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: 39
33
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Children don't have to file taxes to be considered income earners subject to tax.

Would they not have to file a separate return in order to have an effect on the total number of returns from which "top 10%" is derived? This is one of the reasons I asked you specific questions that you chose to avoid. Can you answer that question?

ETA: Remember top 10% is based on AGI. To have AGI you must file a return.
Kiplingers
Are they bogus too?
edit on 24-2-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: ETA




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


If that were true the IRS would have recorded 311,591,917 tax returns in 2011.

That is the population of the United States.

The filed 150million or so returns.

Which falls right in line with the US's total labour force minus those in the labour force that made no income at all.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




It is really sad when large number of people have become convinced that greed is good.

Doing whatever to get what you want should not be considered a good thing.


What is really sad is when people can't admit that the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax collected. What's the problem with that? It's sad that you equate conceding that fact with being convinced that greed is good. Greed is evil and so is envy. At least greed involves some effort where E = G/L. Envy equals greed divided (diminished) by lazy. All three are evil. How do any of you "rich haters" expect to get anywhere denying obvious facts. Acknowledging the truth of the matter should be the first step toward any resolution of this massively inequitable "distribution" of income. How we've come to this point is for another thread. If someone starts it I'll see you there.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
What is really sad is when people can't admit that the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax collected.


Why is it that none of you can show that in 39 pages without trying to muck it up? Refer directly to the OP who tries to use that to claim they are paying over 50% of their worth.
edit on 24-2-2012 by LErickson because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
What is really sad is when people can't admit that the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax collected.


Why is it that none of you can show that in 39 pages without trying to muck it up? Refer directly to the OP who tries to use that to claim they are paying over 50% of their worth.
edit on 24-2-2012 by LErickson because: (no reason given)


It has been clearly shown many times, many ways. Who is trying to muck it up? What do you mean? I've read the OP, don't see the paying over 50% of their worth thing. Could you post a quote to show that. There's over 38 pages here, mostly just an opinion hydrant with a few facts. I would like to see that quote as I couldn't let a claim like that go unchecked.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





What is reported as tax returns is all taxable incomes. I provided a link with that info, see above. Children don't have to file taxes to be considered income earners subject to tax. Their income is report by the banks.


Poet my brother, that link you provided was from the IRS. The IRS only has jurisdiction over "taxpayers" so anything they state on their website is in regards to "taxpayers". You are correct that what is reported upon a "valid tax return" is "taxable income" because that is what the tax has been imposed upon: Taxable Income:


26 USC § 1 - Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—


~26 USC Section 1 (In Part)~

The question now becomes; what is taxable income?


26 USC § 63 - Taxable income defined

(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions

In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—


www.law.cornell.edu...

So, depending upon how one is filing, "taxable income" means either "gross income" or "adjusted gross income", but now we are not only left with the question of what these two new terms mean, we are also left with the question of why "taxable income" seems to be only in regard to those filing? If one wants to know if they are liable, wouldn't they turn to Section 1 that clearly states "tax imposed" to find out? Yet, doesn't section 1 and the subsequent definition only seem to be in regards to people who have all ready been made liable? If one is not all ready liable, why would they be filing?

That question notwithstanding, let's look at "gross income" defined:


(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:


~26 USC Section 61 (In Part)

What follows is an itemization of 15 various opportunities of earning income. Now, most people who have bothered to look at the actual tax code (which generally means "tax attorneys" and "tax accountants" and "tax collectors") will insist that Section 61 of the tax code is what makes "everyone who earns income" liable for this tax, but that is demonstrably not so, since Section 61 is simply a definition of what "taxable income" means.

Insisting that the definition of the word "taxable income" is the same section that imposed a tax is tantamount to arguing that horses are large hoofed mammals therefore all large hoofed mammals are horses. Thus, for the purposes of filing all zebras, elephants and gazelles will be known as "horses". For the purposes of who is liable for this tax, however, we will not call them "horses". So what do we call them? Let's first look at "gross income" defined


(a) General rule For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions:

(1) Trade and business deductions The deductions allowed by this chapter (other than by part VII of this subchapter) which are attributable to a trade or business carried on by the taxpayer, if such trade or business does not consist of the performance of services by the taxpayer as an employee.


