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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drew99GT

Originally posted by thegagefather
Give me one logical reason that we can't make it fair.


The Bolshevik Revolution? Worked out great, right? How about Greece today. I'm all for income equality, but the question is, how do you practically go about getting it??? Historically, major efforts to achieve it haven't exactly worked out too well. And in today's world, if you raise a rich bastards taxes too much, they'll just move their income and assets to the Cayman Islands and say "nanner nanner".
I wasn't saying "make a utopia" I was just saying "don't let one man keep half of America's cash in his pockets alone, just because he like how it feels against us thighs" of course, with slightly different words

Surely you don't think the current plutocracy is the best opinion.

Because its not.

I realize perfect equality is not attainable within our lifetime, if ever. I do, however, also know that MORE equality is well within our social and economic capabilities.
edit on 28-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
You guys are arguing over the effects and refuse to bring up the actual causes. There used to be ZERO income tax on the rich and America had the greatest prosperity during those times. Why do you think that is?? How does taxing "the rich" create a solution? If I was wealthy and the government decided to tax me 60% - 70% I would just retire. How does the government collect it's taxes then? The whole idea of blaming the rich is asinine ,ignorant, and beyond common sense. If I was rich and had to pay more than 50%+ in taxes there would be no motivation for me to invest in new business ventures that stimulate the economy because the profit line is that much harder to achieve. In the old days when we were not taxed to death it was 20 times easier to create a successful small business that created jobs and strengthened the middle class than today with these regulations and high taxes. If you want more high taxes you can kiss the entire economic growth thing goodbye, as well as America..

Government spending needs to be cut by at least 80%. We need to end social welfare, social security, all of it. I'm sure people are going to judge me as if I have no compassion but you're wrong.. There should be ZERO income tax on people AND business. A flat sales tax of 6% should be the only tax in existence. No property taxes, no income taxes, no estate taxes, no capital gains taxes, etc.. Then you will see a real economic recovery. First we must get the governments size and control reduced to the likes of the 19th century in order to have reduced tax revenue as well as real growth.

Also, you could take the EPA, FDA, DHS, IRS, FEMA, and toss them all in the garbage. Complete waste of resources that primarily hinders business development and prosperity.
edit on 28-4-2012 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


Nail meet your head, courtesy of Mr. hammer. Nicely done. You can add 1 to the tally, we are in complete agreement.

Sometimes I think the solutions being offered are coming from the same people doing the wrong. Maybe they think that by offering less than workable solutions, we end up in a stale mate and things can continue without change or modification.

Your post here if followed would work....IMO.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegagefather
You are correct, and I will recrunch my numbers.

In the meanwhile, here's an article about recent tax-caps.

thejcrevelator2.hubpages.com...
edit on 26-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)


So what happened? I haven't seen any recrunched numbers. You had the chance to correct the OP but by leaving that mess as presented it appears to be intentionally incorrect. Do you consider that to be honest?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSandman
 




I didn't know about that cap on tax that is shrinking every year but it makes sense on account of them owning congress.

You didn't know about the cap because it doesn't exist. It was a mistake, one of many, made by the OP confusing the terms cap and threshold when he composed the OP.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 

You are full of it, nearly every word or your post is a falsehood or half truth. If you would take a moment and actually do some research you would see this quite quickly. Most people these days would say the fifties was our golden era of late, what was the top rate tax rate then? Yeah back in the day of strong communities, cheap energy, safe streets, vast technical advancement, and a super strong sense of national pride.

The ignorance displayed by these statements dismays me, so much so, I felt the need to respond. This infuriates me so because most people have no grasp of how the bigger system works, nor do they need to. The fact of matter is, those high tax rates fuled investment. As Warren Buffet keeps saying he pays less than his secretary. How you may ask? Because his income is mostly capital gains. Get it? Capitall gains are taxed at a far lower rate, like 15-20 percent give or take, I have not looked at this number In awhile. So what was the upper executive to do with that income above 2 million? Invest it, that is what they did. Because the income invested did not count as fully taxable income. If they were savy investors they could do well. And in turn only pay a paltry amount of tax.

