Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich

[Sarah G]

Pffft, the Scott Brown election alone helped this country dodge a disaster ........

Not Scott Brown the person....strictly the 41st vote.
That one vote opens the door to debate.
Why does the left think that debate is a bad thing?

Because debate sheds light on what they're really doing instead of what they're telling us.

Last thing they want is for anyone to get in the way of assuring they'll have an advantage over the GOP in every election and taking over the private sector.

What's opening the door to debate is Obama going to the Republicans with the cameras rolling.

 

[edthecynic]

And none of them are paying 50% of their income in Fed taxes.

According to the CBO the top 1% pay a 31.2% tax rate in all Fed taxes, that includes Individual Income tax, Social Insurance taxes, Corporate Income taxes and Excise taxes combined.
The top 5% pay 28.9%
The top 10% pay 27.4%
The top 20% pay 25.5%
The next 20% pay 17.4%
The next 20% pay 14.2%
The next 20% pay 9.9%
And the bottom 20% pay 4.3%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

Income taxes are not the only tax paid. Why do people always seem to forget this?

Add up ALL taxes State and Federal and tell me what the percentage is.

The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

Source: IRS

There are two key things to pay attention to with the info from deliberate deceivers like you linked to.

First of all, they are using AGI which means ADJUSTED Gross Income. As even Stuttering LimpTard admitts, the truly wealthy are able to ADJUST their taxable income to ZERO. So using AGI reduces the percentage in the "Groups Share of Income" part of the chart in your link for the top 1%. Furthermore, the primary income of the truly wealthy, capital gains, is limited to only "realized" cap gains and not all cap gains further reducing the "Group Share of Income" of the top 1%, whereas any type of assistance to the poor is counted as income making the bottom half's share of ADJUSTED income the highest it can possibly be. Your source leaves that info out even though it is clearly stated in the government study they use for their numbers.

Here is what they left out from what is counted as income as stated in the study:

"wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital
gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the
employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contri-
butions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-
paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assis-
tance)."

Notice also the employer's share of SS, Medicare and UI are counted as employee income while unrealized cap gains are not counted as income.

And secondly, the chart considers only the progressive income tax. The bottom half of income pay as much or more in the regressive FICA taxes than they do in income taxes. So the tax burden on the bottom half is underestimated.

My numbers were the tax RATE paid for ALL fed taxes combined. Even using your source's cooked income numbers, if you include ALL fed taxes the SHARE of the tax burden for the top 1% drops from 39.38% to 27.3%.

When CON$ervative think tanks show that they need to cook their numbers to make it look like the wealthy are over taxed, that tells the Cynical mind that they really believe the wealthy are NOT overtaxed using more honest numbers.

August 7, 2007
CALLER: And, you know, and the way our tax system works, we have an overly complex system, which in and of itself is a problem, but the way our tax system works and the way the tax laws are written, it's based on a few kind of like hinge numbers like adjusted gross income and taxable income, and while the soak the rich -- or however you choose to describe it -- really doesn't come down that way. It really comes down to much lower income levels.

RUSH: It does, exactly, and here's the dirty little secret if you ever to pull it off. It's hard. This is why most people don't understand the tax-the-rich business. You've got to structure your life so you have no "earned" income. I'm out of time. I'll explain that. There's a category called earned income versus other kinds of income. Earned income is what the income tax rate is on. That's how "the rich" do it. They don't have "earned" income.
END TRANSCRIPT

 

[edthecynic]

In May, Hawaii displaced California as the state with the highest rate when it imposed a new top rate of 11% on income above $400,000 for a married couple. In April, New York raised its top rate by 31%--to 8.97% from 6.85%--but only on incomes over $500,000. Add in the local tax and Big Apple residents pay a 12.62% combined rate, the highest in the nation.

.

In Pictures: The 10 Highest State Income Tax Rates - Forbes.com

New Jersey's personal income tax system consists of eight brackets and a top rate of 10.75% kicking in at an income level of $1,000,000. Among states levying personal income taxes, New Jersey's top rate ranks 3rd highest nationally.

The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > New Jersey

Add in the proposed health insurance surtax and/or the 8.5% payroll penalty, and then what are we up to?

There will be a point where people will be "de-incentivized" to work any more. Professional couples may decide for one spouse to stay home. Small businesses will downsize. Cash businesses will steal.

Then they will have to go after "wealth" as well as income. And Chanel's crystal ball says that's not far off.

