So people who earn a million a year pay a lower tax rate than the middle class

[IndependntLogic]

Bam Bam is spouting off again about people who earn a million a year not paying the same percentage as the so called middle class.

Well guess what he's wrong again.

A single filer making 1 million a year would pay in $323,935 or 32.39% of his income.

A single filer earning 50K a year would pay in $8600 or 17.2% of his income.

So you see folks people who make more pay a higher percentage of their income so it's the rest of you who aren't paying their "fair share"

You're analysis is theoretically correct but does not exemplify a common tax filing.

In the first place most people with bery high incomes derive those incomes from capital gains, which are taxed at a much lower rate than 32.39%.

I'm informed that 20,000 american tax filers with incomes of more than $1,000,000 paid NO income taxes last year.

Must be nice, eh?

I used one million a year so please show me proof that most people who make 1 million a year do so via capital gains.

Skull Pilot, I notice you've replied to six posters after my reply to you but dodged mine. I understand that the details and complexity of real life, don't make for lite internet banter but if you're going down a complex road filled with details... well there it is. So let's try again but I'll pare it down a bit. If you simply find even this shortened version too in-depth, I understand.

The truth is that middle class has paid the highest percentage of income in this country for quite some time.

Our tax code is designed to benefit the rich and those of us who own corporations, more than it does our citizens. As a business owner, I get dozens of write-offs that you don't. Cars, computers, phones, travel, you name it, I can deduct it and you can't.
More than that, if I'm having a particularly good year, I can simpy "defer" a large portion of my compensation or choose any of a dozen other ways to avoid paying taxes on it.

QUEStION TO CONSERVS: Can a single mom raising two kids and making $50K a year, get by on only $15K?

Of course not. So even if she wanted to defer income, it simply isn't practical for anyone but the rich.
But a partner at Jones Day making $3M a year can get by on only $900K. That means he doesn't pay taxes on 2/3 of his income until he finds yet more loopholes that will enable to him to again pay a lower percentage than you will.

There are thousands of attorneys who charge between $350 and $900 an hour for their advice on executive comp. Do you think all those millions are paid to those attorneys because the rules are fair? They are paid to get the tax burden of a high net worth individual to 15% or 10% or even less.

The OP is wrong. The rich absolutely pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes.

 

[rdean]

Bam Bam is spouting off again about people who earn a million a year not paying the same percentage as the so called middle class.

Well guess what he's wrong again.

A single filer making 1 million a year would pay in $323,935 or 32.39% of his income.

A single filer earning 50K a year would pay in $8600 or 17.2% of his income.

So you see folks people who make more pay a higher percentage of their income so it's the rest of you who aren't paying their "fair share"

Mitt makes $56.000.00 a day and paid 13.9%

It's not earned income.

So he's just getting money for free? That makes it worse.

The truth is, someone had to dream up a way to keep earning money off other money. That's a lot of work.

 

[sealybobo]

this has got to bne the dumbest drivel I have read in over a month on this board.

Fight THEIR wars? So they are not fighting for America...just for the rich.
Pave THEIR raods? So only the rich drive or have trucks that drive on them? None of those truck drivers own their cabs and are small business owners?
Educate THEIR workforce? So you are saying the schools simply teach the children trades and none of them have the opportunity to start their own busioness later in life?

You are a fucking moron. You say things that are just....well.....fucking moronic.

1. Yes, fight their wars. Or do you still not realize that Bush/Chaney were oil and defense contractors and that is who got rich in Iraq? Please don't tell me you still think that was about WMD's or Freedom?

Then why invade Afghanistan they have no oil and as yet we have received no oil from Iraq.

2. Yes, their trucks do a lot more damage to our roads than our economy cars and SUV's. And this is just one little example of why they need to pay their fair share of taxes. Don't make a big deal out of it. Just an example.

You do know that trucks pay higher tolls than passenger cars and are subject to per mile taxes on both the state and federal level don't you?

