingenuous would include lying about what other posters write, correct?

reply to post by poet1b

Will you admit you have been suckered by this propaganda when I do?

Certainly.

Know anyone with kids who have savings accounts? If you do, ask them if those kids are reported as income earners and receive tax information from those banks, and you will find out that they are included as federal income earners.

Are you claiming that each one filed a separate return? The OP is substantiated based on the number of individual returns in 2010. Have you followed the thread? I'm talking about the topic not the sideshows.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

It seems the numbers are off somewhere and there's something in the mix I don't understand at all but...using the same data as used for the chart i came up with the top 10% paid 45% of federal taxes in 2006. But the IRS' numbers don't add up in places or add up to more than their own totals (at least as far as returns filed, not sure of others) I'm done with the math, I hate math. I think the 71% claim is way off but I haven't been able to prove it.

Anyway most of this thread turned into liberal bashing so, I'm out.

Well, that pretty much sums up this entire thread.

The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of the Federal Tax.

That truth has the OWS crowd shocked and confused. They think the numbers are wrong BUT

they cannot prove it.

Think it through. Do you really think the Heritage Foundation would put out wrong statistics?

They know MSNBC and Media Matters would expose it immediately.

Solution for Heritage Foundation: Just tell the truth.

The Top 10% of income earners are paying more than their fair share.

Beware of Obama - P R O P A G A N D A -.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


First of all, I think I'm the only 'occupy person' in this thread, there's no Occupy crowd here. Second, I think any media outlet is capable of publishing false data in order to support whatever. I still think the chart is way off but I was big enough to admit there's something I don't understand and therefor there's a possibility I'm wrong. You could have been big enough to not pounce on that, but you failed.

ETA I'm very unhappy with Obama so you can take that false association of all liberals and all Occupiers off the table too.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

First of all, I think I'm the only 'occupy person' in this thread, there's no Occupy crowd here. Second, I think any media outlet is capable of publishing false data in order to support whatever. I still think the chart is way off but I was big enough to admit there's something I don't understand and therefor there's a possibility I'm wrong. You could have been big enough to not pounce on that, but you failed.

ETA I'm very unhappy with Obama so you can take that false association of all liberals and all Occupiers off the table too.

edit on 24-2-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

It would take away - credibility - from the Heritage Foundation if they simply dreamed up

bogus numbers. Has the thought occurred to you that maybe....just maybe.... the

Heritage Foundation numbers are correct?



--------
Of course, you would have to admit that you were wrong.

reply to post by Kali74

Second, I think any media outlet is capable of publishing false data in order to support whatever. I still think the chart is way off but I was big enough to admit there's something I don't understand and therefor there's a possibility I'm wrong.

What more do you need to see to realize that your method of calculation was off? Not bashing, just asking.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


I've already said I could be. It simply amazes me how never once in this thread have I bashed the Right or Conservatives or the rich, I just think it sounds off...that's all I've ever said, I did my best to show why and came up short. How small are you to keep attacking when I'm backing down?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


There's no resolution for me, it was my shortcoming and I don't know how to fix that.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I've already said I could be. It simply amazes me how never once in this thread have I bashed the Right or Conservatives or the rich, I just think it sounds off...that's all I've ever said, I did my best to show why and came up short. How small are you to keep attacking when I'm backing down?

I'm simply searching for the truth. That is it.

Your posts/profile show that you have - signed - onto the 99% religion.

I'm trying to set you free.

You deserve better than that.

Don't be a pawn of George Soros.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


I'm only looking for the truth as well.
If I ever need a knight in shining tin-foil armor, I'll let ya know.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

I'm only looking for the truth as well.
If I ever need a knight in shining tin-foil armor, I'll let ya know.

Well, it looks like you found the truth on this thread.

Forward the news to the 99% HQ and advise them to change their tune.

The truth shall set them free from the bonds of anger and resentment towards the

capitalists in charge here in the USA.

reply to post by Kali74


If you're interested then read on. If not then maybe this is for someone else. Look at Schuyler's chart.

100%: 139,960,580 returns paid taxes of $1,031,512mil for 100% AGI for 100% of taxes

Top 10%: 13,996,068 returns paid $721,421mil for 45.77% AGI for 69.94% of taxes

Clear and concise. Remember what Peck420 said about how the money is taxed at different rates? That's why when looking at the info you pulled things didn't add up. Now from yours,

104,164,970 Tax Returns were filed.

At the 10% tax rate (income bracket $0-8,350) 103,255,579 returns were filed

This number includes everyone who goes on to be taxed at a higher rate for income above 8,350.

At the 15% tax rate ($8,350-33,950) 76,240,965 returns were filed

Add the 10% and 15% and you have almost 180,000,000 returns. That can't be right, and it's not because the 76,240,965 returns are included in the 10% bracket already. This cycle continues up through all the rate brackets. Are you with me so far? I hope this can help.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Yes I got that when you pointed it out before which is why I admitted something was flawed on my end. Until I understand why things did not add up correctly and until I pursue (if I choose to) greater understanding of our insanely obscure tax system and am able to see that ANYONE can correctly determine any statistics from the raw data, I won't trust anyone else's claims.

ETA I appreciate you trying to help me understand why it makes sense to you though

reply to post by Kali74

Until I understand why things did not add up correctly

I just showed you why

and until I pursue (if I choose to) greater understanding of our insanely obscure tax system

It's not about an insanely obscure tax system. It's about you declaring good data false on the basis of your admitted lack of understanding as to how to compile your objection.

and am able to see that ANYONE can correctly determine any statistics from the raw data, I won't trust anyone else's claims.

You don't have to trust anyone. It is extremely ignorant however to cry foul because you don't know how it's done. Keep trusting in yourself, the ONE person that you know for sure doesn't know. Does that make sense?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Funny story. The poorer classes can't pay more percentage of taxes overall because they don't have the money. If the poor classes got taxed more, then they would not be able to maintain a home or feed themselves, and then you would see their income disappear completely, which means even less tax revenue. The rich classes always have money to contribute to taxes, and smaller percentages make for a larger gross percentage. It's that simple. The rich are who run the country financially, and while some don't want to admit it, we need them, and we do need them to pay more taxes and build more businesses here, where the people need it.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Why do you care if I believe it or don't? I'm one person. I'm not pushing and saying I was right, because obviously I wasn't at least not in my method. I don't trust bias until I can see it for myself, because bias doesn't always mean wrong but it can sometimes mean untrue. I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm saying I don't feel like it's right and that won't change until I understand how to get the numbers and percentages for myself.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


The banks report the income of everyone who has an account, and that makes them income earners. It has nothing to do with filing by an individual.

From the op source.

www.heritage.org...

The U.S. tax system is highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2006, while the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns with positive adjusted gross income, 43 million total, filed in 2006 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all.

Note the source provides no definition for what it claims are income earners.

The second sentence states that 32% of all tax returns paid no federal income tax. Note the change of language. Clearly there is a distinction between income earners and those who filed tax returns.

Who are these people who pay no taxes? The Heritage foundation fails to identify who these people are. That is because this would expose the article as the blatant propaganda that it is. They are going after school kids, those filing tax returns would be those working after school jobs, and retirees. It is really pathetic.

Take the time to dig through the links provided by the Heritage Foundation and you will find the truth.