The truth about taxes

[danielpalos]

" Price discrimination is a fact of life under capitalism. "

And what does that have to do with taxes?

They are based on ability to pay, not equality.

Try answer the question this time: And what does that have to do with taxes?

are you on the right?

Taxes are based on ability to pay.

 

[danielpalos]

They are based on ability to pay, not equality.

That's why a percentage was used - dimwit. A poor person has just as much ability to pay 38% federal income tax on their income as a wealthy person has to pay 38% federal income tax on their income.

This is why nobody takes the left seriously when it comes to economics.

How does a person on welfare with no income, come up with your thirty-eight percent?

 

[danielpalos]

90% Taxes for the Common Good !!!!!!!!!

We can depend on socialist bureaucrats to decide whose needs and wants are priorities !!! Lol

right wing national socialists need the money to be more than, "all talk and no action".

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

 

[danielpalos]

The damned wealthy....
If not for their greed my life could be so much better..

Said the clueless communist.....

lol.

In modern times, true socialists can lament;

if Only,

we could have mustered enough social morals for free, to establish a Commune of Heaven on Earth, and end the need for the Expense of Government.

 

[task0778]

" Price discrimination is a fact of life under capitalism. "

And what does that have to do with taxes?

They are based on ability to pay, not equality.

Try answer the question this time: And what does that have to do with taxes?

are you on the right?

Taxes are based on ability to pay.

LOL, since when? Since you provided no answer to my question it is obvious there IS no answer. So why are you bringing up the question of price discrimination in a thread about taxes?

 

[task0778]

The damned wealthy....
If not for their greed my life could be so much better..

Said the clueless communist.....

lol.

In modern times, true socialists can lament;

if Only,

we could have mustered enough social morals for free, to establish a Commune of Heaven on Earth, and end the need for the Expense of Government.

The damned wealthy....
If not for their greed my life could be so much better..

Said the clueless communist.....

lol.

In modern times, true socialists can lament;

if Only,

we could have mustered enough social morals for free, to establish a Commune of Heaven on Earth, and end the need for the Expense of Government.

The mind boggles. I don't know what planet you're from, but on this one socialism doesn't work.

 

[danielpalos]

" Price discrimination is a fact of life under capitalism. "

And what does that have to do with taxes?

They are based on ability to pay, not equality.

Try answer the question this time: And what does that have to do with taxes?

are you on the right?

Taxes are based on ability to pay.

LOL, since when? Since you provided no answer to my question it is obvious there IS no answer. So why are you bringing up the question of price discrimination in a thread about taxes?

since always, dear.

 

[task0778]

" Price discrimination is a fact of life under capitalism. "

And what does that have to do with taxes?

They are based on ability to pay, not equality.

Try answer the question this time: And what does that have to do with taxes?

are you on the right?

Taxes are based on ability to pay.

LOL, since when? Since you provided no answer to my question it is obvious there IS no answer. So why are you bringing up the question of price discrimination in a thread about taxes?

since always, dear.

Bullshit, darling.

 

[francoHFW]

90% Taxes for the Common Good !!!!!!!!!

We can depend on socialist bureaucrats to decide whose needs and wants are priorities !!! Lol

Over 50 million? OK. Better than trusting the New BS GOP, dupe.

 

[danielpalos]

They are based on ability to pay, not equality.

Try answer the question this time: And what does that have to do with taxes?

are you on the right?

Taxes are based on ability to pay.

LOL, since when? Since you provided no answer to my question it is obvious there IS no answer. So why are you bringing up the question of price discrimination in a thread about taxes?

since always, dear.

Bullshit, darling.

nothing but rejection instead of repeal?

Ability-to-pay taxation is a progressive taxation principle that maintains that taxes should be levied according a taxpayer's ability to pay. This progressive taxation approach places an increased tax burden on individuals, partnerships, companies, corporations, trusts and certain estates with higher incomes. The theory is that individuals who earn more money can afford to pay more in taxes.

Read more: Ability-To-Pay Taxation Ability-To-Pay Taxation
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yeah and they have 18-24% of income, and 33-42% of the wealth, you ignorant dupe.

Everything you post is an egregious lie born out of your greed. You're too lazy to earn for yourself but too greedy to do without.

Another study conducted in December 2014 found a similar gap between reality and perception in personal income taxes.

That year, the top 10% of American earners making $120,000 per year or more earned 41% of all income, but paid 68% of all income taxes.

Americans were fairly accurate when it came to who earns what: They guessed on average that the top 10% of Americans earned 41% of American money, when in fact they made 45% of American money.

But they were pretty far off when it came to guessing the proportion of the nation’s taxes they pay. They guessed the top 10% pays 38% of all taxes, and they were off by 30 points. The top 10% pays 68% of all U.S. taxes.

