Shifting the tax burden to the wealthy class does NOT harm the economy

[bedowin62]

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

Why does the source of that tax matter though?

As far as I am concerned, I don't care what particular agency or section of the state takes my money - it is just as gone.


Again, the absolute best part of his rant was that there is ONE SINGLE tax structure that addressed the lefts chief complaint: a simplified flat rate tax. I hear all the time about how the Romneys out there are paying a paltry 10 percent when the rest of us are paying so much more. Considering that there is no 10 percent bracket anywhere at all it is blatantly obvious that the problem is not centered around rates - he would use the overly complex tax system to avoid whatever rates that were set.

The left HATES a flat tax though. It is mind boggling as to why.

the thread is about federal income taxes. if you want to discuss all taxation, start a new thread.

he's trying to have it both ways. Worse; he's trying to obfuscate the actual facts with distortions and deflections

typical for a LWNJ

 

[whitehall]

Who are the "wealthy", a mom and pop pizza joint that grosses over 200k? A struggling agrabiz with a slim profit margin after expenses and taxes? The wealthy pay enough. Government isn't an employment agency. Now it's time to cut wasteful and redundant programs and cut government spending .

 

[Dad2three]

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems. If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts. Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out! What kind of strategy is this? It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration. Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

Yes, the bailouts have entirely warped our capitalist system. Broken, corrupt business models are being shored up by the government, keeping more efficient and transparent business models from thriving and succeeding. The corruption and fraud of the bad models is being condoned and sanctioned by the State.

It's sickening.

Amidst all the screams of depression and job salvation....and the cries of academics pining for more government money.....

The bailouts were an awful idea.

The government should have stayed clear.

You can keep your claims of "saved" for someone who thinks you might have a chance of making a case.

This.

The sad part is that the debate is centered around tax rates when tax rates are irrelevant - the rich don't pay taxes based on those tax rates anyway. Those 0.1% that the left are always complaining about don't actually pay taxes based on income tax rates. Most of their money is sheltered from tax in general. The core problem with taxes is not the rates but the massively complex tax structure that no one alive understands (and is mostly built around social engineering).

The bailouts were a massive payoff to the super rich to allow them to continue to get far more wealth without actually giving up the corrupt and inefficient systems that they were a part of. I am amazed that the left who are always berating the wealth pooling at the top back one of the largest and most disgusting shifting of wealth from the people to the extremely wealthy.

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

 

[Dad2three]

"Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boom."

THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES: High Rates On Rich People Do Not Hurt The Economy - Business Insider

The true driving force of the economy is the middle class - not the wealthy. This economy depends on consumer spending. That is why you all should care about income inequality. Despite productivity skyrocketing over the previous decades, wages have remained mostly flat in the lower class and most of the income gains have gone to the top 1%.. The middle class is shrinking and the U.S. has the worst child poverty rate in the developed world.

Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.

The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

Oh yes Bubs, let's cherry pick the 46% of federal tax revenues to "prove" the tax "burden" on the rich is unfair, like the right LOVES right?
lol


46%? Oh thanks to Dubya's great recession. Normally about 40%, most seniors who've already paid income taxes, or the youngsters who WILL pay in the future. GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!


OVERALL TAX BURDEN MATTERS, NOT JUST THE 26% OF ALL TAXES IN THE US!

 

[bedowin62]

I think Mr. Buffett is directing the debate away from the obscene corporate bailouts that have been going on since the financial crisis of 2008 and on to a contrived issue of class warfare that will do little to address America’s severe financial problems. If we are really serious about fixing the deficit, then let’s stop the bailouts. Mr. Buffett is supposed to be an expert investor. So, why do so many of the companies he owns or invests in need to be bailed out! What kind of strategy is this? It looks to me like Buffett made some bad bets, and when they blew up, he became an advisor to the administration. Then, he watched as the bailouts not only saved his bacon, but made him and his shareholders even more insanely rich than they already were.

Yes, the bailouts have entirely warped our capitalist system. Broken, corrupt business models are being shored up by the government, keeping more efficient and transparent business models from thriving and succeeding. The corruption and fraud of the bad models is being condoned and sanctioned by the State.

It's sickening.

