Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[Dad2three]

You don't understand. Raising taxes without spending restraint is foolish in the extreme. It will only increase the debt. You don't give a meth addict money, hoping he'll better his life, because you KNOW he will simply buy more meth. Same with the crew now in Washington. With a few notable exceptions, they have proven themselves incapable of fiscal sanity.

well then put in, or advocate, some spending restraint.....dont just condemn us to fiscal insanity and bankruptcy by dismissing out of hand increasing taxes on the rich...which is the only way to get us climbing our way out of this hole.

What do you think conservative fiscal policy is all about, but restraint? You have to have the intervention first, then rehab, then you can talk about getting back on your feet. Right now, Washington is in full spending addiction mode.

well True conservatives should then not focus on not raising taxes...........but focus on putting restraints on spending, and/or restricting increased taxes to pay down the debt....instead of just saying "no increased taxes"...Republicans have shown little restraint in reality...........they recently voted to ignore restrictions of funds I believe in defense spending..........

How dare you think those "job creators" need to pay a min 30% fed tax burden like Obama has proposed for nearly 4 years, and the GOP blocked in the Senate and NEVER brought up in the House. You think the "job creator" will create a job paying taxes in the US???

That's funny since the "Buffet Rule" wouldn't affect that vast bulk of Buffet's income, which comes from capital gains. How like a liberal to propose tax increases that he wouldn't have to pay.

Oh weird, the right wing Klown is using a FALSE talking point. WEIRD

The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011. The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year.


Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Buffett Rule Targets Capital Gains


Buffett Rule Targets Capital Gains | Center for Effective Government





Summary:

A new report from the White House highlights the need for Congress to take action and pass the Buffett Rule. Here are some of the highlights.


White House Report – The Buffett Rule: A Basic Principle of Tax Fairness

 

[David_42]

The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.

The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.

Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.

Made entirely on bullshit? You have yet to even examine the study, and it looks at more then statistical data, of course, a willfully ignorant person like yourself has no interest in facts. Can never exist? Progressive taxation and strong labor participation in unions can help this, along with state regulations to benefit working people, like the minimum wage, labor laws, making sure workers can get back stolen pay, etc, etc.. Looting the wealthy? You see, this is the problem with you guys, you have this insane idea that taxation, which is allowed, is somehow looting. This is the 21st century, every country on earth conducts taxation, except somalia and other "free market" countries that lack an evil gubment to tell the rich what to do. Corrupt system of bribery? Yeah, you seem to be forgetting that american "democracy" is largely controlled by the candidates who manage to get the endorsements of the wealthy, we need public funding of elections and we need to end citizens united. Vote buying? Oh please, voters vote based on the party that has their interests in mind, that's how democracy works, you probably disagree with this, which is understandable, given you're a verified nut case. Crony capitalism? Ah, a classic phrase thrown out by "free market" worshipers who fail to understand that a "free market" can never exist, ever, it's impossible, everywhere it has had the chance to thrive, it has led to monopolies, horrid conditions, and, eventually, the formation of a strong government to control the "free market." Welfare leeching? Want to look at the facts of welfare? First, we have to determine how you define welfare, I'll go with this: "Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid."
Now, you can put so many different things into this definition, but welfare is a necessity of any civilized society, especially in a country such as america where wages are stagnant, where the cost of living continually increases, the cost of child care... It doesn't help that education costs keep rising and the minimum wage isn't moving, although you nutjobs want to completely remove it, which is fucking hysterical, but that's another point entirely. Structural unemployment, children, the disabled, the elderly, people who don't make enough to feed their kids.. These are the majority who use welfare, and before you try to go into an incoherent rant on immigrants, illegal immigrants cannot vote, and they cannot get on welfare programs, unless you count hospital care and education, which I believe should continue, given that I consider myself a decent human being and want America to be seen as a great country in the eyes of the world. Let's go back to your productive point, when you define the "productivity" or worth of someone based on their wealth, that is a hilariously skewed worldview, is the walton family productive because they inherit money? Is the CEO of nestle productive when he relies on his employees to do all of the manual labor, and assigns tasks to his advisors and the like? Those at the bottom, the majority of workers within a business, they are the ones who are productive, not the CEO'S who continue to accumulate more and more wealth while the workers wages stay stagnant. You claim taxation on the rich can never grow the economy, I'm sure you realize that Reagan, conservative hero, realized he had to raise taxes. Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010
Just thought I'd throw that in there, given many conservatives, and people like yourself, worship Reagan as some god. You have yet to show any coorelation between high taxes on the rich and a failing economy, the IMF report shows otherwise, and before you yell out that they're a "communist" homo fascist neonazi propaganda organ, you should come to the conclusion that calling everything you can't understand propaganda is immature and dishonest, but this doesn't surprise me, people like yourself aren't really open to reason, although It's funny to play with you like you're a little toy for my cat.
"Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state"
"Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax."
You will need to somehow show a direct correlation, given that the economic growth has been all over the place.
How do you define a welfare state?

