The top 1% of income earners earn about 17% of the nation's income and pay more than 1/3 of the taxes, double their share based on percentage of income.Originally Posted by braheem24
If O wants to propose a tax on wealth, that's a different ballgame. Who knows, maybe in today's political climate it would pass.
I'm assuming we can use the following for reference...
Top 1% equals anyone making $350k+ (1 out of 100)
Have you seen the breakdown of the top 0.5% or 0.1%? (0.1% is 1 out of 1000, they can hire top 1% above as a secretary and have them pay a higher tax rate)
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-j...the-1-percent/
"A much better measure than the top 1 percent would be the top tenth of 1 percent. The government does not break out this group, but Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist, and others have.The Saez analysis of tax return data shows that through 2008, the top one-in-a-thousand taxpayers had average income in recent years that ranged between $5.2 million and $7.5 million annually. Just investing that much in corporate bonds will produce enough interest income to keep someone in the top 1 percent.
Furthermore, inside the top 1 percent, those with the highest incomes pay the lowest tax rates.
The top 1 percent paid an average income tax rate of 24 percent in 2009, IRS data shows. That is almost exactly the rate paid by those making $500,000 to $1 million. Those who made $1 million to $10 million paid a higher rate, 26 percent. But those making more than $10 million paid a significantly lower rate, 23.3 percent.
The top 400 taxpayers paid a much lower rate. On an average income of $270 million each, their effective federal income tax rate was 18.1 percent in 2008, the latest year for which we have IRS data. A single worker earning less than $90,000 pays a higher rate than that."
Whoa! The top 1% became rich by being LAZY? If that's the case, there should be a whole new class of emerging millionaires!!!
(Is this entire thread really a parody, and I fell for it?)
Lazy = Rich? Still trying to put my arms around that.
Risk = Rich (sometimes)
Hard work = rich (sometimes)
Lazy = rich (not very often that I've seen)
Are you referring to these guys? http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissue...es.asp?id=8755
According to its own authors our Constitution is based upon "unalienable rights" endowed to men by their Creator.
Last edited by tx11; 09-30-2012 at 12:55 AM.
There are so many different rates being conflated with income tax rates here. The one that most people seem to want to use is net tax paid divided by total income. That's far different than marginal tax rates which apply to the next dollar of AGI or adjusted gross income.
And that's far different than the capital gains rate, the rate paid by most wealthy people who don't draw salaries but earn investment income. That's why it can be said that Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher rate. Two completely different types of income. Anyone with even the most rudimentary financial knowledge knows that's a completely erroneous comparison, but lefties and the media eat it up.
Lefties complain that Mitt Romney doesn't pay enough taxes or even that he hasn't paid taxes for ten years. Then when it's revealed that in 2011 that he paid far more in taxes than he was required to under the law, that gets them all po'ed too. They can find a reason to be po'ed about anything! They must really enjoy it.
Here's the table of marginal tax rates for single tax payers for 2011. This applies to all taxpayers. If you don't like people being able to deduct what's allowed by law, work to change the law. It's as simple as that. All the rest is just noise.
If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is: of the amount over-- $0 $8,500 10% $0 $8,500 $34,500 $850.00 + 15% $8,500 $34,500 $83,600 $4,750.00 + 25% $34,500 $83,600 $174,400 $17,025.00 + 28% $83,600 $174,400 $379,150 $42,449.00 + 33% $174,400 $379,150 $110,016.50 + 35% $379,150
So everyone pays a higher percentage of taxes than their share of gross income except the bottom 50%. And many say the income tax isn't progressive enough? Pshaw I say!I'm assuming we can use the following for reference...
Top 1% equals anyone making $350k+ (1 out of 100)
Have you seen the breakdown of the top 0.5% or 0.1%? (0.1% is 1 out of 1000, they can hire top 1% above as a secretary and have them pay a higher tax rate)
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-j...the-1-percent/
"A much better measure than the top 1 percent would be the top tenth of 1 percent. The government does not break out this group, but Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist, and others have.The Saez analysis of tax return data shows that through 2008, the top one-in-a-thousand taxpayers had average income in recent years that ranged between $5.2 million and $7.5 million annually. Just investing that much in corporate bonds will produce enough interest income to keep someone in the top 1 percent.
Furthermore, inside the top 1 percent, those with the highest incomes pay the lowest tax rates.
The top 1 percent paid an average income tax rate of 24 percent in 2009, IRS data shows. That is almost exactly the rate paid by those making $500,000 to $1 million. Those who made $1 million to $10 million paid a higher rate, 26 percent. But those making more than $10 million paid a significantly lower rate, 23.3 percent.
The top 400 taxpayers paid a much lower rate. On an average income of $270 million each, their effective federal income tax rate was 18.1 percent in 2008, the latest year for which we have IRS data. A single worker earning less than $90,000 pays a higher rate than that."