Oh yeah you obviously don't

3. And no I was not saying that. Not at all. Again, its just another little example of why they need to pay their fair share of taxes. You pay a tax for schools regardless of if you have kids going to school. Corporations hire people that are educated on the governments dime. They need to chip in too. Don't try to read into it more than you should. I know you disagree but you are a minority.

People without kids in school should pay less taxes than people with kids in schools.

You are right for once. We didn't benefit one bit from Iraq. But Bush and Chaney did. One an oil man and one a defense contractor. You got to be clueless.

And Afganistan has lots of natural resources.

 

[sealybobo]

Bam Bam is spouting off again about people who earn a million a year not paying the same percentage as the so called middle class.

Well guess what he's wrong again.

A single filer making 1 million a year would pay in $323,935 or 32.39% of his income.

A single filer earning 50K a year would pay in $8600 or 17.2% of his income.

So you see folks people who make more pay a higher percentage of their income so it's the rest of you who aren't paying their "fair share"

Maybe this will help:

"Buffett Rule" rename the idea the "Reagan Rule"

The video is simple. It shows Ronald Reagan giving a speech in 1985, agreeing with Obama. he said it was "crazy" -- that's a quote -- that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

Whoever dug up that clip over at ThinkProgress was brilliant to do so, and Obama's speechwriting team was equally brilliant at coming up with the "Reagan Rule" quip.

Chris Weigant: Call It the Reagan Rule

 

[sealybobo]

I don't think middle class Republicans realize who they are crying for. Over a million dollars a year??? That's a shit load of money. My boss makes $800,000 a year and he is rich beyond any of our wildest dreams. More money than he'll ever need. Been making that for 20 years in a row. Probably doesn't pay for his "company" car either. Writes everything off. Knows how to hide money. Come on Republicans. Stop feeling sorry for massa.

If you make over $1 million dollars a year, yes, the Bush tax breaks should end for those people.

But people who make $999,999 a year or less are fine. Any of you make that? Or do any of you think instead of them you should pay more because that is basically what you are agreeing to. Because you still want a big fat military, right? That costs money. If they're paying less, you're paying more. But instead of them paying more, they want to fuck with your social security and medicare.

 

[sealybobo]

The only tax breaks that will work are tax breaks for the middle class and poor, NOT THE RICH. The rich win either way. Our way, we go out and spend the money in their stores, or on gas when we take trips, or airliines, tourism, hospitals, etc. everybody wins.

Corporations, some will argue, should pay more so we can pay less, but somehow Republicans got it the other way around. We should worship corporations for giving us jobs. And we are overpaid. They say they'll leave the country. But what if we tarriff you? But that was never suggested. Why did we just let them send our jobs overseas without penalty? In fact, Bush gave them tax breaks for leaving. Look it up.

Republicans didn't send jobs overseas because they couldn't afford American labor. We just cut into their profits. Too bad. If you want to do business in America, you need to do business in America. PERIOD.

 

[oreo]

Bam Bam is spouting off again about people who earn a million a year not paying the same percentage as the so called middle class.

Well guess what he's wrong again.

A single filer making 1 million a year would pay in $323,935 or 32.39% of his income.

A single filer earning 50K a year would pay in $8600 or 17.2% of his income.

So you see folks people who make more pay a higher percentage of their income so it's the rest of you who aren't paying their "fair share"

Earned income tax rate--versus Investment income--which everyone pays the same tax rate at 15%. Mitt Romney wants the middle class to pay ZERO in taxes from investment income (capital gains tax)--so they have to the opportunity to rise up in life. When they get to 250K in investment income they would then be taxed at 15% on any gains thereafter.

 

[Skull Pilot]

3. And no I was not saying that. Not at all. Again, its just another little example of why they need to pay their fair share of taxes. You pay a tax for schools regardless of if you have kids going to school. Corporations hire people that are educated on the governments dime. They need to chip in too. Don't try to read into it more than you should. I know you disagree but you are a minority.

People without kids in school should pay less taxes than people with kids in schools.

