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

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
They contribute the most towards the total tax income of the country because they make the most money. They could pay the least in respect to their income and still contribute more than the rest.


A general question: If you have two children and one of them has good grades and the other doesnt, who should be rewarded?




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 


You have again proven how much jealousy is a curse. The only one here who needs to see a doctor of any sorts is you to combat your jealousy problem.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Define "good".

If I believe each of my two children studied as best they could focus, and applied their skills well, screw the number.

Treats for all!

edit on 21-2-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
It is not. 99% of all income is most definitely NOT *earned* by 1% of the population. Propaganda.

YOU are the one who is not well informed. Actually, you have been well informed, but by people who are spreading crappy data. Sounds like info straight from Occupy Wall Street.

I wish I could imbed a chart. Go to www.taxfoundation.org... and scroll down until you get to Table 1. The data is from 2009, but that year, the top 1% paid an effective tax rate of 24% of their income which is the HIGHEST RATE PERCENTAGE-WISE OF ANY INCOME GROUP. Their share of the country's adjusted gross income (AGI) was 16.9%, FAR from the 99% you claim it is.



Thanks for the info. I hear this "99% of the inome is owned by 1% of the population" so often Ive quit questioning it. I guess thats effective brainwashing when you quit questioning SLOGANS.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Paying taxes is not about "fairness," for everyone will define "fair" to their own advantage. It's about getting enough money to run the country. It's also about running the economy to the best advantage. That means, letting people keep more of their money, which creates jobs.

Oh, yes. I can hear it now. "The rich don't create jobs," they just keep their money to themselves.

Wrong. Any money they they have is either spent or kept. If it is kept it is invested. If it is invested, it either goes to companies in the form of stocks or bonds or to banks for CD's. In either case, that money is available for others to expand businessses. If it is spent, the same rule applies. The company that sells the widgets expands. The whole idea here is to grow the economy so that even YOU (yes, you) can get a job. And if you can get a job you can learn enough to get a better job. And if you actually pay attention, you can own the job. Just as one example, 50% of McDonald's franchisee owners started out slinging fries. That's right. they started out at a minimum wage McJob and wound up owning the place.

The problem in this country is that half of us are on some sort of welfare. The takers are about to outnumber the makers, and when that happens, when the takers vote in policies that allow them to take more, there will be no more makers, so we'll all be equally poor. Look at Great Britain for a good example.

Here's how it breaks out, directly from the IRS, 2010 (Oh, I know, they must be lying about this.)
]
100%: 139,960,580 returns paid taxes of $1,031,512mil for 100% AGI for 100% of taxes
Top 1%: 1,399,606 returns paid $392,149mil for 20.70% AGI for 38.02% of taxes
Top 5%: 6,998,029 returns paid $213,569mil for 34.73% AGI for 58.72% share
Top 10%: 13,996,068 returns paid $721,421mil for 45.77% AGI for 69.94% of taxes
Top 25%: 34,990,145 returns paid $890,614mil for 67.38% AGI for 86.34% of taxes
Top 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $1,003,639mil for 87.25% AGI for 97.30% of taxes
Bottom 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $27,783 mil for 12.75% AGI for 2.59% of taxes.

AGI = Adjusted Gross Income. So to put this in story problem form:

The top 1% earned 20.70% of the income, but paid 38.02% of all income taxes.
The top 5% earned 34.73% of the income, but paid 58.72% of all income taxes.
The top 10% earned 45.77% of the income, but paid 69.94% of all income taxes.
The top 25% earned 67.38% of the income, but paid 86.34% of all income taxes.
The top 50% earned 87.25% of the income, but paid 97.30% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% earned 12.75% of the income, but paid 2.59% of all income taxes

Now let’s put that in perspective.

The top 1% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $380,354.
The top 5% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $159,619.
The top 10% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $113,799.
The top 25% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $67,280.
The top 50% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $33,048.
The bottom 50% means your adjusted gross income is below $33,048.
edit on 2/21/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Define "good".

If I believe each of my two children studied as best they could focus, and applied their skills well, screw the number.


Do you not believe in rewarding performance or achievement?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Laokin
 





Punctuation. Periods. Commas.


off topic



Also, you spew baseless statements that are unintelligible and not true.


Personal observations about posters are still of ftopic




The government garnishes the wages of people and straight up steals it's revenue. It's not generated, it's taken.