According to Stuttering LimpTard, that would be a GOOD thing!!!!!!

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: I've told you before: the income tax is designed to keep people like his [Buffett's] secretary from becoming wealthy! There is no "wealth" tax. So this is a big misnomer. ...

But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.
I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

 

[chanel]

Ah quoting Rush? How ironic.

Talk to people in NJ about a wealth tax It has nothing to do with R or D There are a lot of "middle class millionaires" Fuck them too eh?

Its so easy the villify the people who own yachts. Until you meet someone who builds them.Fuck them too eh?

The problem with socialism is you evntually run out of other people's money.

 

[edthecynic]

Ah quoting Rush? How ironic.

Talk to people in NJ about a wealth tax It has nothing to do with R or D There are a lot of "middle class millionaires" Fuck them too eh?

Its so easy the villify the people who own yachts. Until you meet someone who builds them.Fuck them too eh?

The problem with socialism is you evntually run out of other people's money.

Now millionaires are "middle class."

If you click on Annie's link you will see that the top 1% starts at incomes of $364,657 and above. The top 1% can hardly be considered the middle!!!!
But thanks for the exaggeration, you prove my point that CON$ feel it absolutely necessary to exaggerate because they KNOW their arguments would not hold up without it.

 

[chanel]

I'm talking about "wealth" - assets such as real estate and 401Ks. There are "middle class" earners whose net worth is over a million. I don't have time to provide a link, but let's just say I know a few smart people who have saved and invested wisely. Obviously, there is little respect for that anymore.

But back to my question for the third time. What is fair? 70? 80?

 

[edthecynic]

I'm talking about "wealth" - assets such as real estate and 401Ks. There are "middle class" earners whose net worth is over a million. I don't have time to provide a link, but let's just say I know a few smart people who have saved and invested wisely. Obviously, there is little respect for that anymore.

But back to my question for the third time. What is fair? 70? 80?

Keep moving the goal posts.

Well, since the bottom 40% have only .2%, that's two tenths of one percent of the wealth, a million in net worth would be at the very least UPPER middle class.

And since we have had to listen to the wealthy constantly whine and cry about how much they pay in taxes, it would be fair for them to actually pay the amount they exaggerate. That 'll learn 'em.

 

[Oldandtired]

Those numbers are the combination of all Fed Taxes on their income so they are not paying any matching taxes for anyone.
But keep trying to exaggerate the tax burden on the wealthy. The more you find it necessary to exaggerate the more you reveal that deep down in your gut and no matter what you might say to the contrary, you really don't believe they are over taxed at their present rate.
Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying what I think.
And your "tax matching" conclusion does not make any sense.
Fed taxes whether increased or decreased, directly affects the amount matched.
ANd again, I say.....250K is not deemed as wealthy in NYC by any means.
And no where have I exaggerated.

An employer does not match any taxes from his PERSONAL income so your attempts to claim that they pay matching taxes over and above the total tax rates I cited is undeniably an exaggeration.
Thanks again for showing that you feel the NEED to exaggerate the tax burden of the rich to generate sympathy for them.

Whether a c-corp or an s-corp, an owner can not simply take distributions and pay taxes quarterly.
An owner must take a salary via payroll and match taxes that are deducted including fica.
You are 100% wrong and barb thanked you for your post.
LMFAO.

 

[chanel]

I'm talking about "wealth" - assets such as real estate and 401Ks. There are "middle class" earners whose net worth is over a million. I don't have time to provide a link, but let's just say I know a few smart people who have saved and invested wisely. Obviously, there is little respect for that anymore.

But back to my question for the third time. What is fair? 70? 80?

Keep moving the goal posts.

Well, since the bottom 40% have only .2%, that's two tenths of one percent of the wealth, a million in net worth would be at the very least UPPER middle class.

And since we have had to listen to the wealthy constantly whine and cry about how much they pay in taxes, it would be fair for them to actually pay the amount they exaggerate. That 'll learn 'em.

Over 6% of the people in NJ are classified as "millionaires". That does NOT include real estate and 401k's.

The median home price in my county is $485,000. If "wealth" did include real estate and 401k's, who knows how high that percentage would be. My point is that a "millionaire" in CA or NJ is not the same as a "millionaire" in West Virginia. Can we at least agree on that? Hopefully a wealth tax is not being debated in WA right now.

But back to topic. Oldandtired is correct. And many small business owners pay 50%.

What's fair for the umpteenth time? 60, 70, or 80%?

