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

page: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


It might come as a supprise..

But everything i say doesnt apply specificly to you... if your not apart of the problem feel comforted. Im speaking generaly about the broad subject of economic and social equality.


I interpreted the "you" in your reply to be "me." Since you were talking to me.

Whew! Glad the Chinese aren't going to be flying after me in their flying cars after all.




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Hate taxes? Hate Big Government? Then you can move to glorious Somalia and enjoy "freedom" from taxes and government! The nirvana of a libertarian paradise by the sea. Yes you can keep it all in Somalia.

demagogue = "1. a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob" see Grover Norquist

"The government is stealing your money" "Sure you're not rich right now... but if, no, no, WHEN you get rich that will be unfair. No worse than unfair, downright criminal."

The goverment can't do anything right crowd...except the military ofcourse. Yawwwwwwn. Pay up Greedy oinkers.

Figures represent the rates in place at the beginning and ending year of each presidency.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

John F. Kennedy
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 91%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%

Lyndon B. Johnson
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $400,000: 91% - Over $200,000: 75.25%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25% - 26.9%

Richard M. Nixon
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $200,000: 77% - 70%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 27.5% - 36.5%

Gerald R. Ford
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over 200,000: 70%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 36.5% - 39.875%

Jimmy Carter
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $203,200 - $215,400: 70%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 39.875% - 28%

Ronald Reagan
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $215,400: 69.125% - over $29,750: 28%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 20% - 28%

George H.W. Bush
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $30,950: 28% - Over $86,500: 31%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 28% - 28.93%

Bill Clinton
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%

George W. Bush
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $297,350: 39.1% - Over $357,700: 35%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 21.17% - 15.35%

Barack Obama
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%

Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%

ABC News



What pisses me off is that people can't seem to realize that the national debt began

as soon as those rates dropped in the Reagan era. In college courses that would be called

a direct correlation.


Can any of these people explain what this tax strategy has done FOR America???



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


LOL yeah as long as you stay on the straight and narrow im sure youll be safe.

I would start learning to speak chinese though... and spanish.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I think your reading the graph wrong...it shows the 6-10% paid 10.65% in 2006 if the percent was on the left side then it shows that the bottom 50% paid 100% taxes. The top 1% paid the most in 2006 with 39.89%.


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,

So there is no way in earth they paid 70%. Ohhh sorry you was adding them together my bad
edit on 21-2-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-2-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)


If you add up the portion for 6-10%, 2-5%, and 1%, it adds up to 70%. Hover over the bars for each percent range and then add up the portions. The top 10% includes all 3 of those sections.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
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)


An attack on criminals is an attack on all Americans?

What?

We aren't talking about Mariah Carey or Jay-Z rich -- aka millionaire status.

We are talking about Gates/Rockerfeller rich -- aka Billion-Trillionaire status.


Nobody is worth a billion legally. Nobody.


You think that it's okay for one person to scam their way to a billion without paying any retribution. This is the problem with your logic.

If I made my money illegally and hid my true worth through corporations and had my money taken away, it would be just -- even in a constitutional republic.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Can any of these people explain what this tax strategy has done FOR America???


It was an attempt to prevent off shoring.

It didn't work.

Raising the tax rates to those levels won't work now.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Can any of these people explain what this tax strategy has done FOR America???


It was an attempt to prevent off shoring.

It didn't work.

Raising the tax rates to those levels won't work now.




The problem is, NOTHING will work now.

Absolutely nothing.


You can't fix the problem without robbing the rich.

You can't fix the problem without throwing out the overly complicated tax codes.


Doing either of these amounts to civil war and revolution.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
They made the most money, disproportionately might I add. Only makes sense that they pay taxes disproportionately right?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Can any of these people explain what this tax strategy has done FOR America???


It was an attempt to prevent off shoring.

It didn't work.

Raising the tax rates to those levels won't work now.



No, I tend to think it was to appease the same minds that are here on this article, people

and the way they are inclined don't change very much.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
The problem is, NOTHING will work now.

Absolutely nothing.

I disagree. Every problem has a solution.



You can't fix the problem without robbing the rich.

Depends on the solution. I have severe doubts about that working. There are serious mobility differences in today's wealthy compared to the wealthy of the past. They can literally move their liquid assets in a moments notice.


You can't fix the problem without throwing out the overly complicated tax codes.

On this we are in 100% agreement. Part of the reason certain entities (I refuse to refer to corporations as 'Persons') were able to hide their activities for so long is the undue complexity of the current tax code.


Doing either of these amounts to civil war and revolution.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

Maybe.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
 


O yeah i know how hard the rich had to work.... LOL

Sitting in an office making some phone calls. I wonder how much we could increase the pay of chinese factory workers if we cut the takehome pay of its CEO in half... maybe from 300,000 down to 150,000 Hopefully that fool can manage to live off of 150,000 a year for sitting at a desk.


