Tax as a Percentage of Income

[DGS49]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"?

He's full of shit. His secretary did not pay a higher percentage than he did.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"?

He's full of shit. His secretary did not pay a higher percentage than he did.

Having a difficult time understanding that the rich/wealthy pay less percentage of their income to federal income tax than you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"?

He's full of shit. His secretary did not pay a higher percentage than he did.

Having a difficult time understanding that the rich/wealthy pay less percentage of their income to federal income tax than you?

They don't. But it does keep the ignorant libs, I repeat myself, I know, all worked up.

 

[OnePercenter]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"?

He's full of shit. His secretary did not pay a higher percentage than he did.

Having a difficult time understanding that the rich/wealthy pay less percentage of their income to federal income tax than you?

They don't. But it does keep the ignorant libs, I repeat myself, I know, all worked up.

Prove it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"?

He's full of shit. His secretary did not pay a higher percentage than he did.

Having a difficult time understanding that the rich/wealthy pay less percentage of their income to federal income tax than you?

They don't. But it does keep the ignorant libs, I repeat myself, I know, all worked up.

Prove it.

Prove your imaginary claim? I'll get right on that.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

The tax rate is in proportion to what you earn. If you make a million dollars, then you should pay $300,000 in taxes, not get a fucking refund.

I'm all in favor of a law that fucks the rich and not the poor or middle class. The rich have destroyed this country and we're long overdue for some payback.

 

[The Professor]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"?

He's full of shit. His secretary did not pay a higher percentage than he did.

Having a difficult time understanding that the rich/wealthy pay less percentage of their income to federal income tax than you?

They don't. But it does keep the ignorant libs, I repeat myself, I know, all worked up.

Prove it.

I worked for the IRS. Let me explain it to you.

The more taxable income a person has, the higher the percentage he pays in taxes. Federal income taxes are progressive. Income tax is levied in a series of tax brackets with percentage rates that increase as income goes up. Here is a chart that explains it.

2016 Federal Tax Rates, Personal Exemptions, and Standard Deductions

As you can see from the chart, the tax rates increase incrementally and the total taxes one pays is the sum of taxes paid for all previous tax brackets plus an increased percentage for income in the present tax brackets. For example:

According to the chart, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% for a total of $927.50. The next $28,375 ($37,651 minus $9,276) is taxed at 15% for a total of $4,256.25 so that total taxes owed on taxable income of $37,650 would be $5,183.75 ($927.50 plus $4,26.25). The next tax bracket would include $5,183.75 plus 25% of the income from $37,651 to $91,150.

The reason why Warren Buffett appears to pay a lesser rate than his secretary is that most of his income was derived from long-term capital gains which are taxed at 15%. Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate to encourage investment and promote economic development.

Conclusion: The rich do not pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than those in lower income brackets; they pay more. The exception to this rule is that income from long-term capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you want Warren Buffett to pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes you would have to increase the taxes on long-term capital gains. You may not want to do that.

 

[Billo_Really]

I worked for the IRS. Let me explain it to you.

The more taxable income a person has, the higher the percentage he pays in taxes. Federal income taxes are progressive. Income tax is levied in a series of tax brackets with percentage rates that increase as income goes up. Here is a chart that explains it.

2016 Federal Tax Rates, Personal Exemptions, and Standard Deductions

As you can see from the chart, the tax rates increase incrementally and the total taxes one pays is the sum of taxes paid for all previous tax brackets plus an increased percentage for income in the present tax brackets. For example:

According to the chart, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% for a total of $927.50. The next $28,375 ($37,651 minus $9,276) is taxed at 15% for a total of $4,256.25 so that total taxes owed on taxable income of $37,650 would be $5,183.75 ($927.50 plus $4,26.25). The next tax bracket would include $5,183.75 plus 25% of the income from $37,651 to $91,150.

The reason why Warren Buffett appears to pay a lesser rate than his secretary is that most of his income was derived from long-term capital gains which are taxed at 15%. Long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate to encourage investment and promote economic development.

Conclusion: The rich do not pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than those in lower income brackets; they pay more. The exception to this rule is that income from long-term capital gains are taxed at 15%. If you want Warren Buffett to pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes you would have to increase the taxes on long-term capital gains. You may not want to do that.

Oh, I want to do that, because very little of capitol gains gets re-invested.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why is it that when reporting the taxes of high earners (or even low earners for that matter), the point is always purported to be the percentage of the person's income?

This is nonsense.

When you pay taxes you pay dollars.

It is said - quite stupidly - that Warren Buffet "pays less in taxes than his secretary."

Total bullshit. S/he pays a couple thousand and he pays tens of millions. Literally, thousands of times more than the secretary pays. And yet, because his secretary (presumably) pays a higher percentage of his or her income, s/he pays "more"? What sort of nonsensical thinking is this?

We now have (quite dubious) evidence that in at least one year, Donald J. Trump paid more in Federal Income taxes than, for example, his predecessor has paid in his entire life. Many thousands of time more than the average American household.

And yet, because it is only some percentage of Trump's taxable income, it is said to be "not enough"?

Here's a question for people who think Trump didn't pay "enough" for the year in question:

What if some Congressperson proposed a law that established a MAXIMUM PERSONAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX AMOUNT, universally applicable? Doesn't matter what the number is. Make it a million dollars.

What rational argument could be made against such a law? There is none.

At some point, any taxpayer should be permitted to say, "OK, I've covered my portion of the federal budget, it's up to everyone else to pick up the rest." If not, why not?

good point!! Why should the rich pay more for govt than the poor. Should they pay a higher price in the supermarket too? The tax system is part of the welfare entitlement system. When poor people don't pay their fair share we are in effect reversing evolution, i.e, encouraging the least fit to reproduce more than those who can support themselves. Its anti science and perfectly liberal.