You are the ignorant that the article speaks about. Why is the group that earns 41% of the wealth paying 68% of all federal taxes? They should be paying 41% of all federal taxes.

New Data: Leftward Views on Taxes Often Fueled by Ignorance

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Except state and local taxes are not a constant, of you live near New York City your taxes are going to be higher than someone living in the middle of Colorado. That means those living in New York City are considered rich, by your definition, because their income HAS to be higher to compensate for their standard of living. So naturally if you work at a Mc Donald's or a Walmart you are going to be struggling to make a living there. So that eradicates your local taxes argument as it's not a constant like federal taxes, incomes naturally need to change to meet a local standard of living. Delaware also doesn't have the same state taxes as say California, so while one pays little to no state taxes the other must compensate for a higher standard of living. Any way you slice it, state and local taxes are not a constant to which to base a person as rich or poor based on income level, as you have to consider how much is needed to maintain the area's cost for maintaining that standard of living.

What Franco also doesn't address regarding taxes is the difference between small business with business assets and costs, from someone who is to be considered as rich based on personal income alone. Small businesses make up the majority of the driving force of jobs in the private sector, and that's what a lot of these higher taxes hurt. The democrats don't really have a clue as to how to encourage job growth in the private sector, apart from having the federal government dumping money to do it. They don't know what it takes to actually encourage small businesses to thrive or even expand. How successful do you think it really is to start a small business amidst these taxes and increasing government regulations, pay your employees, cover a mandated health care, add the expense of unemployment costs per employee, and still manage to maintain a big enough profit while covering your materials, equipment expenses, and rent to keep your business afloat for greater than 3 years? All Franco goes by is his tax bracket chart and thinks he knows all there is about who is rich ... without considering location with their cost of living, and the small business assets and their costs that I've only given a small sample of above. In short francoHFW doesn't have a clue.

 

[francoHFW]

Yeah and they have 18-24% of income, and 33-42% of the wealth, you ignorant dupe.

Everything you post is an egregious lie born out of your greed. You're too lazy to earn for yourself but too greedy to do without.

Another study conducted in December 2014 found a similar gap between reality and perception in personal income taxes.

That year, the top 10% of American earners making $120,000 per year or more earned 41% of all income, but paid 68% of all income taxes.

Americans were fairly accurate when it came to who earns what: They guessed on average that the top 10% of Americans earned 41% of American money, when in fact they made 45% of American money.

But they were pretty far off when it came to guessing the proportion of the nation’s taxes they pay. They guessed the top 10% pays 38% of all taxes, and they were off by 30 points. The top 10% pays 68% of all U.S. taxes.

You are the ignorant that the article speaks about. Why is the group that earns 41% of the wealth paying 68% of all federal taxes? They should be paying 41% of all federal taxes.

New Data: Leftward Views on Taxes Often Fueled by Ignorance

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Except state and local taxes are not a constant, of you live near New York City your taxes are going to be higher than someone living in the middle of Colorado. That means those living in New York City are considered rich, by your definition, because their income HAS to be higher to compensate for their standard of living. So naturally if you work at a Mc Donald's or a Walmart you are going to be struggling to make a living there. So that eradicates your local taxes argument as it's not a constant like federal taxes, incomes naturally need to change to meet a local standard of living. Delaware also doesn't have the same state taxes as say California, so while one pays little to no state taxes the other must compensate for a higher standard of living. Any way you slice it, state and local taxes are not a constant to which to base a person as rich or poor based on income level, as you have to consider how much is needed to maintain the area's cost for maintaining that standard of living.

What Franco also doesn't address regarding taxes is the difference between small business with business assets and costs, from someone who is to be considered as rich based on personal income alone. Small businesses make up the majority of the driving force of jobs in the private sector, and that's what a lot of these higher taxes hurt. The democrats don't really have a clue as to how to encourage job growth in the private sector, apart from having the federal government dumping money to do it. They don't know what it takes to actually encourage small businesses to thrive or even expand. How successful do you think it really is to start a small business amidst these taxes and increasing government regulations, pay your employees, cover a mandated health care, add the expense of unemployment costs per employee, and still manage to maintain a big enough profit while covering your materials, equipment expenses, and rent to keep your business afloat for greater than 3 years? All Franco goes by is his tax bracket chart and thinks he knows all there is about who is rich ... without considering location with their cost of living, and the small business assets and their costs that I've only given a small sample of above. In short francoHFW doesn't have a clue.

BS- Regular people's taxes are higher than they should be EVERYWHERE because of the GOP duh. Forget your divide and conquer GOP BS. We need to tax the rich more and cut the rest DUHHHH. And invest in the nonrich and infrastructure.

 

[P@triot]

How does a person on welfare with no income, come up with your thirty-eight percent?

What is 38% of 0, dimwit?!?