Do you think the rich just hatched that way? I know some did, but there are many many people who you would consider to be rich that have worked their way up to their current positions. You don't start off as CEO.

My first job was working at a fast food restaurant. Then I waited tables throughout college. I sold appliances part time. I bartended. I've done many menial labor/minimum wage jobs in my lifetime. Those were backbreaking jobs--definitely hard work.

Now, I have a doctorate. I make a lot more per hour than I used to, that is for sure. But guess what--I now have knowledge and skills that I didn't have before.

I didn't like the minimum wage jobs, and I didn't like the minimum wage income. So I worked my way through college. Then I worked full time and went on through graduate school. There were times that I worked full time (as a teacher), part time (bartending), AND went to graduate school part time.

As I said, I am not rich (even a doctorate won't make a teacher rich!) But I realized early on that the kind of jobs that pay better are the ones that you need specialized training for. So I worked my butt off until I had that kind of specialized training. I didn't stay in the first fast food job I had, complaining about how hard I was working for so little pay.

And it ticks me off that people think me and my husband (who also teaches) should be glad to pay out 25% of our salaries so that it can be redistributed. That's where I'm coming from. You go after the income of the top 1%, and the top 5%, and the top 10%--when do you come after ME? When do you want 50% of MY income?
edit on 21-2-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: grammar


Nobody wants 50% of your income.

You didn't make it illegally, nor evade your taxes.

We just want people to pay what they are supposed to.

The bottom line is the top 1% are the owners of the mega corporations. The top of the top.

Who pays the top of the top? Well he pays himself.

He also has cart blanche to cut checks straight from the corporate account.

I.E.

Since he owns the corporations and has access to the corporate accounts and pays himself, he can then use the corporate account to pay for anything he wants for his personal life.

Hence why the Top 1% don't actually take money out of their corporation. If they did that, they would have it garnished by the government at the correct %age.

In reality, what they do is hide their personal wealth inside the corporation and then skirt around corporate taxes maintaining his super inflated wealth.

This is tax evasion amongst many, many, other white collar crimes involving the act of shuffling money around to avoid having to pay what you're supposed to.


When all the top corporations in the world follow the same practice, consolidation of wealth occurs.

It's really simple. It's not super smart, it doesn't take a genius.

These people are merely nothing more than high dollar thieves.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by Laokin
The problem is, NOTHING will work now.

Absolutely nothing.

I disagree. Every problem has a solution.



You can't fix the problem without robbing the rich.

Depends on the solution. I have severe doubts about that working. There are serious mobility differences in today's wealthy compared to the wealthy of the past. They can literally move their liquid assets in a moments notice.


You can't fix the problem without throwing out the overly complicated tax codes.

On this we are in 100% agreement. Part of the reason certain entities (I refuse to refer to corporations as 'Persons') were able to hide their activities for so long is the undue complexity of the current tax code.


Doing either of these amounts to civil war and revolution.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

Maybe.



Okay, you're right -- technically it CAN be fixed -- but in order to fix it, everyone must be on the same page.

The probability that the super wealthy consumed by greed that stole their way to the top are going to help fix it is astronomical.

But yeah, seems to me that we are in agreement.

While I believe a real solution is possible, I don't see it being probable. Everyday that passes is another day the situation is getting worse.

Couple the above with the fact that we are running out of time to fix it and it's clearly inevitable that there will be some sort of revolution, be it peaceful or violent.

Either that or some sort of miracle needs to happen where the super rich realize the error of their ways and decide to cooperate with the rest of society.

I just don't see that as a likely scenario, being as they wouldn't be super rich if they weren't greedy.

Again, how much money do you need to have before the excess is considered pure greed and unwarranted?


There is another aspect to this, in that, is the consolidation of wealth a coincidence or a conspiracy?

If it's a conspiracy, then to what gain? NWO?

If it's a conspiracy, then the likelihood that the super rich will have a change of heart is 100% impossible as the damage they are doing is being done on purpose.


Does anybody actually believe it's coincidence?
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 





What pisses me off is that people can't seem to realize that the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Reagan era. In college courses that would be called a direct correlation.


You cannot make a direct correlation between a false hood and the truth. It is not at all true that "the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Regan era". The United States debt began with the founding of the republic.

When the so called "Personal Income Tax" was first passed back in 1913 the national debt was nearly 3 billion dollars. If you don't trust that chart then consider this chart that tells the exact same story give or take a few years. Both graphs lead to today's astonishing U.S. national debt of nearly 15 and a 1/2 trillion dollars! Since the passage of this odious "income tax" - and with very little exception - the national debt has just steadily increased and at an exponential level. That would be an actual direct correlation.

edit on 21-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
How about less government spending, overriding the entire tax problem altogether. Then you could even have the lower/middle classes pay zero tax and tax the wealthy even less. Do we really need bureaucrats violently taking our money and then spending it for us?

