Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[HUGGY]

Theft is theft. Just because someone is not the individual who was stolen from does not mean that they cannot think it wrong.

Ya that's right. Theft is theft. What's that got to do with paying for the privilege to use more of the public domain as most millionaires do protected and insulated from the dangers to wealth exposed in any other country?

Why are you so concerned about the rich? They are not concerned about your welfare.

No one with a lick of sense sees this as theft.

If they are millionares they are already paying more. The argument is that they are pay a disproportionate amount more.

And I'm not concerned about the rich. I'm concerned about fairness.

Nice try at changing the debate and pointless class warfare. Didn't work though.

Nice try at changing the debate and pointless class warfare. Didn't work though.


I'm sorry. I didn't realise you are in charge of the debate.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Ya that's right. Theft is theft. What's that got to do with paying for the privilege to use more of the public domain as most millionaires do protected and insulated from the dangers to wealth exposed in any other country?

Why are you so concerned about the rich? They are not concerned about your welfare.

No one with a lick of sense sees this as theft.

If they are millionares they are already paying more. The argument is that they are pay a disproportionate amount more.

And I'm not concerned about the rich. I'm concerned about fairness.

Nice try at changing the debate and pointless class warfare. Didn't work though.

Nice try at changing the debate and pointless class warfare. Didn't work though.


I'm sorry. I didn't realise you are in charge of the debate.

OK, you can change it if you want. But by not having a response to the point and instead trying to deflect you pretty much admit defeat.

Your choice man.

 

[HUGGY]

If they are millionares they are already paying more. The argument is that they are pay a disproportionate amount more.

And I'm not concerned about the rich. I'm concerned about fairness.

Nice try at changing the debate and pointless class warfare. Didn't work though.

Nice try at changing the debate and pointless class warfare. Didn't work though.


I'm sorry. I didn't realise you are in charge of the debate.

OK, you can change it if you want. But by not having a response to the point and instead trying to deflect you pretty much admit defeat.

Your choice man.

You don't set the rules either. I come from relative wealth..for Seattle. I'll probably spend more on taxes over the next two years than most people make. My opinion, though you do not like it, is probably just as relevant as yours.

I'm guessing you don't make alot of money. You think it is real difficult to acquire wealth.
That is because it is difficult for you. Rich people don't suffer your fear. Some of them may be selfish but that is just a character flaw. They know how to make money. They really CAN afford to pay more. They are indifferent. They will do whatever it takes to win. They do not need your pity.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Nice try at changing the debate and pointless class warfare. Didn't work though.


I'm sorry. I didn't realise you are in charge of the debate.

OK, you can change it if you want. But by not having a response to the point and instead trying to deflect you pretty much admit defeat.

Your choice man.

You don't set the rules either. I come from relative wealth..for Seattle. I'll probably spend more on taxes over the next two years than most people make. My opinion, though you do not like it, is probably just as relevant as yours.

I'm guessing you don't make alot of money. You think it is real difficult to acquire wealth.
That is because it is difficult for you. Rich people don't suffer your fear. Some of them may be selfish but that is just a character flaw. They know how to make money. They really CAN afford to pay more. They are indifferent. They will do whatever it takes to win. They do not need your pity.

Wow, so in one post you know relatively how much I make, that I pity rich people and I am afraid.

Project much?

 

[Andrew2382]

lmao...it's the same shit by the left. I swear you guys need fucking therapy

It's the same

"Are you in the top 1%...what do you care"

What does that fucking matter if I am or ain't in the top 1%...the point is these people pay more then their share....I guess in this country we punish success. No one says that the wealthy shouldn't pay more in taxes, that is common fucking sense.

Or the

"Who cares they are thieves blah blah blah"

Old Rocks,

I haven't been on these boards in quite a while because I've switched up careers but one thing has remained the same. You are an idiot, from global warmingissues to politics, I have never met someone so drunk off the Kool Aid the main stream media gives them.

Yes all the wealthy people are thieves...none of them make an honest dollar or do right for their employees. I guess the actions of some define the whole class right? So I guess if that's the case then there are no decent poor people who have bad luck and really do try. I guess they are all crack head hookers who are all looking for free handouts.

 

[PeterS]

lmao...it's the same shit by the left. I swear you guys need fucking therapy

And yet the fact remains the same that income taxes are based on income. Since little Bush did not raise taxes in 2007 the increase in taxes by the top 1% is attributed to an increase in income. Do you have a problem with that? You are either taking the position that increased wealth is bad or you are arguing for a regressive tax system. Which is it?

The only ones needing therapy are those who lack the ability to think through just what they are posting. You linked an article that is nonsense and now you are arguing nonsense with nonsense. Maybe you should have stayed away a little longer...

 

[HUGGY]

OK, you can change it if you want. But by not having a response to the point and instead trying to deflect you pretty much admit defeat.

Your choice man.

You don't set the rules either. I come from relative wealth..for Seattle. I'll probably spend more on taxes over the next two years than most people make. My opinion, though you do not like it, is probably just as relevant as yours.

