[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[eagle1462010]

Simple tax questions for the home schooled;

1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?

2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?

(a) 39.6%
(b) 20%
(c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​

3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?

4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?
​

Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.

Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rates and history since 2003 are there. Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%. Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.

Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.

This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.

[quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.

Item 4. Long time versus short time investments.

My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%. aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.

You get a "F -" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

 

[eagle1462010]

Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.

Its artificial stupid shit even just a guy like me knows the feds are pumping out money that has no value. its god damn monoply money.

If that were true inflation would be through the roof the dollar would be plummeting and interest rates would be skyhigh.

Ever heard of Quantive Easing Bub? aka FORCED DEFLATION VIA THE FED. The CPI history is applicable here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rates and history since 2003 are there. Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%. Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.

Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.

This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.

[quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.

Item 4. Long time versus short time investments.

My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%. aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.

You get a "F -" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?

 

[Sunshine]

Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rates and history since 2003 are there. Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%. Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.

Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.

This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.

[quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive.

Item 4. Long time versus short time investments.

My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%. aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.

You get a "F -" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

When one doesn't have to file a return, he is not likely to know what a 'bracket' is. Perhaps you could give him a picture.


S

 

[eagle1462010]

DIVIDEND INCOME paid to INDIVIDUALS is subject to LOWER tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.

BS. I posted the data and link. It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.

Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?

If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.

STOP SPINNING THE DATA. IT DOESN'T WORK.

20% is a LOWER TAX RATE that 39.6%. If you earn $100,000 from ORDINARY income and $900,000 from DIVIDEND income how much tax are YOU going to pay?

The entire premise is that the BULK of income for the wealthy comes from dividends and capital gains which will be taxed at the LOWER RATE of only 20%. (It was only 15% BEFORE the latest tax increase.)

No shit Sherlock.

I posted that DATA AND LINK AS WELL. And now you are teaching me.

LOL

 

[Sunshine]

You get a "F -" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?

Each will have a different rate. Go online and print some tax forms. Then fill them in using these numbers. Do the calculations. You will see.

 

[eagle1462010]

You get a "F -" grade. Your homework assignment is to research and write a 20 page paper on the tax rates for ordinary and dividend income for the past 20 years.

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?

Go to hell. I'm not answering it even though I know the answer. I provided the information given in your test and somehow you are now the expert. So go to hell on your ORDERING ME WHAT TO DO.

You are diverting from the topic at hand, trying to sound ELITIST. Which by nature is a LIB ANYWAY.

 

[Derideo_Te]

BS. I posted the data and link. It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.

Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?

If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.

STOP SPINNING THE DATA. IT DOESN'T WORK.

20% is a LOWER TAX RATE that 39.6%. If you earn $100,000 from ORDINARY income and $900,000 from DIVIDEND income how much tax are YOU going to pay?

The entire premise is that the BULK of income for the wealthy comes from dividends and capital gains which will be taxed at the LOWER RATE of only 20%. (It was only 15% BEFORE the latest tax increase.)

No shit Sherlock.

I posted that DATA AND LINK AS WELL. And now you are teaching me.

LOL

Either we have crossed lines here or there is a failure to communicate somehow.

Mitt Romney paid about 18% in total taxes on his 2007 $20 million income because the BULK of that income came from DIVIDENDS. Anyone else earning $20 million of ORDINARY income would have paid the top rate of 35%, right?

So where is the problem with stating that the WEALTHY who obtain the BULK of their income from DIVIDENDS are paying a LOWER RATE than the middle class?

 

[eagle1462010]

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?

Each will have a different rate. Go online and print some tax forms. Then fill them in using these numbers. Do the calculations. You will see.

LOL

I liked that response.

 

[ilia25]

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder

How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.

I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts

Are you rich? I was talking about people making tens or hundreds time the average income. "Conciderably" harder -- was that twice the normal work hours? I doubt anyone works more than that. But the difference in pay the rich are getting is much bigger.

Of course sometimes there is a risk factor. BTW, I have no problem with taxing business owners less than those earning their income from salary. Nevertheless, even higher risk hardly justifies astronomical incomes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts in my social circle who decided to make me the subject of the rumor mill when I started back to school at 36. I worked considerably harder than the staff nurses who did not go back to school and get a masters degree while also working the units. I worked considerably harder than the message board denizens who sit on her and grind out their stupidity, and those people could spend their time taking online classes instead of doing this shit, and they would move up in the world too. But they won't even take the first step and go talk to the counselors at the schools to obtain financial aid to go, financial aid that I did not get, but which I would be helping pay for through my taxes and donations to my 3 alma maters.

