Rick Perry: Middle Income Americans Don't Pay Enough Income Taxes

[Article 15]

Thanks for the link Art. This one has some data I can sink my teeth into.


But that really has nothing to do with a thread on income tax.

What ever income the wealth make is taxed at the highest rate.

And 50% of the country pays nothing, but demand that everyone else pay more.

And Obama isn't talking about taxing billionaires, or multi-millionaires...the liberals want to tax people and small businesses that make $250,000.

Are they the 1%ers?HELL NO.

So all the wealth crap is bullshit.

A red herring.

How is that fair.

We put the question to the Tax Policy Center, which has a computer model of the tax system similar to the ones used by the Treasury Department and Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

For simplicity, we’ll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures. Under either Obama or Clinton, they might pay even more.

Americans Making More than $250,000 | FactCheck.org

1% of the wealth.

See that's what happens when you jump back and forth between concepts in the same thread.

You all are talking about wealth, not income.

But now it's about income, not wealth.

How is taxing folks making less than a couple million dollars going to change the wealth distribution?

That was your point...the point of posting the links on wealth disparity.

So make up your mind...is it about wealth...or income.

You are splitting hairs with this "jumping back and forth" when 250K+ a year is the top 2% of earners.

But the reason why I bothered to post the links about wealth disparity was because you were doubting the link the other guy posted.

That said, if you tax the higher income earners more by definition it will lower the disparity in wealth distribution.

 

[Article 15]

Half of America already pays nothing. No income tax whatsoever.

How much lower would you like it?

Everyone who works pays payroll taxes. Payroll taxes bring in ~ 40% of all federal tax revenue - about the same as income taxes. People who work pay 15% of the first dollar they make in social security taxes. People who make over $100K, on the other hand, pay 0% on income over that amount. How about we tax income over $100k one or two percent, and use it to lower the tax burden on the working poor?

What part of this post is unclear to you?

Eric Cantor says​

almost 50 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes​

PolitiFact Virginia | Eric Cantor says almost 50 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes

Who pays payroll tax?
​

Missiourian do you agree that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were irresponsible?

Do you agree that they are a major reason why 50% of Americans don't pay income tax?

 

[Missourian]

Americans Making More than $250,000 | FactCheck.org

1% of the wealth.

See that's what happens when you jump back and forth between concepts in the same thread.

You all are talking about wealth, not income.

But now it's about income, not wealth.

How is taxing folks making less than a couple million dollars going to change the wealth distribution?

That was your point...the point of posting the links on wealth disparity.

So make up your mind...is it about wealth...or income.

You are splitting hairs with this "jumping back and forth" when 250K+ a year is the top 2% of earners.

But the reason why I bothered to post the links about wealth disparity was because you were doubting the link the other guy posted.

That said, if you tax the higher income earners more by definition it will lower the disparity in wealth distribution.

The wealth has been taxed already, sometimes at higher rates.

And the reason it was posted was to excuse 50% of Americans from paying any income tax.

But let's set that aside.

Let's set all the wealth red herring aside, since this thread is about income.

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

 

[Article 15]

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

I answered that a while back. They shouldn't. Taxes need to be raised on everyone.

 

[Missourian]

Everyone who works pays payroll taxes. Payroll taxes bring in ~ 40% of all federal tax revenue - about the same as income taxes. People who work pay 15% of the first dollar they make in social security taxes. People who make over $100K, on the other hand, pay 0% on income over that amount. How about we tax income over $100k one or two percent, and use it to lower the tax burden on the working poor?

What part of this post is unclear to you?

Eric Cantor says​

almost 50 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes​

PolitiFact Virginia | Eric Cantor says almost 50 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes

Who pays payroll tax?
​

Missiourian do you agree that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were irresponsible?

Do you agree that they are a major reason why 50% of Americans don't pay income tax?

If they were irresponsible, why did Obama fight to keep all of them...except for those on the rich, of course?

Read the Politifact article, it explains better than I can why 50% of Americans don't pay taxes.


I'm getting tired, for this debate I need my A game...I'm going to hit the hay, I'll be back mañana.
Good discussion.