 

[Oldandtired]

It completely blows me away how people will debate a topic and use information that they "think" but are not "sure of" to support thier side of the debate...and actually go as far as sayiung the other person is competely wrong...again, when they do not know foir sure.

As for a fair number.....it all comes down to how much you want jobs to be created. You for the rich pay all the taxes and the rest of the country ride the wave....make it 80%....but watch unemployment skyrocket.

People just dont get it. Thanks for supporting my point Chanel......and I am 100%correct...I know...I own 2 s-corps.

 

[edthecynic]

Thank you for clarifying what I think.
And your "tax matching" conclusion does not make any sense.
Fed taxes whether increased or decreased, directly affects the amount matched.
ANd again, I say.....250K is not deemed as wealthy in NYC by any means.
And no where have I exaggerated.

An employer does not match any taxes from his PERSONAL income so your attempts to claim that they pay matching taxes over and above the total tax rates I cited is undeniably an exaggeration.
Thanks again for showing that you feel the NEED to exaggerate the tax burden of the rich to generate sympathy for them.

Whether a c-corp or an s-corp, an owner can not simply take distributions and pay taxes quarterly.
An owner must take a salary via payroll and match taxes that are deducted including fica.
You are 100% wrong and barb thanked you for your post.
LMFAO.

And the rates I cited already included Social Insurance taxes, so you don't get to double them. Once the corp pays the matching taxes for its employees, the individual owner does not match them again for every employee in his corp from his salary.
Since you are trying to match them twice, you are 200% wrong.

But I understand your need to exaggerate.

 

[Oldandtired]

An employer does not match any taxes from his PERSONAL income so your attempts to claim that they pay matching taxes over and above the total tax rates I cited is undeniably an exaggeration.
Thanks again for showing that you feel the NEED to exaggerate the tax burden of the rich to generate sympathy for them.

Whether a c-corp or an s-corp, an owner can not simply take distributions and pay taxes quarterly.
An owner must take a salary via payroll and match taxes that are deducted including fica.
You are 100% wrong and barb thanked you for your post.
LMFAO.

And the rates I cited already included Social Insurance taxes, so you don't get to double them. Once the corp pays the matching taxes for its employees, the individual owner does not match them again for every employee in his corp from his salary.
Since you are trying to match them twice, you are 200% wrong.

But I understand your need to exaggerate.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about. I never said they match it twice.

I said the employer is hit twice.
He has to match the tax....match the increase in tax of the employee and then match his tax as well as the increase on his tax.

Bear in mind....the increase in tax match was originally going to be income for the employer...so he loses that income as it is applied to the employees match.....and then he also pays tax for himself AND the incrwease in his tax as well.

So he loses income matching the increase in employee tax...he loses income as he himself has an increase in tax...and he loses income becuase HIS increase in tax must be matched as well.

You may be too partisan to see it....but it is factual.

Now leave me alone...I cant explain it any better than that.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm talking about "wealth" - assets such as real estate and 401Ks. There are "middle class" earners whose net worth is over a million. I don't have time to provide a link, but let's just say I know a few smart people who have saved and invested wisely. Obviously, there is little respect for that anymore.

But back to my question for the third time. What is fair? 70? 80?

Keep moving the goal posts.

Well, since the bottom 40% have only .2%, that's two tenths of one percent of the wealth, a million in net worth would be at the very least UPPER middle class.

And since we have had to listen to the wealthy constantly whine and cry about how much they pay in taxes, it would be fair for them to actually pay the amount they exaggerate. That 'll learn 'em.

Over 6% of the people in NJ are classified as "millionaires". That does NOT include real estate and 401k's.

The median home price in my county is $485,000. If "wealth" did include real estate and 401k's, who knows how high that percentage would be. My point is that a "millionaire" in CA or NJ is not the same as a "millionaire" in West Virginia. Can we at least agree on that? Hopefully a wealth tax is not being debated in WA right now.

But back to topic. Oldandtired is correct. And many small business owners pay 50%.

What's fair for the umpteenth time? 60, 70, or 80%?

So now the top 6% is the middle. I'm making progress at least.

I would rather have a flat wealth tax than an income tax, and nobody pays a 50% tax rate, especially not the truly wealthy.

And I answered you already, let the complainers pay the exaggerated tax they complain about so they have a real reason to complain.

 

[Oldandtired]

Keep moving the goal posts.

Well, since the bottom 40% have only .2%, that's two tenths of one percent of the wealth, a million in net worth would be at the very least UPPER middle class.