Where do you find these ridiculous charts? Regardless, this chart doesn't support your claim, at all, given that wars always bring massive economic growth, well, unless it's bush. LOL.

In other words, they don't always bring massive economic growth. So we've had 11 wars since WW II ended?

Of course they don't, I should have been more specific, but we all make mistakes, part of life. What was the size of these wars? What was the mobilization? World war 2 was something else entirely, another animal.

 

[RKMBrown]

The study looks at many different economies and factors, and determines that income inequality is more harmful to economic growth then a more balanced system. No one is proposing complete equal distribution, except for you maybe, given you're a loon.

The determination was made entirely on bullshit. You can't prove economic theorems using statistical data.

Your "balanced system" can never exist in reality. The only means you propose of "balancing" is by looting the wealthy, which means a vast corrupt system of bribery, vote buying, crony capitalism and welfare leaching. Taking money from productive people and giving it to the government can never grow the economy. Our economic growth has declined steadily ever since the advent of the income tax and the welfare state.

How does telling the truth make you "witless?"

Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive

The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000. If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death. Is that what you're implying?

Face it.. democrats can't even feed themselves. They are useless morons.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's just make them pay 90%...

How.....?

Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year. You can raise the top tax rate to 100%. He won't pay a dime more in taxes.

Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year. You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.

You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes. Every country that has tried that, has failed.

LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!

The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.

WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?


Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting. You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?

Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%. That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.

LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!

Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed. Johnson managed to get it passed:

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]


Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]​

 

[Dad2three]

How does telling the truth make you "witless?"

Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive

The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000. If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death. Is that what you're implying?

Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead

Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)


Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!

Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!



Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your full of shit, as usual.

YOUR LINK BUBS:


Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.




LOL

AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

 

[bripat9643]

How does telling the truth make you "witless?"

Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive

The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000. If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death. Is that what you're implying?

Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead

Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)


Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!

Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!



Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your full of shit, as usual.

YOUR LINK BUBS:


Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.




LOL

AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

The "bottom half" would be those making less than the median income, not the average income, moron. I chose median specifically for that reason. You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.

Allow me to quote your definition:

Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount.
​

Note: The two equal groups would be the top half and the bottom half.

What a bonehead.

 

[Dad2three]

How.....?

Warren Buffet's salary is $100,000 a year. You can raise the top tax rate to 100%. He won't pay a dime more in taxes.

Zuckerberg has a salary of $1 a year. You can raise ALL taxes to 100%, and he won't pay a dime more in taxes.

You people think you can 'make' people pay taxes. Every country that has tried that, has failed.

LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!

The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.

WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?


Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting. You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?

Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%. That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.

LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!

Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed. Johnson managed to get it passed:

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]


Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]​

Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!


91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!

 

[bripat9643]

LOOK AT WHAT EFFECTIVE RATES THE "JOB CREATORS" USED TO PAY, PRE REAGANOMICS!!

The Buffett Rule is part of a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.The tax plan would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. According to a White House official, the new tax rate would directly affect 0.3 percent of taxpayers.

WEIRD THE GOP OPPOSES IT RIGHT?


Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting. You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?

Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%. That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.

LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!

Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed. Johnson managed to get it passed:

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]


Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]​

Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!


91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!

You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.

Which is it? Can you please make-up your mind?

 

[Dad2three]

Oh sorry, I forgot the bottom 60% of US making less than $20,000 PER family (filing INCOME TAX RETURNS) are the moochers, NOT the "job creators" employing them and such low wages, the MUST get welfare to survive

The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000. If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death. Is that what you're implying?

Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead

Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)


Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!

Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!



Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your full of shit, as usual.

YOUR LINK BUBS:


Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.