I just want to dispel a misconception that seems to be in play here;
The federal government does not pay for education, at any level.

Grades K through 12 are paid for by the mechanism of local property taxes. Higher ed is paid for by individuals seeking that higher education. It is considered prudent for localities to have all citizens pay for the education of children so that they are sufficiently educated to earn a living, and become property owners so that they in turn pay taxes on their property to educate someone elses children. Children that are not sufficiently educated grow to be adults who, without the capacity to earn, turn to crime, putting at risk the whole community.

The federal governments role in education has been to set standards and create conformity of those standareds across the country. It's role in that regard has been to undermine local units that actually do educate their children through their local schools.

Federal money goes to state schools all the time in the form of grants.

Background & Analysis | Federal Education Budget Project

For elementary and secondary education, federal spending accounts for between 9 and 10 percent of total funding

 

[Skull Pilot]

1. Yes, fight their wars. Or do you still not realize that Bush/Chaney were oil and defense contractors and that is who got rich in Iraq? Please don't tell me you still think that was about WMD's or Freedom?

Then why invade Afghanistan they have no oil and as yet we have received no oil from Iraq.



You do know that trucks pay higher tolls than passenger cars and are subject to per mile taxes on both the state and federal level don't you?

Oh yeah you obviously don't

3. And no I was not saying that. Not at all. Again, its just another little example of why they need to pay their fair share of taxes. You pay a tax for schools regardless of if you have kids going to school. Corporations hire people that are educated on the governments dime. They need to chip in too. Don't try to read into it more than you should. I know you disagree but you are a minority.

People without kids in school should pay less taxes than people with kids in schools.

You are right for once. We didn't benefit one bit from Iraq. But Bush and Chaney did. One an oil man and one a defense contractor. You got to be clueless.

And Afganistan has lots of natural resources.

Really what natural resources does Afghanistan have that are worth going after?

Not that I believe we should have invaded Iraq in the first place but to say that we invaded Iraq solely to enrich Chaeny is is to be a conspiracy theorist of the first order.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Bam Bam is spouting off again about people who earn a million a year not paying the same percentage as the so called middle class.

Well guess what he's wrong again.

A single filer making 1 million a year would pay in $323,935 or 32.39% of his income.

A single filer earning 50K a year would pay in $8600 or 17.2% of his income.

So you see folks people who make more pay a higher percentage of their income so it's the rest of you who aren't paying their "fair share"

Maybe this will help:

"Buffett Rule" rename the idea the "Reagan Rule"

The video is simple. It shows Ronald Reagan giving a speech in 1985, agreeing with Obama. he said it was "crazy" -- that's a quote -- that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

Whoever dug up that clip over at ThinkProgress was brilliant to do so, and Obama's speechwriting team was equally brilliant at coming up with the "Reagan Rule" quip.

Chris Weigant: Call It the Reagan Rule

If one has 0 reportable income then one should not have to pay income taxes. I don't see a problem with that statement. If income taxes are to be "fair" then everyone should pay the same percentage of reportable income whether it be earned income or realized capital gains. If all income was taxed at 15% (the current capital gains rate) with no deductions no exemptions and all loopholes were closed we would have the fairest most efficient tax policy in the world.

And I don't give a shit what Ronald Reagan used to say. He was just another big government big spending pol who managed to make people believe that he was for reducing the size and cost of government.

 

[BillyV]

Bam Bam is spouting off again about people who earn a million a year not paying the same percentage as the so called middle class.

Well guess what he's wrong again.

A single filer making 1 million a year would pay in $323,935 or 32.39% of his income.

A single filer earning 50K a year would pay in $8600 or 17.2% of his income.

So you see folks people who make more pay a higher percentage of their income so it's the rest of you who aren't paying their "fair share"

Maybe this will help:

"Buffett Rule" rename the idea the "Reagan Rule"

The video is simple. It shows Ronald Reagan giving a speech in 1985, agreeing with Obama. he said it was "crazy" -- that's a quote -- that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

Whoever dug up that clip over at ThinkProgress was brilliant to do so, and Obama's speechwriting team was equally brilliant at coming up with the "Reagan Rule" quip.

