Podgorny wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 14:17 |
Not to throw a wrench in all this but... Most of us don't have any source of income. Only wages. |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 07 April 2010 19:59 |
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government. The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment. |
Podgorny wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 17:34 |
Jon, income |ˈinˌkəm; ˈi ng-| noun money received, esp. on a regular basis, for work or through investments wage |wāj| noun (usu. wages) • a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis, made by an employer to an employee, esp. to a manual or unskilled worker • the part of total production that is the return to labor as earned income as distinct from the remuneration received by capital as unearned income. The point being that there are those who firmly believe that income tax was intended for those who made money from investments as opposed to those who earned a wage. |
Podgorny wrote on Thu, 08 April 2010 17:34 |
The point being that there are those who firmly believe that income tax was intended for those who made money from investments as opposed to those who earned a wage. |
Quote: |
From the IRS tax year 2007: Top 1% AGI [$410,096]: pay 40.42% of all Federal Income Tax Top 5% AGI [$160.041]: pay 60.63% of all Federal Income Tax Top 10% AGI [$113.018]: pay 71.22% of all Federal Income Tax Top 25% AGI [$66,532]: pay 86.59% of all Federal Income Tax Top 50% AGI [$32,879]: pay 97.11% of all Federal Income Tax |
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 06:55 | ||
I saw these numbers on another forum. I think they help bring a little perspective to the spin in the story. Do we really want to begrudge American families who earn less than $32K for having their deductions / tax breaks relive them from the small amount of tax they pay (though likely significant amounts in regards to their meager budgets)? |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 05:19 |
An interesting figure would be... what percentage of the income are these people receiving? |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 15:10 | ||
I'd be interested in seeing how many of those who think those who are able to 'afford' more taxes refuse their own tax refunds or itemization/deductions wrt to their own taxes. You know, put their money where their mouth is. I suspect the answer is pretty close to zero. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 09:25 |
I think you may have missed a couple of words out there, because it's not quite making sense to me grammatically. Refusing a refund on moral grounds would only make sense if you believed the tax system was scewed unfairly in your favour. |
bblackwood wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 15:32 | ||
I think it reads fine, kinda badly worded but I think the point is clear. |
Quote: |
Restated, on moral grounds, do those that feel that 'he who can afford it should pay more' are doing so or are they getting every penny back they can? |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 08:52 |
Another interesting figure, the total income (as calculated for federal income tax purposes) of the top 0.1% is approximately the same as for the bottom 50%. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 03:19 | ||||
An interesting figure would be... what percentage of the income are these people receiving? |
Berolzheimer wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 20:14 | ||||||
Another interesting figure to see would be, what percentage of their actual income- including capital gains- the top 1% & 5% are paying in taxes, compared to the middle 5% or 10%. |
yhomas wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 16:15 | ||||||||
These figures are not that hard to come up with--they are found in the same previously posted link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html The AGI numbers include capital gains. http://www.fairmark.com/rothira/modagi.htm " Q: Are capital gains included in AGI? A: Yes. For example, if you have a $20,000 capital gain, it will increase your AGI (and your modified AGI) by $20,000. This is true even for long-term capital gains that are subject to special tax rates. " -- The top 1% (AGI over $410k) pay a federal income tax on their AGI (which includes capital gains) to the tune of ~22.45%. The top 5% (AGI over $160k) pay an average federal income tax on their AGI of ~20.53%. -- The top 25% (AGI over $66.5k) pay an average federal income tax on their AGI of 16%. -- Those in top 26% to 50% (that is the top 50% minus the top 25%) pay an average federal income tax on their AGI of 7%. -- The bottom 50% pay ~3%. |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 21:41 |
so if I make 10 mil a year, I am paying 2.2 mil in taxes, but I have 7.8 mil to blow on yachts, pretty girls and cocaine. heyahooooo! Sign me up for that guy's high tax burden. |
grantis wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 05:04 |
My problem with all of this is....the average american work week has been hovering about 34 hours a week for the last decade or so (down as low as 31 during recession). |
seedyunderbelly.com wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 06:27 |
