1,470 paid no taxes

[NYcarbineer]

That's a direct result of Republican tax policy that I'm guessing you wholeheartedly supported.

Well yeah.

Those gosh darn Bush Tax cuts.

Wait....... I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefited the "Rich." Now you're telling me that the Bush tax cuts actually benefited the poor and made it so that they can now pay no taxes?

You liberal just can't stick to one lie can you?

Rick

For falsely accusing me of saying the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich, you win a neg rep.

 

[NYcarbineer]

i'm not the one parroting this 47% figure, you cons are. I've never verified it and i don't know the source, i just know all you cons say the same thing, that 47% of the people don't pay income tax. Well, you have to be ridiculously poor or rediculously rich not to pay any income tax, if that's not your explanation for how half the country isn't paying income tax and somehow a lot of people in the middle and stable working classes aren't paying tax and should pay more, what's your explanation for how they're doing that?

that figure was from the government

prove it.

Why Some Tax Units Pay No Income Tax

The entire report is linked.

 

[NYcarbineer]

here's what i came up with.

Why Some Tax Units Pay No Income Tax

about half of the people who don't pay income tax do so because they're poor (that's 25% of americans, which to me seems like a lot) and the other half because of exemptions essentially courtesy of the bush tax cuts. apparently a married couple with 50K of income and two dependents might be able to game their return so as not to pay income taxes. (of course, cons never bring up that that family still has to pay sales taxes, payroll taxes, and a whole host of other taxes.)

in any case, i'm still not clear what your solution is, gunboy. do we need to make that family making 50K pay more taxes so the rich can continue to get out of THEIR fair share?

You like to ignore facts, don't you? A post earlier in this thread showed that the rich are not only paying their fair share, but they are paying well over their fair share of taxes, yet you refuse to see that.

the rich have always paid proportionately somewhat more than what would be the case in a flat tax scenario, that's been true since the income tax was created. the reason why is because if you tax the poor as much as you tax the rich, the poor experience food insecurity, are evicted from their homes, etc. if you tax the rich, a yacht goes a year without a new paint job. it's called a progressive income tax, and it's been the norm since the income tax was created. now, if you want to overturn that, that's fine, but understand that would be a very radical thing to do that overturns about a century of precedent.

[Here's a question for you, how much is their fair share? 50% of what they make? 75%? How about you just tell us how much you expect them to keep of THEIR OWN money and we'll just have the government confiscate the rest? Would that make you happy?

the clinton levels seemed pretty good to me. my rule of thumb is, let's go back to the last boom economy, find out what people were paying then, and start with that.

Oh, and even if the rich paid what you consider their fair share we'd still have a deficit. You see, when you spend more than you could ever possibly take in you're never going to get out of the hole.

Rick

right, well, when you're fighting two unfunded wars in the middle of a recession you're going to have a deficit no matter what, yeah, that's true.

Even with a flat tax the high earners pay more, because you're paying a percentage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You obviously have never known wealth. Those of us that are worth millions take all the risk and have many people depending on us for their livelihood. If we were to go broke, then hundreds if not thousands of employees and their families would suffer.

Stop looking at life like a welfare queen.

Risk indeed. All most wealthy people ever 'risk' financially is money they can afford to risk. What's the risk of starting a family, buying a house, etc., for a couple on middle income wages working jobs that might disappear any minute?

What's more pathetic than rich people whining about all the risk they're taking?

Spoken like someone who has never had any wealth and has no idea what it takes to run a business.

Business owners run risk every single day.

So do wage earners. If the business owner is at risk, his EMPLOYEES are even more at risk.

 

[highway234]

As a conservative I do not NOT like you. I dont agree with you, but I do not dislike you. I feel you are somewhat naive to the true "disagreements" that exist between the left and the right...but I dont blame you...you are a victim of spin.

Me? I dont see the left as a group that wants the people to depend on governemnt in an effort to preserve the democratic party....I do not see Obama as a socialist or a marxist. I do not see the left as ignorant, or "idiots" or nuts.....names I have heard the left call the right over and over on here.

I respect the left for the beliefs and I understand why they believe what they beleive...I just disagree with them.

A conservative is not selfish..at all. A conservative believes in personal responsiobility...and I have always lived by the following:

I will do for myself what I need to do. Please do for yourself. I will help you if I can, but dont demand that I do. I will not ask you for help if I need, but I may not turn it down if you offer.
I will not interfere in your life, please do not interfere in mine. But this does not mean that we can noit live together and prosper off of each others work.