 

[California Girl]

My point.... without something linking your chart to something that actually validates the figures, it is meaningless - much like the majority of your moronic drivel.

 

[Missourian]

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

I answered that a while back. They shouldn't. Taxes need to be raised on everyone.

I agree.

But we must also address spending.

Real cuts, not smoke and mirrors.

Entitlement, solvency of Social Security and Medicare, defense...the whole enchilada.

 

[Missourian]

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

I answered that a while back. They shouldn't. Taxes need to be raised on everyone.

P.S. - you realize that we will both be ostracized for heresy, right?


G'night Art.

 

[California Girl]

You will have to explain to me the fairness in half the country paying for the other half.

I'm not rich, not born to wealth.

My grandfathers were a coal miner and a subsistence farmer.

My Dad was a high school principal.

I am a truck driver...I joined the Army, did my time, learned a skill, used my VA small business loan to buy my first truck and through hard work and the grace of God, I have a few trucks and a few great employees and make a comfortable living.

And I pay my fair share.

Now explain why 50% of Americans should get a pass, while demanding that I pay more.

I'll wait.

There is no rational explanation why you should. Key word: rational. The left often struggle with that one. Their standard key word is hysteria.

 

[California Girl]

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

I answered that a while back. They shouldn't. Taxes need to be raised on everyone.

I agree.

But we must also address spending.

Real cuts, not smoke and mirrors.

Entitlement, solvency of Social Security and Medicare, defense...the whole enchilada.

Works for me.

 

[Article 15]

What part of this post is unclear to you?

Eric Cantor says​

almost 50 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes​

PolitiFact Virginia | Eric Cantor says almost 50 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes

Who pays payroll tax?
​

Missiourian do you agree that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were irresponsible?

Do you agree that they are a major reason why 50% of Americans don't pay income tax?

If they were irresponsible, why did Obama fight to keep all of them...except for those on the rich, of course?

Read the Politifact article, it explains better than I can why 50% of Americans don't pay taxes.


I'm getting tired, for this debate I need my A game...I'm going to hit the hay, I'll be back mañana.
Good discussion.

If they were irresponsible, why did Obama fight to keep all of them...except for those on the rich, of course?

That doesn't answer my question.

However since you want my opinion why here it is:

Obama fought to keep them except for those making $250k+ for two reasons I believe. The primary one being that he's a political coward and the other being that he thinks raising taxes on those who can least afford it is a bad idea during recession/depression.

 

[Article 15]

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

I answered that a while back. They shouldn't. Taxes need to be raised on everyone.

I agree.

But we must also address spending.

Real cuts, not smoke and mirrors.

Entitlement, solvency of Social Security and Medicare, defense...the whole enchilada.

I also agree.

Spending needs to be cut in all the areas you mentioned without killing anything.

 

[Article 15]

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

I answered that a while back. They shouldn't. Taxes need to be raised on everyone.

P.S. - you realize that we will both be ostracized for heresy, right?


G'night Art.

Ostracized by the far right and far left?

oh noes

 

[California Girl]

So that's a "yes"?

Yes, everyone should pay their fair share.

Do you oppose that?
.
.
.
.
.
.
P.S. - still waiting on that link.

The income tax is a tax on income, not on people.

No liberal supports raising taxes on the poor. We support lowering taxes on the poor, and raising taxes on the rich.

That's interesting - because Art15 just said he supports raising taxes for everyone and he's a liberal. That makes you wrong on that statement.

And... since the 'poor' don't pay taxes, please explain how you're going to 'lower' the zero that they currently pay.

I - and many other "right wingers" - will support raising taxes - on everyone.... when Government stops spending like a lottery winning fool.

Stop demonizing people for political point scoring. It's pathetic.

 

[edthecynic]

1% of the wealth.

See that's what happens when you jump back and forth between concepts in the same thread.

You all are talking about wealth, not income.

But now it's about income, not wealth.

How is taxing folks making less than a couple million dollars going to change the wealth distribution?

That was your point...the point of posting the links on wealth disparity.

So make up your mind...is it about wealth...or income.