The above system served us well until the Corporate raider sorts realized that many companies in this country had more cash and assets than the value of the stock reflected. Because cash on hand or the assets bought with it does not generate revenue therefore no share earnings, not to mention will be taxes as souch, make sense? So these Mitt Romney types sought out these companies bought them up for practically nothing, raped the assets sold off the skeletons with out the assets and made billions. The ignorant among us hailed them as genius. The buyers in most cases only got a name.

So in closing, high marginal rates, plus great tax incentives for investment, keeps a balance going. As the top rates have declined so has investment and you end up where we are right now, lots of cash in a few hands and no investment.

edit on 28-4-2012 by soundguy because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by soundguy
reply to post by libertytoall
 

. Most people these days would say the fifties was our golden era of late, what was the top rate tax rate then?


Nearly 90%

He is full of crap... The most prosperous time before that there was still unclaimed land and undeveloped
areas of the nation.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegagefather

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

Read your own source. The charts on the NTU site are sourced from the IRS.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegagefather

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.

SHOW me where he said that. The data schuyler presented is simply that, DATA. The top 1% is a statistic not an opinion. And again, his stats are categorized the same as your NTU data that the NTU gets from the IRS



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

edit on 28-4-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: accidental post



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



You are the one that lies.

Show me one.



Schulyer puts his numbers up claiming that the "Rich" do pay their share of taxes.

Show me this claim.



His numbers do not show the income or tax rate of the rich, only the top 1%.

His numbers look very similar to those in the OP from the NTU which come from the IRS. If you dispute the numbers then then present a valid source for your view.



He obfuscates, and then you back him with lies.

You apparently don't know the meaning of the word obfuscate yet it appears to be a very common practice for you. And again, show me a lie I've used to back him. Do you read my posts? My objections to the OP and subsequent nonsense are based on hard facts, the numbers and math mistakes. You don't know anything about my opinion on "fairness" because I've yet to give any opinion on the subject.



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.

Then present income tax data confirming this assertion. How's that for "fair"?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


Wow, you need to change your information sources.

America's greatest prosperity came when the rich were taxed at 60-70% back in the 1060ties when we were busy sending men to the moon, and didn't have a national debt, we were a net creditor nation.

This is the historical reality.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


The numbers are bogus because they represent the top 1% as rich, otherwise why would be put up this charts when talking about the rich. The charts have no data on the rich.

It is a big fat lie, and your claim otherwise is a big fat lie. Obfuscation is all you do.

How many trillion in U.S. Gov debt was created by the Mortgage Bubble from which the rich greatly benefited.

Exactly why should future generations of average U.S. workers be expected to pay back that huge debt created by the fraudulent business practices of the rich?

It is time to do what they did in the fifties after WW II created our nations highest debt, tax the rich up the wazoo until U.S. fed gov debt is brought down to a reasonable level.

At least the WW II generation had the brains to see what crooks the rich really are.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 



Create new brackets that take into account larger and larger sums.


The biggest way that conservatives have screwed the middle class is to block any effort to allow the tax brackets to rise with the rate of inflation, thereby slowly increasing taxes on the upper middle class while cutting taxes on the rich.

It is dirty politics, and that has been the conservative way for ever. They are imperialists, whose goal is to destroy the U.S. Republic, and replace it with empire.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




The numbers are bogus because they represent the top 1% as rich, otherwise why would be put up this charts when talking about the rich. The charts have no data on the rich.

The representation is a matter of your perception. The charts from NTU and schuyler give statistical data without any mention of "rich". Actually, in this thread 1% as rich is from the OP as seen in these quotes


Well, since 1% own 40% of the goods... Let's find out how much, in percentages, the top 1% is paying!



So... According to these numbers, the rich, in 2007 were paying just over 40%

The one above refers to top 1% as seen in the 2007 at the NTU site the OP linked

The OP then goes on to delineate the rich from the super-rich


When people think of the top 1% of Americans, they're thinking of the super-elite. The problem with that is, the top 1% aren't anywhere NEAR the super-elites in the US.