As a conservative, I believe it is not my place to interefere if you want to abort a child...but I still see it as murder.
I do not believe it is my place to say you can not marry if you are gay...but I will always believe that marriage is between a man and a woman...

As a result?

When I was homeless and penniless, I used my ideology to drag myself out of it.

I have since started a business...sold it...and now own two more.

I have employed many...I donate to charity. My wife and my two boys have spent many a thnaksgiving handing out dinners...a community effort..

I have coached soccer, football and baseball. I was military for a few years.

That makes me selfish? Disgusting? Ignorant? Hateful?

that's fair. i was having mud slung at me from people other than you and i was simply slinging back. it's part of what makes political message boards fun.

look, i think everyone believes in personal responsibility. i don't want someone to sit around all day on the public dole and get paid for it out of my tax dollars. i just think that A. that really doesn't happen as much as people think, that more often poor people are suffering and need help rather than taking advantage of our country's fabulous social programs. and i also think B. that there's no way the government can arbitrate personal responsibility on a statistical level, and so the government would be better off making decisions based on the overall good of the country. heck, that probably sounds more like a conservative position than a liberal one, but, for instance, it's why one of the few things obama's done that i support is subsidizing birth control. and when he does that all these conservatives start howling, it'll encourage people to have sex! it'll reward people for making bad choices! it'll degrade our country's morals! well, i disagree with that last part, but frankly, if it encourages some people to make bad choices, i don't really care, if the net result is fewer unwanted pregnancies, because that means less poverty, and less of a burden on the rest of us. i believe in welfare because i don't want desperately poor people who are hooked on heroin because their life is utterly intolerable breaking into my living room, or yours, to steal a TV to fence for money for a fix. you apparently were poor at one time, and you were able to pull yourself out of it. i've never been poor, knock on wood, except in the 31K-a-year sense, so i don't know if i was poor if i'd be able to pull myself out of it or not. but i do know a lot of people who are poor do NOT pull themselves out of it, and i don't think it's always, or even mostly, because they want to be poor. i mean, not everyone is like you. that's just a reality.

 

[Avorysuds]

You want more taxes as a way to "fix" the deficit yet how much more taxes and how much of an impact will it have on the deficit is the question.... More or less you offer a way to help fix 1/20th of the problem but you're solution comes with a price, meaning in time that revenue pool will shrink because people will invest less or avoid the tax.

how much more taxes? i said before i think the clinton rates might be a good start. i can't give you an exact figure because i'm not an economist. but i find this assertion that tax figures inevitably lead to capital flight to be befuddling. i mean, is this always true, regardless of the legacy tax level? the wealthy are sitting on income and not spending it. that's not always true, but it's true at the moment. meanwhile, the middle class is tapped out and we're running enormous deficits. i keep hearing spending cuts, spending cuts, but spending cuts suppress demand and don't do anything to create jobs. the bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset several years ago. do we just keep those cuts going indefinitely, and do nothing to increase demand? i honestly don't get what you guys are prescribing to fix this problem.

So you have no answer other than "Where Clinton had them." Not use some fucking context like we spend a WHOLE lot more than Clinton was, a LOT more.

 

[hboats]

Well yeah.

Those gosh darn Bush Tax cuts.

Wait....... I thought the Bush tax cuts only benefited the "Rich." Now you're telling me that the Bush tax cuts actually benefited the poor and made it so that they can now pay no taxes?

You liberal just can't stick to one lie can you?

Rick

For falsely accusing me of saying the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich, you win a neg rep.

For a true lack of reading comprehension you also win a neg rep.

You are really stupid enough that you don't see that I was quoting someone else and not you? Maybe you need to stop and actually read before you post idiot.

Rick

 

[NYcarbineer]

IRS: 1,470 millionaires paid no income tax in '09 - On Deadline - USATODAY.com


That merans they are not helping their country at a time of need.

What kind of American doesnt help their country in a time of great need?

1. If you didn't play social engineer through offering tax breaks for things, and made everyone pay a single bracket flat tax with no deductions, this wouldn't be a problem. Even the poor would be paying THEIR Fair Share.

2. Why aren't you helping your nation in need by paying extra? There's a line to allow you put pay the entirity of your earnings after expenses to the government so you can be a good patriotic American and turn over your profiteering from work to those who need it more than you.

You want to raise taxes on the lower half of America, cut taxes on the higher half, and you think coming out the other side,

the country will be better off? How?

You could for example end the child tax credit and instantly increase the federal taxes of almost every household, under around $100,000 in income, that has kids,

by $1000 or more.

That would make taxes 'fairer' by your logic, by making all those families significantly poorer and with significantly less disposable income.

Setting aside everything else, how does that help country economically?

 

[highway234]

You want more taxes as a way to "fix" the deficit yet how much more taxes and how much of an impact will it have on the deficit is the question.... More or less you offer a way to help fix 1/20th of the problem but you're solution comes with a price, meaning in time that revenue pool will shrink because people will invest less or avoid the tax.

how much more taxes? i said before i think the clinton rates might be a good start. i can't give you an exact figure because i'm not an economist. but i find this assertion that tax figures inevitably lead to capital flight to be befuddling. i mean, is this always true, regardless of the legacy tax level? the wealthy are sitting on income and not spending it. that's not always true, but it's true at the moment. meanwhile, the middle class is tapped out and we're running enormous deficits. i keep hearing spending cuts, spending cuts, but spending cuts suppress demand and don't do anything to create jobs. the bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset several years ago. do we just keep those cuts going indefinitely, and do nothing to increase demand? i honestly don't get what you guys are prescribing to fix this problem.

So you have no answer other than "Where Clinton had them." Not use some fucking context like we spend a WHOLE lot more than Clinton was, a LOT more.

right, on wars, tax cuts and bailouts. round and round we go.

again. if you know of something obama's spending money on that's a liberal priority, please tell me. if you have a prescription for fixing this problem other than cutting medicare and social security, please let me know. if by "spending cuts" you mean ending the wars and doing something about the fact we spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, then you've got my vote. but something tells me when you say "spending cuts," you're talking about cutting programs people rely on. and that's dumb in a recession, because it suppresses demand.

 

[Dr.House]

IRS: 1,470 millionaires paid no income tax in '09 - On Deadline - USATODAY.com


That merans they are not helping their country at a time of need.

What kind of American doesnt help their country in a time of great need?

I don't know about them, but I am certainly not on board with helping my government blow my money and everyone else's on bullshit waste. If these people were able to legally utilize lawful tax laws to avoid paying income tax then more power to them. I take every deduction I am legally entitled to also. There is a difference, by the way, between helping your country and helping the government.

And if you want to help so much, please, be my guest. How much do you intend to donate?

Gifts to the United States Government: Questions and Answers: Financial Management Service

Thanks... I've been meaning to post that link for those who feel the governement needs to increase taxes...

 

[blastoff]

For the umpteenth time TM dumbass -

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

•Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.


•The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

•The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

•The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

It's obvious people of your ilk (welfare cases) aren't paying enough

Whip out your paycheck and stroke the IRS a check. If you don't have a checking account, send them a few foodstamps

Admirable but a colossal waste of your time, but I'm sure you know that.

 

[Warrior102]

For the umpteenth time TM dumbass -

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

•Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise.


•The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.

•The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

•The average tax rate for the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers falls by 27 percent as compared to a 13 percent decline for taxpayers in the top 1 percent.

It's obvious people of your ilk (welfare cases) aren't paying enough

Whip out your paycheck and stroke the IRS a check. If you don't have a checking account, send them a few foodstamps

Admirable but a colossal waste of your time, but I'm sure you know that.

Thanks. I must have this posted 20 times on this message board - each time some asswipe Liberal makes a claim the "rich" aren't paying their share of taxes. And it's from a DOT.GOV site to boot!

They're either illiterate or idiotic, as they still can't comprehend.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Risk indeed. All most wealthy people ever 'risk' financially is money they can afford to risk. What's the risk of starting a family, buying a house, etc., for a couple on middle income wages working jobs that might disappear any minute?

What's more pathetic than rich people whining about all the risk they're taking?

Spoken like someone who has never had any wealth and has no idea what it takes to run a business.

Business owners run risk every single day.

So do wage earners. If the business owner is at risk, his EMPLOYEES are even more at risk.

Wage earners do not risk more than the employers and if you believe that do then you are a fool. If an employee loses, he loses his job. If an employer loses, he loses lots of money and many employees lose their jobs. Therefore it is in the best interest of the employees that the employer doesn't come out on the losing side.