And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,

thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.

Well there are people on here who piss and moan because their entitlements are so small. They can spend every off hour here, which for some is all the time, or going to school to better, but they refuse. Of course I did it knowing my tax burden would increase. And it did. And this year is no exception because I retired mid year, the IRS is punishing me for working. Next year I get a $200 raise and I can stop having $200/month withheld from SS. So, Jan 1, it's essentially a $400/month raise. I have 3 health insurance policies because I got to keep my work insurance along with Medicare and medigap, so my medicine that costs $100,000/year will be all paid for. My retirement insurance from work is not considered medigap. Was it worth it? Oh HELL yes.

As to your other question, I don't know how to measure 'harder' in percentage. Well, maybe in some circumstances compared to flacid, but not as it applies to work. I'm working harder than the neighborhood housewives if I take 1 class. How much harder taking 4? Or getting 3 degrees? I know that I made one hell of a better living for myself than their husbands made for them.

But I can tell you this, if I were the age of some of the posters on here there is no way I would be wasting precious time here when I could be going to school or moonlighting a little for some extras like travel. Most of my career I had more than one thing going. Sometimes it was moonlighting a shift a week at a hospital, or consulting for pharmaceutical companies. I was always doing something. Now, I have a leisurely life and I can't apologize for it.

s

Who "piss and moan because their entitlements are so small"? Name them please.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?

Go to hell. I'm not answering it even though I know the answer. I provided the information given in your test and somehow you are now the expert. So go to hell on your ORDERING ME WHAT TO DO.

You are diverting from the topic at hand, trying to sound ELITIST. Which by nature is a LIB ANYWAY.

So you know that I am right but don't want to admit as much. Your little lamprey must be right about you being a lawyer. Have a nice day.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Typical Elitist Lib Nut trying to tell others what to do. Homework, you do your own,.

Bottom line you are MISREPRESENTING DATA I PROVIDED. Hell, your link didn't even work.

You still started this BS getting confused with the DATA PROVIDED VIA MY SOURCES. i.e. Individual tax brackets versus Dividend rates.

Either way SKIPPY, YOU ARE TRYING TO DIVERT AWAY FROM THE FACTS THAT ARE INCONVIENIENT TO YOUR CAUSE.

Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?

Each will have a different rate. Go online and print some tax forms. Then fill them in using these numbers. Do the calculations. You will see.

Bingo! So now you agree that the wealthy (like Mitt Romney) whose income primarily comes from DIVIDENDS pay less than the middle class.

 

[Pete7469]

You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.

The issue has nothing to do with a ‘fair share ‘ or some ‘specific number.’

The issue concerns the fallacy of ‘trickle-down economics,’ where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.

I read a lot of posts and usually ignore the stupid shit. It doesn't do any good to post facts, attempt to refocus the thread on the original point, use logic or reason to encourage a rational independent though, or even try to argue with the bed wetters on matters that have to do with their envy and hatred.

They just regurgitate asinine shit like this. Well even if you don't like it "the fallacy of ‘trickle-down economics,’" worked like a motherfucker. The world has never experienced the economic boom Reagan's policies created anywhere else at any time in it's history. That includes the period where we were the only industrialized nation not still smoldering in the ruin of WW2.

(Which BTW was caused by leftist despots)

For whatever else bed wetters point to that had a negative effect, the Reagan years helped free the slaves of the USSR, promoted global growth and prosperity never seen before in the recorded history of the fucking universe, and set the stage for the US to become a single global superpower that no one in the world dreamed of fucking with until the Clinton beat that idiot RINO Bush.

The next thing you knew, insignificant children of Saudi businessmen could challenge us and blow up our embassies. They grew so bold they infiltrated our nation with sociopaths that flew airplanes into our buildings. We've spent a decade at war with these insignificant assholes while real challengers have built up their militaries, and are threatening the stability of the world. No one who owns a tank respects the moonbat messiah, and they shouldn't. He's a useless pseudointellectual thug, and if you don't know it you're as big an imbecile as Chris Mathews.

These same bed wetters have manipulated so many of our children with the politics of envy and hate that we have to make liberty "fashionable". We have to somehow convince people who should otherwise know better that %10 is fucking enough, and that the moonbats demanding more aren't even willing to pony up what they're telling the country "the rich" owe to "the poor". What number are you leftist assholes willing to settle on? Why can you NEVER answer that simple fucking question?

