real story on taxes

[mnbasketball]

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf


Nationwide, effective state and local tax rates on non-elderly families1 follow a strikingly
regressive pattern:
The average state and local tax rate on the best-off one percent of families is 6.4 percent
before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions for state and local
taxes. After accounting for this tax savings — an effect commonly referred to as the “federal
offset” — the effective tax rate on the top one percent is a mere 5.2 percent.
The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.7
percent before the federal offset and 9.4 percent after — almost twice the effective rate that
the richest people pay.
The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 10.9
percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy. This group generally
derives no benefit from the federal offset.


All taxes as a % of income after normal deductions allowed to all tax payers, the poor (bottom 80%) pay a bigger share of all taxes as % of taxable income.

 

[Jarhead]

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf


Nationwide, effective state and local tax rates on non-elderly families1 follow a strikingly
regressive pattern:
The average state and local tax rate on the best-off one percent of families is 6.4 percent
before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions for state and local
taxes. After accounting for this tax savings — an effect commonly referred to as the “federal
offset” — the effective tax rate on the top one percent is a mere 5.2 percent.
The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.7
percent before the federal offset and 9.4 percent after — almost twice the effective rate that
the richest people pay.
The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 10.9
percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy. This group generally
derives no benefit from the federal offset.


All taxes as a % of income after normal deductions allowed to all tax payers, the poor (bottom 80%) pay a bigger share of all taxes as % of taxable income.

Wow. Talk about taking data and spinning it for an agenda.
Do you understand what they are referring to?
If you did, you would not have posted these "findings".

 

[mnbasketball]

Most Americans are using the system in place to do one thing, raise a family and survive.

So why shouldn't the people who use the system to Garner wealth as their desire be paying most of the cost of running this country? Most of the things we pay for in this country is to make sure we have working system to provide trained people with a way to get to work and a supply system to sell goods. In all this system is a survival for 65% of the people, a good system for 25% of the people and a giant win fall to the top 10%.

 

[kaz]

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf


Nationwide, effective state and local tax rates on non-elderly families1 follow a strikingly
regressive pattern:
The average state and local tax rate on the best-off one percent of families is 6.4 percent
before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions for state and local
taxes. After accounting for this tax savings — an effect commonly referred to as the “federal
offset” — the effective tax rate on the top one percent is a mere 5.2 percent.
The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.7
percent before the federal offset and 9.4 percent after — almost twice the effective rate that
the richest people pay.
The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 10.9
percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy. This group generally
derives no benefit from the federal offset.


All taxes as a % of income after normal deductions allowed to all tax payers, the poor (bottom 80%) pay a bigger share of all taxes as % of taxable income.

My favorite liberal posts are the ones that start with "reality" in them. You know some funky shit's coming. It's a hoot. Keep up the good work, my man.

 

[Jarhead]

Most Americans are using the system in place to do one thing, raise a family and survive.

So why shouldn't the people who use the system to Garner wealth as their desire be paying most of the cost of running this country? Most of the things we pay for in this country is to make sure we have working system to provide trained people with a way to get to work and a supply system to sell goods. In all this system is a survival for 65% of the people, a good system for 25% of the people and a giant win fall to the top 10%.

The "system" as you put it is designed for a lot more that what you say.

It is designed so the "top" 10% invest in ideas that create jobs for the other 90%..it is designed so that the top 10% invest in projects such as community development projects that are used by the lower 20%...

You need to stop looking at the evils of the "system" and think about where things would be if our "system" were designed differently.

 

[mnbasketball]

Wow. Talk about taking data and spinning it for an agenda.
Do you understand what they are referring to?
If you did, you would not have posted these "findings".

No I don't understand, why don't you spin it for us?
What I see is that most people who are in the bottom 60% pay more taxes as a % of their income in taxes than the rich do. But you guys just want to look at fed taxes not including SS taxes as why you pay so much. But the truth is the country is run more on the back of the bottom 80% in all taxes collected.

 

[kaz]

Wow. Talk about taking data and spinning it for an agenda.
Do you understand what they are referring to?
If you did, you would not have posted these "findings".