Amidst all the screams of depression and job salvation....and the cries of academics pining for more government money.....

The bailouts were an awful idea.

The government should have stayed clear.

You can keep your claims of "saved" for someone who thinks you might have a chance of making a case.

This.

The sad part is that the debate is centered around tax rates when tax rates are irrelevant - the rich don't pay taxes based on those tax rates anyway. Those 0.1% that the left are always complaining about don't actually pay taxes based on income tax rates. Most of their money is sheltered from tax in general. The core problem with taxes is not the rates but the massively complex tax structure that no one alive understands (and is mostly built around social engineering).

The bailouts were a massive payoff to the super rich to allow them to continue to get far more wealth without actually giving up the corrupt and inefficient systems that they were a part of. I am amazed that the left who are always berating the wealth pooling at the top back one of the largest and most disgusting shifting of wealth from the people to the extremely wealthy.

NOTE the EFFECTIVE tax rate PRE REAGANOMICS?

you dont even understand the significance, (or lack of it) of what you are given to regurgitate here

 

[Dad2three]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


===============

It's kind of weird how good it was then and now how bad it is today since the rich have been getting away with this crap.

We spent far more on infrastructure, science, r&d and education when we had the revenue to do so.

Or that rich person can simply put his wealth into tax free shelters and wait out your attempts to tax him into oblivion! I wish just a few of you progressives had taken something in college that dealt with reality.

AT 2%? There is THAT much tax free bonds? lol

Talk about NOT living in reality!

I really don't understand why they defend the 1% so much while crapping on the rest of this country....You'd think they'd want at least 20% of this country to become wealthier and open up their own businesses. We'd be a stronger country once this occurred.

Most of these loserterian posters must get paid by that 1%!

Whose defending them ?

Really ?

They need us to defend them ?

I detest that we have all that wealth concentrated at the top (including Lizzy Warren). That's what so silly about your constant bleating.

I don't want to give them tax breaks. But there is no getting around the fact they pay a lot of taxes. And there is no getting around the fact that Bush/Obama spend a lot of money.

Why would I advocate for more taxes when it seems the government won't take care of what they've been given ?

It's always more/more/more.

You defend them by denying the "job creator" tax burden has DRAMATICALLY been lowered the past 34 years AS their share of the pie more than tripled!


YET YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT DUBYA/GOP GUTTED REVENUES (LIKE RONNIE) TO 1950'S LEVEL. Weird

 

[bedowin62]

That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.

The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

Oh yes Bubs, let's cherry pick the 46% of federal tax revenues to "prove" the tax "burden" on the rich is unfair, like the right LOVES right?
lol


46%? Oh thanks to Dubya's great recession. Normally about 40%, most seniors who've already paid income taxes, or the youngsters who WILL pay in the future. GROW A FUKKN BRAIN!


OVERALL TAX BURDEN MATTERS, NOT JUST THE 26% OF ALL TAXES IN THE US!

there is no such thing as a "Dubya recession" given the fact that; ONCE AGAIN AS IN YOUR RANTS ABOUT REAGAN, ACTUAL HISTORY and the actual record shows Democrat support for virtually all of Bush's policies even long after he was gone, let alone while he was in office

you are simply making a fool of yourself. typing fast, saying nothing

 

[bedowin62]

When the American economy was rockin' and rollin' back in the 60's and 70's we had a top tax rate on the wealthy of 91% and a 10% usery law that prevented charging more than 10% interest.

The peasants were also allowed to deduct 100% of the interest they paid on everything on their income taxes both state and federal.

Until Ronald Reagan created the largest tax increase on the middle class in history when he took the interest deduction away, except for your home mortgage -- and he WANTED to take that away too.

Having a high tax rate on the uber wealthy serves two purposes.

1) It raises more money to pay down the country's debt -- thanks to Bush's Follies.

2) It motivates the wealthy to use their remaining money to start more businesses and expand the one's they own in order to get more money.

If a man has 100 million dollars rs a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 92 million, he has little motivation to expand his plant or start another business.

If he had 100 million dollars a year coming in from his factory, and the government lets him keep 10 million, he has LOTS of motivation to expand his operations and start more.

