Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes.............
To whom more is given, more is required............
And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?
But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
Are they paying their way? Probably not.
Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................
Yes.............
To whom more is given, more is required............
And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?
But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services...
And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?
But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
Are they paying their way? Probably not.
Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................
No, I didn't need to focus on your insult. However you didn't need to insult. As it is you insulted someone with a policy of ignoring people who insult because, quite frankly, if you need to insult it means you're not worth talking to in the first place.
So, again, BYE.
Yes.............
To whom more is given, more is required............
And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?
But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
Are they paying their way? Probably not.
Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.Loony leftists are persistent idiots. Income taxes do not (nor were they ever intended to) apply to WEALTH. Income taxes apply only to - drum roll, please - INCOME. You do know the diff, right Lefty?
"They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
Oh, what do they have to pay?
Why don't you on the left ask that of your party when they inflict unnecessary costs to the poor like increasing sin taxes as Obama did first thing in the White House? Or increasing the cost of fuel for a "greener" environment? Over here, they put a sales tax that mostly subsidizes public transportation. Oh, for that the poor have money, but not for taxes and digging this country out of the tremendous hole that we are in.
REAGANOMICS.
Yes.............
To whom more is given, more is required............
And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?
But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services...
That is absurd on its face but you now have the opportunity to look at facts (not that they will change your thinking). None of the following establishes the top 25% of American earners as greater users of gov't services than the gen pop. In fact, it clearly establishes the bottom 49% - those who contribute NOTHING - as the biggest beneficiaries by far:
Federal budget 2014 $3.6 trillion
Major Entitlements (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare) $1.8 trillion (49%)
Income Security (Fed employee retirement & disability, unemployment comp, food & housing assistance) $720 billion (20%).
National Security (military) $650 billion (18%).
Interest on national debt $320 billion (6%)
Transportation & Education $210 billion (4%)
Yes.............
To whom more is given, more is required............
And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?
But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
Are they paying their way? Probably not.
Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
Where did you get your information? Is that of the top of your head or has it been established somewhere? If so can you provide the link? Thank you.
But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services.
Are they paying their way? Probably not.
Just showing statistics about how much someone pays doesn't mean that they're paying too much.
you cant begin to prove that idiot; but making a fool of yourself doesnt seem to bother you. prove the "fact that the top 25% ...use 90% more of government services"
Oh, great, an insult. Well done. Bye.
you didnt have to focus on my insult; you could have just backed up what you posted with something resembling a fact and stuff.....................
No, I didn't need to focus on your insult. However you didn't need to insult. As it is you insulted someone with a policy of ignoring people who insult because, quite frankly, if you need to insult it means you're not worth talking to in the first place.
So, again, BYE.
The fact is you are so often insulted because you make such ridiculous (and, of course, unfounded) claims such as "But this avoids the fact that the top 25% of Americans probably use about 90% or more of the usage of government services." Just typical socialist silliness.
Of course the bottom 49% pay nothing, what do they have to pay? How much income do they have that is comparable to the income of the top 25%? No one said I wanted it raised, well, maybe on those making more then $250,000..That doesn't change the fact they own most of the wealth, and it was obvious I was referencing income as well.
"They own most of the wealth, of course they pay most of the income tax." - David
The fact that some (or many) have more wealth than you has no bearing on their fed tax liability. The fact that the top 25% of American earners carry 86% of the fed income tax load (with the bottom 49% paying nothing) seems unsatisfactory to you. So what would satisfy you? 96%? 106%?
Oh, what do they have to pay?
Why don't you on the left ask that of your party when they inflict unnecessary costs to the poor like increasing sin taxes as Obama did first thing in the White House? Or increasing the cost of fuel for a "greener" environment? Over here, they put a sales tax that mostly subsidizes public transportation. Oh, for that the poor have money, but not for taxes and digging this country out of the tremendous hole that we are in.
REAGANOMICS.
Yo Dumb2Three; your graph shows most of the gain by those you're jealous of ocuring during the CLINTON years. Reagan wasn't president during the 90's stupid.