No kidding as per the thread topic which means 10% of people are getting more taken from them than anyone else.''




The individual wages of the many don't alter the amount of revenue taken by the government, since the government takes it's revenue from everybody.


Straight up lie since the thread op and other sources cite that one group of people get more taken and 50% of Americans have no tax liabilities whatsoever.




If the super rich made less, others would make more... the amount taken by the government would always be the same.


That is laughable




Don't be silly, use your brain.


Appartently people who do not believe in robbing from peter to pay paul aren't using their brain still a personal observation that is still not relevant to the topic being discussing.





Everything is all fine and dandy with your interpretation of money if you assume there is an infinite amount.

There is not.

Money is Finite.

If paul has all the money in the country, how do we pay anybody?

You HAVE to take from Paul to pay Peter, because Paul has it all.

Or do you not get that yet?


I.E.

If I have you over for dinner, and I have all the food, how do you eat?

You don't. You starve, or you take from me.

Being a human being, I'd give you the food to eat, since it's too much for me to consume alone.

Money is no different. Greed absolutely kills people from money starvation.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
on whose backs did they make that money ?

I know 3 top 10%ers, they "work" 25 hours a week and have "their people" handle all of the flak, blowback and day to day work. being available via smartphone on the golf course is not working, lol

it is a pittance for them to pay it

they should pay more



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Define "good".

If I believe each of my two children studied as best they could focus, and applied their skills well, screw the number.


Do you not believe in rewarding performance or achievement?


Define performance and achievement.

Do I believe you should reward over performance or over achievement? No.

Not at all. Why? Because when one person does the work of two, it leaves one without a place to work.

Do I believe you should not reward underachievers and underperformers. Yes. Because when they under perform, they force somebody else to have to over perform.

So how do we fix this problem? It's simple, it already exists. You fire underperfomers.

People should work to a fair set expectation, no more, no less.

Why would I pay one person 1.5 peoples wage to do 2x peoples job?

Why does the person getting paid 1.5 the wage for doing 2x the work feel like he's being rewarded?

He's not, he's being cheated.


Conversely, you have people getting paid 2-3x the wage of a single person for doing nothing. Priorities about what is "fair" are skewed.

I.E.

People haven't a clue what is fair and just, they label fair and just weighted against their personal expectations, which may themselves be unjust to begin with.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Still don't get it you can't take from someone who has nothing here.

That is the reason why there are trillions sitting offshore and trillions will continue to move and stay offshore because people seem to think they are entitled to other peoples cash.

When that buffer zone the evil rich is gone who are they going to come for next?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Define "good".

If I believe each of my two children studied as best they could focus, and applied their skills well, screw the number.


Do you not believe in rewarding performance or achievement?


I'm sorry, but is english your first language?

I mean that with no disrespect, I'm trying to understand how we could honestly miscommunicate to such a great extent.

I was rewarding performance over achievement, and effort over both.

From genuine effort, both may come if possible.

Maybe we should just agree to ...misperceive ?!



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Laokin
 


Still don't get it you can't take from someone who has nothing here.

That is the reason why there are trillions sitting offshore and trillions will continue to move and stay offshore because people seem to think they are entitled to other peoples cash.

When that buffer zone the evil rich is gone who are they going to come for next?



What are you saying?

Are you for or against the super rich?

Cuz I'm against them.

You argue FOR them, even though you seem to be against them.

This is what I mean by your posts are unintelligible. Which is not "off topic" -- it's merely me saying, take your time and read what you write, because if people can't understand what you are attempting to say, you might as well not say anything at all.

Punctuation is key to legibility. Making the observation that you aren't making sense with your words isn't off topic either, nor is it a personal attack against you; it's the truth.

Your posts are unintelligible, borderline illiterate. Take more time, use more effort and maybe we could understand what you are attempting to say.

And you are right, you can't take something from someone who has nothing, but people have nothing because the super rich stole it all.

Hence why you have to bust down the super rich and the only way to do that is to take it back from them.

They hide it in offshore accounts because it's illegal money. They are hiding it, so it can't be taken. Because they know what they are doing, because they are the ones purposefully doing it.

I don't know how you can't see that?
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
I'm sorry, but is english your first language?


You said "treats for all"...but suppose one of the children does not put in the effort. Would it still be treats for all?