No I don't understand, why don't you spin it for us?
What I see is that most people who are in the bottom 60% pay more taxes as a % of their income in taxes than the rich do. But you guys just want to look at fed taxes not including SS taxes as why you pay so much. But the truth is the country is run more on the back of the bottom 80% in all taxes collected.

I thought social security was a prudent investment in US Treasuries that funded their retirement accounts. So you're saying social security is actually a tax? Doesn't that make their social security checks welfare then?

 

[Jarhead]

Wow. Talk about taking data and spinning it for an agenda.
Do you understand what they are referring to?
If you did, you would not have posted these "findings".

No I don't understand, why don't you spin it for us?
What I see is that most people who are in the bottom 60% pay more taxes as a % of their income in taxes than the rich do. But you guys just want to look at fed taxes not including SS taxes as why you pay so much. But the truth is the country is run more on the back of the bottom 80% in all taxes collected.

Then you dont understand it.

What that article is saying...without the spin....
The more wealthy are able to take action that creates tax credits and deductions....such actions include things such as investing in lower developed communities for tax credits....donating money to philinthropic organizations for write offs..

In essence...that article is taking out of the formula the "non taxable" income that is ALSO not spendable income by the wealthy...but instead spent to better the community....

Include that money and it would be a completely reverse situation.

So tell me....you prefer the wealthy NOT use the money for charities and for lower developed communities and instead have them give it to Harry Reid to spend on turtle paths?

Afterall...that would make it seem that the wealthy are getting hit harder..

DO yourself a favor and try to understand data before posting it.

 

[Jarhead]

You see Mnbasketball....it is articles like those that should anger you. They assume you are not going to try to interpret what is being said and instead you will read it in the light they want you to....assuming it will anger you and then you will side with them...for their agenda....

In other words...they see you as a blind naive fool and they try to capitalize on it.

And as we just saw...they are correct.

 

[kaz]

You see Mnbasketball....it is articles like those that should anger you. They assume you are not going to try to interpret what is being said and instead you will read it in the light they want you to....assuming it will anger you and then you will side with them...for their agenda....

In other words...they see you as a blind naive fool and they try to capitalize on it.

And as we just saw...they are correct.

In fairness it wasn't a hard call on their part

 

[Avatar4321]

Glad to see that there is another person who when they post the "real story" on something I can immediately know they aren't being honest. Saves me time.

 

[skeptic]

The "system" as you put it is designed for a lot more that what you say.

It is designed so the "top" 10% invest in ideas that create jobs for the other 90%..it is designed so that the top 10% invest in projects such as community development projects that are used by the lower 20%...

But this seldom ever happens anymore. The wealthy and even businesses are merely hoarding and not investing. And when they do invest it is usually abroad.

 

[kaz]

The "system" as you put it is designed for a lot more that what you say.

It is designed so the "top" 10% invest in ideas that create jobs for the other 90%..it is designed so that the top 10% invest in projects such as community development projects that are used by the lower 20%...

But this seldom ever happens anymore. The wealthy and even businesses are merely hoarding and not investing. And when they do invest it is usually abroad.

I always like people who call government spending "investment." Anyway, you're skeptical of those who say government projects won't work? Wow, you are a skeptic.

I do have a question for you though. Why do you suppose businesses are investing their money overseas?

 

[skeptic]

What that article is saying...without the spin....
The more wealthy are able to take action that creates tax credits and deductions....such actions include things such as investing in lower developed communities for tax credits....donating money to philinthropic organizations for write offs..

In essence...that article is taking out of the formula the "non taxable" income that is ALSO not spendable income by the wealthy...but instead spent to better the community....

Include that money and it would be a completely reverse situation.

So prove it. The article wasn't specific about what was and wasn't included and excluded. What about capital gains taxes and income tax deferred because it was capital gains instead of earned income?

Since you don't know your response is as or more dishonest and misleading than the OP.

 

[skeptic]

I always like people who call government spending "investment." Anyway, you're skeptical of those who say government projects won't work? Wow, you are a skeptic.