A little confused were we trying to un "tip" or "tip" the proof that life is not fair did anyone find fair or an alternative to force? If this is disheartening or confusing let quick and right death outrace our sun to become a red Giant and as best as you can time your mutual death to feel as one. edit: not that it has been initiated for use of the the integral "force" BUT I may beat it to the punch___________beating less to its only match____until all the matter collects again as magnets do not ruin tapes x forgot about but so called " years" after that perhaps all enemies and/z friends shall be in one place ////all collected again and tight it may be, though we are often wrong but ~if it is a big bang it is then - a singularity that WE will share again I have often said a short sighted slight that the magic may be in the matter(the magic is in the matter) and let us/you do what we/u might as clubs and collections are often otherwise . one can give more than one most at least said one might postulate young magnetism at its fragile might of most |
grantis wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:04 | ||
Where'd you get those numbers? that's not anywhere near correct. Under new tax law (IE, the new healthcare law, etc), if you made 10mil, you'd be paying 5.9mil in tax. Unless you came up with a bunch of write offs. My problem with all of this is....the average american work week has been hovering about 34 hours a week for the last decade or so (down as low as 31 during recession). If 50% of america really is "poor" by definition, it's nobody's fault but their own. Get up off your lazy but and do something about it instead of working a pathetic 31 hours a week. this country's sense of entitlement is sickening, and it's the lawyer who spends 90 hours a week in his office EARNING 500k a year who has to pay for all of that sheer laziness. i'm PAYING my dues by working my ass off for poverty level pay in hopes that it will someday lead to something bigger and better, (and more lucrative). how sad that i will be continuing to pay dues when that day comes, just in a much more pocket burning kind of way. although it all makes sense. why work your ass off when you've already got a free meal ticket? i guess 50% of america is ok with mediocrity. there, i said it, and my tongue was only halfway in my cheek. |
seedyunderbelly.com wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 03:27 |
A little confused were we trying to un "tip" or "tip" the proof that life is not fair did anyone find fair or an alternative to force? If this is disheartening or confusing let quick and right death outrace our sun to become a red Giant and as best as you can time your mutual death to feel as one. edit: not that it has been initiated for use of the the integral "force" BUT I may beat it to the punch___________beating less to its only match____until all the matter collects again as magnets do not ruin tapes x forgot about but so called " years" after that perhaps all enemies and/z friends shall be in one place ////all collected again and tight it may be, though we are often wrong but ~if it is a big bang it is then - a singularity that WE will share again I have often said a short sighted slight that the magic may be in the matter(the magic is in the matter) and let us/you do what we/u might as clubs and collections are often otherwise. one can give more than what one most at least one might postulate young magnetism in its fragile might of most |
Edvaard wrote on Fri, 09 April 2010 23:35 |
Ignore please, Berolz, Just another anticipating his own failure and setting it all up to blame on others, be it the government or whomever. |
Fiasco wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 20:17 |
Edvaard. You are a complete prick. |
Edvaard wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 13:07 |
Some are better suited for burger flipping (or maybe fader pushing) and complaining. Others are suited for something better. Do not confuse your own complaining with some self-imagined "something better," nor your own subconscious discontent that you might have chosen the wrong path. |
Edvaard wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 22:37 |
No argument from me that there are some that -rely- on help from the government. Just letting you know that not all of them are porch-sitters, but rather have expensive apartments in Washington as a base for operations. But we all go by what's in front of our eyes, and what the media choose to tell us, right? |
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 22:50 |
"I can't think of any better way to gather information accurately than by seeing it with your own eyes, can you?" Actually, I can think of a better way. Sometimes when a person lives in a certain city or a certain part of the country what they "see" is disproportionate to the country as a whole. For instance, White (non-Hispanic) people in the U.S. still make up 75% of the current population but that may not be one's "visual evidence" depending upon where one lives. Further, the percentage of gay people in the U.S. is about 6% but if you work in the arts you may think the whole world is gay. So one's perception needs to be of a large body of evidence rather than a small one in order to be more accurate. Barry |
grantis wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 04:04 |