I Changed the table to easier understand the TRUE numbers without manipulation of the facts (Notice how my numbers add up to 100%)
BIG FYI for anyone that read this,
Notice how the bottom 50% pay 2.25% on their earnings, What's not told is that EVERYONE PAYS 2.25% on the first $32,396.
The top 50% pay the EXACT SAME TAXES on their first $32,396 as the bottom 50%, Some people just don't make $32,396.
You cant get blood out of a turnip.
Then I respectfully suggest you don't read the rest of this thread.
It's about in the middle of his 'Future History' series...and yes, there are suggestions that the results of the November election "could" trigger some sort of "revolution".
Yes, those guys. While they were deeply religious men, they managed to separate their faith and religion from the basic guiding documents of our nation.
LMAO == except those "men" were not women OR blacks (slaves).
Actually, the reference to "unalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who had no input into the drafting of the Constitution at all (he was in France for the duration of the Constitutional Convention).
The requirements and purposes of a claim to political independence (as in the Declaration) are notably different from those of the establishment of a government (as in the Constitution). Compare, for example, the claim in the Declaration that among those unalienable rights with which men are endowed by their Creator are "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" with the language in the Constitution (Amendment V) that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." When it comes to governing, it turns out that life and liberty aren't unalienable after all - they are indeed alienable, so long as certain conditions are met, apparently not including the consent of the Creator.
...and then there is the much despised "Patriot Act", which removed even more "unalienable" rights...
Not at all. The 2.25% is an aggregate total as a percentage of all income earners in the bottome 50%. It's not spread out equally. In fact, many low wage earners pay no income tax at all and some even get a check from the government because they had children they cannot afford.
That's pure baloney.
Maybe no income tax, I'll give you that one, but a check because "they had children they cannot afford". Bull. What is your source on this?
Additionally, they **DO** pay other taxes, federal excise taxes on gasoline, for example. Property taxes, some indirectly through rent payments. Sales taxes. They pay taxes, same as the rest of us.
The discussion has been about federal income tax.
Ever hear of the earned income credit? In many cases, it exceeds the person's tax liability and they actually receive more back than they paid in.
EIC is essentially a loan, and it has to be paid back the following year. And in any case, if they had tax liability, then they did pay in taxes.
If they didn't have any taxable income, then they are not eligible for EIC. You have to have income before you can get EIC.
Why don't you people understand how our system works?
At some point Romney collected a paycheck. That paycheck was taxed by the US Govt under a payroll tax. So lets say it was $1million. That $ 1 million was taxed with a payroll tax. So lets say the Government took 20% or $200k.
Now that leaves him with $800k.
Lets say he takes $200k of that and makes an investment. The Gov wants people to make these types of investments to keep the stock market ticking. This $200k is a gamble. He could lose it all or make a capitol gain. If he does make a capital gain the gov wants to tax that too.
So in essence wasnt he double taxed? Why would anybody make an investment if the tax rate is too high?
People are comparing apple to oranges. When we go to work to earn a paycheck what are we risking? Nothing... we get that paycheck no matter what.
If you make an investment you have a huge risk of losing money. So of course you would want an investment tax lower than a payroll tax.
If it were up to me I would say no Federal Income tax... go back to before Woodrow Wilson forced this on us.
Where in the world did you get that idea?
I'm trying to determine whether this is the disinformation thread or the punk'd thread.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Oh wait, it's right there in the title: "Provoking Fiction".
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
My apologies, I stated that badly. I was in a hurry and didn't follow through with the 2nd part of the post.
The way the system is set up, an employee can say they are eligible for EITC and have the appropriate box checked on the W-2, and have the special tax tables used on their paychecks...but at tax time, if they were not eligible -OR- too much EITC was given back, there is a balance due back to the IRS, hence my comment as a "loan".
It is a reduction of the Social Security/Medicare portion of the paycheck, based on income and the number of deductions the person has. However, it is *NOT* a means of getting money that wasn't earned in the first place, as you say for "having children they could not afford", which at the heart of things, IMO, is a pretty disgusting thing to say.
My ex wife regularly got back far more money than she ever paid in for the first few years after our divorce. Possibly because she didn't have to claim child support.
How is it less disgusting to have children that you can't provide for, children that will have to be taken care of by others' resources, than to notice that this happens? Where is your disgust for those who are the source of the misery their children must endure? That seems a far worse thing to me than merely noticing that some people engage in the practice.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Perhaps I should have said "ratifiers" instead of "authors". Forgive me. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Foundin..._Religion.html
Thomas Jeffereson did not pen the Constitution. He did pen the phrase "unalienable rights" for the Declaration which many of the signers (who agreed with that phrase and idea)also ratified the Constitution. It would appear that many of the key founding fathers( those who signed the Declaration and who later ratified the Constitution) believed in a Creator. I think that the First Ammnendment was to insure that the state could not force anyone to believe in a religion and that the state could not endorse any one religious belief.I love the USA!
Last edited by tx11; 10-02-2012 at 12:34 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks