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

[edthecynic]

Apparently all you have to do is tip a government official to get on the disability roles.

Is that all you got? You just PROVED you are a liar dude. Either you got a disability that you can collect 30k a year on or you don't. You said you did in the post above. Which is it?

You must be either the most naive person on the planet, or the dumbest lying piece of shit ever to be birthed by a welfare queen.

That would be YOU!

The average SS Disability payment per month is $1,224.77 which comes to $14,697.24 per year, you worthless lying sack of shit!

Disabled-worker statistics

 

[RKMBrown]

Is that all you got? You just PROVED you are a liar dude. Either you got a disability that you can collect 30k a year on or you don't. You said you did in the post above. Which is it?

You must be either the most naive person on the planet, or the dumbest lying piece of shit ever to be birthed by a welfare queen.

That would be YOU!

The average SS Disability payment per month is $1,224.77 which comes to $14,697.24 per year, you worthless lying sack of shit!

Disabled-worker statistics

What part of AVERAGE is confusing you, ya dumbass?

And you minimum wagers wonder why no one will give you a raise.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Is that all you got? You just PROVED you are a liar dude. Either you got a disability that you can collect 30k a year on or you don't. You said you did in the post above. Which is it?

You must be either the most naive person on the planet, or the dumbest lying piece of shit ever to be birthed by a welfare queen.

That would be YOU!

The average SS Disability payment per month is $1,224.77 which comes to $14,697.24 per year, you worthless lying sack of shit!

Disabled-worker statistics

And everyone on disability gets what? Oh yeah medicare. Sick people needing free healthcare collect how much for that? Easily 20k per year. $1,225 per month qualifies you for what? Yes, food stamps. What do we add for that?

It's not one thing you moron, it all stacks up and easily exceeds 50k per year in welfare benefits.

 

[edthecynic]

You must be either the most naive person on the planet, or the dumbest lying piece of shit ever to be birthed by a welfare queen.

That would be YOU!

The average SS Disability payment per month is $1,224.77 which comes to $14,697.24 per year, you worthless lying sack of shit!

Disabled-worker statistics

What part of AVERAGE is confusing you, ya dumbass?

And you minimum wagers wonder why no one will give you a raise.

What part of average confuses you, welfare queen? Only a dishonest piece of shit would use the max or the min to make a point about benefits.

Oh, that's right, you ARE a dishonest piece of shit.

 

[Flopper]

Horseshit---SS funds were merged with the general fund by LBJ.

How so? The 1935 Social Security Act required that Social Security funds be invested in government securities.

and kept separate from the general fund until LBJ. He merged the two in order to make ends meet rather than show a deficit.

Investing in govt securities is quite different from using the SS fund to pay the bills.

Starting in 1969, all S.S. transactions were listed in what was know as the unified budget. That does not mean that Social Security transactions are a part of the general fund. The unified budget displayed the fiscal status of the entire government. However, in 1990 Social Security was removed from the Unified Budget.

MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 2

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

Social Security History

 

[asterism]

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?

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

one thing both right and left could agree on I think is the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.....the right could agree because these bonds fund some of the most idiotic of local projects....unneeded and unused"convention centers" and sports stadiums for the super-rich. ...the left could agree because these bonds go for corporate Welfare and because they are a tax loophole really only useful for the wealthy .

I'm not sure I could generalize as much but I do agree with you, tax free municipal bonds are an affront to the entire bond market.

 

[asterism]

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?

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

I'm not sure that I'm following you argument. Are you saying that cutting the tax rate in half increases the taxable income by 20 times?

Not always, but yes. You don't increase the size of the government share by increasing the size of a slice of the pie, you increase the size of the government share by increasing the size of the pie.

 

[asterism]

The point - which I should have anticipated would go right over your head - is that equal is not always fair.
Get it?

Probably not - but that's Ok.

So, if everybody paid an equal tax percentage, most liberals would find that unfair. And the result ends up being what they call "fair share", which is both unequal and unfair

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

You're including Social Security as a tax, but it's actually an annuity. I'm all for allocating resources and taxation of retirement welfare as such, but you can't have it both ways. Every dollar earned up to $106K is subject to FICA for a reason. Those who don't contribute to FICA don't get the guaranteed benefit from those dollars.

 

[asterism]

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

All income should be counted as the same and it should all be taxed at one rate with no exceptions.

You all pay the same tax on a gallon of gas regardless of the marginal utility of that gallon even though surely you can agree that the gallon of gas used to drive to work has more value than the gallon used to drive to a strip club.

Tell me why a dollar earned should be treated any differently?

You really think that gas analogy is a winning one don't cha?

