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

[NYcarbineer]

[
apples an oranges. If that was done, the workers would either quit or reduce their productivity because they were pissed. the company would lose sales and profits. What you don't get is that successful companies value their employees, companies that shit on employees do not survive.

?

Reconcile your claim wtih this chart:

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're OK with things being unfair as long as you're on the receiving end.

And you call other people selfish.

On your way to trying to insult me you forgot to answer the question. That means the answer was 'no'.

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

That's a tax increase for most low to moderate income Americans and a huge tax cut for most upper income/rich Americans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

As one in the 72% I have no problem paying my taxes but I wish the Federal Income Tax gave us a tax credit for income tax paid in our state. It disgusts me that my tax money is going to a member of the H. of Rep who has spent more time raising money for his next election than honestly debating contemporary issues on the floor of Congress.

BTW, let's cut the pay and benefits of members of the "people house" to be on par with the median income of the American Ciitizen.

..."the ACS (American Community Survey) 2012 U.S. median household income was $51,371." Link:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf

No doubt the average American worker pays for more things than the average member of Congress and the average American worker works much, much, much harder for less.

 

[Redfish]

[
apples an oranges. If that was done, the workers would either quit or reduce their productivity because they were pissed. the company would lose sales and profits. What you don't get is that successful companies value their employees, companies that shit on employees do not survive.

?

Reconcile your claim wtih this chart:

productivity has gone up due to automation. automation eliminates many low tech jobs.

 

[Redfish]

So if wages were cut at a company to enhance profits, and the profits go to the shareholders instead of the workers,

nobody lost???

apples an oranges. If that was done, the workers would either quit or reduce their productivity because they were pissed. the company would lose sales and profits.

What you don't get is that successful companies value their employees, companies that shit on employees do not survive.

But you dodged my real question--------who lost money because Bill Gates became rich?

Name the companies that have seen mass exoduses of workers because labor had to make concessions on wages and benefits.

stop changing the subject, Who became less wealthy because Gates became very wealthy? Wealth is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created, not taken from someone else.

 

[Redfish]

On your way to trying to insult me you forgot to answer the question. That means the answer was 'no'.

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

That's a tax increase for most low to moderate income Americans and a huge tax cut for most upper income/rich Americans.

not if it is applied to all forms of income. the rich get a small % of their income from paychecks.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It is an "income" tax

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

Damn RW why did you have to kill his thread in the first post?

Looks like it's up to 25 pages now.....

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

So? He still killed it.

 

[Care4all]

So you're OK with things being unfair as long as you're on the receiving end.

And you call other people selfish.

On your way to trying to insult me you forgot to answer the question. That means the answer was 'no'.

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

Including businesses and corporations? Where they too can take no deductions and pay their taxes on their total revenues instead of profit?

If not including businesses? why not for them, if it is okay with taxing individuals on their gross?

and does this 'no deductions' mean that not even what some put in 401k's are not deductible?

And does this mean that this flat tax will also include the taxes for social Security and the excise taxes imposed by the federal gvt too?

Just one federal flat tax of everyone's GROSS Income, (including corps and businesses) that will replace all the taxes imposed by the Federal Government now?

10% to 12% could be a little low....

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you're OK with things being unfair as long as you're on the receiving end.

And you call other people selfish.

On your way to trying to insult me you forgot to answer the question. That means the answer was 'no'.

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

A flat tax would be a lot easier, but would it be better? A couple of Eastern European countries that tried it (Czech Republic 15% and Slovakia 19%) have repealed it. Bulgaria's PM has vowed to keep it - but he is coming under fire for it.

Since the flat tax essentially shifts more of the burden onto the lower tax brackets (especially if you start it with the first dollar - which very few endorse), you are creating a disincentive to work for the lowest earners. Why work harder if your gonna be flat broke anyway?

And in a country where the difference between the very rich and the very poor is so vast, why add to the difference - and the resulting dissatisfaction of so many.

Ultimately I don't support a flat tax because I don't think we need it. It is typically a tool to attract outside investments. Considering that our very rich are getting even richer - It doesn't appear to me that our progressive tax system is providing any disincentives there.