Chris Weigant: Call It the Reagan Rule

If one has 0 reportable income then one should not have to pay income taxes. I don't see a problem with that statement. If income taxes are to be "fair" then everyone should pay the same percentage of reportable income whether it be earned income or realized capital gains. If all income was taxed at 15% (the current capital gains rate) with no deductions no exemptions and all loopholes were closed we would have the fairest most efficient tax policy in the world.

And I don't give a shit what Ronald Reagan used to say. He was just another big government big spending pol who managed to make people believe that he was for reducing the size and cost of government.

A flat tax starting with the first dollar is "fair"? OK, so a guy earning $10,000 a year has to pay, in addition to FICA taxes (which, ignoring the temporary "payroll tax cut" would be $765 not including the employer's share) another $1,500 in federal income tax? There is no point in doing that when you're just going to turn around and give him government assistance in the form of food stamps, etc. Let him keep the $1,500 and reduce whatever assistance is provided. Otherwise he thinks the government is doing him a favor providing him with assistance funded with his own money; this would just perpetuate the entitlement mentality. I'm not a great supporter of a flat tax, but if it is going to be viable you have to exempt at least the first $15-20,000 for a family; maybe less for single individuals. I understand the "skin in the game" argument but paying in to the system and then having the system return it as a "favor" just creates dependents. And I don't believe having one rate as opposed to three or four promotes tax "efficiency." It doesn't require a tax lawyer to calculate 10% up to some amount and 20% over that amount; it's the deductions and exclusions that get confusing and create inefficiency.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe this will help:

"Buffett Rule" rename the idea the "Reagan Rule"

The video is simple. It shows Ronald Reagan giving a speech in 1985, agreeing with Obama. he said it was "crazy" -- that's a quote -- that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

Whoever dug up that clip over at ThinkProgress was brilliant to do so, and Obama's speechwriting team was equally brilliant at coming up with the "Reagan Rule" quip.

Chris Weigant: Call It the Reagan Rule

If one has 0 reportable income then one should not have to pay income taxes. I don't see a problem with that statement. If income taxes are to be "fair" then everyone should pay the same percentage of reportable income whether it be earned income or realized capital gains. If all income was taxed at 15% (the current capital gains rate) with no deductions no exemptions and all loopholes were closed we would have the fairest most efficient tax policy in the world.

And I don't give a shit what Ronald Reagan used to say. He was just another big government big spending pol who managed to make people believe that he was for reducing the size and cost of government.

A flat tax starting with the first dollar is "fair"?

Yes it is.

OK, so a guy earning $10,000 a year has to pay

,

If a guy is only earning 10K a year then he is only working part time. And really why use 10000 a year why not at least try to be realistic and use the median income for illustrative purposes?

in addition to FICA taxes (which, ignoring the temporary "payroll tax cut" would be $765 not including the employer's share) another $1,500 in federal income tax?

And here we go again. FEDERAL INCOME TAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FICA. If you have a problem with FICA taxes then join me in getting rid of Social Security and let people save their own money. They'd do better and retire richer.

There is no point in doing that when you're just going to turn around and give him government assistance in the form of food stamps, etc. Let him keep the $1,500 and reduce whatever assistance is provided. Otherwise he thinks the government is doing him a favor providing him with assistance funded with his own money; this would just perpetuate the entitlement mentality. I'm not a great supporter of a flat tax, but if it is going to be viable you have to exempt at least the first $15-20,000 for a family; maybe less for single individuals.

Absolutely not everyone and I mean everyone should be treated exactly the same under the law. Once you start treating people differently the system becomes unfair.

I understand the "skin in the game" argument but paying in to the system and then having the system return it as a "favor" just creates dependents. And I don't believe having one rate as opposed to three or four promotes tax "efficiency." It doesn't require a tax lawyer to calculate 10% up to some amount and 20% over that amount; it's the deductions and exclusions that get confusing and create inefficiency.