He still owns his yacht and mansions and now needs more money to KEEP them just like his employees need to make money to pay their rent / house payment.

He's still a rich man, nobody took his factory away from him, but with a high tax rate he pays more to society for the better life he is receiving from society. And that helps society.

Proof of my statement is that when we HAD high tax rates on the wealthy ... they DID expand their businesses and start more. Times were booming.

But, since Reagan and the massive give aways to the wealthy under the pretense it would create more jobs ( which has been proven untrue ) we have cut the taxes on the wealthy and they just hide their money overseas and sit on their wealth.

The conservatives claim that giving welfare to the poor encourages them not to work.

Well, tax cuts for the rich are the same thing as welfare to the poor --- only it's welfare for the RICH.


===============

Or that rich person can simply put his wealth into tax free shelters and wait out your attempts to tax him into oblivion! I wish just a few of you progressives had taken something in college that dealt with reality.

AT 2%? There is THAT much tax free bonds? lol

Talk about NOT living in reality!

I really don't understand why they defend the 1% so much while crapping on the rest of this country....You'd think they'd want at least 20% of this country to become wealthier and open up their own businesses. We'd be a stronger country once this occurred.

Most of these loserterian posters must get paid by that 1%!

Whose defending them ?

Really ?

They need us to defend them ?

I detest that we have all that wealth concentrated at the top (including Lizzy Warren). That's what so silly about your constant bleating.

I don't want to give them tax breaks. But there is no getting around the fact they pay a lot of taxes. And there is no getting around the fact that Bush/Obama spend a lot of money.

Why would I advocate for more taxes when it seems the government won't take care of what they've been given ?

It's always more/more/more.

You defend them by denying the "job creator" tax burden has DRAMATICALLY been lowered the past 34 years AS their share of the pie more than tripled!


YET YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT DUBYA/GOP GUTTED REVENUES (LIKE RONNIE) TO 1950'S LEVEL. Weird

you simply think what was doable in the 1950s applies to today

keep on embarrassing yourself

 

[Dad2three]

That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.

The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.

The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

We need American paying 25 to 30% of their income in taxes ?????

OMG

WE SURE AS FUKK NEED THOSE "JOB CREATORS" TO PAY 30%+ MIN ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES IN FEDERAL TAXES!!

 

[bedowin62]

the goodies you want to hand out to people arent doable without the taxes the rich pay, no matter what the percentage is, because they pay the majority of taxes collected at the federal level

 

[bedowin62]

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

We need American paying 25 to 30% of their income in taxes ?????

OMG

WE SURE AS FUKK NEED THOSE "JOB CREATORS" TO PAY 30%+ MIN ON $1,000,000+ INCOMES IN FEDERAL TAXES!!

you want other people's money; that's why you'll always be a loser

 

[Dad2three]

That statistic has been debunked many times over. I'm late to this thread and I'll bet someone has already pointed it out to you.

The thing that probably no one has noted us that you could take every penny from everyone who makes $500K or more per year and you would only be able to fund the government for 6 months. And of course it would hurt the economy, it's stupid to believe otherwise.

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

Why does the source of that tax matter though?

As far as I am concerned, I don't care what particular agency or section of the state takes my money - it is just as gone.


Again, the absolute best part of his rant was that there is ONE SINGLE tax structure that addressed the lefts chief complaint: a simplified flat rate tax. I hear all the time about how the Romneys out there are paying a paltry 10 percent when the rest of us are paying so much more. Considering that there is no 10 percent bracket anywhere at all it is blatantly obvious that the problem is not centered around rates - he would use the overly complex tax system to avoid whatever rates that were set.

The left HATES a flat tax though. It is mind boggling as to why.

ALL flat taxes ARE regressive. Period. Even the FAIR tax is towards the middle class, yet STILL will not get enough to run Gov't at 30% rate, while the rich lower their tax "burden"!

 

[Dad2three]

LOL

Tax as a % of income. Do you understand what you're posting.

You are parasitic and poor because you are stupid. I suppose that's never dawned on you.

You mean taxes as percent of income BY INCOME GROUP DUMMY? Grow a fukkn brain

 

[Dad2three]

So what?