This has always been the land of opportunity, and the government feels the need to provide stability for the least of the population. It pisses me off when people are content to live their lives flipping burgers, OK with the fact that they depend entirely on the government and their "tax credits" to survive. These people are making money by not working, and THAT'S RIDICULOUS. |
grantis wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 04:52 | ||
The point is...if I can't trust MSNBS, or Fox Booze, than all I can REALLY trust is what I see. |
grantis wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 17:23 |
Good point. Numbers don't lie. 31, even 34 hours a week is the reason they depend on the government. |
danickstr wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 22:06 |
The original post was about income tax being predominantly supported by the wealthy, not how much welfare is paid with it. |
Quote: |
I don't fault people for taking what they are given |
Quote: |
I don't fault people for taking what they need. |
Edvaard wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 00:01 |
The only thing more amazing than the fact that almost half the work force in a country with such a high per capita GDP do not make enough money to pay taxes, is the fact that so many do not even notice that it is amazing that a country with such a high per capita GDP pay almost half the work force so poorly. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 16:56 |
I (obviously) strongly support the article and it's conclusions. I believe the article presents the "correct" perspective on this issue. If you'd like, feel free to tell me (us), with facts, how the article is incorrect. Barry |
Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 11 April 2010 23:37 |
Here is a timely article as to the truth and deliberate Republican lies/misrepresentations. http://crooksandliars.com/node/36257 Barry |
DarinK wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 15:01 |
I agree. It really surprises me that some seem to see it as how those awful folks are not paying their fair share, instead of seeing it as how those poor people are not able to earn enough money to contribute. |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:38 | ||
I'm sorry, but half of the US population is not so poor they cannot afford to pay something in he way of income tax. I don't consider them awful for taking full advantage of the system, but I'm willing to bet 80% of that 47% who don't pay income tax live pretty well - we're not talking about the slums if Nicaragua here... |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 18:38 |
That article is based on information from the Tax Policy Center You might find item 1 here interesting reading http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=90133 5 |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 01:30 | ||
How so? No one is saying that 47% of the people of this country pay NO taxes, but when 43% of the US Gov'ts receipts come from income tax, and 47% of the people pay no income tax, well, any wonder why we are in deficit every year? There are certainly folks who need every penny to get by, but I guarantee a good percentage of those who pay no income tax have cable, big screen TV's, etc. I don't begrudge folks who need the break, but you cannot tell me 47% of this country cannot afford to pay some income taxes. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 20:00 |
I thought you might like to educate yourself in your outrage. |
Quote: |
These people aren't EVADING tax, they're paying what the tax system says they should, they're subject to the same tax system that you are, so where is the system failing in your opinion? Which of these allowances is wrong, or too big? |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 18:30 |
How so? No one is saying that 47% of the people of this country pay NO taxes, but when 43% of the US Gov'ts receipts come from income tax, and 47% of the people pay no income tax, well, any wonder why we are in deficit every year? There are certainly folks who need every penny to get by, but I guarantee a good percentage of those who pay no income tax have cable, big screen TV's, etc. I don't begrudge folks who need the break, but you cannot tell me 47% of this country cannot afford to pay some income taxes. |
Quote: |
There are certainly folks who need every penny to get by, but I guarantee a good percentage of those who pay no income tax have cable, big screen TV's, etc. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:47 |
...I don't believe one can begrudge people for how they choose to live. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:19 | ||
This one Sam (above). I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. Barry |
bblackwood wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:38 | ||
I'm sorry, but half of the US population is not so poor they cannot afford to pay something in he way of income tax. I don't consider them awful for taking full advantage of the system, but I'm willing to bet 80% of that 47% who don't pay income tax live pretty well - we're not talking about the slums if Nicaragua here... |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 01:30 | ||
How so? No one is saying that 47% of the people of this country pay NO taxes, but when 43% of the US Gov'ts receipts come from income tax, and 47% of the people pay no income tax, well, any wonder why we are in deficit every year? There are certainly folks who need every penny to get by, but I guarantee a good percentage of those who pay no income tax have cable, big screen TV's, etc. I don't begrudge folks who need the break, but you cannot tell me 47% of this country cannot afford to pay some income taxes. |