Your example is bogus because anyone making 10K a year assuming he works full time would be earning less than minimum wage. And as I said before using an unrealistically low income is disingenuous at best.

 

[American Horse]

People without kids in school should pay less taxes than people with kids in schools.

I just want to dispel a misconception that seems to be in play here;
The federal government does not pay for education, at any level.

Grades K through 12 are paid for by the mechanism of local property taxes. Higher ed is paid for by individuals seeking that higher education. It is considered prudent for localities to have all citizens pay for the education of children so that they are sufficiently educated to earn a living, and become property owners so that they in turn pay taxes on their property to educate someone elses children. Children that are not sufficiently educated grow to be adults who, without the capacity to earn, turn to crime, putting at risk the whole community.

The federal governments role in education has been to set standards and create conformity of those standareds across the country. It's role in that regard has been to undermine local units that actually do educate their children through their local schools.

Federal money goes to state schools all the time in the form of grants.

Background & Analysis | Federal Education Budget Project

For elementary and secondary education, federal spending accounts for between 9 and 10 percent of total funding

I understand that the feds have butted their nose under the tent of education in the form of "Grants" These grants don't go to pay teachers and buildings, and maintenance, they are federal impositions and create mandates that cause local schools to shift dollars around to get perks they could do without, and they offset other costs to schools directly created by the feds.

The 9 to 10 percent represents approximately the amount of the feds interference used as leverage to control local schools. These grants, to a large degree, are used to force the schools into expenditures the feds want made, not what would be elected at the local level to educate kids.

Does anyone believe that these federal programs actually improve educational results? Do the schools which pay the most per student produce ones that are the best educated? You should check out what these grants are actually for.

An area that is worthwhile I suppose is aid to poor children, but that's not a direct educational cost; it's welfare.

 

[Trajan]

I heard Obama yesterday wanting the fair share to be paid. But, 47% of America pays no income tax...how is this their fair share?

they are all poorer because 400 people have taken their money

 

[BillyV]

If one has 0 reportable income then one should not have to pay income taxes. I don't see a problem with that statement. If income taxes are to be "fair" then everyone should pay the same percentage of reportable income whether it be earned income or realized capital gains. If all income was taxed at 15% (the current capital gains rate) with no deductions no exemptions and all loopholes were closed we would have the fairest most efficient tax policy in the world.

And I don't give a shit what Ronald Reagan used to say. He was just another big government big spending pol who managed to make people believe that he was for reducing the size and cost of government.

A flat tax starting with the first dollar is "fair"?

Yes it is.
,

If a guy is only earning 10K a year then he is only working part time. And really why use 10000 a year why not at least try to be realistic and use the median income for illustrative purposes?


And here we go again. FEDERAL INCOME TAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FICA. If you have a problem with FICA taxes then join me in getting rid of Social Security and let people save their own money. They'd do better and retire richer.

There is no point in doing that when you're just going to turn around and give him government assistance in the form of food stamps, etc. Let him keep the $1,500 and reduce whatever assistance is provided. Otherwise he thinks the government is doing him a favor providing him with assistance funded with his own money; this would just perpetuate the entitlement mentality. I'm not a great supporter of a flat tax, but if it is going to be viable you have to exempt at least the first $15-20,000 for a family; maybe less for single individuals.

Absolutely not everyone and I mean everyone should be treated exactly the same under the law. Once you start treating people differently the system becomes unfair.

I understand the "skin in the game" argument but paying in to the system and then having the system return it as a "favor" just creates dependents. And I don't believe having one rate as opposed to three or four promotes tax "efficiency." It doesn't require a tax lawyer to calculate 10% up to some amount and 20% over that amount; it's the deductions and exclusions that get confusing and create inefficiency.

Your example is bogus because anyone making 10K a year assuming he works full time would be earning less than minimum wage. And as I said before using an unrealistically low income is disingenuous at best.

