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

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:19 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.




Really now?

Sounds like propaganda to me considering:

www.usdebtclock.org...

People need to look up the term unfunded liabilities.

That is controlled and owed to the 'people'.




posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

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.


Don't matter since they are making money on the tax on the other side. The money system the US has do not work.





I'm angry because I am forced to budget my family tightly to afford to pay for a bunch of other folks' tax payer subsidized leeching lifestyle. I'm aghast at the level of economic parasitism this government has created.


So you are not angry at the top 1% who is making money out of the taxes since the taxes goes to pay the interest of the old spending that the banks are making money on. Be pissed on the little man when the corrupt ones have created a system where they always win no matter what. And one if reason they do have these programs are to make sure the debt is high. The banks love higher debt. They make more money the higher the debt is.
edit on 9-12-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

burdman30ott6
reply to post by PrinceDreamer
 


Read Atlas Shrugged someday, friend. The time is closer than the "blame the corporations" parrots dare to realize.


The banks will never shrug since it is winning the game. This is the plan to wipe out the middle class. Little resources for the people and much resource for a little upper class. Just like it was in Soviet when the communist politicians was the little upper class. No matter the system the controller of the system wants to eat the cake alone and not share no matter how hard you do your part for a piece of the cake.

They win on one side when the government lower taxes and they win when the US government spends to much. They cannot lose. They system does not allow them to lose.
edit on 9-12-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-12-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I am middle class and don't look down on those below me because they are not the cause of our problems.
That would be the politicians and those that bought them.
The bottom 40% do not have the political nor monetary power like the top 1% do.

Here is a graph of the distribution of wealth in this country.



The bottom 40% make up just .2% of the nations wealth. You could tax them 100% of all their money and would not amount to a hill of beans to the government.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

ownbestenemy

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.
. I didn't see the negative sign. Don't concern yourself about my toolbox mate, add some civility to yours.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


You cannot have 106.whatever% of net income taxes.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

FyreByrd
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


You cannot have 106.whatever% of net income taxes.



Yes it's possible.

Factor in the cash payments from child credits.

People actually get money back on tax returns even if they paid in nothing.



While most (conservative) commentators focus on the fact that 51% of tax filers paid no income taxes in 2009, the more egregious fact is that 30% of filers had a negative income tax liability. Over 95% of these handouts came from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC). As part of the Stimulus, Obama created a third refundable credit; the Making Work Pay Tax Credit.

Number of Tax Returns with Credit Claimed: 25.70 million
Number of Tax Returns with Refundable Portion Claimed: 24.92 million
Total Budgetary Cost: $54.98 billion
Budgetary Cost of Refundable Portion: $53.99 billion


The forgotten "30% club" that makes money off the tax system



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I am not sure how this works out? I am in the bottom 40% and do not recall any $18,000+ coming my way.

I get a federal tax refund for income tax but that is after a year of the federal government using it. Nowhere near $18,000. A few hundred bucks per year. I still pay the rest of the federal taxes, state taxes, and local taxes. No refund for any of those.

If true, someone must be really raking it in.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
corporations don't pay taxes. they never have, and never will.
you pay it for them.

sure they send a check to the irs every year, but it is you, the consumer who actually pays.

it's a backdoor tax on the citizen, rich and poor.


if i sold a widget on the market for $1.00 and it costs me $.50 to produce that widget, i would make a profit of $.50. right?

then government comes along and imposes a 25% "corporate tax" on my profits.

would i take it in the neck, or would i raise the price of the widget to maintain my profits?


hey, i have an idea.
lets tax big oil, so we can continue to pay their corporate taxes for them, and pay more for gas.
and pay the $.24 cents per gallon federal gas tax, and whatever the state gas tax is, and whatever your local gas tax is.

who loves taxes?
government...
edit on 10-12-2013 by bjax9er because: edit



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

LittleByLittle

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.


Don't matter since they are making money on the tax on the other side. The money system the US has do not work.





I'm angry because I am forced to budget my family tightly to afford to pay for a bunch of other folks' tax payer subsidized leeching lifestyle. I'm aghast at the level of economic parasitism this government has created.


So you are not angry at the top 1% who is making money out of the taxes since the taxes goes to pay the interest of the old spending that the banks are making money on. Be pissed on the little man when the corrupt ones have created a system where they always win no matter what. And one if reason they do have these programs are to make sure the debt is high. The banks love higher debt. They make more money the higher the debt is.
edit on 9-12-2013 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)


I'm surprised this hasn't made the rounds yet:



Unfortunately, too few in here (including the OP) understand what our system was designed for, nor have they given much thought as to how said wealth was amassed in the first place.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bjax9er
 


The scam runs deeper when you realize corporations along with nearly two dozen of the largest banks are subsidized.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Kindly explain for the participants in your thread how I got stuck with a higher tax rate - percentage wise - as a teenager starting at $3.25/hr (well ahead of the financial crisis resulting in approximately 25% unemployment for the same age bracket) than...


Let's use your poster boy: Mitt Romney.



edit on 10-12-2013 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Americanist
Kindly explain for the participants in your thread how I got stuck with a higher tax rate - percentage wise - as a teenager starting at $3.25/hr (well ahead of the financial crisis resulting in approximately 25% unemployment for the same age bracket) than...


Let's use your poster boy: Mitt Romney.


Every one of these claims, including the famous Warren Buffett claim that his secretary paid a higher tax percentage than he did have been proven to be false when the refunds and tax credits are factored in... I doubt that your claim is any different from the rest.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

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.


I do not know the answer to that, but it definitely isn't the same... the bottom 40% RECIEVED an average of $18,950 FROM the government while the top 20% PAID 92.9% of all Federally collected taxes. Recieving is always going to come out on top of paying as far as the math goes.

