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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

While it was never intended to provide a living wage, it no longer even provides the basics for a young worker to start out...

It's amazing what letting millions and millions of low skill workers invade our country will do to the wages of our native low skill workers.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

As I said before, the wealthy seem to be doing quite well in the U.S. - They appear to be content to set up shop in the U.S. and avail themselves to this enormously lucrative U.S. marketplace.

So shifting more of the tax burden off the very wealthy and onto the poor and lower income brackets with an all-inclusive flat tax seems to be an attempted fix to a problem that doesn't appear to exist.

Mitt Romney pays an effective tax rate of 16%. I don't blame him for not paying more. I don't advocate anyone paying more than required and I don't begrudge a single penny to anyone. But it's hard to argue that 16% is over taxing the wealthy.

 

[asterism]

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.

As I said before, the wealthy seem to be doing quite well in the U.S. - They appear to be content to set up shop in the U.S. and avail themselves to this enormously lucrative U.S. marketplace.

So shifting more of the tax burden off the very wealthy and onto the poor and lower income brackets with an all-inclusive flat tax seems to be an attempted fix to a problem that doesn't appear to exist.

Mitt Romney pays an effective tax rate of 16%. I don't blame him for not paying more. I don't advocate anyone paying more than required and I don't begrudge a single penny to anyone. But it's hard to argue that 16% is over taxing the wealthy.

I don't know of anyone making the argument that 16% is too much. The problem is that there is widespread public support for doubling and tripling that rate. It won't work because that will disincentivize people to earn at that level.

If you look at the premise of this thread, declining income tax rates across the board actually shift the burden TO those at the upper end and not onto the poor and lower income brackets.

However, we're at a point now where more and more people want more and more government programs without regard to cost because they think someone else will be forced to pay for them.

 

[alan1]

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 provided zero help.
But then I expected that from somebody that claims I have some sort of subsidy that said person (you) cannot identify.
The really sad part is that you accept a tax professional as a necessary ingredient to filing taxes. That means the tax laws are ridiculously convoluted, which takes us back to my original point. Make everybody pay the exact same X% or the exact same X$ amount and be done with it.
Simple, easy and fair. But it would put IRS agents out of a job. Oh, wait, that is an added bonus.

 

[alan1]

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.

Do you have children? A mortgage?

Yes to both. (Please note that I answered your questions)
My children are grown, and pay taxes.
My mortgage is small, it gives me no tax deduction, nor should it.
You obviously think that the mere act of having children or financing a house is worthy of a tax deduction. It seems kind of foolish to hold that opinion.
I answered your questions, will you answer mine?
If I borrow money to buy a luxury car should that be tax deductible, the same as a mortgage? What if I live in the car, does that make it different?
If I adopt homeless dogs (or cats or snakes or some other critter) should that be a tax deduction equal to adopting homeless children?

I suspect rightwinger won't answer my questions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

As I said before, the wealthy seem to be doing quite well in the U.S. - They appear to be content to set up shop in the U.S. and avail themselves to this enormously lucrative U.S. marketplace.

So shifting more of the tax burden off the very wealthy and onto the poor and lower income brackets with an all-inclusive flat tax seems to be an attempted fix to a problem that doesn't appear to exist.

Mitt Romney pays an effective tax rate of 16%. I don't blame him for not paying more. I don't advocate anyone paying more than required and I don't begrudge a single penny to anyone. But it's hard to argue that 16% is over taxing the wealthy.

I don't know of anyone making the argument that 16% is too much. The problem is that there is widespread public support for doubling and tripling that rate. It won't work because that will disincentivize people to earn at that level.

If you look at the premise of this thread, declining income tax rates across the board actually shift the burden TO those at the upper end and not onto the poor and lower income brackets.

However, we're at a point now where more and more people want more and more government programs without regard to cost because they think someone else will be forced to pay for them.

Well - the 16% is an "effective" rate. The book rate on the higher income levels is quite a bit higher. But since almost everyone lowers their effective rate with deductions and tax credits, the effective rate for the most wealthy (and the effective rate for everyone) turns out to be a lot lower than the "book rate."

Instead of jacking up the rates, why not eliminate some of the deductions and credits?

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Do you have children? A mortgage?

Yes to both. (Please note that I answered your questions)
My children are grown, and pay taxes.
My mortgage is small, it gives me no tax deduction, nor should it.
You obviously think that the mere act of having children or financing a house is worthy of a tax deduction. It seems kind of foolish to hold that opinion.
I answered your questions, will you answer mine?
If I borrow money to buy a luxury car should that be tax deductible, the same as a mortgage? What if I live in the car, does that make it different?
If I adopt homeless dogs (or cats or snakes or some other critter) should that be a tax deduction equal to adopting homeless children?