Those in that 47% group are the poor in this country.
The government doesn't think it is fair to ask people who live on disability/ social security / charity to pay from their pittance when they are barely surviving.

They all have income pretty much below 20K and many are raising kids on that, or trying to.

Strange you don't complain about the millionaires who pay no taxes because their tax attorneys and lobbiests get them out of paying.

No you worship them and kiss their asses.

I doubt I will ever understand people who aren't millionaires supporting the people who are their worst enemies.

==========

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

you are totally wrong. no one is in favor of a tax code that gives favors to any class of americans. it should be equally applied to everyone, no special rates for anyone. Now if you want a minimum for taxable income, fine. but over the minimum everyone should pay the same rate and there should be no exemptions or deductions.

Yes, John Paulsen who "made" $4.7 billion off the ponzi scheme Dubya cheered on should pay the same rate as the plumber *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

Who are the "wealthy", a mom and pop pizza joint that grosses over 200k? A struggling agrabiz with a slim profit margin after expenses and taxes? The wealthy pay enough. Government isn't an employment agency. Now it's time to cut wasteful and redundant programs and cut government spending .

Don't understand what gross versus AGI means huh Bubba? NOT surprised


HINT the pizza owners get to deduct the costs of labor, product, store, car, etc...

THE WEALTHY HAVEN'T HAD IT THIS EASY SINCE BEFORE THE GOP'S GREAT DEPRESSION DUMBASS!

 

[bedowin62]

LOL

Tax as a % of income. Do you understand what you're posting.

You are parasitic and poor because you are stupid. I suppose that's never dawned on you.

You mean taxes as percent of income BY INCOME GROUP DUMMY? Grow a fukkn brain

once again you need to be banned by a monitor here; for making petty insults. you are an idiot trying to insult others. your chart is misleading in that it takes "total tax" and makes a case for increasing FEDERAL TAX RATES based on that apples and oranges comparison

 

[bedowin62]

Who are the "wealthy", a mom and pop pizza joint that grosses over 200k? A struggling agrabiz with a slim profit margin after expenses and taxes? The wealthy pay enough. Government isn't an employment agency. Now it's time to cut wasteful and redundant programs and cut government spending .

Don't understand what gross versus AGI means huh Bubba? NOT surprised


HINT the pizza owners get to deduct the costs of labor, product, store, car, etc...

THE WEALTHY HAVEN'T HAD IT THIS EASY SINCE BEFORE THE GOP'S GREAT DEPRESSION DUMBASS!

what part of republican policy that makes you speak of a "GOP Depression" didnt the Left vote REPEATEDLY FOR/????

 

[Meathead]

LOL

Tax as a % of income. Do you understand what you're posting.

You are parasitic and poor because you are stupid. I suppose that's never dawned on you.

You mean taxes as percent of income BY INCOME GROUP DUMMY? Grow a fukkn brain

The graph is as disingenuous as your post. Again, you are a not a parasite because some people are rich.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

That's not the point, the debt will never go away, the goal is to maintain balance, progressive taxation does this without hurting the working people.

We already have progressive taxation. If you live in New York of Massachusetts you are already paying half of your income in taxes. In the rest of the states its around 40%. How much more "progressive" do you libs want to make it?

Answer this: if a person makes one million per year, how much of that should he pay in federal income tax? how much in state and local income tax? Give us some %'s.

So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

But here is really the only tax graph you need: It's total tax burden by income group. And as you'll see, every income group is paying something, and the rich aren't paying much more, as a percentage of their incomes, then the middle class.

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.

The one tax graph you really need to know

those charts are an attempt to confuse the issue of federal income taxes by including all forms of taxation.

Show us a chart that includes only federal income taxes and you will see that 47% pay zero federal income taxes.

We need American paying 25 to 30% of their income in taxes ?????

OMG

of course not, but many already do. the more you demand from government, the more taxes everyone has to pay.

I agree.

I was reading DumbassDad's comments (I have him on ignore....but when I went to respond to your post he showed up....I was flattened by that statement).

The more "who" demands from government ?

That is part of the point...right ?

 

[bedowin62]

THE MOST REGRESSIVE OF ALL TAX SYSTEMS is the value-added system used to fund european nanny-state welfare programs