And since we have had to listen to the wealthy constantly whine and cry about how much they pay in taxes, it would be fair for them to actually pay the amount they exaggerate. That 'll learn 'em.

Over 6% of the people in NJ are classified as "millionaires". That does NOT include real estate and 401k's.

The median home price in my county is $485,000. If "wealth" did include real estate and 401k's, who knows how high that percentage would be. My point is that a "millionaire" in CA or NJ is not the same as a "millionaire" in West Virginia. Can we at least agree on that? Hopefully a wealth tax is not being debated in WA right now.

But back to topic. Oldandtired is correct. And many small business owners pay 50%.

What's fair for the umpteenth time? 60, 70, or 80%?

So now the top 6% is the middle. I'm making progress at least.

I would rather have a flat wealth tax than an income tax, and nobody pays a 50% tax rate, especially not the truly wealthy.

And I answered you already, let the complainers pay the exaggerated tax they complain about so they have a real reason to complain.

READ AND LEARN.

It may help your poor soul.

 

[edthecynic]

That was my point. And if people think that $250K is rich, wait until they start coming after the $150K earners, then the $75K...

The uber rich will always have fancy accountants who know how to manipulate the tax code.
And so the upper middle class will carry the load. Until they are broke. And then it will be the middle middle class...

And none of them are paying 50% of their income in Fed taxes.

According to the CBO the top 1% pay a 31.2% tax rate in all Fed taxes, that includes Individual Income tax, Social Insurance taxes, Corporate Income taxes and Excise taxes combined.
The top 5% pay 28.9%
The top 10% pay 27.4%
The top 20% pay 25.5%
The next 20% pay 17.4%
The next 20% pay 14.2%
The next 20% pay 9.9%
And the bottom 20% pay 4.3%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

Why do you ignore the fact that many of those uber rich are also the employers that have to match the taxes...so any increase bites into their own income...and then add that increase to the owners income as well...

To offer simple percentages does not tell the entire story.

We want to create jobs....dont we? Then why are we looking to decrease net pay to the job creators? Do you truly think that will create jobs in a recession?

Whether a c-corp or an s-corp, an owner can not simply take distributions and pay taxes quarterly.
An owner must take a salary via payroll and match taxes that are deducted including fica.
You are 100% wrong and barb thanked you for your post.
LMFAO.

And the rates I cited already included Social Insurance taxes, so you don't get to double them. Once the corp pays the matching taxes for its employees, the individual owner does not match them again for every employee in his corp from his salary.
Since you are trying to match them twice, you are 200% wrong.

But I understand your need to exaggerate.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about. I never said they match it twice.

I said the employer is hit twice.
He has to match the tax....match the increase in tax of the employee and then match his tax as well as the increase on his tax.

Bear in mind....the increase in tax match was originally going to be income for the employer...so he loses that income as it is applied to the employees match.....and then he also pays tax for himself AND the incrwease in his tax as well.

So he loses income matching the increase in employee tax...he loses income as he himself has an increase in tax...and he loses income becuase HIS increase in tax must be matched as well.

You may be too partisan to see it....but it is factual.

Now leave me alone...I cant explain it any better than that.

Yes you did! The tax rates I cited included ALL federal taxes and you said the owner/individual had to match the taxes of his employees so his rate was higher than the rates I cited.

Not only that, you are trying to cook the numbers even more than Annie's link, which didn't count the payroll taxes paid by the employee as taxes at all and counted the matching taxes paid by the employer as income for the employee. You are counting the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the matching taxes paid by the corp as personal taxes paid by the owner.

 

[Oldandtired]

And none of them are paying 50% of their income in Fed taxes.

According to the CBO the top 1% pay a 31.2% tax rate in all Fed taxes, that includes Individual Income tax, Social Insurance taxes, Corporate Income taxes and Excise taxes combined.
The top 5% pay 28.9%
The top 10% pay 27.4%
The top 20% pay 25.5%
The next 20% pay 17.4%
The next 20% pay 14.2%
The next 20% pay 9.9%
And the bottom 20% pay 4.3%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

Why do you ignore the fact that many of those uber rich are also the employers that have to match the taxes...so any increase bites into their own income...and then add that increase to the owners income as well...

To offer simple percentages does not tell the entire story.

We want to create jobs....dont we? Then why are we looking to decrease net pay to the job creators? Do you truly think that will create jobs in a recession?