Wow, is english your first language, because you appear to have just horribly mutilated what I said.

I do have a question for you though. Why do you suppose businesses are investing their money overseas?

Because they are abandoning the social contract we call capitalism? Or at least the responsibility end of that contract?

 

[Jarhead]

The "system" as you put it is designed for a lot more that what you say.

It is designed so the "top" 10% invest in ideas that create jobs for the other 90%..it is designed so that the top 10% invest in projects such as community development projects that are used by the lower 20%...

But this seldom ever happens anymore. The wealthy and even businesses are merely hoarding and not investing. And when they do invest it is usually abroad.

If you "HOARD" what you earn, then you are taxed on it.....so I dont understand what you are saying.

This article is referring to the income that is non taxable...whyich means it is used for charitable contributions or community investment projects, etc....

 

[kaz]

What about capital gains taxes and income tax deferred because it was capital gains instead of earned income?

Since you don't know your response is as or more dishonest and misleading than the OP.

So do you think the government should send people bills who own homes for any market value gain they had that year as well?

Definitionally, the size of the "American economy" is the sum of all financial transactions that happen in the United States for a year. Like when you buy beer and cigarettes or when I sell stock. When someone doesn't sell something, that wasn't a financial transaction and it's not counted as part of the economy. If you start taxing people for holding an asset, then you are completely disassociating taxes from the economy and you are opening Pandora's box. I know you won't get this, but someone else might.

 

[Jarhead]

What that article is saying...without the spin....
The more wealthy are able to take action that creates tax credits and deductions....such actions include things such as investing in lower developed communities for tax credits....donating money to philinthropic organizations for write offs..

In essence...that article is taking out of the formula the "non taxable" income that is ALSO not spendable income by the wealthy...but instead spent to better the community....

Include that money and it would be a completely reverse situation.

So prove it. The article wasn't specific about what was and wasn't included and excluded. What about capital gains taxes and income tax deferred because it was capital gains instead of earned income?

Since you don't know your response is as or more dishonest and misleading than the OP.

huh?
Prove it?

What the hell do you thin the reason IS for what the article describes.

Do you think the rich get write offs simply becuase people like them?

Jeez...do you have any idea why there are write offs and tax credits?

They are known as INSENTIVES to do what you otherwise may not do.

I am dealing with idiots.

 

[Jarhead]

What about capital gains taxes and income tax deferred because it was capital gains instead of earned income?

Since you don't know your response is as or more dishonest and misleading than the OP.

So do you think the government should send people bills who own homes for any market value gain they had that year as well?

Definitionally, the size of the "American economy" is the sum of all financial transactions that happen in the United States for a year. Like when you buy beer and cigarettes or when I sell stock. When someone doesn't sell something, that wasn't a financial transaction and it's not counted as part of the economy. If you start taxing people for holding an asset, then you are completely disassociating taxes from the economy and you are opening Pandora's box. I know you won't get this, but someone else might.

Jeez..

These liberal sheep hear terms like "capital gains" and how the "rich" capitalize on it...yet they have no idea what capital gains is ..

We are seeing the epitome "talking points" being tossed around.

 

[mudwhistle]

What that article is saying...without the spin....
The more wealthy are able to take action that creates tax credits and deductions....such actions include things such as investing in lower developed communities for tax credits....donating money to philinthropic organizations for write offs..

In essence...that article is taking out of the formula the "non taxable" income that is ALSO not spendable income by the wealthy...but instead spent to better the community....

Include that money and it would be a completely reverse situation.

So prove it. The article wasn't specific about what was and wasn't included and excluded. What about capital gains taxes and income tax deferred because it was capital gains instead of earned income?

Since you don't know your response is as or more dishonest and misleading than the OP.

huh?
Prove it?

What the hell do you thin the reason IS for what the article describes.

Do you think the rich get write offs simply becuase people like them?

Jeez...do you have any idea why there are write offs and tax credits?

They are known as INSENTIVES to do what you otherwise may not do.

I am dealing with idiots.

I hope you understand the importance of an incentive over a tax increase or a mandate.

Insentive, or tax-breaks are not evil you know.