CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Agreed. There is far too much red tape, but key policies have been done away with over the years.

I'm okay with assessing what works and what doesn't, by value of their net results... benefits over detriments to society in general.

Take out the baggage, and reinstate the pro-social policies.

Lots of work to be done.

What doesn't need to happen is for people to start class wars, when there's too much potential for the vast majority of us to be put to good use.




posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

boymonkey74
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I could do though, I could claim just short of 2k income Tax credits.
I may have to If I want to pay my rent in Feb.


Allow me to cut this off at the pass. Yeah, I am pissed off at many who I feel abuse the system, but the brunt of my anger is directed at the facilitators/enablers in DC. I think the SYSTEM is horsecrap and needs torn down immediately.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I know I'll change no ones mind here. It seems that many just enjoy being angry and thinking the world is stupid. It's your choice. BUT, I suggest you look closer at numbers like this that are meant to enrage. I'm not going to waste my time investigating but I would guess many social security recipients are included in that bottom 40%. The suggestion of the numbers that one group is paying in and another group is taking out is not the truth. Social security is a program that people paid into to get a future benefit out, an investment if you will that is now being label an entitlement. I really think it's time people quite allowing themselves to be misled but manipulated statistics.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

HUMBLEONE
106.2 + 9.1= 115.3 115.3 %??? WTF? Very sloppy propaganda.


Sloppy indeed. Your math and propaganda that is; or possibly ignorance?

One of your numbers, -9.1% (how you made that a positive and then added it; I can only guess), is the amount applied to the total of Federal tax revenue from the bottom percentile; meaning they actually drew from the Treasury in the amount of -9.1% of the total Federal Tax Revenue of the given year. This is the amount of money, in regards to total Federal revenue intake, was paid out to a small percentage.

Whereas the 106.2% is contribution of a combination of percentiles (minus the monies "given" back to others via credits) in relation to the total tax revenue intake.

Go back to school. Apparently reason, logic, mathematics, and comprehension are lacking in your tool box.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by villagesmithie
 


You realize that those people were robbed but the very ones encouraging the system that has us angry, and in fact that most of us who are angry understand that we are being robbed to prop up social security now? We know that it is extremely unlikely that any of us will EVER see a dime of that money being taken for social security.

What's there for my parents will not be there for me. The only chance I have for my own old age is if I either fund the means to save for myself in a manner that will not be pillage by the system and impeding crash in some way or if I raise a son who honors his parents and can care for us in our old age. Because I know the people tending the current system are NOT going to rework into something that will be useful for me.

So spare me the voice of reason. I'm being robbed, at all levels, every day.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


As I said some people seem to enjoy being angry. Your choice, but seems like a waste of time and energy to me. Especially if the anger is fueled by misleading statistics and aim at the wrong target.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
crap. bogus. nonsense.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
It's not just the very poor who have a negative tax liability - many of the largest corporations are also in that club.
It's the working folks who get screwed regardless of what your pay is.
That doesn't mean you should be able to support a family of 4 working minimum wage jobs nor should executive pay equal 300x what their average worker makes.
Neither should corporations be able to threaten governments in to giving them endless loopholes lest they move their operations overseas.

It's still the 1% who make out the best under our current system.
It isn't hard work that gets rewarded most, it's those who can figure out how to game the system and rig things in their favor.
I know all those banks that got billions under TARP certainly deserved a helping hand.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Asktheanimals
It's not just the very poor who have a negative tax liability - many of the largest corporations are also in that club.


Except we are talking about a different tax altogether. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, it just isn't in the realm of this discussion, which is individual taxes; not corporate taxes.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Show the amount of income those top people made. This is just propaganda.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE:


THE TOP 7% CONTROL 80% OF THE WEALTH!!!!!
HERE I'll say it again

THE TOP 7% control 80% of the wealth.


And you are right people aren't going to vote for someone who believes their they and their children can starve.

