US Decieved Into Beliving Rich Pay Their Fair Share Of Income Tax

With over 150 million Americans getting paid from the taxes of others go on kill all the rich

That is going to solve everything.

i can understand corporations paying a little tax, but to pay negative in taxes and actually get a check from the government is criminal.

corporations do pay taxes, but the loopholes allow them to get all of it back and then some.

corporations are people too. it's not fair to make billions in profit and pay nothing.

reply to post by schuyler


your numbers refer to tax paying citizens and dollars in each income range,
at what point do you add the negitive tax back to corperations?
that then spend that money on lobbying for more tax back the following year.

when you add the corperate tax into the results you used you get the top 1% as corperations,
and they are receiving tax breaks, and paying no tax in some very complecated circumstances,

when you calculate the economic benifits to taxing corperations like people,
because they claim to be persons,

they would pay alot more of their fair share.

xploder

reply to post by neo96


Those paid by the taxes are paid by the taxes of the proletariat, not the rich.

It's nice that your paranoia will prevent you from moving, but staying where they were sure didn't help people in times of physical genocide - well it won't help during financial genocide, either.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by schuyler

 

Just cherry picked numbers that completely ignore the reality.

The bottom 50% of earners are primarily students, young struggling people, and retirees, who spend most of their lives paying in the higher tax brackets.

And your numbers greatly skew the the reality in favor of the super rich, the top 400 tax payers.

Nobody is expecting the Middle Class, where most of us belong, to pay more taxes.

The Middle class pays far too much in Fed taxes for far too little service, and the super rich pay far too little for the considerably higher benefits they get from fed gov service.

The answer is the fair tax. Punish consumption not productivity. Tax the rich when they buy their yachts and mansions and limos. You also begin taxing the underground, criminal and black market economies when you use the fair tax. This would be the most fair plan around. go to fairtax.org check it out.

reply to post by thegagefather

Oh - wait a second... There's a cap on that tax? And the cap isn't even half a million dollars? Well, since 1% own 40% of the goods... Let's find out how much, in percentages, the top 1% is paying!

What is your source for this cap?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


But that would only force them to pay sales tax.

Wesley snipes was thrown in jail for paying his taxes, and I'm sure he makes a lot less than the super-elite.

But as long as there are idiot guard-dogs barking to prevent the master who is malnourishing them, what can we, the alley-cats do?

Originally posted by schuyler
Yeah, right. The following is taken directly from the IRS and is adjusted for 2010:

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.

"Fair" is a loaded term, as any parent knows. All it means is that you don't agree. It has nothing to do with fairness. Income taxes are a way to pay for government "services," and nothing more. My income group pays nearly 60% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% pays 2.59%. Plus, the bottom 50% gets food stamps for free, free medical care, etc., all things I have to pay for. In other words, their purchasing power is much greater than what their income would suggest. I pay for all that, too.

It is not true that there is a cap. If you make more money, you pay more taxes, and you pay at the highest marginal tax rate, which is 35%. Bottom line is that the top half pay more than 97% of the income taxes and the bottom half pay next to nothing. If the whole thing involves "fairness" then I'm for a flat tax. You pay the same percentage of your income I do and that's fair. You don't pay as much as I do because your income is lower, and I can understand that. That's fair, too. But I shouldn't have to carry you. And you're not getting any more out of me.

edit on 4/26/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

The scam is "adjusted gross income" ..... be real

50 percent of Americans don't pay taxes because they don't have enough income.... their wages have fallen 20 percent while the wealth of the elite grew 230 percent ...

flat taxes are another scam..... unless you redistribute all of the wealth!

Originally posted by randomname
i can understand corporations paying a little tax, but to pay negative in taxes and actually get a check from the government is criminal.

Why is it criminal for corporations but ok for welfare recipients? I am against corporate welfare, but I am also against all welfare programs.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Why don't you read the article and click on my sources?

Not just one of them, all of them.

reply to post by thegagefather

Those paid by the taxes are paid by the taxes of the proletariat, not the rich.

Carry on with the marixst tripe.

Proletariat = Marxist

Funny

Maybe you should go to school, and not learn from blogs.

FYI, the community I came from was lower-middle class, and the people there who were paid by the taxpayer were paid my the community member's, not the money of the rich that magically appeared in their pockets.

But I guess for saying that the poor's money circulates through the poor, and not the rich, I must be a marxist, socialist, communist, anti-American.

Or maybe I just like to actually think!

Originally posted by thegagefather
I'll give you a loan! But the same way the central bank does.

I'll give you 100 bucks, with 12.5% interest, of course (due immidiately, compounding daily, penalties apply, still owe me after declaring bankruptcy)

Here's you 100-spot!

Now where's my $168.46?

edit on 26-4-2012 by thegagefather because: misspelling

Now wait a minute, I haven't had the chance to hit the casino yet! (Hoping that the banksters see my tactics and take me in).

reply to post by thegagefather

proletariat,

Your right only marxists and communist use that word.

And only scared people who are too paralyzed at the sight of world-events talk like you.

In the great worlds of Martin Luther King Jr. “Normal fear protects us; abnormal fear paralyses us. Normal fear motivates us to improve our individual and collective welfare; abnormal fear constantly poisons and distorts our inner lives. Our problem is not to be rid of fear but, rather to harness and master it.”

Here's another tidbit to this so-called "fairness" issue. No doubt you have heard of the "Buffett Rule." This is supposed to be "fair" Here's what it actually does: If passed it would only raise $4.7 billion a year per the nonpartisan United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation. This extra tax would run the federal government for less than two hours. If federal expenses were cut by only 1 percent, it would raise $37 billion. Has anyone heard Obama say anything about cutting expenses? Geez, just cut out a single GSA party in vegas and you save a million. Don't pay for hookers in Colombia from per diem? Nah, would only save a few thousand. Not worth it.

So what's the point of the Buffett Rule? It's afeel good gimmick that would do NOTHING substantial to help the deficit. Indeed, if you took ALL the income above $250,000 for EVERYONE. Here's the answer to that. It still wouldn't work. We don't have a taxing problem (Well, yes we do, but...) we have a spending problem. And we're in a lot deeper doo doo than people realize. Taking ALL the rich's money will not solve the problem. It's bigger than that.

reply to post by thegagefather


Lame seriously lame

Here is one way i have seen it explained. All money collected from income tax goes toward paying the interest on the debt to the Fed. The debt was incurred before the Fed even came into being by those who created the Fed. If the Fed did not exist, income tax would not need to be collected just like before the creation of the Fed! That is merely the nuts and bolts of it.

Right, it would do nothing other than make people do what they're supposed to and not allow them not to simply because they're rich, and simultaneously fix a few %'s of our deficit. And not a few % as a one-time payment, but every year.

Here's an idea, get a calculator and figure out what 34 billion is, times it by 10 for each year of our crisis (being generous) and tell me how big our deficit is compared to what it would be, just based upon those 10 years.

If you can't do that, then what can you do, other than say "it wouldn't help" without a single piece of actual information?

I provided properly citable links, and almost ALL of my info comes straight from the US National Taxpayers Union.

Where does yours come from? Well, you might have a legitimate source, but you haven't shared it. All I can assume is that it comes from your head.

I can, however, discern from your link, that you really don't like the term "fair."

This isn't the philosophy boards, however.

reply to post by thegagefather

Why don't you read the article and click on my sources?

There's nothing in your links about a $400,000 cap.