$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

It is an "income" tax

Those who have the most "income" pay the most tax

A news agency here in South Carolina is about to break a HUGE story about the gas tax in this state:

Basically, people who buy the most gas....pay the majority of gas taxes.

The Republicans are gonna go wild with this one:eek:
 
Keynesianism should read Bastiat's parable of the broken window.
 
Nope - I'm hanging my hat on the numbers. That kind of turnaround in three years is very dramatic. By any standard. Attempts to claim otherwise - in contradiction to the numbers based on opinion - is not solid imho.

Ah, you admit it's your opinion.

Keynesian economics assumes government spending is good for the economy and you assume that there are zero costs when the government diverts money from the private sector. That is not the case. Whether the money for increased spending comes from increased taxes or borrowing, the damage to the economy is the same. Less money for consumers to put into the economy, so slowing economic growth. It was true in the 30's and 60's and 70's in the United State,, in Japan in the 90's to today and it's true today.

I assume unemployment was slashed, GDP soared, and consumer spending soared.
Oh wait .... the numbers say that - I'm not assuming anything. Yes, dramatic is a subjective term.

Well, the youtube of Friedman sort of obliquely makes the point. But Keynes did not actually assume "zero costs" as Hunarcy posts. Keynes theory is that if an economy is operating at 70% production capacity, and it wants 90% utilization, the govt can consume the 20% ... wait for it .... wait for it. .... WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.

And that's ACTUALLY TRUE, because the workers who get jobs to produce the 20% will not only pay taxes, but they'll buy stuff, which in turn will create more production, and generate even more tax revenue.

What Hunarcy posts about govt diverting money from private consumption is close to economic theory, but not really Friedman's theory. Assuming private consumption plus govt consumption exceeds 100% capacity, you have several problems, and that's close to what happened in the LBJ Vietnam/great society years. We had the beginning of inflation. EDIT, more dollars chasing the same amount of goods led to inflation, and THAT is the core of Friedman's thesis.

But that was sort of irrelevant in that the REAL inflation came when the Saudies cut oil exports figuring there was no cost to them because demand would increase the cost of oil for importers, leaving them with roughly the same value of dollars/pounds/francs as they'd have had without cutting production.

Nixon stabbed them in the back by essentially devaluing the dollar. So they got more greenbacks for their oil, but not much more value. Of course we got runaway inflation.

And Greenspan, Volker, Friedman, Carter and Reagan drove a steak in Keynes' heart by killing inflation by killing consumption with high interest rates ... and we had over 10% unemployment for awhile. I went to work in the Oil Patch. But that's another story (-:
 
Last edited:
All are deductible (subsidy) on your Federal form.
How about zero deductions? For anything. Everybody pay the exact same X% of their income. Seems fair to me.

Why don't you do a 're-do' of your taxes without the subsidy. Let me know how that work out.

I'm not sure what subsidy you seem to have magically discovered for me, but please tell me what it is because I can't find it. I eagerly await your clairvoyance concerning my taxes for 2014.
 
You are paying $5 a gallon for milk because without government subsidies, you would be paying $7 a gallon

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...rm-bill-impasse-could-send-US-off-dairy-cliff.
I don't drink milk, so why the fuck should I be forced to subsidize it?
If you want to drink cow milk, pay the market price, don't force me to pay part of it for you.
The same goes for anything else you want to purchase.
Why the fuck do you people think the taxpayer should be subsidizing anything at the force of the majority or government?

Cheese? Butter?

Milk products go into much of what we eat

My point still stands and you can't refute it.
If you could, you would have, and you didn't.
 
Very true

You can't touch wealth. You can only tax income. So what do th wealthy do? Minimize what gets reported as income and protect wealth

Meanwhile, the middle class sees their wealth diminish as they are fully taxed on their income

Guess who writes the tax code?
Rich democrat politicians.
Wealthiest Members of Congress - List of the 10 Wealthiest Members of Congress
Seven of the top 10 are democrats.
You can start spinning now.

And those wealthy Democrats vote to raise their own taxes

Meanwhile, the wealthy Republicans vote to slash food stamps for the poor
Please provide a link to these supposed slashes that you speak of.
Last I looked, it was an end to a temporary increase, kind of like an end to a temporary tax cut. Not a slash, a temporary increase voted for by democrats.
Carry on with your talking points.
 
But the Marxists keep saying the rich aren't paying their "fair share."

Taxpayers earning $100,000 or more a year pay 71.6% of the nation’s share in individual federal income taxes, according to the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from 2011.

These data do not include corporate income taxes, or taxes on capital gains or dividends, or payroll taxes for Social Security and other programs.

In 2011, according to the IRS, there were 145,370,240 individual income tax returns filed. Among those returns, 125,914,418 or 86.6%, belonged to taxpayers earning a salary less than $100,000. The remaining 19,455,822 returns belonged to those taxpayers earning more than $100,000, or 13.4% of the total.

While those top earners, earning six figures or more, represented only 13.4% of the total number of individual income tax returns reported to the IRS, they contributed nearly three-fourths of the total amount of federal tax revenue from individual filers reported for that year.

$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes | CNS News

That small number of taxpayers paid 72% of income taxes, but they also earned 45% of all the personal income in the country.

That is how a progressive tax works; you pay a higher rate on your money earned in the higher brackets.

What's your remedy, if you think a remedy is needed? Cut the rates on the higher brackets and raise the rates on the lower brackets?

That would do it, but it would also be in keeping with what I've said repeatedly...