You are splitting hairs with this "jumping back and forth" when 250K+ a year is the top 2% of earners.

But the reason why I bothered to post the links about wealth disparity was because you were doubting the link the other guy posted.

That said, if you tax the higher income earners more by definition it will lower the disparity in wealth distribution.

The wealth has been taxed already, sometimes at higher rates.

And the reason it was posted was to excuse 50% of Americans from paying any income tax.

But let's set that aside.

Let's set all the wealth red herring aside, since this thread is about income.

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

That's not true. If your stock increases in value by $1 million, you paid no tax on that increase. And if you sell it, you pay the lower capital gains rate, not the higher wage income tax rate.

 

[California Girl]

You are splitting hairs with this "jumping back and forth" when 250K+ a year is the top 2% of earners.

But the reason why I bothered to post the links about wealth disparity was because you were doubting the link the other guy posted.

That said, if you tax the higher income earners more by definition it will lower the disparity in wealth distribution.

The wealth has been taxed already, sometimes at higher rates.

And the reason it was posted was to excuse 50% of Americans from paying any income tax.

But let's set that aside.

Let's set all the wealth red herring aside, since this thread is about income.

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

That's not true. If your stock increases in value by $1 million, you paid no tax on that increase. And if you sell it, you pay the lower capital gains rate, not the higher wage income tax rate.

An 'increase in value' is not real money. It is a value. Why should anyone pay tax on a 'value'. That is ridiculous. Unless, of course, when that stock goes down in value, they get their 'tax' back. Use some basic logic. It would be impossible - and hugely expensive to administer that. It would cost more to get the money than the money raised. Idiot.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Rick Perry just lowered his chances, middle income people don't pay enough? Does that retard have any stats to back it up? This brown nosing for the rich must stop.

 

[Article 15]

The wealth has been taxed already, sometimes at higher rates.

And the reason it was posted was to excuse 50% of Americans from paying any income tax.

But let's set that aside.

Let's set all the wealth red herring aside, since this thread is about income.

Why should people making $250,000 pay more while 50% of Americans pay nothing?

That's not true. If your stock increases in value by $1 million, you paid no tax on that increase. And if you sell it, you pay the lower capital gains rate, not the higher wage income tax rate.

An 'increase in value' is not real money. It is a value. Why should anyone pay tax on a 'value'. That is ridiculous. Unless, of course, when that stock goes down in value, they get their 'tax' back. Use some basic logic. It would be impossible - and hugely expensive to administer that. It would cost more to get the money than the money raised. Idiot.

His point is that the wealth Missourian is talking about isn't necessarily taxed at all, and that if/when it is taxed it is taxed at the capital gains rate and not at the highest marginal rate.

 

[California Girl]

That's not true. If your stock increases in value by $1 million, you paid no tax on that increase. And if you sell it, you pay the lower capital gains rate, not the higher wage income tax rate.

An 'increase in value' is not real money. It is a value. Why should anyone pay tax on a 'value'. That is ridiculous. Unless, of course, when that stock goes down in value, they get their 'tax' back. Use some basic logic. It would be impossible - and hugely expensive to administer that. It would cost more to get the money than the money raised. Idiot.

His point is that the wealth Missourian is talking about isn't necessarily taxed at all, and that if/when it is taxed it is taxed at the capital gains rate and not at the highest marginal rate.

That'll be because it is a 'capital gain' not 'income'.

This shit should not be that hard.

Apart from the fact that the OP is a flat out lie.

 

[Article 15]

An 'increase in value' is not real money. It is a value. Why should anyone pay tax on a 'value'. That is ridiculous. Unless, of course, when that stock goes down in value, they get their 'tax' back. Use some basic logic. It would be impossible - and hugely expensive to administer that. It would cost more to get the money than the money raised. Idiot.

His point is that the wealth Missourian is talking about isn't necessarily taxed at all, and that if/when it is taxed it is taxed at the capital gains rate and not at the highest marginal rate.

That'll be because it is a 'capital gain' not 'income'.

Right and the point Ed made was in response to Missiourian's claim that the wealth has already been taxed and sometimes at a higher rate.

Ed proved that statement to be false.