How about housing. All taxes on houses should be the same. Right? The guy living in the 10 million dollar house should pay the same as the guy living in the 50k house. Right?

I mean they both are putting a roof over someones head.

So the guy with the 10 million dollar house should pay the exact same amount as the 50 thousand dollar house guy.

Or should it be the other way around? You know, the 50k guy paying the same as the 10 million dollar guy?

A house is a house just like a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. Some people get 45 mpg and some get 10, so all use of gas is not equal. Like houses.

Who pays what in taxes though? Poor pays the rich amount or the other way around?

Not the same amount, the same RATE.

The guy in the $50K house pays $250 per year. The guy in the $10 Million house pays $50K per year.


Seems fair to me. I just wish the government could live within its means instead of soaking the middle class to put itself in a position to splash some water on the rich folks.

 

[asterism]

MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT LIKE THE FOUNDING GENERATION. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. A recent study shows that those making less than $100,000 have zero impact on policy....they should pay 0 taxes.

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

If every citizen had to pay 15% of his income to the federal government-----------the lower and middle classes would demand that government stop wasting their money and cut the tax rate-----------they would threaten revolution. When its YOUR money that being taken and wasted, you get pissed really quickly.

Well there's also that.

It's a big problem, those who want such grand government solutions literally take no risk. Solyndra? Oh well it didn't cost them a dime. GM? Yay! The taxpayer wins (by losing $10 Billion but their bank account stays the same). Obamacare? Meh (until the next phase when they go after employer plans).

Everyone needs to pay something so that they know there is a cost to increasing the size of government. We'd have fewer wars, more accountability for government assistance, and a better system overall. Informed people make better decisions.

 

[asterism]

If every citizen had to pay 15% of his income to the federal government-----------the lower and middle classes would demand that government stop wasting their money and cut the tax rate-----------they would threaten revolution. When its YOUR money that being taken and wasted, you get pissed really quickly.

Minor update, if every citizen had to work for a living and there was no welfare, and every citizen had to pay 15%.. then they would demand the government stop wasting their money.

As it is, most folks on the left just want to make sure someone else is getting screwed more than they are. If they get to collect 50k a year in welfare they won't give a shit if they have to pay 5k for their 50k in subsidies.

In the real world, nobody gets $50K in welfare. And when you destroy welfare, it will cost you ten times as much to keep them in prison. That's as smart as a vegetable.

In the real world I have a former employee that definitely gets $50K in welfare.

She lives in a Section 8 house - $6000 per year.
Her 4 kids get Medicaid - $2000 per year.
She gets Medicare - $1000 per year.
She and her kids get TANF $13,000 per year.
She gets free electricity, phone, cable, and a cell phone - $4000 per year.
She gets EBT - $9000 per year.
She gets unemployment - $14,000 per year.

And since she's in all these government programs she's on every donor list out there for help. The Salvation Army gave her kids free iPads for Christmas. Publix gave her a shopping spree (fill up a cart - bypass the cashiers). The Kia dealer gave her a car. She pays $2000 for 3 of her kids to go to private school, I pay $13,000 for my 3 kids.

I used to think that the "welfare queen" was a myth until I hired this lady. When she started slacking off after the probationary period I was skeptical. When she demanded a raise but wanted me to pay it under the table (so her kids wouldn't lose Medicaid) I was appalled. When she asked to be fired or else she'd sue me for discrimination (single Mom) I was convinced that she was just working the system. The best thing I ever did for her was fire her, she says so today. I opened a case with the state and HHS. She had the gall to wear a Rolex to the hearing (it's not hers, it belongs to her "boyfriend") and was unabashed in her status as "an American citizen."

The Judge was beyond frustrated, but he ruled that she was correct and there was nothing he could do about it. She cracked the code and gamed the system.

 

[asterism]

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

one thing both right and left could agree on I think is the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.....the right could agree because these bonds fund some of the most idiotic of local projects....unneeded and unused"convention centers" and sports stadiums for the super-rich. ...the left could agree because these bonds go for corporate Welfare and because they are a tax loophole really only useful for the wealthy .

Fax free municipal bonds don't just fund idiotic local projects. They are the major funding source for almost all local projects. Making municipal bonds taxable means they will be less attractive to investors. The result? Instead of money going to public projects – repairing bridges, fixing dams, funding schools – it will go to Apple, Netflix, or Citibank. Is that what we want? There are already plenty of incentives to invest in the private sector; we shouldn't erase incentives to encourage private investment in the public sector.

Opposition from almost every state and local government will insure that municipal bonds remain tax free, at least for most investors. There are proposals in the Obama administration to limit the tax free status.

Do you like your iPhone more than you like the Big Dig? You paid for both.