I suspect rightwinger won't answer my questions.

You have a standard deduction at the very least.

 

[alan1]

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.

are you really that ignorant? Who is poorer because Bill Gates is very rich? Wealth can be created, it does not have to be taken from someone else.

Do you really think the supply of wealth is finite? If so, you really need to sign up for an Econ 101 class are your local jr college.

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

nobody lost???

Simple solution.
Buy shares in the company you work for.
I do.
I have a vested interest in the company I work for. And an invested interest.

Yer argument is kind of a strawman though. I've never worked where wages were cut.

 

[alan1]

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

College tuition has soared well beyond the rate of inflation. The minimum wage level has nothing to do with it.

Since 1982 a typical family income increased by 147%, more than inflation but significantly behind the huge increase in college costs. College costs have been rising roughly at a rate of 7% per year for decades. Since 1985, the overall consumer price index has risen 115% while the college education inflation rate has risen nearly 500%.

College Costs Out Of Control - Forbes

Ok...then lets look at other costs that have gone up since I was making $2.10 an hour minimum wage

For that $2.10 I could buy seven gallons of gas. A minimum wage of $7.25 will buy slightly more than two
For $2.10 an hour I could buy a new compact car after working 1200 hours. At todays minimum wage you would have to work 2750 hours

Minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. It used to provide the basics to get started in life. Pay for college, buy a car. Now it can just buy you toys while you go into debt to get started in life

Did that car have federally mandated seat belts, airbags, third breaklight, CAFE gas mileage requirements? All things that increase the cost of manufacturing a car.
It's funny (not funny haha, but funny odd) how liberals want the government to force the increase of the cost of things, then try to force the increase of wages to offset the cost of the same shit they just forced the cost of to rise.
It makes me sad that people are that stupid.

 

[alan1]

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.

If everybody paid the exact same tax rate it would be fair.
Yer not about fair, yer about fucking over anybody that makes more than you.
Why do you want to fuck over other people?
What is wrong with you?

 

[alan1]

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.

The bite is the same for somebody paying $8000 on an $80,000 income.
It's still 10%.
I fail to understand why an equal percentage for everybody is somehow considered unfair.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If everybody paid the exact same tax rate it would be fair.

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

 

[alan1]

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.

Are you against treating everybody equally and exactly the same? I'm not.
It's fair to treat everybody equally and exactly the same.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

I'll bet the blue collar union workers who build the yachts are pretty damn happy people buy them. I mean, you are for the "little guy," aren't you?

 

[alan1]

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 isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Do you have children? A mortgage?

Yes to both. (Please note that I answered your questions)
My children are grown, and pay taxes.
My mortgage is small, it gives me no tax deduction, nor should it.
You obviously think that the mere act of having children or financing a house is worthy of a tax deduction. It seems kind of foolish to hold that opinion.
I answered your questions, will you answer mine?
If I borrow money to buy a luxury car should that be tax deductible, the same as a mortgage? What if I live in the car, does that make it different?
If I adopt homeless dogs (or cats or snakes or some other critter) should that be a tax deduction equal to adopting homeless children?

I suspect rightwinger won't answer my questions.

So I assume you benefitted from both a mortgage deduction and a dependent exemption for your kids.

The answers to your questions
1. No and No
2. No

 

[bendog]

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

Yes it is

No, it isn't.
Nothing in the US constitution says that it is.
You are more than welcome to do so, I can do so, but at the point you force anybody to do so, you have become a fascist.
Don't use government as your tool for fascism. In the long run, it never works.

Wish what you wish, but if the majority want the feds to help care for the hungary and disabled, then it's the feds' job.

 

[Redfish]

If everybody paid the exact same tax rate it would be fair.

Of course that wouldn't be fair. Only a simpleton requires such simplicity.

That's like saying if you give a three-year-old the same size piece of cake that you give an offensive lineman in the NFL - that's "fair."

Equal doesn't always mean fair.
Another example if you give every soldier a ham sandwich for lunch - that's "fair" by your standards. But it isn't because some of the soldiers may have religious prohibitions against eating pork. So that's not fair to them.

Bottom line is that equal isn't always fair.

And in MHO I think a progressive tax structure is more fair than a flat tax structure. I'm grateful the majority of Americans agree with me.

why is it good for a society to have a tax structure that punishes success and rewards failure?

 

[alan1]

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.

Using that same logic, you don't mind if a person making $20k pays 10% more than somebody making $5k. Or do you have some magical number where the ten percent increase a difference?

 

[edthecynic]

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

Sure there are a very few cities where you don't need a car, but here in New Jersey you can't, for the most part, get a job without one. Most job applications specifically ask you if you have reliable transportation, and the answer better be yes if you expect to be hired.