The FAIR tax exempts the poor.LOL. Yeah, great idea, punish the poor more then anyone else.Earlier on this thread I stated that a Flat Tax could be tiered and most Flat tax proposals do exactly that. Where the poor pay 0% or 1% into the system. So they wouldn't be paying Federal Taxes on most proposals. So how is 0% or 1% increasing the tax on the poor............Seriously, how much money do you think increasing taxes on the poor will get you? That'll balance our budget? Maybe we could buy A tank. The people running Walmart manage to get out of quite a bit of taxes while paying their workers a low enough wage that taxpayers foot the bill for their food stamps.
1 in 4 corporations get out of paying taxes, so yeah tax the rich
Now if you want to address the Tax Credits under the current system............then yes the savings to the Gov't would be over 200 Billion a year to these same people. As in the end their Federal Tax burden is 0%, but they get a check back anyway.......to the tune of thousands of dollars every year.
I call that what it is.............A Welfare Check every year without calling it one. Paying 0% is enough of a break................and if we were to write Welfare checks then do it outside of tax law. We have safety nets already in place for those needing assistance..............and 0% tax rates are enough already under the system.
The term "tiered flat tax" is an oxymoron.
Yeah ... how about an SFT (Sorta Flat Tax)?
We can call it whatever makes you happy as long as it eliminates the need for accountants, tax attorneys, IRS bean-counters, multiple forms, and hours (or days, or weeks) of compiling and filing. I figure we all get the same $30,000 or $40,000 standard deduction (which means the bottom 49% would still pay no fed income tax) and then do at most 2 or 3 tiers ... #1 for all earned income above the SD up to $250,000, #2 on income from $250,000 to $500,000 and #3 on all income above that. Simple, fair, tons of aggregate savings in both cash and time and it's a win-win-win (unless you are an acct or tax lawyer).
As long as we have an income tax, we will still have the IRS and all the accountants, tax attorneys and IRS bean counters will keep their jobs. The only way to get rid of them is to abolish the income tax and switch to a consumption tax.
Only a numskull and a thug would think looting $500 biliion is a good idea. No nation ever taxed its way to prosperity.There is no real purpose in taxing the rich more of their income because there simply isn't enough income among the rich to even close the Obama deficit, much less pay for anything new.
Weird, the top 1% had $1,976,738 ($1.97 TRILLION) in income in 2012, thew latest year with only $451,328 ($451 BILLION) in income taxes (an EFFECTIVE rate of 22.8%) IF we just doubled the effective rat\r the US would have another $451 billion, does that help US in revenues?
Top 5% had $3,330,944 ($3.3 TRILLION) in income and only paid $698,543 ($698 Billion) in taxes, 21.0% EFFECTIVE tax rates. What if we had another $698 billion?
BTW, this years deficit is projected to be $486 billion
Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation
Bullshit. Tax revenues increased under both.Bullshit...10% of a million is more tha 10% of 100,000 so the millionaire automatically pays more to the government than the guy making 100,000 ....so sorry, your bullshit doesn't fly....a flat tax is the only fair way to tax people if you aren't filled with hate and envy of someone who makes more money than you...and that is at the core of the left...hate, jealousy, greed and envy...
Weird how SOOOOO many people here talk about "hate" and then show how it's REALLY done
80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.
Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power
The middle class has been eviscerated. What middle class?
the middle class gets screwed by the politicians spending 18 trillion dollars, which eats up the money that could be used to create jobs......the politicians you want to give even more money to are the ones fucking up the economy...so why do you want to give them more money.......?
you said they just give that money to the rich right, dumb fuck? so why on earth would you want to give them more tax money...our money, so they can just give it to the rich? Please...explain how that works.....
DUMBFUK, MOST OF THAT $18 TRILLION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO RONNIE/DUBYA TAX CUTS !!!
Tax cuts don't cost money. Tax cuts reduce the money coming in. If you reduce the money coming in as well as spending, it doesn't cost us a dime. If you reduce the money coming in and not reduce spending, it's the spending that costs the money--not the tax reduction.
Name the last GOP Prez to cut spending, even projected? lol
Hint Ronnie/Dubya GUTTED tax revenues AS they exploded spending!