 

[Warrior102]

Spoken like someone who has never had any wealth and has no idea what it takes to run a business.

Business owners run risk every single day.

So do wage earners. If the business owner is at risk, his EMPLOYEES are even more at risk.

Wage earners do not risk more than the employers and if you believe that do then you are a fool. If an employee loses, he loses his job. If an employer loses, he loses lots of money and many employees lose their jobs. Therefore it is in the best interest of the employees that the employer doesn't come out on the losing side.

You do realize you're talking economics with bagger #27 at the Food King, right ?

 

[Harry Dresden]

IRS: 1,470 millionaires paid no income tax in '09 - On Deadline - USATODAY.com


That merans they are not helping their country at a time of need.

What kind of American doesnt help their country in a time of great need?

the really rich on both sides do everything they can to avoid paying taxes Truth....where have you been?......i bet you also do what you can to minimize what you pay.....Right?.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Spoken like someone who has never had any wealth and has no idea what it takes to run a business.

Business owners run risk every single day.

So do wage earners. If the business owner is at risk, his EMPLOYEES are even more at risk.

Wage earners do not risk more than the employers and if you believe that do then you are a fool. If an employee loses, he loses his job. If an employer loses, he loses lots of money and many employees lose their jobs. Therefore it is in the best interest of the employees that the employer doesn't come out on the losing side.

What great risk does Donald Trump face? Paris Hilton? Oh right, the risk that someone might snap a pic of her beaver when she's crawling out of a limousine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?

It must be disillusioning.

exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.

But you see...spending cuts is a no brainer.
Raising taxes during a recession or recession recovery is dangerous.


And raising taxes on onbly those that make 250K or more may not affect the millionaires...but it could have a very serious affefct on those making 250K in major markets....250K sounds like a lot...but many people ONLY make that becuiase they are in high cowst of living areas...and live no more luxurious a life than someone makinghalf that in a low cost of living area....

That in itself is why you can not simply say "on folks making x amount or more"

Cutting spending is not dangerous in a recession? How do you figure?

Oh, btw, the guy making 250K when taxes on earnings 250 or more are raised only pays the higher rate

on ONE DOLLAR.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You want more taxes as a way to "fix" the deficit yet how much more taxes and how much of an impact will it have on the deficit is the question.... More or less you offer a way to help fix 1/20th of the problem but you're solution comes with a price, meaning in time that revenue pool will shrink because people will invest less or avoid the tax.

how much more taxes? i said before i think the clinton rates might be a good start. i can't give you an exact figure because i'm not an economist. but i find this assertion that tax figures inevitably lead to capital flight to be befuddling. i mean, is this always true, regardless of the legacy tax level? the wealthy are sitting on income and not spending it. that's not always true, but it's true at the moment. meanwhile, the middle class is tapped out and we're running enormous deficits. i keep hearing spending cuts, spending cuts, but spending cuts suppress demand and don't do anything to create jobs. the bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset several years ago. do we just keep those cuts going indefinitely, and do nothing to increase demand? i honestly don't get what you guys are prescribing to fix this problem.

So you have no answer other than "Where Clinton had them." Not use some fucking context like we spend a WHOLE lot more than Clinton was, a LOT more.

Taxes should be at about 20% of GDP if you want to have the kind of society we have, i.e.,

a big fat army all over the world fighting needless wars and defending other countries for free, PLUS,
some semblance of a 21st century domestic social program.

You can't have both AND low taxes, period.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So do wage earners. If the business owner is at risk, his EMPLOYEES are even more at risk.

Wage earners do not risk more than the employers and if you believe that do then you are a fool. If an employee loses, he loses his job. If an employer loses, he loses lots of money and many employees lose their jobs. Therefore it is in the best interest of the employees that the employer doesn't come out on the losing side.

What great risk does Donald Trump face? Paris Hilton? Oh right, the risk that someone might snap a pic of her beaver when she's crawling out of a limousine.

Putting Paris Hilton on par with Donald Trump shows your lack of knowledge.

Donald risks losing millions of dollars each day and if he were to lose millions, that in turn would result in many folks losing their jobs. Trump may recover and do fine, but what about those that depend on him for their livilihood? Oh that's right you don't give a shit about them, you just want Trump to sufffer.

 

[Sallow]

Trump never risks losing his own money. Ever.

That's a sucker's game.

And he'll be the very person to say that.