I do favor simplifying our tax code by taking out all the little tax favors and I do believe that everyone should pay at least something - so they have some ownership in the system and a bigger interest in how our tax dollars are spent. But 10% on the lowest earners is too much imho.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

That's a tax increase for most low to moderate income Americans and a huge tax cut for most upper income/rich Americans.

not if it is applied to all forms of income. the rich get a small % of their income from paychecks.

And what are the current rates on capital gains?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
apples an oranges. If that was done, the workers would either quit or reduce their productivity because they were pissed. the company would lose sales and profits. What you don't get is that successful companies value their employees, companies that shit on employees do not survive.

?

Reconcile your claim wtih this chart:

productivity has gone up due to automation. automation eliminates many low tech jobs.

I repeat. Reconcile your claim with this chart.

 

[Skull Pilot]

On your way to trying to insult me you forgot to answer the question. That means the answer was 'no'.

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

Including businesses and corporations? Where they too can take no deductions and pay their taxes on their total revenues instead of profit?

If not including businesses? why not for them, if it is okay with taxing individuals on their gross?

Why not. Income is income. I don't think you'd get too much opposition to a flat 10% tax on corporate income

and does this 'no deductions' mean that not even what some put in 401k's are not deductible?

No deductions means just that. And don't think that a 401 contribution is not taxed because it is in fact a 401 is a rip off. All the gains get taxed a regular earned income not as capital gains so the only one winning out there is the fucking government.

If we instituted a flat tax on the first dollar earned and you invested after you paid taxes you would not have to pay tax again on the principle and would only be taxed at the one low tax rate on all your gains. In short you would be far better off.

And does this mean that this flat tax will also include the taxes for social Security and the excise taxes imposed by the federal gvt too?

The flat tax is an income tax replacement. Social security should be privatized.

Just one federal flat tax of everyone's GROSS Income, (including corps and businesses) that will replace all the taxes imposed by the Federal Government now?

10% to 12% could be a little low....

I never said it would replace all taxes did I? I was talking about the income tax.

 

[Skull Pilot]

On your way to trying to insult me you forgot to answer the question. That means the answer was 'no'.

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

A flat tax would be a lot easier, but would it be better? A couple of Eastern European countries that tried it (Czech Republic 15% and Slovakia 19%) have repealed it. Bulgaria's PM has vowed to keep it - but he is coming under fire for it.

Since the flat tax essentially shifts more of the burden onto the lower tax brackets (especially if you start it with the first dollar - which very few endorse), you are creating a disincentive to work for the lowest earners. Why work harder if your gonna be flat broke anyway?

And in a country where the difference between the very rich and the very poor is so vast, why add to the difference - and the resulting dissatisfaction of so many.

Ultimately I don't support a flat tax because I don't think we need it. It is typically a tool to attract outside investments. Considering that our very rich are getting even richer - It doesn't appear to me that our progressive tax system is providing any disincentives there.

I do favor simplifying our tax code by taking out all the little tax favors and I do believe that everyone should pay at least something - so they have some ownership in the system and a bigger interest in how our tax dollars are spent. But 10% on the lowest earners is too much imho.

I don't think 10 cents on the dollar is too much to ask anyone.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I am all for a flat tax on all income. One low rate no deductions no exemptions and no special treatment.

I think 10 - 12 % on all income from the first dollar earned is reasonable.

A flat tax would be a lot easier, but would it be better? A couple of Eastern European countries that tried it (Czech Republic 15% and Slovakia 19%) have repealed it. Bulgaria's PM has vowed to keep it - but he is coming under fire for it.

Since the flat tax essentially shifts more of the burden onto the lower tax brackets (especially if you start it with the first dollar - which very few endorse), you are creating a disincentive to work for the lowest earners. Why work harder if your gonna be flat broke anyway?

And in a country where the difference between the very rich and the very poor is so vast, why add to the difference - and the resulting dissatisfaction of so many.

Ultimately I don't support a flat tax because I don't think we need it. It is typically a tool to attract outside investments. Considering that our very rich are getting even richer - It doesn't appear to me that our progressive tax system is providing any disincentives there.