I'm guessing you don't make alot of money. You think it is real difficult to acquire wealth.
That is because it is difficult for you. Rich people don't suffer your fear. Some of them may be selfish but that is just a character flaw. They know how to make money. They really CAN afford to pay more. They are indifferent. They will do whatever it takes to win. They do not need your pity.

Wow, so in one post you know relatively how much I make, that I pity rich people and I am afraid.

Project much?

I don't care how much you make. I am advocating those that use more pay more.

 

[WillowTree]

Ah, my little idiot, you wouldn't last ten minutes in the type of work I do. And, were hours counted, instead of years, for Social Security, I would have been able to start recieving it a 50.

Willow, the people I am talking about people that have had their pay, and failures, in the headlines for nearly a year now. But you address me, a blue collar maintenance worker, as a parasite. Have you ever worked an 90 hr week in your life? At work that requires both physical and mental effort? I sincerely doubt that from the tone of your posts.

Hey! don't be a hypocrite.. You know the obamalama rewarded that dude who drove GE right into the ground( there's a bunch of poor stockholders lying in his wake) with a position on his economic advisory board doncha?? Immelt?? and guess who's gonna get richer by the second when obamalama passes his cap and trade bullshit?? Immelt?? so cry us a river. Oh! and if you works a 90 hour week I was not addressing you,, I'm addressing the 50% of Americans and Illegals who pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX!

 

[Andrew2382]

lmao...it's the same shit by the left. I swear you guys need fucking therapy

And yet the fact remains the same that income taxes are based on income. Since little Bush did not raise taxes in 2007 the increase in taxes by the top 1% is attributed to an increase in income. Do you have a problem with that? You are either taking the position that increased wealth is bad or you are arguing for a regressive tax system. Which is it?

The only ones needing therapy are those who lack the ability to think through just what they are posting. You linked an article that is nonsense and now you are arguing nonsense with nonsense. Maybe you should have stayed away a little longer...

Are you retarded or were you dropped on your head as an infant?

I am doing neither, in fact I clearly stated that its common sense that the wealthy pay more in taxes. However, no one sees how much these people actually fucking pay and think they should just pay fucking more.

What exactly are you arguing? This is what I got from the dribble you splattered on to the screen which you are trying to pass on as a coherent thought.

-they are rich
-fuck them
- they should pay more
-your article has no merit cause it shows exactly how much the top 1% pay

Perhaps I should have stayed away a little longer, cause I wouldn't have to suffer from the idiocy that goes on these boards by people such as yourself

 

[Sweet Willy]

The top 1% already have about 45% of the money. They annually earn about 20% of all income. They do not labor for it. The important distinction between living wages and income has almost disappeared from our vocabulary.

When the top 1% have 45% of the money, it's more than fair for them to pay for 40% of the operation cost of the government that ensures their wealth.

 

[PeterS]

lmao...it's the same shit by the left. I swear you guys need fucking therapy

And yet the fact remains the same that income taxes are based on income. Since little Bush did not raise taxes in 2007 the increase in taxes by the top 1% is attributed to an increase in income. Do you have a problem with that? You are either taking the position that increased wealth is bad or you are arguing for a regressive tax system. Which is it?

The only ones needing therapy are those who lack the ability to think through just what they are posting. You linked an article that is nonsense and now you are arguing nonsense with nonsense. Maybe you should have stayed away a little longer...

Are you retarded or were you dropped on your head as an infant?

I am doing neither, in fact I clearly stated that its common sense that the wealthy pay more in taxes. However, no one sees how much these people actually fucking pay and think they should just pay fucking more.

Look moron, if we paid a flat tax the top 1% would have still paid 95%. This is because in 2007 their income increased at a faster rate than anyone else. So what! That's what your 95% talking point means you idiot. If you can't understand what you write then stop writing, you'll look much smarter...

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

The tax structure in this country is not fair for anybody - rich, middle class or poor. It's why I favor a national sales tax in lieu of any kind of an income tax. it should also replace State taxes. Under this system, the only time you would pay any kind of a tax is when you spent your money. If you didn't want to pay taxes, then don't spend any money. However, when you did pay your taxes by spending money you would be paying the exact same taxes as anybody else in America was paying. The rich, middle class and the poor would all be equal in the scheme of things and that I think is fair to everybody. Everybody would contribute equally to make this country run and rightfully so.

Actually, the sales tax is a regressive tax that ends burdening the poor more so than any other class. Since essential things like food, clothing, rent/mortgage, and utilities constitute a larger percentage of poorer people's income than richer people's income such a tax disproportionately taxes people to the detriment of the poor. But I guess the VAT works well in Europe. I actually dont mind the current progressive tax structure since it can be argued that the rich have benefited more from the public goods and the system in place.

I would say that they recieve far more than their fair share of the nations wealth. And if we cannot achieve a fairer distribution of the wealth in our current system, then we should use taxes to acheive that distribution. And if we get more people that believe that voting, that is exactly what we will do.