...conservatives want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

OK, we get it, you don't understand fair.
If everybody paid exactly X% of their income in taxes, you don't think that is fair.
If everybody paid the exact same dollar amount in taxes you don't think that is fair.
You have some wild notion that a majority should be able to enforce higher taxes on a minority.
At what point do your ethics disagree with majority rule? Is it when the majority wants to tax homosexuals at a higher rate than heterosexuals? Is it when the majority wants to tax blacks at at a higher rate than whites?
You seem to want majority rule as long as you are part of the majority that can screw over the group of people you don't like. The point of the constitution is to protect everybody against assholes like you.
 
Lots of families on Medicaid have jobs. If you tax them you're making them pay into the government, and then get paid back from the government when they need healthcare, via Medicaid. That's stupid.

Why not just cut their Medicaid?

Hence why there should be no handouts from the government... and everyone earning even $1 should be paying income tax

Right. When the poor receive no medical care, and no public education, and no help with food, or housing, or energy,

then America will be a better place?

...and still there are conservatives on this forum who attack me for pointing out that what conservatives want is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

You people prove it in post after post. Own up to it.
Everybody gets a public education. Name one person or group that doesn't.

Beside that point,
name one place in either the rule of law or the US constitution that says it is incumbent upon me to provide medical care, education, food, housing or energy to any individual.
You are more than welcome to provide those luxuries to anybody you choose to. At the point that you want to force me to use the fruits of my labor to provide for another of your choosing, you have become a fascist.
I won't stand in your way to provide charity to people of your choice, please allow me the same consideration. Don't force me to provide charity you choose by using the government as your hired gun.
 
It is an "income" tax

Those who have the most "income" pay the most tax

And if the tax system was overhauled to become more fair, it'd still be that way. One flat rate for everyone, everyone with income pays.

Explain a flat tax system where the wealthy do not end up paying less and the working poor do not end up paying more

Everybody pays X% of what they earn.
Same rate for everybody.
Lets just give 5% as an example.

Joe earns $800,000 a year. 5% tax on $800,000 = $40,000
Bob earns $25,000 a year. 5% tax on $25,000 = $1,250
Joe pays $40,000 and Bob pays $1,250.
See, the wealthy guy pays more. It is simple math. How come you can't understand that?
 
RW has the Green Eyed Monster...

You can't teach this, it's breeding...

Since he can't earn it, he justifies stealing it...

Pond scum...
 
The 16% Romney pays is not the issue, never has been and never will be...

The RW's of the world will always be stuck on the tit, face it he has his hand opened and demanding society make his life fair, earning it would be impossible...

Keep blaming the earners and you will have post WWII USSR...
 
I believe most are not lazy. They simply don't realize how much better they can do for themselves than the government can do for them.

It seems many like NYCarbineer see the poor as helpless....people that cant do it on their own if they didn't get it from the government.

They are not. A need for food and shelter is an amazing motivator. The need for food and shelter for your children is an even greater motivator.



You reflect what I've also said many times. Conservatives want poverty to hurt people as much as it possibly can,

to 'motivate' them.

Most Medicaid goes to children, the elderly, and the disabled. Do you have lots of jobs ready for those people,

once you've 'motivated' them?

I just want people to be ashamed of being on the dole.

Shame is a better motivator than pain

These days, that doesn't seem to be the case.
Sad.
 
How about zero deductions? For anything. Everybody pay the exact same X% of their income. Seems fair to me.

Why don't you do a 're-do' of your taxes without the subsidy. Let me know how that work out.

I'm not sure what subsidy you seem to have magically discovered for me, but please tell me what it is because I can't find it. I eagerly await your clairvoyance concerning my taxes for 2014.

Your deductions are subsidies. Any financial aid that the Government gives you is a subsidy.
 
Why don't you do a 're-do' of your taxes without the subsidy. Let me know how that work out.

I'm not sure what subsidy you seem to have magically discovered for me, but please tell me what it is because I can't find it. I eagerly await your clairvoyance concerning my taxes for 2014.

Your deductions are subsidies. Any financial aid that the Government gives you is a subsidy.

Tell me, what deductions do I have?
It amazes me that you, as some random internet forum person somehow has discovered some sort of deduction/subsidy that applies to my taxes. Again, please tell me what it is because I can't find it.
I am relying on your clairvoyance to avoid taxes for 2014 as I regret missing them for tax year 2013.
 
I'm not sure what subsidy you seem to have magically discovered for me, but please tell me what it is because I can't find it. I eagerly await your clairvoyance concerning my taxes for 2014.

Your deductions are subsidies. Any financial aid that the Government gives you is a subsidy.

Tell me, what deductions do I have?
It amazes me that you, as some random internet forum person somehow has discovered some sort of deduction/subsidy that applies to my taxes. Again, please tell me what it is because I can't find it.
I am relying on your clairvoyance to avoid taxes for 2014 as I regret missing them for tax year 2013.

Seems you're in need of a tax professional.
 
You don't build character in poor people by making them poorer.

If someone has a legitimate reason for being poor other then being lazy? Fine help em out.
And making someone work for what they have will most definitely build character and confidence in their ability to be more then a taker.

Someone working at minimum wage is poor. They don't appear to be lazy to me from what I've seen.

The wife of my daughter's Science teacher works for minimum wage. They are not poor, she just wants some extra spending money and doesn't want any responsibility. My niece makes minimum wage as a college student. She's not poor either.
 
If someone has a legitimate reason for being poor other then being lazy? Fine help em out.
And making someone work for what they have will most definitely build character and confidence in their ability to be more then a taker.

Someone working at minimum wage is poor. They don't appear to be lazy to me from what I've seen.

The wife of my daughter's Science teacher works for minimum wage. They are not poor, she just wants some extra spending money and doesn't want any responsibility. My niece makes minimum wage as a college student. She's not poor either.

Is your niece able to pay for her college expenses with her minimum wage job? I did when I went to college
 

Forum List

Back
Top