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

[boedicca]

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....

Then just have one flat deduction for all income owners. The point here should be for taxes to not be the biggest expense for individuals and families. Currently, taxes for the majority of folks exceed their combined expenses for Shelter, Food, and Clothing. That is nuts, and very destructive to our society.

Taxing a business 10-12% of REVENUES when many operating on 1-2% profit margins will just drive them out of business.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yes it is

 

[Moonglow]

I'd prefer we stop income taxes and go back to levies, tariffs and tax on finished products...

 

[edthecynic]

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.

And if a millionaire paid an extra 10% it wouldn't be felt either, they would just live on $15,000 a week instead of $17,000 a week.

 

[Anders]

Non Partisan

Each side has points.

Something does need to be done about welfare queens.
Govt should prove itself fiscally responsible before any increase in taxes
the top 1 percent are fucking over the rest of the country.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

lol, you're the one who made a correlation. You claimed that workers quit or lower their productivity if they have to make wage/benefits concessions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Based on IRS data from 2011 tax returns

■Your $100,000 adjusted gross income (AGI) puts you in the top 25% of earners.

■The top-earning 25% of taxpayers reported 67.8% of all AGI and paid 85.6% of total income taxes.

Read more at Your Tax Burden Calculator-Kiplinger

 

[boedicca]

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.

And if a millionaire paid an extra 10% it wouldn't be felt either, they would just live on $15,000 a week instead of $17,000 a week.

Bald.R.Dash

Someone who makes that much money would still feel it if his income was whacked by 10%.

Quit being so envious. It's not an attractive quality.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

And if a millionaire paid an extra 10% it wouldn't be felt either, they would just live on $15,000 a week instead of $17,000 a week.

Then I guess other unequal treatment would be fine for you as well.. for example, more more heavily weighed vote based on income.. or access to some government services if you make over X amount or are in the higher tax brackets??

Funny how it is the conservative that is for actual equality in treatment... while we hear the lefties like you screaming for it only when it is for the benefit of your cause

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

As long as a majority of people vote (as I will) to feed hungry children and the non-able-bodied - then it IS the role of government. The role of government is NOT determined by your preferences. It is determined by the will of the people.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

Majority of voters and their WISH does not matter, as long as there is the rule of law.... which is how we are SUPPOSED to run.. to protect against the tyranny of the majority, which you advocate

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

As long as a majority of people vote (as I will) to feed hungry children and the non-able-bodied - then it IS the role of government. The role of government is NOT determined by your preferences. It is determined by the will of the people.

No.. it is determined by the rule of law.. if you knew anything about our government at all, you would know that

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It's the responsibility of the federal government to reflect the will of the people. When the will of people becomes 'let the hungry starve', or 'let the sick die' then it's the responsibility of the federal government to do so.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

Majority of voters and their WISH does not matter, as long as there is the rule of law.... which is how we are SUPPOSED to run.. to protect against the tyranny of the majority, which you advocate

Very true. It is the Constitutionaly elected representatives of the people who write that law

If you want to pass a law banning the feeding of the hungry....you are welcome to try

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes it is

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

It is covered in Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution

No.. it is not

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Says nothing about the government being responsible for each citizen's personal well being

And if it is not specifically a power granted within the constitution (which it is not), the 10th amendment reserves that power for the states or the individuals

idiot

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO it is not.... it is to ensure the freedom for you to succeed or fail all on your own.. if you CANNOT take care of yourself.. you become a ward of the state... like a person in a coma in a state home, a prisoner, or other similar ones that are not guaranteed a freedom

As long as a majority of people vote (as I will) to feed hungry children and the non-able-bodied - then it IS the role of government. The role of government is NOT determined by your preferences. It is determined by the will of the people.

No.. it is determined by the rule of law.. if you knew anything about our government at all, you would know that

The food stamp program is the law.

 

[DiamondDave]

I will always vote to feed hungry children and help the non-able-bodied adults. And as long as a majority of Voters agree with me - it IS the role of government.

Majority of voters and their WISH does not matter, as long as there is the rule of law.... which is how we are SUPPOSED to run.. to protect against the tyranny of the majority, which you advocate

Very true. It is the Constitutionaly elected representatives of the people who write that law

If you want to pass a law banning the feeding of the hungry....you are welcome to try

First you have to make a law abiding by the powers vested in the constitution where it is deemed an actual power of the federal government... it is a power that has been wrongfully ASSUMED.. it is not a job of the federal government that is written ANYWHERE in the constitution