 

[asterism]

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

All income should be counted as the same and it should all be taxed at one rate with no exceptions.

You all pay the same tax on a gallon of gas regardless of the marginal utility of that gallon even though surely you can agree that the gallon of gas used to drive to work has more value than the gallon used to drive to a strip club.

Tell me why a dollar earned should be treated any differently?

Because it is unconstitutional to pay federal income taxes on the "dollar earned", we can only be taxed on our GAIN on our labor wages just as businesses are only taxed on their GAIN, not their total revenues.

Why would you want to DICK the little people and not give them what you give businesses and corporations?

You really should research the Alternative Minimum Tax and capital loss limits. I lost money in 2009 but I still had to pay tax on income. I get a tax deduction of $3000 per year for the rest of my life though so there's that.

The definition of GAIN according to the IRS is not the same as what you think.

 

[asterism]

It's tax deductible for them to create jobs....they won't pay more in federal income taxes if they hire people for their company?

I think we all agree that we should have a government that promotes the general welfare of ALL citizens and having a government that sets up an economic system that would promote job creation for every citizen....

Where Cons and libs differ is we believe our government has failed because they have favored the corporations OVER the individual with their regulations and tax deductions and tax credits and protections that give them monopolies like the Pharma industry and deregulation and bailouts that only end up hurting the every day citizen in the USA, and have made it very easy and lucrative for our American companies to just ship their factories and corporate headquarters some times too, overseas...leaving the nation with a jobless recovery while they vote down Obamacare for the thousandth time or have another Benghazi or IRS dog and pony show....while we pay them.....

Corporations HAVE ENOUGH money to hire people, record profits for them....yet they don't..they spend their time figuring out how to go overseas and get cheap labor or cheap goods....

they could be rehauling the corporate tax structure that would not only benefit corps but benefit the American people with getting rid of certain loopholes and keeping jobs here....

As far as the top 10% paying for 72% of the federal income taxes....the Supreme court says we can only be income taxed on our GAIN...if 47% of the families in this nation filing federal income tax owe no tax, it is because they have not made a GAIN, to be taxed....THIS IS NOT their fault that those in the top 10% did make huge GAINS and are taxed on it.

Simple as that....

Most Americans are losing ground with cost of living going up and fuel prices, EXCEPT the top 10%...they still had a GAIN to be taxed.....it is a sad state of affairs for 47% of the tax payers to not be getting ahead....THAT'S what those figures say imo.

Care

your jealousy of successful people is noted. Income taxes are not based on net annual profit, as you claimed, they are based on income minus legal deductions and exemptions.

If you don't like what the rich and corporations are paying, blame the democrats--they have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years and they wrote much of the tax code.

are you really so partisan ignorant that you think only republicans get help from corporations ?

Nope, a far cry from the truth Redfish, I am not jealous in any way shape or form....just FACTS and the facts are that those at the very top are making a GAIN on their earnings or they wouldn't be paying taxes at all, just like the peon not making a GAIN.

We can't be taxed on our total income, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we can only be taxed on our GAIN from our total income, just as businesses and corporations can only be taxed on their GAIN from their revenues brought in.

People around here seem to think that we are income taxed on our total GROSS income....we are NOT, and have NEVER EVER been taxed on our total gross income....the personal exemption and standard deduction is the means used now, or schedule A etc, to make certain we are not taxed on our gross income....if we were taxed on our gross income, with no deductions, it would be considered a DIRECT TAX, and a direct tax has to be apportioned per capita....per the constitution....

I have been both poor and wealthy in my lifetime, and being wealthy is a heck of a lot easier, hands down.

And I appreciate corporations, they... and my hard work, day and night, for them, is what has made me wealthy....

I just don't think they and the congressmen kissing their rear ends are PERFECT, such as you seem to think....

Go pay $1,000,000 in December for some flowers to be delivered in February. Then have those flowers not show up in time for Valentine's day delivery and get refunded every penny per the agreement.

How much tax do you think I should owe on that transaction?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Minor update, if every citizen had to work for a living and there was no welfare, and every citizen had to pay 15%.. then they would demand the government stop wasting their money.

As it is, most folks on the left just want to make sure someone else is getting screwed more than they are. If they get to collect 50k a year in welfare they won't give a shit if they have to pay 5k for their 50k in subsidies.

In the real world, nobody gets $50K in welfare. And when you destroy welfare, it will cost you ten times as much to keep them in prison. That's as smart as a vegetable.

In the real world I have a former employee that definitely gets $50K in welfare.

She lives in a Section 8 house - $6000 per year.
Her 4 kids get Medicaid - $2000 per year.
She gets Medicare - $1000 per year.
She and her kids get TANF $13,000 per year.
She gets free electricity, phone, cable, and a cell phone - $4000 per year.
She gets EBT - $9000 per year.
She gets unemployment - $14,000 per year.

