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

[boedicca]

I would think that under the circumstances the burden of proof would be with you to show where in the Constitution it says that the responsibility of the federal government is to act contrary to the will of the people.

The burden of proof would show where it was set up only to rule by the will of the majority.. the constitution in itself limits the republic to the rule of law... it limits the government very specifically.. and where the government is limited, all other things are left to the freedom of the states and the citizenry on their own to then take care of it outside of the federal government.. whether that be thru state or whatever other level of government, or thru the freedom of the people themselves

The constitution is a LIMITING document... not granting all other powers... it grants specific powers and reserves the rest for the states and individuals... the burden is to show the proof where within the limitations, the power is specifically granted to the federal government...

My proof is the fact that it is not listed within the granted powers

The Constitution is based on explicit and implied powers given to the Federal Government.

The actual exercise of those powers is based on laws enacted by the majority of the people's representatives.

Translation: nyc believes the Constitution is a recipe for Mob Rule.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

"you cannot raise the poor by bringing down the rich" Do you know who said that?

Why would I care who said it? Do you really think I judge right or wrong that way? Are you projecting?

It's wrong. The production of wealth is a zero sum game. The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

That must be why we're both against those rich politicians raising our taxes.

 

[KNB]

This argument that anyone is trying to "bring down the rich" is fucking retarded.

Bill Gates has $70b. If he willingly gave up half of his fortune to the world's poor, he wouldn't be poor himself. He would still have $34b more than any single individual could or would ever need. And if they're all such brilliant business leaders then they should be able to figure out how to live on only 1 or 2 billion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Rich Are Afraid of a single across the board flat 19% tax rate with no loopholes. The current tax system subsidizes the rich & penalizes the working class.

Most of the federal income tax is paid through payroll taxes on people making under $110k. These taxes are not paid by those making over $110k or investment income. Keep on shilling for your rich tax avoiding masters. Wallstreeters like Romney pay NO income tax & only 13% tax rate on carried interest & no payroll taxes.

Effective Tax Rate by income group.

The Rich Are Afraid of a single across the board flat 19% tax rate with no loopholes.

Your chart shows the top 10% have an effective rate over 26%, the top quintile, 25%, why would a 19% rate make them afraid?

 

[LeftofLeft]

It is an "income" tax

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

No one is disputing that reality. The debate is the notion of "fair share". What is one's fair share? 72 percent sounds more than fair.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The burden of proof would show where it was set up only to rule by the will of the majority.. the constitution in itself limits the republic to the rule of law... it limits the government very specifically.. and where the government is limited, all other things are left to the freedom of the states and the citizenry on their own to then take care of it outside of the federal government.. whether that be thru state or whatever other level of government, or thru the freedom of the people themselves

The constitution is a LIMITING document... not granting all other powers... it grants specific powers and reserves the rest for the states and individuals... the burden is to show the proof where within the limitations, the power is specifically granted to the federal government...

My proof is the fact that it is not listed within the granted powers

The Constitution is based on explicit and implied powers given to the Federal Government.

The actual exercise of those powers is based on laws enacted by the majority of the people's representatives.

Translation: nyc believes the Constitution is a recipe for Mob Rule.

'Mob rule' is just a derogatory catchphrase that the oligarchs invented to try to rationalize opposing a government of the people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The burden of proof would show where it was set up only to rule by the will of the majority.. the constitution in itself limits the republic to the rule of law... it limits the government very specifically.. and where the government is limited, all other things are left to the freedom of the states and the citizenry on their own to then take care of it outside of the federal government.. whether that be thru state or whatever other level of government, or thru the freedom of the people themselves

The constitution is a LIMITING document... not granting all other powers... it grants specific powers and reserves the rest for the states and individuals... the burden is to show the proof where within the limitations, the power is specifically granted to the federal government...

My proof is the fact that it is not listed within the granted powers

The Constitution is based on explicit and implied powers given to the Federal Government.

The actual exercise of those powers is based on laws enacted by the majority of the people's representatives.

Translation: nyc believes the Constitution is a recipe for Mob Rule.