And the rates I cited already included Social Insurance taxes, so you don't get to double them. Once the corp pays the matching taxes for its employees, the individual owner does not match them again for every employee in his corp from his salary.
Since you are trying to match them twice, you are 200% wrong.

But I understand your need to exaggerate.

I dont know what the hell you are talking about. I never said they match it twice.

I said the employer is hit twice.
He has to match the tax....match the increase in tax of the employee and then match his tax as well as the increase on his tax.

Bear in mind....the increase in tax match was originally going to be income for the employer...so he loses that income as it is applied to the employees match.....and then he also pays tax for himself AND the incrwease in his tax as well.

So he loses income matching the increase in employee tax...he loses income as he himself has an increase in tax...and he loses income becuase HIS increase in tax must be matched as well.

You may be too partisan to see it....but it is factual.

Now leave me alone...I cant explain it any better than that.

Yes you did! The tax rates I cited included ALL federal taxes and you said the owner/individual had to match the taxes of his employees so his rate was higher than the rates I cited.

Not only that, you are trying to cook the numbers even more than Annie's link, which didn't count the payroll taxes paid by the employee as taxes at all and counted the matching taxes paid by the employer as income for the employee. You are counting the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the matching taxes paid by the corp as personal taxes paid by the owner.

I give up. You win. You are wrong but seeing as you will say that I am giving up becuase I know you are right, I will make it easy for you....You win.
But only becuase I prefer being right and called wrong as opposed to proving to you I am right. You are way too ignornt to try to teach.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I am always amazed at how many middle class lemmings still fall for the trickle down bullshit.

Since Reagan reduced the tax rate on the rich, we have gone to the most inequitable financial balance of any industrialized nation. CEO salaries used to be about 30 to 1 for the workers, now they can be in the 100s to 1, and they aren't working any harder.

More than 95% of the nations wealth is in the hands of less than 5% of the population, and they don't work any harder for it.

When the personal tax bracket was slashed by Reagan, it did not trickle down to more jobs or other right wing spin. When the superrich could keep more of their money as personal profit, that is what they did. They didn't invest in the company or jobs, they kept it and now can lead the life of luxury while they continue to send our jobs overseas.

If you make less than 250k and you really believe the right will help you, you are blowing smoke out your bung hole. Boehner, McConnel, Kantor, Rush, Hannity are all millionaires. You really think they give a shit about you except for your vote.

We are becoming a country that is ruled by the aristorcracy of the rich and too many of our current serfs on the right don't get it.

 

[Oldandtired]

I am always amazed at how many middle class lemmings still fall for the trickle down bullshit.

Since Reagan reduced the tax rate on the rich, we have gone to the most inequitable financial balance of any industrialized nation. CEO salaries used to be about 30 to 1 for the workers, now they can be in the 100s to 1, and they aren't working any harder.

More than 95% of the nations wealth is in the hands of less than 5% of the population, and they don't work any harder for it.

When the personal tax bracket was slashed by Reagan, it did not trickle down to more jobs or other right wing spin. When the superrich could keep more of their money as personal profit, that is what they did. They didn't invest in the company or jobs, they kept it and now can lead the life of luxury while they continue to send our jobs overseas.

If you make less than 250k and you really believe the right will help you, you are blowing smoke out your bung hole. Boehner, McConnel, Kantor, Rush, Hannity are all millionaires. You really think they give a shit about you except for your vote.

We are becoming a country that is ruled by the aristorcracy of the rich and too many of our current serfs on the right don't get it.

increase in corporate size, increase in national competition, increase in international competition and you claim the high level execs dont work any harder?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it is the other way around? Technology has created work environments where machinists simply program the CNC lathe as opposed to actually turning the bar. File clerks simply drag a folder across a computer screen as opposed to climbing in an archive warehouse.

Secretaries now have templates....receptionists have voicemail.....marketing people have advanced software.....illustrators have macs.....I can go on and on.

But senior execs still have repsonsibilities for the people...the operation...the issues...the problems....the headaches.....

Sorry...but I do not agree with the premise of your post so I certainly can not agree with the rest of it.

My opinion.

 

[edthecynic]

That was my point. And if people think that $250K is rich, wait until they start coming after the $150K earners, then the $75K...

The uber rich will always have fancy accountants who know how to manipulate the tax code.
And so the upper middle class will carry the load. Until they are broke. And then it will be the middle middle class...

And none of them are paying 50% of their income in Fed taxes.