LOL

AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

The "bottom half" would be those making less than the median income, not the average income, moron. I chose median specifically for that reason. You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.

OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:

Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:

68,040,177 Families (68 million families0

AGI ($ millions)
$1,003,944 (1 Trillion )

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data



AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS

 

[Dad2three]

Interesting. You do know, don't you Cletus, that your graph clearly shows the effective federal tax rates declining sharply BEFORE Reagan took office, right?

Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%. That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.

LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!

Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed. Johnson managed to get it passed:

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]


Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]​

Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!


91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!

You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.

Which is it? Can you please make-up your mind?

Don't understand when a demand side CAN help an economy (Obama's SS TAX CUT) versus right wing "supply side" that does NOTHING? Shocking

 

[Campbell]

Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol

In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

• All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...

Yep Bubba, The ANTI Tax Foundation showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today, an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY, a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol

Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol

Guess what???

Right now as we speak Grover Norquist has a plan to never increase any tax rate and what he and several other key Republicans are really shooting for is a flat tax. Think about it....the rich will get a 20%-25% cut in taxes while average people draw an increase in their federal taxes. If you count payroll tax, sales tax, property tax, federal excise tax, gasoline tax, auto registration, driver's license, fishing license, boat registration, fees on every monthly bill like electricity and water an ordinary American worker is already taxed at a higher percentage rate than the rich.
When a big wig is drawing a million a year $0.40 a gallon tax on gasoline don't amount to shit. To the poor bastard working for minimum wage and having to drive 20 miles both ways to his work site That quickly adds up. But who's counting? Definitely not the rich folks.

 

[bripat9643]

The 60% makes a lot more than $20,000. If they would starve without welfare, that means before welfare 60% of the population must have starved to death. Is that what you're implying?

Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead

Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)


Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!

Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!



Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your full of shit, as usual.

YOUR LINK BUBS:


Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.




LOL

AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

The "bottom half" would be those making less than the median income, not the average income, moron. I chose median specifically for that reason. You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.

OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:

Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:

68,040,177 Families (68 million families0

AGI ($ millions)
$1,003,944 (1 Trillion )

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data



AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS

That's the average income OF the bottom 50% of INDIVIDUALS filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans. The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.

If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?

 

[Dad2three]

• The average tax rate paid by the very highest-income Americans has fallen to nearly the lowest rate in over 50 years. The wealthiest 1-in-1,000 taxpayers pay barely a quarter of their income in Federal income and payroll taxes today—half of what they would have contributed in 1960. And, the top 400 richest Americans—all making over $110 million—paid only 18 percent of their income in income taxes in 2008.

• Average tax rates for the highest income Americans have plummeted even as their incomes have skyrocketed. Since 1979 the average after-tax income of the very wealthiest Americans – the top 1 percent – has risen nearly four-fold.

Many high-income Americans are paying less in taxes than middle class Americans in taxes. Nearly one-quarter of all millionaires (about 55,000 taxpayers) face a tax rate that is lower than more than millions of middle-income taxpayers. This is fundamentally unfair.

White House Report – The Buffett Rule: A Basic Principle of Tax Fairness

 

[bripat9643]

Kennedy reduced it from 95% to 70%. That was the golden age, according to turds like dtwo3.

LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!

Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed. Johnson managed to get it passed:

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]


Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]​

Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!


91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!

You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.

Which is it? Can you please make-up your mind?

Don't understand when a demand side CAN help an economy (Obama's SS TAX CUT) versus right wing "supply side" that does NOTHING? Shocking

In other words, when a Republican cuts marginal rates, it's bad for the economy. When a Democrat cuts them, it's good for the economy.

Got it.

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Bubba, i forgot WHO I was dealing here with, the brain dead

Bottom HALF of US make LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY AVERAGE. I added in the extra 10% and another $5,000 (BET IT'S CLOSE)


Starved to death? No Bubba, saying BEFORE Reaganomics, the bottom HALF of US had 18% of the pie (would be almost $20,000 PER FAMILY) TODAY!

Implying? NO BUBBA, SAYING THANKS TO CORPS REFUSAL TO PAY A LIVING WAGE, GOV'T HAD TO STEP UP WITH SAFETY NETS!!!



Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your full of shit, as usual.

YOUR LINK BUBS:


Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.




LOL

AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

The "bottom half" would be those making less than the median income, not the average income, moron. I chose median specifically for that reason. You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.

OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:

Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:

68,040,177 Families (68 million families0

AGI ($ millions)
$1,003,944 (1 Trillion )

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data



AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS

That's the average income OF the bottom 50% of INDIVIDUALS filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans. The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.

If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?

Oh right,. Sorry, I forgot, since the share of income for those at the bottom HALF of US has dropped by nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY (very few "teenagers" are required to file income tax returns, you don't want o use it Bubba?


Whether or not you are required to file a federal income tax return depends on several things:

• your filing status,
• your age,
• your income,
• your dependency status, and
• whether you meet a few other special requirements.

IF your filing status is. . . AND at the end of 2014
you were*. . . THEN file a return if your gross income** was at least. . .
Single under 65 $10,150
65 or older $11,700
Head of household under 65 $13,050
65 or older $14,600
Married filing jointly*** under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
65 or older (both spouses) $22,700
Married filing separately any age $3,950
Qualifying widow(er)
with dependent child under 65 $16,350
65 or older $17,550


TEENS HUH BUBS?

Publication 554 (2014), Tax Guide for Seniors



LOL

 

[bripat9643]

According to Wikipedia the median family income is 43,585*

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your full of shit, as usual.

YOUR LINK BUBS:


Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.




LOL

AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

The "bottom half" would be those making less than the median income, not the average income, moron. I chose median specifically for that reason. You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.

OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:

Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:

68,040,177 Families (68 million families0

AGI ($ millions)
$1,003,944 (1 Trillion )

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data



AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS

That's the average income OF the bottom 50% of INDIVIDUALS filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans. The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.

If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?

Oh right,. Sorry, I forgot, since the share of income for those at the bottom HALF of US has dropped by nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY (very few "teenagers" are required to file income tax returns, you don't want o use it Bubba?


Whether or not you are required to file a federal income tax return depends on several things:

• your filing status,
• your age,
• your income,
• your dependency status, and
• whether you meet a few other special requirements.

IF your filing status is. . . AND at the end of 2014
you were*. . . THEN file a return if your gross income** was at least. . .
Single under 65 $10,150
65 or older $11,700
Head of household under 65 $13,050
65 or older $14,600
Married filing jointly*** under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
65 or older (both spouses) $22,700
Married filing separately any age $3,950
Qualifying widow(er)
with dependent child under 65 $16,350
65 or older $17,550


TEENS HUH BUBS?

Publication 554 (2014), Tax Guide for Seniors



LOL

The bottom line is that you fucked up royally and got all your facts wrong. You proved you don't even know what the word "mean" means.

 

[Dad2three]

LIAR. LYNDON BAINS JOHNSON, THE BIG FED GOV'T GUY, REDUCED IT FROM 91% TO 70% WHEN YOU USED DEMAND SIDE TAX CUTS DUMMY. Got rid of loopholes AND effective rates WERE UNCHANGED!!!

Kennedy proposed it, but failed to get it passed. Johnson managed to get it passed:

Revenue Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

President John F. Kennedy brought up the issue of tax reduction in his 1963 State of the Union address. His initial plan called for a $13.5 billion tax cut through a reduction of the top income tax rate from 91% to 65%, reduction of the bottom rate from 20% to 14%, and a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. The first attempt at passing the tax cuts was rejected by Congress in 1963.[3]


Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was able to achieve Kennedy's goal of a tax cut in exchange for promising a budget not to exceed $100 billion in 1965. The Revenue Act of 1964 emerged from Congress and was signed by Johnson on February 26, 1964.[1][4]​

Like I said, LBJ's tax cuts that were DEMAND side!


91% to 70% AGAIN like I said!

You have been claiming that tax cuts reduce economic growth. Now you're claiming they increase it.

Which is it? Can you please make-up your mind?

Don't understand when a demand side CAN help an economy (Obama's SS TAX CUT) versus right wing "supply side" that does NOTHING? Shocking

In other words, when a Republican cuts marginal rates, it's bad for the economy. When a Democrat cuts them, it's good for the economy.

Got it.

Good you agree, you LIED about LBJ cutting it from 90% (NOT 95%) to 70% FOR A demand side tax cut that spurs an economy


BUT WHEN THE GOP SELLS US ON A "TRICKLE DOWN" BS TAX CUT, IT FAILS, UNLESS THE US IS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF LAFFERS CURVE RIGHT BUBBA?????