(In Part Emphasis Added)

Nope, not a horse, but rather a "taxpayer":


(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


So, there you have it! Pretty easy to understand, no? First, to determine liability, you turn to Section 1 that tells you a tax is imposed upon "taxable income", then we discover that this means either "gross income'" or "adjusted gross income", and through this we discover that people who earn "gross" or "adjusted gross income" are "taxpayers"...wait...who's on first? That's right. Who's on first? Yes. What's the name of the guy on first? Oh, he's on second.

What's a horse? A horse is horse, of course of course!



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
If anything, even if we ended up paying the same in taxes, I would love to see the flat tax system...you made xxx gross you pay 5%, you made xxx gross you pay 10% and so on. At least this way EVERTHING would be simple and above the board in who paid or didn't pay. But then about 1/2 a million unemployment would be added with all the people not needed anymore in the tax business.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



What's the name of the guy on first?


It's half man, half bear and half pig. Is that so hard to understand?

What's a topic for anyway. Resume quilting.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



What's the name of the guy on first?


It's half man, half bear and half pig. Is that so hard to understand?

What's a topic for anyway. Resume quilting.


Are you suggesting that actually looking at the actual statutes regarding "income tax" in a thread titled: The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax" is off topic?



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Are you suggesting that actually looking at the actual statutes regarding "income tax" in a thread titled: The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax" is off topic?


That would be crazy to suggest. It's every bit as topical as blueberries are to the topic of blueballs.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Are you suggesting that actually looking at the actual statutes regarding "income tax" in a thread titled: The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax" is off topic?


That would be crazy to suggest. It's every bit as topical as blueberries are to the topic of blueballs.


Sure, who needs to actually know the facts of this so called "income tax", isn't it just a whole lot more fun engaging in class warfare? Let's just ignore the "income earners" and "federal income tax" portion of the title and O.P. and just focus on the "top 10%" and all have a class warfare instead and say stupid things like there is no relation between the actual tax code, liability, and how much the top 10% should be paying.

God forbid people act reasonably and understand the importance of what the legislation actually say's. It is just to richly fun to have a mindless argument on "fair" tax.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
It has been clearly shown many times, many ways. Who is trying to muck it up?


Well many but the OP is the main offender.


What do you mean? I've read the OP, don't see the paying over 50% of their worth thing. Could you post a quote to show that.


Yes I can.


There's over 38 pages here, mostly just an opinion hydrant with a few facts. I would like to see that quote as I couldn't let a claim like that go unchecked.


Are you even reading any of the OP's posts? That is her main theme in this thread. It starts in post 1.
I have a pile of quotes for you but first let me ask something.
Everyone seems to have retreated to their own reality in this thread. Before I even bother to pretend reality is reality again only to be told I said things I did not because someone wants to discuss liability over say moral obligation, duty to country, etc. when that caveat only exists within that argument itself anyway or some other such nonsense.
So.
If 15% of my income is taxed and 30% of your income is taxed, which one of us is being taxed more?]/i]



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm glad this got me to look at your threads as I'll be sure to read through many of them. BUT I didn't notice a thread on this subect of tremendous passion for you. I'm interested in a complete, coherent version of your argument however that would require a substantial focus detracting from the current attempt to deal with this current mess. Then again that's up to you and the mods, not me. It's very difficult to assess your info amongst the crossfire.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm glad this got me to look at your threads as I'll be sure to read through many of them. BUT I didn't notice a thread on this subect of tremendous passion for you. I'm interested in a complete, coherent version of your argument however that would require a substantial focus detracting from the current attempt to deal with this current mess. Then again that's up to you and the mods, not me. It's very difficult to assess your info amongst the crossfire.


Yes, you are right, I have not created a thread regarding the tax code. I also understand it is difficult to understand what I am saying in between all this crossfire in this thread. However, even if I created a thread on the tax code, it still remains as I originally stated in this thread that no one - absolutely no one - understands the tax code.