According to the CBO the top 1% pay a 31.2% tax rate in all Fed taxes, that includes Individual Income tax, Social Insurance taxes, Corporate Income taxes and Excise taxes combined.
The top 5% pay 28.9%
The top 10% pay 27.4%
The top 20% pay 25.5%
The next 20% pay 17.4%
The next 20% pay 14.2%
The next 20% pay 9.9%
And the bottom 20% pay 4.3%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/12-11-HistoricalTaxRates.pdf

In May, Hawaii displaced California as the state with the highest rate when it imposed a new top rate of 11% on income above $400,000 for a married couple. In April, New York raised its top rate by 31%--to 8.97% from 6.85%--but only on incomes over $500,000. Add in the local tax and Big Apple residents pay a 12.62% combined rate, the highest in the nation.

.

In Pictures: The 10 Highest State Income Tax Rates - Forbes.com

New Jersey's personal income tax system consists of eight brackets and a top rate of 10.75% kicking in at an income level of $1,000,000. Among states levying personal income taxes, New Jersey's top rate ranks 3rd highest nationally.

The Tax Foundation - Tax Research Areas > New Jersey

Add in the proposed health insurance surtax and/or the 8.5% payroll penalty, and then what are we up to?

There will be a point where people will be "de-incentivized" to work any more. Professional couples may decide for one spouse to stay home. Small businesses will downsize. Cash businesses will steal.

Then they will have to go after "wealth" as well as income. And Chanel's crystal ball says that's not far off.

Why do you ignore the fact that many of those uber rich are also the employers that have to match the taxes...so any increase bites into their own income...and then add that increase to the owners income as well...

To offer simple percentages does not tell the entire story.

We want to create jobs....dont we? Then why are we looking to decrease net pay to the job creators? Do you truly think that will create jobs in a recession?

I dont know what the hell you are talking about. I never said they match it twice.

I said the employer is hit twice.
He has to match the tax....match the increase in tax of the employee and then match his tax as well as the increase on his tax.

Bear in mind....the increase in tax match was originally going to be income for the employer...so he loses that income as it is applied to the employees match.....and then he also pays tax for himself AND the incrwease in his tax as well.

So he loses income matching the increase in employee tax...he loses income as he himself has an increase in tax...and he loses income becuase HIS increase in tax must be matched as well.

You may be too partisan to see it....but it is factual.

Now leave me alone...I cant explain it any better than that.

Yes you did! The tax rates I cited included ALL federal taxes and you said the owner/individual had to match the taxes of his employees so his rate was higher than the rates I cited.

Not only that, you are trying to cook the numbers even more than Annie's link, which didn't count the payroll taxes paid by the employee as taxes at all and counted the matching taxes paid by the employer as income for the employee. You are counting the payroll taxes paid by the employee and the matching taxes paid by the corp as personal taxes paid by the owner.

I give up. You win. You are wrong but seeing as you will say that I am giving up becuase I know you are right, I will make it easy for you....You win.
But only becuase I prefer being right and called wrong as opposed to proving to you I am right. You are way too ignornt to try to teach.

Originally the claim was that an income of $250k paid a tax rate of over 50% and I showed they don't.

Now even taking the highest tax rates for the highest income rather than the rates for $250k for fed taxes and also using the highest state rate, you get 31.2% + 11% = 42.2%. Obviously the tax would be less on $250k.
As I said, nobody pays a 50% tax rate no matter what their income.

Now if you want to argue that payroll taxes that have to be matched by employers are job killers, I would agree with you 100%, but that is a different argument than saying people pay a 50% tax rate.


BTW, I have posted many times that payroll taxes are American job killers and offered my own stimulus tax cuts. I said we should replace Bush's tax cuts DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR with cuts in the payroll tax rather than let then expire as Obama wants.

This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny and stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving them the expense of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group you would want to benefit most from tax cuts!!!

Bush took the Social Security Tax SURPLUS collected at SS Payroll Tax Rates 100% from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses that employ Americans, and redistributed the majority of it to incomes over $100,000 and Capital Gains Tycoons who are exempt from SS Payroll Taxes by using Income Tax Rates for the redistribution of the payroll tax surplus.
So Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheeper foreign labor, got a tax deduction on that profit at the expense of American jobs. Not only that, but to further offset this redistribution of wealth, Bush and the GOP congress raised the threshold on paying SS payroll taxes, making the cost of employing American wage earners even higher to those businesses that employ Americans.

 

[ozzmdj]

Soak the rich loose the rich