And since she's in all these government programs she's on every donor list out there for help. The Salvation Army gave her kids free iPads for Christmas. Publix gave her a shopping spree (fill up a cart - bypass the cashiers). The Kia dealer gave her a car. She pays $2000 for 3 of her kids to go to private school, I pay $13,000 for my 3 kids.

I used to think that the "welfare queen" was a myth until I hired this lady. When she started slacking off after the probationary period I was skeptical. When she demanded a raise but wanted me to pay it under the table (so her kids wouldn't lose Medicaid) I was appalled. When she asked to be fired or else she'd sue me for discrimination (single Mom) I was convinced that she was just working the system. The best thing I ever did for her was fire her, she says so today. I opened a case with the state and HHS. She had the gall to wear a Rolex to the hearing (it's not hers, it belongs to her "boyfriend") and was unabashed in her status as "an American citizen."

The Judge was beyond frustrated, but he ruled that she was correct and there was nothing he could do about it. She cracked the code and gamed the system.

Tell me why the hell I work again...?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

All income should be counted as the same and it should all be taxed at one rate with no exceptions.

You all pay the same tax on a gallon of gas regardless of the marginal utility of that gallon even though surely you can agree that the gallon of gas used to drive to work has more value than the gallon used to drive to a strip club.

Tell me why a dollar earned should be treated any differently?

Because it is unconstitutional to pay federal income taxes on the "dollar earned", we can only be taxed on our GAIN on our labor wages just as businesses are only taxed on their GAIN, not their total revenues.

Why would you want to DICK the little people and not give them what you give businesses and corporations?

Why are you assuming a business would be exempt from the flat tax?

Every dollar from the first dollar earned taxed at one low rate.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

All income should be counted as the same and it should all be taxed at one rate with no exceptions.

You all pay the same tax on a gallon of gas regardless of the marginal utility of that gallon even though surely you can agree that the gallon of gas used to drive to work has more value than the gallon used to drive to a strip club.

Tell me why a dollar earned should be treated any differently?

You really think that gas analogy is a winning one don't cha?

How about housing. All taxes on houses should be the same. Right? The guy living in the 10 million dollar house should pay the same as the guy living in the 50k house. Right?

Every gallon of gas has about the same market value does it not? You can't compare a gallon of gas to a commodity with a wide variable market price now can you?

I mean they both are putting a roof over someones head.

A gallon of gas does not provide shelter.

So the guy with the 10 million dollar house should pay the exact same amount as the 50 thousand dollar house guy.

See above. Property taxes are based on a completely different schedule than gasoline. I guess the point that is soaring over your head here is that I am arguing the ridiculousness of the idea of marginal utility being used when it comes to income but not other taxable items.

Or should it be the other way around? You know, the 50k guy paying the same as the 10 million dollar guy?

A house is a house just like a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. Some people get 45 mpg and some get 10, so all use of gas is not equal. Like houses.

Pleas tell me how a house is just like a gallon of gas. The government puts a tax per gallon on gasoline. States assess a tax based on market value of a house. So two houses with the same market value are taxed the same no matter what the income of the owner of record is are they not ?

You failed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How much of the wealth does the 100k or above take of the pie? Probably more then 72%!

 

[Skull Pilot]

How much of the wealth does the 100k or above take of the pie? Probably more then 72%!

There is no pie.

 

[Flopper]

one thing both right and left could agree on I think is the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.....the right could agree because these bonds fund some of the most idiotic of local projects....unneeded and unused"convention centers" and sports stadiums for the super-rich. ...the left could agree because these bonds go for corporate Welfare and because they are a tax loophole really only useful for the wealthy .

Fax free municipal bonds don't just fund idiotic local projects. They are the major funding source for almost all local projects. Making municipal bonds taxable means they will be less attractive to investors. The result? Instead of money going to public projects – repairing bridges, fixing dams, funding schools – it will go to Apple, Netflix, or Citibank. Is that what we want? There are already plenty of incentives to invest in the private sector; we shouldn't erase incentives to encourage private investment in the public sector.

Opposition from almost every state and local government will insure that municipal bonds remain tax free, at least for most investors. There are proposals in the Obama administration to limit the tax free status.

Do you like your iPhone more than you like the Big Dig? You paid for both.

Making municipal bonds taxable makes it more difficult for state and local government to build and repair roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools because it increases the cost of borrowing and thus local taxes. As in the past, when states can not raise funds for municipal projects, they turn to the federal government. Thus the tax revenues from municipal bonds will start flowing back to the states along with federal decision making replacing local.