Is it really fairer? Fairer to who? Who are you do decide what is fair? Like someone else said people dont recieve their income the earn it. They have a select comibation of either a skill set, unique ability, ambition, or some other characteristics that reflects in what they earn. Its not the job of the government to redistribute wealth through coercion but to ensure everyone has equality of oppurtunity and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

 

[Andrew2382]

And yet the fact remains the same that income taxes are based on income. Since little Bush did not raise taxes in 2007 the increase in taxes by the top 1% is attributed to an increase in income. Do you have a problem with that? You are either taking the position that increased wealth is bad or you are arguing for a regressive tax system. Which is it?

The only ones needing therapy are those who lack the ability to think through just what they are posting. You linked an article that is nonsense and now you are arguing nonsense with nonsense. Maybe you should have stayed away a little longer...

Are you retarded or were you dropped on your head as an infant?

I am doing neither, in fact I clearly stated that its common sense that the wealthy pay more in taxes. However, no one sees how much these people actually fucking pay and think they should just pay fucking more.

Look moron, if we paid a flat tax the top 1% would have still paid 95%. This is because in 2007 their income increased at a faster rate than anyone else. So what! That's what your 95% talking point means you idiot. If you can't understand what you write then stop writing, you'll look much smarter...

wow, logic doesn't do to well in that acorn you call a brain does it?

That isn't my point you buffoon.

I would try to explain it to you but you are hopeless. But hey, even tho the top 1% pay this much in taxes lets raise taxes on them even more...right?

 

[Political Junky]

But hey lets raise taxes on these people even more


The Tax Foundation - Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

by Scott A. Hodge

Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

Wow, Bush Jr. fucked up. Why didn't he reduce their taxes more?

 

[chanel]

Because 50% is like a colonoscopy. 60% is anal rape.

 

[Political Junky]

But hey lets raise taxes on these people even more


The Tax Foundation - Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

by Scott A. Hodge

Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.

And you are in the top one per cent? That is why you are so concerned about the future taxed income of millionaires?

 

[RadiomanATL]

You don't set the rules either. I come from relative wealth..for Seattle. I'll probably spend more on taxes over the next two years than most people make. My opinion, though you do not like it, is probably just as relevant as yours.

I'm guessing you don't make alot of money. You think it is real difficult to acquire wealth.
That is because it is difficult for you. Rich people don't suffer your fear. Some of them may be selfish but that is just a character flaw. They know how to make money. They really CAN afford to pay more. They are indifferent. They will do whatever it takes to win. They do not need your pity.

Wow, so in one post you know relatively how much I make, that I pity rich people and I am afraid.

Project much?

I don't care how much you make. I am advocating those that use more pay more.

You obviously do care. You brought it up.

And the rich already pay more. Some quick math for you: 30% of $5,000,000 is a helluva lot more than 30% of $50,000.

You just want them to pay a disproportionate amount more. Thats the part where you're a thief.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You don't set the rules either. I come from relative wealth..for Seattle. I'll probably spend more on taxes over the next two years than most people make. My opinion, though you do not like it, is probably just as relevant as yours.

I'm guessing you don't make alot of money. You think it is real difficult to acquire wealth.
That is because it is difficult for you. Rich people don't suffer your fear. Some of them may be selfish but that is just a character flaw. They know how to make money. They really CAN afford to pay more. They are indifferent. They will do whatever it takes to win. They do not need your pity.

Wow, so in one post you know relatively how much I make, that I pity rich people and I am afraid.

Project much?

I don't care how much you make. I am advocating those that use more pay more.

the top 1% of earners use less government services, not more.

They do not collect social security, do not need medicare, their kids do not go to public schools.

You probably use more government services so pay up.

 

[midcan5]

Those who argue that the rich earn their money, do you know any rich people? I will agree that some in the lower wealth regions work hard in sales, law, or private business but the majority inherited businesses, married money, or simply got lucky. But then consider ceo's and high level executives who make millions yearly. Probably most educated people could do this job, especially considering their poor performance. Then consider actors, entertainers, TV producers, or sports figures, do they work hard playing a game or singing a song or producing the nonsense that passes for entertainment? Hardly.

The only reason they make this kind of money is because our system of economic reward is setup this way. If you have the power you reward money with money. Both Reagan and Bush hurt the nation reducing taxes - that is fact given what happened. Now consider most school teachers who do more than most of the people above and have a harder job. They make little and get lots of flak from the same buffoons who praise the rich.

The values of many Americans and especially those who cry for the wealthy are distorted or just plain stupid. Again give them some of your hard earned money. They'll be able to fill their Bentley with your goodness and laugh all the way to the bank at fools who praise an unfair system.

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

UBI and the Flat Tax

Myth: The rich get rich because of their merit.
The rich get rich because of their merit.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

 

[chanel]

Myth: There is no empirical evidence that the poor get poor by their own lack of merit. Oh wait there is... Drop out rates, out of wedlock births, drugs...

I imagine that for every dollar that the govt steals from the rich, they give about 20 cents to the poor. Does anyone have any stats on that? They redistribute wealth into waste.