Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 42
33
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Your Exxon website claims it pays tax related expenses. They don't bother to mention subsidies they receive, and how much the fed govs military expenditure directly supports big oil.

Everybody who pays income taxes subsidizes Exxon.




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Your Exxon website claims it pays tax related expenses. They don't bother to mention subsidies they receive, and how much the fed govs military expenditure directly supports big oil.

Everybody who pays income taxes subsidizes Exxon.



Corporate welfare isn't real welfare because they create jobs, didn't you hear?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Fact of the matter, is 57% of the budget is to be paid by future tax payers, and so Future Tax payers pay most of the taxes, and the top 1% wind up paying less than 7%.

Anyone claims truth is simply, is pulling a con, and your con has been exposed.

What is worse about the tax system is that it taxes us when we are earning the highest amount of money during our life time, reducing our ability to gain wealth from our earnings.

The people in the upper 80-99% are totally screwed over in our current tax system. They pay lots of money into the fed gov and get nothing out.

Exactly why are you so in favor of the middle class subsidizing big corporations and the super rich?
edit on 25-2-2012 by poet1b because: typo



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yes, you are right, I have not created a thread regarding the tax code.


The average attention span on ATS and Internet-Discussion Boards in general would not make the thread a success imo.


Ha ha ha! I had originally written a pithy reply that explained I was tired of seeing "TLDR" in my threads but then thought I would dance around that issue instead. I agree, such a thread would die quickly. My hope is that if I just keep being my pedantic self and repeating over and over again in OPT (Other People Threads) that until people know how it was they became liable to begin with, it is pretty absurd to just hand over the money.

That said, the irony of such a thread would be that anyone who did understand what was being explained would only understand that the tax code cannot be understood. This was Wesley Snipes greatest mistake in my opinion. His defense should have been the truth, which is that he doesn't understand the tax code. That the guy who stupidly advised him to correspond with the IRS (Eddie Ray Khan) in the way Snipes did was also convicted only demonstrates how very little Snipes understood about the tax code.

Had Snipes - from the beginning of his troubles - simply told the truth and declared he did not understand the tax code, and assuming his resistance to paying the tax in question came from the fact that he understood the law, this defense would have been a much stronger defense. Had he had an attorney smart enough to understand this that attorney's opening statement to the jury would have been something like this:

"Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, my client has been charged with "conspiring to defraud the United States", "knowingly making a false or fraudulent claim for payment against the United States" and finally "failure to file federal income tax returns". The simple truth of the matter is this; my client does not understand the tax code, but that's not the only truth here. The truth is, that judge sitting up there doesn't understand the tax code any better than Mr. Snipes does. I surely don't understand the tax code, and the prosecution? I guarantee you they do not understand the tax code any more than any of you on the jury understand the tax code, and let's be honest here, not a single one of you in this jury understand the tax code. We will prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is true; that no one- absolutely no one - understands the tax code.

"The federal government has brought you here to determine the innocence or guilt of Mr. Snipes. You, the members of the jury are expected to look at the law and determine whether or not Mr. Snipes knowingly disobeyed that law. Good luck with that. As you will see throughout this trial, the tax collectors and prosecution, and to some degree the judge, will operate under all kinds of assumptions, but once forced to support their contentions the best anyone of them can do is point to the very narrow scope of case law, or worse, point to the absurdly tautological game of semantics of the tax code in a hopeless attempt to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Mr. Snipes is indeed subject to this strange five volume set with millions of words tax code. The prosecution will dramatically failing in proving anything other than they don't understand the tax code they are using to prosecute my client, the defendant, Mr. Snipes.

"If Mr. Snipes doesn't understand the tax code, and if I don't understand the tax code, nor the judge, prosecutors and tax collectors understand the tax code, and finally, if you the jury don't understand the tax code, how can you determine any other fact about Mr Snipes innocence or guilt than he is not guilty? Who among you would actually convict this man for not understanding the tax code? No, ladies and gentleman of the jury, the federal government doesn't want you to convict Mr. Snipes for not understanding the tax code, they want you to convict him because he had the audacity of actually reading the tax code and attempting to understand it.