The Constitution was ratified by majority votes in the individual states. The President is elected by receiving a majority of the electoral votes from delegates determined by majority/plurality votes of the people of the states. Senators are elected by majority/plurality votes. House members are elected by majority/plurality votes. Federal judges are confirmed by majority votes in the Senate. Bills become laws by majority votes in the Senate and House. Presidential vetoes are overridden by supermajority votes. The Constitution is amended by supermajority votes.

Anyone who thinks this country, via the Constitution, is not run by a democratic system that is primarily majority rule is an idiot.

 

[rightwinger]

No, she chose an expensive college.

I've asked you about this before and you've avoided answering. How much was tuition when you went to college and how much was minimum wage?

My first years tuition was $650 a year and I made $2.10 an hour working minimum wage over the summer

A student making $7.25 an hour over the summer would make $3500 over the summer. Not even close to paying tuition at a public or private college

So what?

BTW when I was working summers to save up tuition I never made just minimum wage and I never worked just one job. When I couldn't afford to pay for an entire semester I went part time.

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

 

[Skull Pilot]

My first years tuition was $650 a year and I made $2.10 an hour working minimum wage over the summer

A student making $7.25 an hour over the summer would make $3500 over the summer. Not even close to paying tuition at a public or private college

So what?

BTW when I was working summers to save up tuition I never made just minimum wage and I never worked just one job. When I couldn't afford to pay for an entire semester I went part time.

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

People don't need to go to college nor do they need a car.

I know plenty of people who never went to college and are are doing better than those who did. And I know plenty of people who live in various cities that do not own cars but rather rent one on the occasion they need a vehicle.

Don't confuse optional activity with necessity

 

[zeke]

So what?

BTW when I was working summers to save up tuition I never made just minimum wage and I never worked just one job. When I couldn't afford to pay for an entire semester I went part time.

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

People don't need to go to college nor do they need a car.

I know plenty of people who never went to college and are are doing better than those who did. And I know plenty of people who live in various cities that do not own cars but rather rent one on the occasion they need a vehicle.

Don't confuse optional activity with necessity

Really? Who in the fuck do you think you are to tell people what they "need"? Are you some all controlling fascist or something?

I know plenty of people who did go to college and are doing much better than the people I know who went to high school. Well except for those in a union. They are still holding on.
So what the fuck does that tell you?

Hey and don't confuse survival with prosperity. Ok? There is a difference if you don't know that.

 

[rightwinger]

So what?

BTW when I was working summers to save up tuition I never made just minimum wage and I never worked just one job. When I couldn't afford to pay for an entire semester I went part time.

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

People don't need to go to college nor do they need a car.

I know plenty of people who never went to college and are are doing better than those who did. And I know plenty of people who live in various cities that do not own cars but rather rent one on the occasion they need a vehicle.

Don't confuse optional activity with necessity

Very true

We don't need an educated workforce. Just a workforce that does what they are told without complaining. You don't like it? I got three people who will gladly take your stinking job

I know plenty of people who never went to college who live in a trailer and drink cheap beer all day. Those people who live in the cities and don't have cars have first rate public transportation available. The same public transportation being cut by Republicans

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what?

BTW when I was working summers to save up tuition I never made just minimum wage and I never worked just one job. When I couldn't afford to pay for an entire semester I went part time.

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

People don't need to go to college nor do they need a car.

I know plenty of people who never went to college and are are doing better than those who did. And I know plenty of people who live in various cities that do not own cars but rather rent one on the occasion they need a vehicle.

Don't confuse optional activity with necessity

If a person doesn't need a car, who needs a yacht?

 

[editec]

Quick everybody lets all feel so sorry for billionaires

They pay too much in taxes wah! wah! wah!.

Seriously what fucking tools some of you are.

Now IF you're getting paid to be such online apologist tools, I still respect you. EVerybody's gotta eat and you're at least paid to lie.

But if you're a working stiff and feel sorry for the billionaires?

You need your fucking head examined.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

People don't need to go to college nor do they need a car.