There is a thread, started by the member hotpinkurinalmint who is a tax attorney, where this member presented himself as somewhat of an expert on the tax code. That thread can be found here. You might find it interesting to note that his confidence in expertise began to wane as the thread went on. You will also note that it took that tax "expert" only a few replies before he got agitated and accused me of being "picky with semantics". Hotpinkurinalmint was and remains a reasonable person who at all times maintained civility and I like this guy very much, but with respect to him, he failed to convince many in that thread that he actually understood the tax code.

I don't understand that tax code any better than anyone else, even if I've taken more time than most to actually understand it. In spite of that, creating a thread attempting to demonstrate the improbability of anyone understanding the tax code would only die a quick death for lack of interest. As you can see by the play this thread is getting, people are much more interested in pretending they understand so they can then use this pretense to justify their bias on class warfare. I do not believe this was the intent of the O.P. and I believe her intentions were pure and noble, which was to get a better understanding of where people stand on this, but after all these pages in this thread, it is clear that most people firmly stand in favor of the "income tax" as it is being interpreted now by all those who've never bothered to read the tax code to begin with to justify this interpretation.

So, this is why I've never bothered to create a thread on the absurd language of the tax code.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 





If 15% of my income is taxed and 30% of your income is taxed, which one of us is being taxed more?

As a tax rate of course 30% is more than 15% however, depending on the incomes if different, obviously 15% could be more money. Also 15% can "hurt" one income level much more than 50% might "hurt" a higher income level. You know that "more" is relative here. That's not right or wrong, it just is what it is.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


My only objection to abolishing the current code is that I shudder to think of what they would replace it with. They're gonna get their money, often times in spite of diminishing returns.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I have a general question for the thread.
What do you think of a self proclaimed rich person who extols the virtues of being poor, suggesting the poor have it better off than the rich, all while choosing to remain rich?
Please anyone feel free to answer.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


My only objection to abolishing the current code is that I shudder to think of what they would replace it with. They're gonna get their money, often times in spite of diminishing returns.


I suspect that the code is what it is because as it is it remains harmonious with peoples perception of the 16th Amendment. Most people tend to assume many erroneous things about that Amendment - including the group that claims it was not properly ratified - including the assumption that this Amendment gave Congress the power to tax "on" income, the assumption that direct taxes on income were "relieved" of the rule of apportionment by this Amendment, and with that assumption comes the presumption that Congress can just willy nilly "relive" themselves of Constitutional restraint through the Amendment process.

The Supreme Court settled long ago, in Brushaber v Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining that the 16th Amendment did not grant Congress any new power of taxation, and correctly pointed out that Congress not only had the power to lay and collect taxes - whatever source derived - "on" income without apportionment and without regard to any census or enumeration, they had this power from the beginning and that they had all ready successfully passed and later repealed an income tax during the Civil War. Chief Justice White of the Supreme Court, in both rulings, made it clear that Congress always had the power to tax indirectly "on" income - from whatever source derived - without being forced to apply the rule of apportionment because the rule of apportionment is in regards to direct taxes only.

The 16th Amendment never granted Congress any new power of taxation, nor did it place any new burden on the people, but instead took "income" taxation out of the category of direct taxation and put in the category of indirect taxation where all income taxes inherently belong anyway. The 16th Amendment as written remains perfectly harmonious with the Constitution and the tax code as written does the same. As applied, however, is an entirely different matter.


edit on 24-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by LErickson
 





If 15% of my income is taxed and 30% of your income is taxed, which one of us is being taxed more?

As a tax rate of course 30% is more than 15% however, depending on the incomes if different, obviously 15% could be more money.


DONT PLAY GAMES. YOU KNOW WHAT I ASKED!!!!!

I did not ask which could be more actual dollars.

I said who is being taxed more.


Also 15% can "hurt" one income level much more than 50% might "hurt" a higher income level. You know that "more" is relative here. That's not right or wrong, it just is what it is.


No, more is not relative. Fair is relative. More is a higher number of. More is defined. It does not change.

Now try again.
Who is being taxed more?

This is a simple question and you are smart enough to stop answering like a politician.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


I'd have to feel some amount of pity for such a person as they probably suffer from low self esteem causing them to feel unworthy of delighting in the joys of poverty. It could also be they're full of it.




top topics



 
33
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join