We literally have the fattest "poor" people in the world. I've seen orphan children in the streets of 3rd world countries fight over table scraps. Excuse the shit out of me, but I have no compassion for fat "poor" people. I'm faced with furlough cuts that will drastically impact my ability to support my family, and your moonbat messiah is the reason it's happening. Are welfare beneficiaries worried? Fuck no. Do you give shit about me? Fuck no. Then you wonder why I don't mind when you assholes abort yourselves.

Frankly I see an upside to it. I'm devising a plan to convince you idiots that retroactive self abortion will combat climate change, and you can go down to Guyana and emulate the stupid commie bed wetters that followed Jim Jones to hell. There aren't word strong enough to articulate the depth of my contempt for you parasitic, insipid, mindless piles of steaming "progressive" shit.

 

[Sunshine]

How much harder? The fact is that nobody works 100 times harder than an average person, yet many earn 100 times the average income.

I worked considerably harder than my female counterparts

Are you rich? I was talking about people making tens or hundreds time the average income. "Conciderably" harder -- was that twice the normal work hours? I doubt anyone works more than that. But the difference in pay the rich are getting is much bigger.

Of course sometimes there is a risk factor. BTW, I have no problem with taxing business owners less than those earning their income from salary. Nevertheless, even higher risk hardly justifies astronomical incomes.

Here is something that may have escaped you. You cannot make it big in the world working the 8 hour day. You have to sacrifice, make trade offs, and learn about money. I wish I could say I only worked half a day which is 12 hours, but I can't say that, there were many days I worked the entire 24 hour day.

Define 'pay.'

 

[Sunshine]

And you did all that (allegedly) because you wanted a better income despite knowing that you would pay higher taxes,

thus once again dispelling that notion that the tax system discourages people from trying to better themselves.

Well there are people on here who piss and moan because their entitlements are so small. They can spend every off hour here, which for some is all the time, or going to school to better, but they refuse. Of course I did it knowing my tax burden would increase. And it did. And this year is no exception because I retired mid year, the IRS is punishing me for working. Next year I get a $200 raise and I can stop having $200/month withheld from SS. So, Jan 1, it's essentially a $400/month raise. I have 3 health insurance policies because I got to keep my work insurance along with Medicare and medigap, so my medicine that costs $100,000/year will be all paid for. My retirement insurance from work is not considered medigap. Was it worth it? Oh HELL yes.

As to your other question, I don't know how to measure 'harder' in percentage. Well, maybe in some circumstances compared to flacid, but not as it applies to work. I'm working harder than the neighborhood housewives if I take 1 class. How much harder taking 4? Or getting 3 degrees? I know that I made one hell of a better living for myself than their husbands made for them.

But I can tell you this, if I were the age of some of the posters on here there is no way I would be wasting precious time here when I could be going to school or moonlighting a little for some extras like travel. Most of my career I had more than one thing going. Sometimes it was moonlighting a shift a week at a hospital, or consulting for pharmaceutical companies. I was always doing something. Now, I have a leisurely life and I can't apologize for it.

s

Who "piss and moan because their entitlements are so small"? Name them please.

You have almost 15,000 posts and you have to ask! Unbelievable.

 

[blackhawk]

I have two simple questions on this the rich need to pay their fair share business.
1- How much do you have to earn a year to be considered rich?
2- What percent in taxes would you need to pay to be considered paying your fair share?

 

[Sunshine]

Just answer this simple question;

If you earn $100,000 of ORDINARY income and $900,000 of DIVIDEND income what tax rate(s) are YOU going to be paying?

Each will have a different rate. Go online and print some tax forms. Then fill them in using these numbers. Do the calculations. You will see.

Bingo! So now you agree that the wealthy (like Mitt Romney) whose income primarily comes from DIVIDENDS pay less than the middle class.

And my mother who lived on SS and had a money market account paid less on her interest. If you ever got smart enough to invest instead of spending every dime you make, you could pay less too. I, too, pay less on interest income. Why does it bother you so that people who save money and invest in the system get rewarded for saving money and investing in the system?

 

[Sunshine]

I have two simple questions on this the rich need to pay their fair share business.
1- How much do you have to earn a year to be considered rich?
2- What percent in taxes would you need to pay to be considered paying your fair share?

Good luck with that one.

 

[Desperado]

Abolish the utterly retarded tax system we have now, 20% national sales tax with no loopholes, boom we're done.

Not a chance in hell!!!!!
WTF 20%?????
I would be for a national sales tax but it would have to be no more than 5%.
With the way the tax base would increase with a "No Loophole" Sales tax, you would not need any more that 5% to match today's revenue.