"No one of demonstrably reasonable intelligence can be held liable or subject to any act of legislation that is impossible to understand, that is the law, and under the law, the only reasonable verdict here would be to acquit my client, the defendant, Mr. Snipes of all charges."

edit on 25-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Well since I can't even begin to figure out how to break the IRS numbers down, I just googled the thread title and it appears that a few other sites, including non-partisan and left-leaning sites agree with the statement. I can accept that. However before anyone starts dancing I would like to say that there's nothing to dance about. Some in this thread are still being snowed and buying into some damaging rhetoric.

If the top 10% income bracket is 113K...that points to huge valley's between income earners on both ends of the scale, which leaves the middle class shouldering nearly the whole burden of our National Budget and our children and their children shouldering the entire burden of the our National Debt and the working poor like a step above being actual slaves and the non-working poor just seem to exist in politics only as scapegoats for both parties with the dems using them to draw on sympathy and the GOP using them to scorn everyone below the top 10%.

It's time to fix it.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
If the top 10% income bracket is 113K.


It is not. It is not even close. Skyfloating has no idea what the information she posted means. She got this little part wrong 3 different times.

Who in this thread believes the highest wage in the US tops out at 113k?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


Top 10% is from there up

ETA: This is not meant to be a slam. Your post is typical of the problem here where so many things that just aren't true get by. Since so many don't believe what has been shown I'll ask you, What does top 10% mean? How IS it determined?
edit on 25-2-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: ETA



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


I meant starting and it's the truth, that wasn't ever in question I didn't think.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 



What does top 10% mean? How IS it determined?


That has been the question I have been answering since I start posting here to slam this blatant propaganda.

All but about .01% of the to 10% have revenues that place them in the top 10% for a few decades in their lives. From the first time they have jobs, possibly from the time they first started earning interest in an account opened in their name by the only definition we can find of an income earner, they are counted as income earners.

Most likely they will not earn a high enough income to break the top ten until they are in their thirties. There is a big question on how many of them remain in the top 10% until they retire. After they retire chance are high the most of them may fall down into the bottom fifty percent, dependent on how they manage their money.

At the best, most of the top 10% of income earners spend less than half their lives in that bracket, probably a majority of them only for a few years.

Most of the people in the top 90 to 99.9 percent of earners pay way too much in taxes, depending on how they earn their income.

It is the people in the top .1% who are underpaying.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




Fact of the matter, is 57% of the budget is to be paid by future tax payers, and so Future Tax payers pay most of the taxes, and the top 1% wind up paying less than 7%.

You got a link? Those numbers are bogus.



Anyone claims truth is simply, is pulling a con, and your con has been exposed.

Could you reword or explain this. As written, it does not make sense.



What is worse about the tax system is that it taxes us when we are earning the highest amount of money during our life time, reducing our ability to gain wealth from our earnings.

Should we only be taxed when earning the least amount of money? Perplexing.



The people in the upper 80-99% are totally screwed over in our current tax system. They pay lots of money into the fed gov and get nothing out.

I know people that disagree. Could you please verify this contention to help me convince them?



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You may have good intentions but factually you are confused. You just replied to the question of what does top 10% mean with no answer. With regard to the OP, the topic, the main subject of top 10% of income earners pay 71% of federal income tax there is NO OPINION involved. It is a verified, factual statistic whether one accepts it or not. Total federal income tax paid is a fact. Number of federal income tax returns filed is a fact. 10% is a real number determined by dividing the total number of returns by 10. It's not bogus, it's not opinion. That's why I asked you multiple times to answer the question regarding kids with savings accounts and filing a separate return. No return, no factor in the percentages. Yes this is only federal income tax in this stat and there are other taxes to consider when talking about the big picture but you do no good trying to diminish the value of this statistic. 10% of tax returns account for about 45% of income which pays about 70% of all income tax collected. Your attempts to discredit this information work against your apparent goal. The people, the families that are in the bottom 50% of income earners nationally are in bad financial shape. Recognize that, not dismiss it. Hate the rich, the rich are evil attitudes do no good. Recognize the situation as it is and do something constructive. Consider lowering taxes to reduce the "need" for public assistance. The Constitution clearly states "PROVIDE for the common defense" and "PROMOTE the general welfare". That turned into provide for the general welfare. In the end, taxes aren't about revenue as much as they are about control anyway. If fair revenue generation was more important than control we'd have a national sales tax instead that would tax equally and without having to be all up in everyone's business to begin with.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by LErickson
 