 

[Dad2three]

YOUR LINK BUBS:


Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. Mean income (average) is the amount obtained by dividing the total aggregate income of a group by the number of units in that group.




LOL

AGAIN, BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICAN'S AVERAGE LESS THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY DUMBASS


Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data

The "bottom half" would be those making less than the median income, not the average income, moron. I chose median specifically for that reason. You even enunciated the definition, and then you still insisted that median didn't give you the the bottom 50%.

OK DUMBASS, AGAIN, ANTI TAX FOUNDATION:

Bottom 50% OF ALL AMERICAN FILING TAX RETURNS:

68,040,177 Families (68 million families0

AGI ($ millions)
$1,003,944 (1 Trillion )

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data



AVERAGE INCOME IS $14, 600 PER FAMILY DUMBASS

That's the average income OF the bottom 50% of INDIVIDUALS filing tax returns. It's not the average family income of all Americans. The bottom 50% of individuals includes teenagers living with mom and dad as well as college students.

If it wasn't for bogus statistics, what would you have to argue about?

Oh right,. Sorry, I forgot, since the share of income for those at the bottom HALF of US has dropped by nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY (very few "teenagers" are required to file income tax returns, you don't want o use it Bubba?


Whether or not you are required to file a federal income tax return depends on several things:

• your filing status,
• your age,
• your income,
• your dependency status, and
• whether you meet a few other special requirements.

IF your filing status is. . . AND at the end of 2014
you were*. . . THEN file a return if your gross income** was at least. . .
Single under 65 $10,150
65 or older $11,700
Head of household under 65 $13,050
65 or older $14,600
Married filing jointly*** under 65 (both spouses) $20,300
65 or older (one spouse) $21,500
65 or older (both spouses) $22,700
Married filing separately any age $3,950
Qualifying widow(er)
with dependent child under 65 $16,350
65 or older $17,550


TEENS HUH BUBS?

Publication 554 (2014), Tax Guide for Seniors



LOL

The bottom line is that you fucked up royally and got all your facts wrong. You proved you don't even know what the word "mean" means.

Your dodge on the bottom HALF of US losing nearly $5,000 per family noted Bubba!

 

[Campbell]

Beside BS AND RIGHT WING MEMES , HOW ABOUT BACKING ANYTHING UP Bubba? lol

In 2012, 136.1 million taxpayers reported earning $9.04 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.1 trillion in income taxes.

• All income groups increased their income and taxes paid over the previous year.

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers earned their largest share of income since 2007 at 21.9 percent of total AGI and paid their largest share of the income tax burden since the same year at 38.1 percent of total income taxes.

• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (68 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.

• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (38.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (122.4 million filers) combined (29.8 percent).

• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group at 22.8 percent, which is nearly 7 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.28 percent).

Dumb2three this is from your source, not mine...

Yep Bubba, The ANTI Tax Foundation showing the BOTTOM HALF OF AMERICA went from 18% of the pie in 1980 to 11% today, an AVERAGE of less than $15,000 PER FAMILY, a drop of nearly $5,000 PER FAMILY since Reaganomics. Go figure the ANTI Tax Foundation sticks with the 46% of federal tax burden, the income tax, lol



Let's make sure the BOTTOM half US step up and pay more right? lol

the bottom half pays next to zero in federal income tax you idiot. if their total taxes are high it's because they get taxed to death mostly in Blue states at the state and local level

My point exactly! It's no wonder that the rich have made out like bandits ever since Ronald Reagan slashed their rates. As a percentage poor folks are already taxed at a higher rate. You do know about calculating percentages don't you?

Something has been working for the rich ever since Reagan slashed their rates. The sad thing is that he never cut spending a goddam dime and borrowed $3 trillion from foreign banks to cover the shortfall:


.................................Total U S Debt.......................................


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)


09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)


09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32


09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16


09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)


09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)


09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62

09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34

09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73

09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03

09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32

09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16

09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42

09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00

09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00

09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00


09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)


09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[kyzr]

A 1% national sales tax would raise about $140b a year, then you put a transaction tax on Wall Street and close tax loopholes and we can pay for our entitlements. The tax whiners need to stop whining and tell Norquist to focus on spending instead of borrowing and borrowing.