I'm angry because I am forced to budget my family tightly to afford to pay for a bunch of other folks' tax payer subsidized leeching lifestyle. I'm aghast at the level of economic parasitism this government has created.
edit on 9-12-2013 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)


why don't you turn your fury into action by seeing to it that they are educated, hired, and paid a livable wage, instead of b*tching about their subsidies....and as far as subsidies, you are subsidizing wal-marts profits, by the low pay to their workers.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


If anyone is surprised, they clearly aren't paying attention.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


The "Livable Wage" argument again????
really??

Give it a rest.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

jimmyx

burdman30ott6

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.


I do not know the answer to that, but it definitely isn't the same... the bottom 40% RECIEVED an average of $18,950 FROM the government while the top 20% PAID 92.9% of all Federally collected taxes. Recieving is always going to come out on top of paying as far as the math goes.

I'm angry because I am forced to budget my family tightly to afford to pay for a bunch of other folks' tax payer subsidized leeching lifestyle. I'm aghast at the level of economic parasitism this government has created.
edit on 9-12-2013 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)


why don't you turn your fury into action by seeing to it that they are educated, hired, and paid a livable wage, instead of b*tching about their subsidies....and as far as subsidies, you are subsidizing wal-marts profits, by the low pay to their workers.


1.) Educated - Having worked with inner city school kids, I can tell you that while most of them are capable, they also have a culture that disincentivizes learning. They derisively call it "being white" (and this is true even for white kids). You can lead a kid to education, but you can't make him learn. You have to change the culture before you can make any gains there. And no, more money will not do it.

2.) Hired - You can give someone a job, but you cannot give him the work ethic required to make him a good employee capable of continuing to hold down that job. If the person in question chooses to not show up on time, screws around on the job, and generally does a poor job, then he is unemployable and does not deserve to have a job no matter how many times he gets hired. Most of the kids I described above were well on the way to acquiring all the poor work habits I mentioned. Again, you need to change the culture and throwing money at it won't fix it.

3.) Living wage - Why on earth would you continue to throw money at people who will not acquire an education or demonstrate even the basic job skills required to hold down a basic job? See points one and two. This is a cultural issue with a lot of people. You can give them money all you like and you are just sweeping the real problems under the rug so that you don't have to acknowledge that exist.
edit on 10-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   

jimmyx
why don't you turn your fury into action by seeing to it that they are educated, hired, and paid a livable wage, instead of b*tching about their subsidies....and as far as subsidies, you are subsidizing wal-marts profits, by the low pay to their workers.


Seems like a personal responsibility issue to me... THEY need to take responsibility for themselves, their education, and their employment situation (like I and the majority of the middle class and up did for ourselves).

I don't shop at Walmart. Maybe, just maybe, if the system would stop bending over backwards to redistribute the wealth of the middle class downward, a lot more people could afford to give Walmart the middle finger, too. It is no coincidence that the growth of Walmart has coincided with the growth of the financial strain various policies have placed on the middle class.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

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.


I do not know the answer to that, but it definitely isn't the same... the bottom 40% RECIEVED an average of $18,950 FROM the government while the top 20% PAID 92.9% of all Federally collected taxes. Recieving is always going to come out on top of paying as far as the math goes.

I'm angry because I am forced to budget my family tightly to afford to pay for a bunch of other folks' tax payer subsidized leeching lifestyle. I'm aghast at the level of economic parasitism this government has created.
edit on 9-12-2013 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)


The short sighted.. ME, ME, selfishness EXUDES in the OP..

How do you think those upper income make all that wealth?/

When the WHOLE economy is CONTROLLED.. has been for awhile, many just do NOT see it.

The Supply/Demand in Labor determines ALL.

When the top pay people start feeling the pinch the less fortunate have BEEN feeling, then it is a problem?

When the Rich own the assets, then pay MEAGER salaries, and keep the housing Market over inflated so they can get higher rent, then where is the money gonna come from?

When the working poor are getting paid LESS EVERY YEAR, and the Rent keeps going up.. SO THAT THE TOP % people can have MORE MONEY?..

Predatory Economy.. has been like a school of Piranha.. the rich(piranha) have picked the bones of the working poor CLEAN over the last 30 years.. and now have resorted to feeding on each other



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   

burdman30ott6

jimmyx
why don't you turn your fury into action by seeing to it that they are educated, hired, and paid a livable wage, instead of b*tching about their subsidies....and as far as subsidies, you are subsidizing wal-marts profits, by the low pay to their workers.


Seems like a personal responsibility issue to me... THEY need to take responsibility for themselves, their education, and their employment situation (like I and the majority of the middle class and up did for ourselves).

I don't shop at Walmart. Maybe, just maybe, if the system would stop bending over backwards to redistribute the wealth of the middle class downward, a lot more people could afford to give Walmart the middle finger, too. It is no coincidence that the growth of Walmart has coincided with the growth of the financial strain various policies have placed on the middle class.


Personal Responsibility,

THE ME,, ME,, ME ,,, PERFECTED..

Hey there GENIUS.. do you know why the quality of life in the western world became once great?

Well, it wasn't the SHALLOW, SHORT SIGHTED, can't see the forest for the trees attitude YOU HAVE..

ALL members of a society should be concerned about OTHERS making a LIVING wage..

WHY? well, being short sighted and selfish may get in the way of understanding things that are NOT SO SIMPLE..

Why-- Supply and Demand of Labor,

If all those people who don't have a musical chair went out and competed for yours, you would NOT have a chair either..

Or, are you so SPECIAL, that at least 1 MILLION people couldn't do what you do?





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join