I meant starting and it's the truth, that wasn't ever in question I didn't think.


Starting at and existing in are two very different animals and only one is true.
One statement claims no one makes over 150 grand a year (the line the OP is trying to push). That is not even close to true.
edit on 26-2-2012 by LErickson because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 



Starting at and existing in are two very different animals and only one is true.


We ARE talking about a tax bracket. Look at what has happened here. Kali said



If the top 10% income bracket is 113K


For some reason you replied with



It is not. It is not even close. Skyfloating has no idea what the information she posted means. She got this little part wrong 3 different times.Who in this thread believes the highest wage in the US tops out at 113k?


I think most people realize the fact that it means 113k and up, not top out at 113k. Similarly top 1% means about 380k and up. Any "top" % bracket refers to the lower limit not the top limit. Think about it.



Starting at and existing in are two very different animals and only one is true.


Not really. A top bracket defines the starting point in which the numbers being bracketed exist.



One statement claims no one makes over 150 grand a year (the line the OP is trying to push). That is not even close to true.


Do you mean this one?



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


I pointed that out to her and she replied



Alright, I hereby correct my statement to "The top 10% make 113000 and up".

Any questions?



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Look up the U.S. 2011 Fed Budget, and stop being lazy, and demanding I do all the work. 2.3T budget, 1.3T deficit. Do the math. Those numbers are right.

Clearly from this last post, you are here to whine about how the rich are over taxed, and screw everyone else.

The idea that all the people in the top 80-99% of income earners might be over taxed is not something you want to entertain.

In your desire to demand everyone look at things in your simplistic view point, any facts that are outside of that simplistic view point, you refuse to recognize, even when the evidence is provided that proves your claims wrong.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 
if you consider the hidden wealth but they are still paying the same amount then the percent they are paying goes down.

I assure you their income is as equally higher than ours as their wealth is, I was referring to taxes all around.
edit on 26-2-2012 by Laced713 because: additional comment



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Laced713
 


It's about the % of total income tax paid. Not the % of their own income. Your math is wrong, that's all I'm saying to you. Nobody can know what you mean if you say something else.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Had he had an attorney smart enough to understand this that attorney's opening statement to the jury would have been something like this:


Not guilty!

When I unintentionally miscalculate my taxes I want you as my attorney.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Look up the U.S. 2011 Fed Budget, and stop being lazy, and demanding I do all the work. 2.3T budget, 1.3T deficit. Do the math. Those numbers are right.

Clearly from this last post, you are here to whine about how the rich are over taxed, and screw everyone else.

The idea that all the people in the top 80-99% of income earners might be over taxed is not something you want to entertain.

In your desire to demand everyone look at things in your simplistic view point, any facts that are outside of that simplistic view point, you refuse to recognize, even when the evidence is provided that proves your claims wrong.



It's not lazy to have someone substantiate claims. It is lazy on your part to make up numbers and say "they're right". How is it that the top 1% pay 7%? Prove that and explain what it means and I'll agree with you.

Do you even READ what I've written? Have you read my last post last night? I have NEVER said the rich are overtaxed. That is an OUTRIGHT LIE! Can you read with comprehension? Seriously!

What is with an 80-99% category? I'm much more concerned with the bottom up to at least 50% with concern lowering as income rises from there. You don't know me and you don't read what I write.

I recognize facts as facts even if they are irrelevant to the main issue. Do you understand the difference between factual and relevant?

So again, how is top 10% determined with respect to this topic?





new topics




 
33
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join