Now it's time to switch gears


While MOST families in the top 1% are paying close to what they owe, there are a few family households in the US which would make even most of the 1%'s vomit in sight of the absolute greed.

So now the "top 1% rich" are paying "close" to what they owe??? Based on..........??



The fact is, if we included the top 0.0002% of the wealthy in this graph, the section that says "42%" would probably shrink to something more like 5%, and it would be much easier to see that it's 400 select families that actually own roughly 40% of all of the US assests and cash.

That still doesn't make any sense ^ ^ ^


Because the median salary of these 400 families is over $87,000,000 (some being much, much, much higher) meaning that in order to pay what the US has decided their "fair share" is, they would pay $34,800,000. Instead, they paid $400,000.

That has been shown to be false. So where is any information to support the premise of the OP?
Who has been shown to be underpaying? I'm not saying anyone pays too much or not enough. My point is show evidence for your claims.

As for your comment below


It is a big fat lie, and your claim otherwise is a big fat lie. Obfuscation is all you do.

Examples please, show it. Your baseless accusations are tiresome. Your petulance is amusing.
edit on 28-4-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: add the word be



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
My understanding for a republic which what this country was founded as is where minority rights are protected

property rights are protected hence the mob which is the majority can't lynch people like they are trying to do here.

In a constitutional republic no persons rights superceed the right of any other.

Hence just because you feel entitle to more money from those evil rich you can not touch it.

Oh never mind carry on with the mob justice the public lynchings akin to those of the wild west.
edit on 28-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by soundguy
reply to post by libertytoall
 

You are full of it

How am I full of it?


nearly every word or your post is a falsehood or half truth. If you would take a moment and actually do some research you would see this quite quickly.

I've done plenty of research. American history has been my favorite subject since 4th grade. I have a masters in economics from UConn so I'm fairly confident and clear about my views and my statements are dead accurate based on facts.


Most people these days would say the fifties was our golden era of late, what was the top rate tax rate then?

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, and the income tax was instituted in the United States. Prior to the questionable action of Woodrow Wilson, there was no income tax, which is clearly better for the economy than whatever question you just asked. By the way 1949, 1953, 1958, and 1960 were years of drastic decline in GDP.


The ignorance displayed by these statements dismays me, so much so, I felt the need to respond. This infuriates me so because most people have no grasp of how the bigger system works, nor do they need to.

You're proving you fall into that very category..


The fact of matter is, those high tax rates fuled investment. As Warren Buffet keeps saying he pays less than his secretary. How you may ask? Because his income is mostly capital gains. Get it? Capitall gains are taxed at a far lower rate, like 15-20 percent give or take, I have not looked at this number In awhile. So what was the upper executive to do with that income above 2 million? Invest it, that is what they did. Because the income invested did not count as fully taxable income. If they were savy investors they could do well. And in turn only pay a paltry amount of tax.

I'm not sure where to even start.. There is nothing wrong with lower capital gains taxes. It's the very mechanism for businesses to receive investment. Warren buffet may pay a measly 20% in capital gains taxes but he's investing so much money into the markets, creating more opportunity in other companies, and creating more job growth. What would you prefer, he keep it in a savings account?? Then you bring up if he makes 2 million he will just invest it to pay only 20% taxes.. Seriously? You're going to lecture me with regard to my understanding of the "big picture?" That 2 million dollars IS TAXED FIRST and then it can be invested..


So in closing, high marginal rates, plus great tax incentives for investment,

You just bitched about how bad lower capital gains taxes are.. Could you make up your mind?



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Yes people capital gains tax are evil just ask those people who lost over 15 trillion dollars in 2008

wonder how much tax they paid on nothing?

That nothing being whiped completely out

People do not understand what that is really its like going to vegas and taxing people on the roll of the dice

sometime you win most of the time you walkout with nothing,
edit on 28-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   


Heres is some perspective to the topic.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Go back and read the Op again, the rich are about 400 families that make most of the money, far more than anyone else, up in the $100 Mil range. That is what the Op is all about if you bothered to read it.

Stop with the knee jerk reaction and engage your brain. You are smarter than this.




top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join