Thanks for agreeing, you don't get more revenues by cutting taxes UNLESS the effective tax rate is near 60%
YOUR inability to admit you were wrong about Buffetts position is noted Bubba. Defeat accepted!
Your inability to engage me in anything after the juvenile name calling is noted.
Yep, moronic posters who don't accept their premises are BS (like you) do drive me nuts. Perhaps try acknowledging your premise was bullsh*t to begin with? lol
Well whatever the reason a person calls another person a name when attempting a conversation, is mostly a lack of courtesy and conviction in a point of view. That is a big reason they resort to name calling. They try bully the other person and they are to immature socially to communicate. I met one of those tonight.
OR after debunking the false premises put forward by the low informed right winger, they decide, fukk it, they aren't worthy of respect since they NEVER seem to accept ANY responsibility for their lies or mischaracterizations!
Yanno, having scrolled through a couple hundred of your posts and found that "low informed right winger" pap a persistent response to those who clearly know way more than you, I have come to the conclusion you are a socialist troll. So my question is who sends you here every few months to spam these threads with your silly socialist BS?
It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'It is far better that you remain silent and have others think you a fool than to post here and remove all doubt.'
Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."
Weird, name 3 POLICIES the conservatives have gotten right the last 40 years? Just 3? lol
Weird, Did I make a premise I haven't backed up? NOPE. You want me to do your or other posters work TOO? lol
Again the same "cons are always on the wrong side" pap you have spewed on dozens of posts. Do you have anything of value or is silly socialist BS all you have?
BTW, you continue to avoid the Q.
Do you have anything to back up RW's BS claim that FDR "nationalized all industry" or are you just doing the loony leftist shuffle?
Yes.............
To whom more is given, more is required............
And indeed the top 25% of America's earners currently carry 86% of the federal personal income tax load while the bottom 49% get a free ride.
So how much of the load should the top earners carry?
96%?
106%?
They already do pay more. And you are lucky they pay any! Federal income taxes are completely voluntary, unless you are a resident of Washington DC. Or a non resident alien.
A nutter huh? Nope, income taxes have NEVER been declared voluntary, ever,ONLY nutters think otherwise! AND THE RICHEST OF THE RICH PAY A SMALLER SHARE OF THEIR INCOMES IN TAXES TO BOOT!
Are you a tax attorney?
I'm going to speed this up and guess that you are not.
Have you ever sued the IRS?
If you can read code, why not read the tax code, it's all in there.
I will discuss this no more, with someone who isn't qualified.
The federal government is just going to declare taxes voluntary, that is funny stuff.
Wow! I mention "fool" and look what rolls in! So I suppose you have some evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry" as RW claimed?
BTW, you are the idiot who once admitted wasting most of his votes for the Green Party, right? So exactly how many Green Party presidents have you helped elect?
Sorry, in Cali since I started voting, the votes for green have zero to do with electing Prez, and it was the most liberal candidate on the ballot I vote for!
My point exactly! You don't really care what is best for America or who is the best candidate as long as he (or she) is "the most liberal candidate on the ballot." You are the kind of loony leftist puppet who best exemplifies what is wrong with mindless Leftism: it is a religion - a belief system - that rejects logic and reason.
BTW ... like RW you squeal like a stuck pig but have failed to provide a lick of evidence that FDR "nationalized all industry."
Weird, name 3 POLICIES the conservatives have gotten right the last 40 years? Just 3? lol
Weird, Did I make a premise I haven't backed up? NOPE. You want me to do your or other posters work TOO? lol
Again the same "cons are always on the wrong side" pap you have spewed on dozens of posts. Do you have anything of value or is silly socialist BS all you have?
BTW, you continue to avoid the Q.
Do you have anything to back up RW's BS claim that FDR "nationalized all industry" or are you just doing the loony leftist shuffle?
Weird, did I make some claim I haven't backed up? Didn't think so Bubba
PLEASE though, give me just 3 POLICIES conservatives have been on the correct side of history the past 40 years? 60 years? 100? How about going back to the US Founding? Just 3 please, oops
