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.

 

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

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes they are from those evil rich since they pay the majority of taxes in this country

including INCOME the reason being there are less people paying into those funds so they are covered by all those rich folk.

Cherry picked numbers? Nope.

And Medicare for over 60 million Americans is taken straight out of that monthly Social Security check.




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


No, the evil rich, people making 10M plus a year, worth hundreds of millions of dollars plus, do not pay the majority of the taxes in this country. The Middle Class pays the majority of taxes in this country, which includes, .99% of the top 1% of income earners.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes Yes evil rich

Something left out of that with regards to social security is that a person only pays 6 % that evil rich person(the employer) matches that at another 6 %

6% a year for however long they work the whole time their employers matching it and that person receives far more money out than they ever paid in but nope not good enough the rich cover it aigan via taxation from their incomes

so that bigots cans go around and say PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!

They already are.
edit on 27-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The Middle Class pays the majority of taxes in this country, which includes, .99% of the top 1% of income earners.

What is this nonsense? You made this up. So numbers and facts aren't your thing.

See how this works?

Statisticians say middle class is a household income between $25,000 and $100,000 a year.

SOURCE

Go with it or provide a definition more to your liking that is supported by something better than your opinion.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



What figures, I have yet to see any figures on what the income of the wealthy, 5 Mil annual income group, actually pays, except what the Op presented. All I have seen from the conservative side is a bunch of cherry picked data, that also doesn't include all the taxes, which fall disproportionately on the poor.

This is a joke right? You accept the OP's figures and label schuyler's as "cherry picked"? Same source for both, IRS.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Hidden SS tax supposedly paid by the employer actually must be earned by the employee, or else the employee would not be worth the cost.

It is nothing but hidden tax.

Again, you ignore the facts.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Phhhht, if you think people making over a 100k are rich, you are sadly mistaken. People making over a 100k are barely paying their bills these days.

According the the bogus link you provided doctors and lawyers, and small business owners are all rich. NOT!

Rich means greater than 10M a year, everyone else is just upper middle class.,



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Because Schuyler counts all of the top 1% as rich, and that is pure nonsense. 1 out of a hundred people are not rich.

It is cherry picked because it hides the real amount of taxes paid by the upper middle class and medium sized business owners.

Why don't you admit that you are quite happy to force the middle class to subsidize the wealthy.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Rich means greater than 10M a year, everyone else is just upper middle class.,

Is that a definition you can stick with? Middle, upper middle is all the same up to 10M a year?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Because Schuyler counts all of the top 1% as rich, and that is pure nonsense. 1 out of a hundred people are not rich.

LIE, flat out LIE. He didn't count anyone as "rich". His categories are the same as the NTU's from the OP's link that you accept. Trifling.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


You are the one that lies.

Schulyer puts his numbers up claiming that the "Rich" do pay their share of taxes. His numbers do not show the income or tax rate of the rich, only the top 1%. He obfuscates, and then you back him with lies.

Being that the Op is about the rich paying their fair share of income tax, where that money is being spent and who it benefits is completely on topic, as fair requires that people pay for what they get.

In the U.S., the rich are getting subsidized by the upper middle class. That isn't fair, and that is what the numbers show.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
S+F OP great post

I never believed the rich payed their fair share or were the 'job creators' the media made them out to be. When people say the rich pay their fair share they are correct, they do, but they're not the rich we're talking about here. We are talking about the elite. The elite are the opposite of job creators, they are job destroyers. Unless we're talking about them creating jobs in China. I didn't know about that cap on tax that is shrinking every year but it makes sense on account of them owning congress.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Our huge military!

How about our huge nanny state

150 million Americans get Government checks

15 trillion going to social securty more than the last decade of war

20 trillion going to prescription drugs more than the last decade of war

82 trillion going to medicare 8 times more than the last decade of war

Geez people.

www.usdebtclock.org...


Let's hope that we can rid ourselves of this welfare state, eh?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
How about eliminate income tax completely on the first 30,000 - 50,000 dollars
for everyone and then start taxing above that? Create new brackets that take
into account larger and larger sums. This would mean that everyone is one the
same field, everyone can expect to pay the same taxes once they hit certain
points. While everyone has money that is untouchable, the kind of money
it takes to pay a mortgage, insurance and food. That's my idea at least



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by thegagefather
 


If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gave it to. - Dorothy Parker

Good thread. Those bastards will always try to get away with it because for them it's their "revenge" against society. Most of those people are literally the dregs of society, whether they be gay, insane, facially challenged, or just plain pathetic. They'll never forget the way society treated them growing up, whether they were mocked, ridiculed, or worse, ignored. In the balance of life, those unfortunates are fated to succeed as compensation for their personal shortcomings. It's also a way for problems and challenges to be a mainstay of this world's existence, as conflict is the fulcrum of the earth. If most of those people looked like Mark Harmon or Errol Flynn and had stable chemical balances and decent upbringings the world would be a better place. But then, that's not how it goes.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
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.


I am so glad that you took the time to point out that there is no such thing as an income tax cap. It should be common knowledge to anyone who has ever watched a newscast or read an article about jackpot lottery winners that they only get to keep a little over half of the lump sum cash amount after taxes.

I really don't understand how someone who spent all that tme gathering all this information could have asserted something so far from the truth.


edit on 28-4-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes Yes evil rich

Something left out of that with regards to social security is that a person only pays 6 % that evil rich person(the employer) matches that at another 6 %

6% a year for however long they work the whole time their employers matching it and that person receives far more money out than they ever paid in but nope not good enough the rich cover it aigan via taxation from their incomes

so that bigots cans go around and say PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!

They already are.
edit on 27-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
so basically anyone who doesn't agree with you is a biggot. Or as you called me, a Marxist. Or a racist socialist. Whatever makes you right by default, right? Taxes aren't even just to begin with. The central reserve bank is really the only reason taxes exist. And guess what? The federal reserve bank isn't federal (or government owned at all, for that matter.) it's not a bank, and it's not a reserve. Literally, it only prints money and gives it to the US at an interest. And that interest can never be paid off, because the only we have comes from the same people charging interest. So if the government doesn't own the fed reserve, who does? The Rockefeller family. And they don't even pay all of their taxes. You clearly can't be Neo, as you're still sleeping in the matrix.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
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.


I am so glad that you took the time to point out that there is no such thing as an income tax cap. It should be common knowledge to anyone who has ever watched a newscast or read an article about jackpot lottery winners that they only get to keep a little over half of the lump sum cash amount after taxes.

I really don't understand how someone who spent all that tme gathering all this information could have asserted something so far from the truth.


edit on 28-4-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)
a newscast?! Who owns the news again? Rupert Murdoch? Ted Turner? And they're not extremely filthy rich, right? Aren't those the guys saying perry is winning the delegates right now?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by poet1b
 



Because Schuyler counts all of the top 1% as rich, and that is pure nonsense. 1 out of a hundred people are not rich.

LIE, flat out LIE. He didn't count anyone as "rich". His categories are the same as the NTU's from the OP's link that you accept. Trifling.


actually, he did.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by poet1b
 



What figures, I have yet to see any figures on what the income of the wealthy, 5 Mil annual income group, actually pays, except what the Op presented. All I have seen from the conservative side is a bunch of cherry picked data, that also doesn't include all the taxes, which fall disproportionately on the poor.

This is a joke right? You accept the OP's figures and label schuyler's as "cherry picked"? Same source for both, IRS.

my numbers were moreso from the national taxpayer's union numbers than IRS, though some were IRS



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join