If a guy is only earning 10K a year then he is only working part time. And really why use 10000 a year why not at least try to be realistic and use the median income for illustrative purposes?

OK, let's use a different number. According to Reuters, the median wage in 2010 was $26,364. If we assume that wage earner is supporting a family of four, then his net pay under your scenario is $20,393 (yes, including FICA; I didn't say I had a problem with it and I'm not sure it's even a tax as much as an insurance contribution, but it does reduce his take home pay just the same); the poverty level for 2010 is $22,350. You think this person is not going to qualify for (and receive) wads of government assistance? Why not just let him keep what he already had to begin with? Now let's assume this same guy is single and supporting no one but himself. Is it "fair" that this guy ends up with the same amount of money in his pocket as the first guy, who is supporting three other people (so the government doesn't have to)? By the way, under current tax law, the first guy will not only not pay any federal income taxes, but qualifies for a $6,142 in refundable credits (child credit and earned income credit). The second, single guy will pay $2,106. That seems more "fair" to me.

Absolutely not everyone and I mean everyone should be treated exactly the same under the law. Once you start treating people differently the system becomes unfair.

So then everyone, rich or poor, should get food stamps? Or no one should? That world is a bit too bleak for me; I'm a fiscal conservative, but I still believe in the safety net.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A flat tax starting with the first dollar is "fair"?

Yes it is.
,

If a guy is only earning 10K a year then he is only working part time. And really why use 10000 a year why not at least try to be realistic and use the median income for illustrative purposes?


And here we go again. FEDERAL INCOME TAX HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FICA. If you have a problem with FICA taxes then join me in getting rid of Social Security and let people save their own money. They'd do better and retire richer.



Absolutely not,everyone and I mean everyone should be treated exactly the same under the law. Once you start treating people differently the system becomes unfair.



Your example is bogus because anyone making 10K a year assuming he works full time would be earning less than minimum wage. And as I said before using an unrealistically low income is disingenuous at best.

If a guy is only earning 10K a year then he is only working part time. And really why use 10000 a year why not at least try to be realistic and use the median income for illustrative purposes?

OK, let's use a different number. According to Reuters, the median wage in 2010 was $26,364. If we assume that wage earner is supporting a family of four, then his net pay under your scenario is $20,393 (yes, including FICA; I didn't say I had a problem with it and I'm not sure it's even a tax as much as an insurance contribution, but it does reduce his take home pay just the same); the poverty level for 2010 is $22,350. You think this person is not going to qualify for (and receive) wads of government assistance? Why not just let him keep what he already had to begin with? Now let's assume this same guy is single and supporting no one but himself. Is it "fair" that this guy ends up with the same amount of money in his pocket as the first guy, who is supporting three other people (so the government doesn't have to)? By the way, under current tax law, the first guy will not only not pay any federal income taxes, but qualifies for a $6,142 in refundable credits (child credit and earned income credit). The second, single guy will pay $2,106. That seems more "fair" to me.

He shouldn't have had kids if he can't afford to pay for them. And why can't his wife work?

A person should not have to pay more in taxes because he chooses not to have kids. Why should people who choose not to have kids subsidize those who do?

As far as refundable credits go, get rid of them. Lower the tax rate and broaden the base so everyone pays their fair share. Why should some reap the benefits of the labor of others and get a free ride?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Okay Skull Pilot, I get it. I understand why you dodge my points. Other posts don't have those bothersome facts and details which would require you to know what you are discussing on more than just a "bumper sticker" level.
If you ever DO get your game up, feel free to take a crack at it. Again:

I understand that the details and complexity of real life, don't make for lite internet banter but if you're going down a complex road filled with details... well there it is. So let's try again but I'll pare it down a bit. If you simply find even this shortened version too in-depth, I understand.

The truth is that middle class has paid the highest percentage of income in this country for quite some time.