I do favor simplifying our tax code by taking out all the little tax favors and I do believe that everyone should pay at least something - so they have some ownership in the system and a bigger interest in how our tax dollars are spent. But 10% on the lowest earners is too much imho.

I don't think 10 cents on the dollar is too much to ask anyone.

For someone making $18,000 a year - $1,800 in income taxes is a huge bite.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - but I disagree.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A flat tax would be a lot easier, but would it be better? A couple of Eastern European countries that tried it (Czech Republic 15% and Slovakia 19%) have repealed it. Bulgaria's PM has vowed to keep it - but he is coming under fire for it.

Since the flat tax essentially shifts more of the burden onto the lower tax brackets (especially if you start it with the first dollar - which very few endorse), you are creating a disincentive to work for the lowest earners. Why work harder if your gonna be flat broke anyway?

And in a country where the difference between the very rich and the very poor is so vast, why add to the difference - and the resulting dissatisfaction of so many.

Ultimately I don't support a flat tax because I don't think we need it. It is typically a tool to attract outside investments. Considering that our very rich are getting even richer - It doesn't appear to me that our progressive tax system is providing any disincentives there.

I do favor simplifying our tax code by taking out all the little tax favors and I do believe that everyone should pay at least something - so they have some ownership in the system and a bigger interest in how our tax dollars are spent. But 10% on the lowest earners is too much imho.

I don't think 10 cents on the dollar is too much to ask anyone.

For someone making $18,000 a year - $1,800 in income taxes is a huge bite.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - but I disagree.

It wouldn't even be felt.

People live on their net not their gross.

If you make 500 a week and took home 450 you would live on the 450.

 

[Redfish]

Reconcile your claim wtih this chart:

productivity has gone up due to automation. automation eliminates many low tech jobs.

I repeat. Reconcile your claim with this chart.

how many times must I do it? automation causes productivity to go up. the wage line on your chart is meaningless because there is no direct correlation between wages and productivity.

 

[GWV5903]

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...

Are you willing to have your taxes raised in order to make it 'fairer' for the top ten percent, while still taking in the same amount of revenue,

or are you in the top 10 percent?

Because that is the only way you 'fix' this, all else being equal.

The number of taxpayers that fit in the category under this amount is staggering and I assure you the percentage that file false information would knock you on your ass...

This only get's fixed when we address this...

The top 10% or even the top 1% cannot overcome the spending by the Fed's...

The group I am referring to rarely gets audited and what passes for a tax preparer today and the fees they get are astounding...

Don't misunderstand my position, everyone needs to pay including the Romney's of the world, but you cannot justify double and triple taxation, Buffet's example is not the correct comparison and he knows it...

 

[Redfish]

That's a tax increase for most low to moderate income Americans and a huge tax cut for most upper income/rich Americans.

not if it is applied to all forms of income. the rich get a small % of their income from paychecks.

And what are the current rates on capital gains?

depends on your income and whether they are long or short term. in general around the 16% the you bitch about Romney paying.

I am all for taxing all income from every source, I am also for collecting SS taxes on all income rather than just the first 106K.

The only fair tax is a flat tax, anything else is an attempt at income redistribution that will be overridden by congressional action by creating loopholes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I don't think 10 cents on the dollar is too much to ask anyone.

For someone making $18,000 a year - $1,800 in income taxes is a huge bite.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion - but I disagree.

It wouldn't even be felt.

People live on their net not their gross.

If you make 500 a week and took home 450 you would live on the 450.

Your opinion that "it wouldn't even be felt" has no basis in reality.

$150 less per month - for someone who is living at that level is a HUGE bite. I respect your right to your opinion, but I believe it is absurd. And I think the vast majority of Americans would agree. But I guess we will see - let me know when they start taxing 10% on the very poorest Americans.

 

[hunarcy]

Yeah, "let them eat cake" has never been a winning platform plank.
And we should be glad that extremism like this is typically rejected.
I agree with some significant steps toward cutting ALL spending - including that on aid and targeting aid more carefully. And I agree with getting everyone to have a stake in the game.

But to tell a hungry kid or a handicapped adult to "get a job" - yeah, that ain't happening.

It is NOT the responsibility of the federal government to feed the hungry or care for the handicapped.