It's a little hard for the Walmart cashier to ring up your groceries if they are fainting from hunger.


edit on December 9th 2013 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Not really much to go on your statement; what is propaganda? What would the amount of income the top percent made be to the article? You leave us wanting for your insight.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

xuenchen

solongandgoodnight
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I can't help but wonder what the mega wealthy had to actually pay though, percentage wise....the same? i'm really asking.......very carefully seeing as how you are angry. which is understandable.


here's a little on that..



According to new IRS data, the 1.35 million taxpayers that represent the highest-earning one percent of the Americans who filed federal income tax returns in 2010 earned 18.9% of the total gross income and paid 37.4% of all federal income taxes paid in that year.

In contrast, the 128.3 million taxpayers in the bottom 95% of all U.S. taxpayers in 2010 earned 66.2% of gross income and that group paid 40.9% of all taxes paid.

In other words, the top 1 percent (1.35 million) of American taxpayers paid almost as much federal income tax in 2010 ($354.8 billion) as the entire bottom 95% of American tax filers ($388.4 billion), see chart above. And it’s that group of top income earners (with income above $221,000 in 2010 to be in the top one percent), that Obama and the Democrats want to tax even more.

Further, there were more than 58 million Americans in 2010 who had tax returns with a zero or negative tax liability, so about half of the bottom 95% of American “taxpayers” paid nothing or got a tax refund.




The top 1% of US taxpayers pay almost as much in federal income taxes as the entire bottom 95%, and half of that bottom group paid no taxes at all in 2010

thanks. It seems like I can always on you to give some straight answers.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
What a joke. 40% of the tax payers in the US received nearly 19k from the government????

You guys are a bunch of socialists.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Daughter2
THIS MAKES PERFECT SENSE:


THE TOP 93% CONTROL 80% OF THE WEALTH!!!!!
HERE I'll say it again

THE TOP 93% control 80% of the wealth.


And you are right people aren't going to vote for someone who believes their they and their children can starve.

It's a little hard for the Walmart cashier to ring up your groceries if they are fainting from hunger.




Does that mean the bottom 7% own 20% of the wealth?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


And some of those banks didn't need or want the money and were forced into it so that all the biggest banks, those who needed it, those who wanted it and those who were left over, were in some degree controlled by having government bailout funds on their books.

It's a very tangled web of corruption and deceit at the top.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

villagesmithie
reply to post by ketsuko
 


As I said some people seem to enjoy being angry. Your choice, but seems like a waste of time and energy to me. Especially if the anger is fueled by misleading statistics and aim at the wrong target.


So, it's wrong for me to be angry at the people who control the system and refuse to allow it to be reformed?

Maybe I should be angry at the people on SS now? Is that what you would prefer?



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   


Rather than getting mad at those who don't have enough money to live on,


Is that some kind of effing joke?

Rob from the rich give to the poor so they can go out and buy all the corporate products their little hearts desire ?

Outsourcing 'responsibilty' of their fellow man is not the job of the government .

Hell it isn't even the their neighbors.

It is them and them alone.

To put if bluntly it is corporate fascism that just has a 'hipper' rap.

Read this article:

online.wsj.com...

In case people haven't taken a good look around at the united states of dysfunction.

We are not the 'richest' most powerful nation, and have not been for quite some time.

The op has every right to be Peaved off.

We all do.

Paying for over 100 million Americans existence daily, and adding more is not working out for us.

That do nothing but line them evil corporations pockets, and create debt, and more power to that 'benevolent' government.
edit on 9-12-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Among companies listed on the S&P 500, almost one in nine paid an effective tax rate of zero percent — or even lower — over the past year, according to an analysis by USA Today.

Previous analyses have shown that the typical corporation pays a lower effective tax rate than most middle-class families, and a far lower one than the statutory corporate tax rate against which business interests disingenuously rail.

link


Sweet deal there...but beat up the poor some more, that's what those with the money hope you do.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

ownbestenemy

Asktheanimals
It's not just the very poor who have a negative tax liability - many of the largest corporations are also in that club.


Except we are talking about a different tax altogether. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, it just isn't in the realm of this discussion, which is individual taxes; not corporate taxes.


Biggest problem with that is the largest employers in this country are not them evil corporations.

It is small business owners that do not get them so called tax breaks, or disversified overseas.





new topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join