I say "violently", because the cops will literally tackle you, restrain you, cuff you, and remove you from society if you don't pay for someone else's medical bill.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,



In order to truly justify the income tax it necessarily has to incite class warfare so that the "income tax" can be sold as a method of dealing with "income inequality", but in order to sell that scheme we have to first agree that we are lawfully bound to do whatever it is the majority tells us we have to do, which is not at all how law works under U.S. Constitutional government. The majority cannot grant themselves lawful authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of a minority, and this is why the United States is a republic and not a democracy, regardless of what Aristotle say's about the matter.


Yes, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic and that means that all are supposed to be represented and we are not all represented. The real "scheme" is that the government now only represents the interest of the wealthy. As for income tax fixing income inequity, it hasn't yet, it is there to ensure that things remain unequal. If you win the lottery, you will pay 35% in income tax, if you make money on your stock holdings you will pay less. If you have a trust and the trust makes money on it's investments, you may pay even less or none.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 





What pisses me off is that people can't seem to realize that the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Reagan era. In college courses that would be called a direct correlation.


You cannot make a direct correlation between a false hood and the truth. It is not at all true that "the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Regan era". The United States debt began with the founding of the republic.

When the so called "Personal Income Tax" was first passed back in 1913 the national debt was nearly 3 billion dollars. If you don't trust that chart then consider this chart that tells the exact same story give or take a few years. Both graphs lead to today's astonishing U.S. national debt of nearly 15 and a 1/2 trillion dollars! Since the passage of this odious "income tax" - and with very little exception - the national debt has just steadily increased and at an exponential level. That would be an actual direct correlation.

edit on 21-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



I'm glad your here. I've been starring your posts, kudos brother.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,



In order to truly justify the income tax it necessarily has to incite class warfare so that the "income tax" can be sold as a method of dealing with "income inequality", but in order to sell that scheme we have to first agree that we are lawfully bound to do whatever it is the majority tells us we have to do, which is not at all how law works under U.S. Constitutional government. The majority cannot grant themselves lawful authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of a minority, and this is why the United States is a republic and not a democracy, regardless of what Aristotle say's about the matter.


Yes, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic and that means that all are supposed to be represented and we are not all represented. The real "scheme" is that the government now only represents the interest of the wealthy. As for income tax fixing income inequity, it hasn't yet, it is there to ensure that things remain unequal. If you win the lottery, you will pay 35% in income tax, if you make money on your stock holdings you will pay less. If you have a trust and the trust makes money on it's investments, you may pay even less or none.


We don't live in a republic, we live in a democracy. The republic was hijacked shortly after it's inception, roughly around 1913.

Compare 1913 to 1776 and look how the entire system changed.

Nobody in the government refers to America as a republic. All the nation building America is doing is purely democratic as a model of us.

America was a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, and now it's just a democracy, hijacked by the world banks.


The fact that America is being purported to be a democracy is most likely the biggest propaganda campaign in existence being used against the majority for the minorities benefit.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


What we live in is called an Oligarchy, where the few control everything.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 





What pisses me off is that people can't seem to realize that the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Reagan era. In college courses that would be called a direct correlation.


You cannot make a direct correlation between a false hood and the truth. It is not at all true that "the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Regan era". The United States debt began with the founding of the republic.

When the so called "Personal Income Tax" was first passed back in 1913 the national debt was nearly 3 billion dollars. If you don't trust that chart then consider this chart that tells the exact same story give or take a few years. Both graphs lead to today's astonishing U.S. national debt of nearly 15 and a 1/2 trillion dollars! Since the passage of this odious "income tax" - and with very little exception - the national debt has just steadily increased and at an exponential level. That would be an actual direct correlation.

edit on 21-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


Ronald Reagan accrued more debt than all the presidents combined before him.

That was the first time in history that happened, exactly because he and his party members

disregarded what was fiscally responsible and feasible. Instead they insisted to try out the

trickle down experiment and what they created was a massive debtor government. They

went from 2 miles an hour, to 100 miles an hour with out thinking about the potential

repercussions


The direct correlation is

1. Ronald Reagan reduced potential income of the government

2. which created government borne debt when those liabilities were not funded and paid for

3. Resulting in a national debt, due to the reduced income and sustain liabilities







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



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Oh boo hoo! Poor rich people! Waaaah!!!

Get my point yet? I have no sympathy for those that live in lavish mansions and drive sports cars to their spa treatments. Those people pay 71 percent of the taxes because they make 99 percent of the money. If you taxed the poor anymore we'd end up driving in flinstones cars barefoot and starved.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join