Our tax code is designed to benefit the rich and those of us who own corporations, more than it does our citizens. As a business owner, I get dozens of write-offs that you don't. Cars, computers, phones, travel, you name it, I can deduct it and you can't.
More than that, if I'm having a particularly good year, I can simpy "defer" a large portion of my compensation or choose any of a dozen other ways to avoid paying taxes on it.

QUEStION TO CONSERVS: Can a single mom raising two kids and making $50K a year, get by on only $15K?

Of course not. So even if she wanted to defer income, it simply isn't practical for anyone but the rich.
But a partner at Jones Day making $3M a year can get by on only $900K. That means he doesn't pay taxes on 2/3 of his income until he finds yet more loopholes that will enable to him to again pay a lower percentage than you will.

There are thousands of attorneys who charge between $350 and $900 an hour for their advice on executive comp. Do you think all those millions are paid to those attorneys because the rules are fair? They are paid to get the tax burden of a high net worth individual to 15% or 10% or even less.

The OP is wrong. The rich absolutely pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes.

You may now continue dodging these points. The fact that you and the ConservaRepubs here have done so, proves their validity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay Skull Pilot, I get it. I understand why you dodge my points. Other posts don't have those bothersome facts and details which would require you to know what you are discussing on more than just a "bumper sticker" level.
If you ever DO get your game up, feel free to take a crack at it. Again:

I understand that the details and complexity of real life, don't make for lite internet banter but if you're going down a complex road filled with details... well there it is. So let's try again but I'll pare it down a bit. If you simply find even this shortened version too in-depth, I understand.

The truth is that middle class has paid the highest percentage of income in this country for quite some time.

Our tax code is designed to benefit the rich and those of us who own corporations, more than it does our citizens. As a business owner, I get dozens of write-offs that you don't. Cars, computers, phones, travel, you name it, I can deduct it and you can't.
More than that, if I'm having a particularly good year, I can simpy "defer" a large portion of my compensation or choose any of a dozen other ways to avoid paying taxes on it.

I own a business too asshat. What type of business do you own? Is it an S corp? If it is you cannot defer compensation other than via deferred comp life insurance set up or via a qualified retirement plan. Every cent of profit in an S corp passes through to the personal income of the shareholders.

QUEStION TO CONSERVS: Can a single mom raising two kids and making $50K a year, get by on only $15K?

Arbitrary number. Are you implying that she pays 35K a year in taxes? That's 70% and you say you deal in facts.

Of course not. So even if she wanted to defer income, it simply isn't practical for anyone but the rich.

She can defer taxes the usual ways.

But a partner at Jones Day making $3M a year can get by on only $900K. That means he doesn't pay taxes on 2/3 of his income until he finds yet more loopholes that will enable to him to again pay a lower percentage than you will.

Earned income is earned income. And who are you to decide how much money someone needs to get by? What loopholes exactly. You say there are all these loopholes for earned income but you give no examples.

There are thousands of attorneys who charge between $350 and $900 an hour for their advice on executive comp. Do you think all those millions are paid to those attorneys because the rules are fair? They are paid to get the tax burden of a high net worth individual to 15% or 10% or even less.

There are no taxes on net worth are there? Only on income whether it be earned or capital gains. If one has no income as defined by the law then one pays no income taxes. If you want to redefine income then argue that point but don't try to pretend you deal in facts when you talk about net worth and try to relate that to taxes. BTW you do realize that by deferring income you are not avoiding taxes. Sooner or later you will realize that income and you will pay taxes on it.

The OP is wrong. The rich absolutely pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes.

You may now continue dodging these points. The fact that you and the ConservaRepubs here have done so, proves their validity.

I used a specific example of earned income. One who earns a million a year does indeed pay a higher percentage in income taxes than one who makes 50K.

That is a fact.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Is Buffet's accountant still taking clients?

 

[The T]

I heard Obama yesterday wanting the fair share to be paid. But, 47% of America pays no income tax...how is this their fair share?

And many get returns for paying nothing...HOW does that work?