Fiasco wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 05:56 |
Unless they are rich... or Republican. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 11:39 |
Here's a list of state tax delinquents from California: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/txdlnqnt.shtml There's a name we know on the list - see if you spot it. |
DarinK wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 17:55 |
More debunking of how the 47% number is being used to mis-represent what's really going on regarding federal taxes: http://crooksandliars.com/node/36340 Enjoy. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 09:11 | ||
That's a great video with Jon Stewart. I'm glad you posted it as I was just about to. Barry |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 15 April 2010 13:58 |
I've been looking at what the numbers would look like if you had a "flat" tax system (as the term is used to describe systems with one rate and an allowance, so not truly flat as such). I may have made an error in my working, so don't take this as gospel without checking it yourselves, but what I'm generally getting is... if I try to make the situation revenue neutral, using the figures from the IRS I linked to before, the poorest 50% only start to pay more when you get to a rate of about 15.8% with an allowance of just over 12k. And they're not the big winners at this point, in fact compared to a flat tax system with those figures, they'd be paying almost exactly the same percentage as now, the top 5% would pay less, and everyone else would pay more, with the 25-50% group hardest hit. I don't have any moral conclusion about this, I just found it interesting to see what happened when you played with the numbers. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 00:47 | ||
I've never done the math but in all I have read, I've been led to believe a flat tax would result in me paying more than I do so on a gut level I agree with your calculations. In Singapore... the government determines what you must pay as a tax and sends you a bill... Barry |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 04:22 |
I like the idea of a flat tax that ramps up for the very rich. So it's kinda flat, with a kicker at the high end. Flat if you just don't earn too much. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 11:56 | ||
Punitive tax never strikes me as a particularly good way to get money out of the really rich (though I guess that depends on where you draw the line between rich and really rich)... they have too aany ways to move their money around, and they could always just leave the country and go and live somewhere else. Get them to spend their money, make a hospital wing with their name on it more fashionable than a Gulf Stream jet, convince them that finding a cure for cancer is a more interesting challenge than another takeover. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 11:56 |
Punitive tax never strikes me as a particularly good way to get money out of the really rich (though I guess that depends on where you draw the line between rich and really rich)... they have too aany ways to move their money around, and they could always just leave the country and go and live somewhere else. |
Berolzheimer wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 20:28 | ||
This brings up what I think is one of the great fallacies that comes into these discussions. I don't believe that a percentage or 2 or 3 of tax differences affect how the "really rich" decide to live their lives. Folks with tens or hundreds of millions or billions can afford to live where they want to, regardless. with that much money there's really no way to spend it, so it just doesn't matter. No billionaire is going to leave a place that he loves because it costs a a few thousand dollars more to live there than somewhere else. |
grantis wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:04 | ||
Where'd you get those numbers? that's not anywhere near correct. Under new tax law (IE, the new healthcare law, etc), if you made 10mil, you'd be paying 5.9mil in tax. Unless you came up with a bunch of write offs. My problem with all of this is....the average american work week has been hovering about 34 hours a week for the last decade or so (down as low as 31 during recession). If 50% of america really is "poor" by definition, it's nobody's fault but their own. Get up off your lazy but and do something about it instead of working a pathetic 31 hours a week. this country's sense of entitlement is sickening, and it's the lawyer who spends 90 hours a week in his office EARNING 500k a year who has to pay for all of that sheer laziness. i'm PAYING my dues by working my ass off for poverty level pay in hopes that it will someday lead to something bigger and better, (and more lucrative). how sad that i will be continuing to pay dues when that day comes, just in a much more pocket burning kind of way. although it all makes sense. why work your ass off when you've already got a free meal ticket? i guess 50% of america is ok with mediocrity. there, i said it, and my tongue was only halfway in my cheek. |