I`ll ignore your incessant ad-hominem temper tantrums for now and just try to focus on the issues.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by trust_no_one
so they're paying 71% of federal income tax revenues but i bet they are receiving more than 71% of total income.

sorry in a hurry wasnt able to check if this has been brought up already


Right. Absolutely correct, as has been covered by me and a few other posters in here.


You've brought it up, but it is WRONG. Absolutely wrong. They are most DEFINITELY NOT receiving more than 71% of total income.

In 2009, if we're talking about the top 1%: their share of the country's adjusted gross income (AGI) was 16.9%, and they paid an effective tax rate of 24% of their income which is the HIGHEST RATE PERCENTAGE-WISE OF ANY INCOME GROUP. www.taxfoundation.org... Go down to Table 1 and take a look.

So you can cover it over and over, but you will be wrong every time.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
Yea but your missing out on the loophole. People who have tons of money, invest that money, the money they make on the investment is not considered income and therefore it isn't taxed. Statistics are a tricky thing, and having just one, or without explaining how you got to them, or giving all the data, thet can be incredibly misleading.


I agree that not all of their income is taxed because they are skilled in finding loopholes. Education pays off.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
Money is Finite.


If this is the basis of your ideology, you have already lost.

Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by trust_no_one
so they're paying 71% of federal income tax revenues but i bet they are receiving more than 71% of total income.

sorry in a hurry wasnt able to check if this has been brought up already


Right. Absolutely correct, as has been covered by me and a few other posters in here.


You've brought it up, but it is WRONG. Absolutely wrong. They are most DEFINITELY NOT receiving more than 71% of total income.

In 2009, if we're talking about the top 1%: their share of the country's adjusted gross income (AGI) was 16.9%, and they paid an effective tax rate of 24% of their income which is the HIGHEST RATE PERCENTAGE-WISE OF ANY INCOME GROUP. www.taxfoundation.org... Go down to Table 1 and take a look.

So you can cover it over and over, but you will be wrong every time.



*Sigh*

You are aware that the top 1% pays 0% effective tax?

30 Major Corporations Paid No Income Taxes In The Last Three Years, While Making $160 Billion

Reality says you're wrong. Call me when you wake up.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by unityemissions
I'm sorry, but is english your first language?


You said "treats for all"...but suppose one of the children does not put in the effort. Would it still be treats for all?


I said, IF before "treats for all".

Well to be honest it still depends. Let's say the kid who didn't put too much effort in class is talented in athletics, and just wants to get a basic foundation and through school. I'd allow him to focus his efforts on athletics, and as long as he's not failing, what of it.

Treats for all


If the kid who doesn't perform well academically, also seems to have no drive, I'm going to do my damnedest to remedy the situation. First, by questioning my parenting skills. Second, by wondering if there is another external factor to take into consideration, ie diet, lack of exercise, etc. Kids are naturally motivated to do what they excel at, in my assessment. Perhaps he hasn't found out what he's good at yet? Maybe he needs to explore more? Just lounging around, all other options exhausted on my part?

No treat for you!


I`ll ignore your incessant ad-hominem temper tantrums


It was an honest question. You didn't ignore what you claim to perceive. You seem to be speaking in broken english, and are consistently twisting what I write. Either I got to you, and you're trying to keep your cool but being extrememly passive (unaware) aggressive, else you are honestly not getting what I'm saying. Because it seems to be so clear, and the broken writing, I'm guessing you have language deficits in English.
edit on 21-2-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Yeah its pretty hard to not understand this is a constitutional republic where an attack on any group of Americans is an attack on us all.

Yeah its pretty hard to understand that people should have a problem with mob rule where they dictate how much money their lawful property they can have.

The simple fact that you wouldn't have anyone sticking their hands in your wallet but have no problems doing it to someone else.

That is just so hard to understand.
edit on 21-2-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
.If it's not a lack of understanding in math, then there was a clear agenda with this thread which means you know exactly what you did.

So I'm going to presume you've made a naive mistake, rather than to jump to the conclusion that this thread is part of a conspiracy itself.

However, it can only be one or the other. There is no third option.



You presume that Im either stupid or part of a conspiracy and there is no third option. But there is: I dont really believe that rich people should be taxed disproportionately more because I believe in not punishing success.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join