I know plenty of people who never went to college and are are doing better than those who did. And I know plenty of people who live in various cities that do not own cars but rather rent one on the occasion they need a vehicle.

Don't confuse optional activity with necessity

Really? Who in the fuck do you think you are to tell people what they "need"? Are you some all controlling fascist or something?

I know plenty of people who did go to college and are doing much better than the people I know who went to high school. Well except for those in a union. They are still holding on.
So what the fuck does that tell you?

Hey and don't confuse survival with prosperity. Ok? There is a difference if you don't know that.

Funny I hear idiots like you telling people they don't need weapons all the time.

And anyone can experience prosperity but few actually are willing to do what it takes to achieve it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what?

Our minimum wage is pathetic. While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...a college education or a car

All forfeited in the name of maintaining a low cost workforce

People don't need to go to college nor do they need a car.

I know plenty of people who never went to college and are are doing better than those who did. And I know plenty of people who live in various cities that do not own cars but rather rent one on the occasion they need a vehicle.

Don't confuse optional activity with necessity

If a person doesn't need a car, who needs a yacht?

No one. But if they can afford it who are you to tell them they can't have one.

You are whining about people not being ab;e to afford shit. If they can't afford said shit then they shouldn't buy it. Right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Constitution is based on explicit and implied powers given to the Federal Government.

The actual exercise of those powers is based on laws enacted by the majority of the people's representatives.

Translation: nyc believes the Constitution is a recipe for Mob Rule.

'Mob rule' is just a derogatory catchphrase that the oligarchs invented to try to rationalize opposing a government of the people.

It's also the term used by liberals when they won't allow votes on civil rights issues.

 

[asterism]

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

No, she chose an expensive college.

I've asked you about this before and you've avoided answering. How much was tuition when you went to college and how much was minimum wage?

My first years tuition was $650 a year and I made $2.10 an hour working minimum wage over the summer

A student making $7.25 an hour over the summer would make $3500 over the summer. Not even close to paying tuition at a public or private college

That's not true.

Tuition & Fees | Eastern Florida State College
$128.51 per semester hr. or $3084.24 per year

Tuition & Costs - Colorado Mountain College
$100.50 per hr. or $2412 per year

Financial Information
$117.59 or $2822.16 per year

CSN - Tuition & Fees
$138.25 per hr. or $3318 per year

 

[nodoginnafight]

Show the quote within the constitution.. it is that simple

I would think that under the circumstances the burden of proof would be with you to show where in the Constitution it says that the responsibility of the federal government is to act contrary to the will of the people.

The burden of proof would show where it was set up only to rule by the will of the majority.. the constitution in itself limits the republic to the rule of law... it limits the government very specifically.. and where the government is limited, all other things are left to the freedom of the states and the citizenry on their own to then take care of it outside of the federal government.. whether that be thru state or whatever other level of government, or thru the freedom of the people themselves

The constitution is a LIMITING document... not granting all other powers... it grants specific powers and reserves the rest for the states and individuals... the burden is to show the proof where within the limitations, the power is specifically granted to the federal government...

My proof is the fact that it is not listed within the granted powers

Dave is espousing the Madison interpretation of the Constitution. Hamilton disagreed and the courts ultimately ruled in favor of Hamilton's interpretation on the broader meaning of "promote the general welfare."

Dave is trying to re-fight that battle.

I can respect differing opinions and the right of folks to promote their opinions. But when your opinion has been debated extensively and rejected, it is dishonest to assert that opinion as "fact" or as "the only honest and true opinion."

At best you can call it a minority opinion that you hope folks change their mind about in order to make it a majority opinion.

 

[hangover]

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

And those are the voters that allowed the politicians to run up a $17 trillion national debt. The only way the debt gets paid, is if those with the money pay it. Quite being dead beats.

 

[asterism]

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.

The issue in taxing people who make that much money is not whether they can survive, it's whether they would still perform the activities that generate income at that and higher levels. A balance has to be struck somewhere because currently most people making below $100K per year have no problem expanding government because they don't think it'll cost them anything.