(Psst....anything x 0 = 0)

This is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Taxes are a necessary part of civilization that pays for the public investment, public services and the common defense of the society. For 10,000 years most all successful taxed their citizens and invested that money in their societies...


Our founders all seen it necessary and that is why we have the current constitution and not the articles.

I don't get the hatred of common sense.

 

[P@triot]

I don't get the hatred of common sense.

Unfortunately for all of us - you don't get common sense either.

 

[P@triot]

Taxes are a necessary part of civilization...

That's debatable...but that's not the issue here, snowflake. The primary issue here is how the left was caught lying about taxes. The secondary issue is how the left illegally/unconstitutionally spends tax dollars.

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah and they have 18-24% of income, and 33-42% of the wealth, you ignorant dupe.

Everything you post is an egregious lie born out of your greed. You're too lazy to earn for yourself but too greedy to do without.

Another study conducted in December 2014 found a similar gap between reality and perception in personal income taxes.

That year, the top 10% of American earners making $120,000 per year or more earned 41% of all income, but paid 68% of all income taxes.

Americans were fairly accurate when it came to who earns what: They guessed on average that the top 10% of Americans earned 41% of American money, when in fact they made 45% of American money.

But they were pretty far off when it came to guessing the proportion of the nation’s taxes they pay. They guessed the top 10% pays 38% of all taxes, and they were off by 30 points. The top 10% pays 68% of all U.S. taxes.

You are the ignorant that the article speaks about. Why is the group that earns 41% of the wealth paying 68% of all federal taxes? They should be paying 41% of all federal taxes.

New Data: Leftward Views on Taxes Often Fueled by Ignorance

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

As you can see, the poorer you are, the more state and local taxes bite into your income. As you get richer, those taxes recede, and you're mainly getting hit be federal taxes. So that's another lesson: When you omit state and local taxes from your analysis, you're omitting the taxes that hit lower-income taxpayers hardest.

Except state and local taxes are not a constant, of you live near New York City your taxes are going to be higher than someone living in the middle of Colorado. That means those living in New York City are considered rich, by your definition, because their income HAS to be higher to compensate for their standard of living. So naturally if you work at a Mc Donald's or a Walmart you are going to be struggling to make a living there. So that eradicates your local taxes argument as it's not a constant like federal taxes, incomes naturally need to change to meet a local standard of living. Delaware also doesn't have the same state taxes as say California, so while one pays little to no state taxes the other must compensate for a higher standard of living. Any way you slice it, state and local taxes are not a constant to which to base a person as rich or poor based on income level, as you have to consider how much is needed to maintain the area's cost for maintaining that standard of living.

What Franco also doesn't address regarding taxes is the difference between small business with business assets and costs, from someone who is to be considered as rich based on personal income alone. Small businesses make up the majority of the driving force of jobs in the private sector, and that's what a lot of these higher taxes hurt. The democrats don't really have a clue as to how to encourage job growth in the private sector, apart from having the federal government dumping money to do it. They don't know what it takes to actually encourage small businesses to thrive or even expand. How successful do you think it really is to start a small business amidst these taxes and increasing government regulations, pay your employees, cover a mandated health care, add the expense of unemployment costs per employee, and still manage to maintain a big enough profit while covering your materials, equipment expenses, and rent to keep your business afloat for greater than 3 years? All Franco goes by is his tax bracket chart and thinks he knows all there is about who is rich ... without considering location with their cost of living, and the small business assets and their costs that I've only given a small sample of above. In short francoHFW doesn't have a clue.

Taxes should be used to pay for Government, not punish the less wealthy.

In any case, rich, like poor, is a relative term. Why not give us your opinion of a progressive taxation scheme.

 

[danielpalos]

How does a person on welfare with no income, come up with your thirty-eight percent?

What is 38% of 0, dimwit?!?

(Psst....anything x 0 = 0)

This is why nobody takes the left seriously about economics...

Red herrings? A poor person has just as much ability to pay 38% federal income tax on their income as a wealthy person has to pay 38% federal income tax on their income.

Poor is poor.

 

[danielpalos]

Taxes are a necessary part of civilization...

That's debatable...but that's not the issue here, snowflake. The primary issue here is how the left was caught lying about taxes. The secondary issue is how the left illegally/unconstitutionally spends tax dollars.

Projection and "catching" red herrings while claiming learning how to fish is important, is not very convincing.

Both terms, promote and provide, are used in regard to the general welfare, but not the common defense.

 

[task0778]

The thing I will never understand about the Left is how they can possibly think that raising taxes on the rich can be done without any consequences, as though nothing will change. Changes in tax rates will ALWAYS result in changes in behavior; raise rates and you get less investment, lower them and you get more if all else remains the same.

And they always use a static calculation to arrive at how much extra revenue the gov't will get, which never happens. Time after time we've seen states and other countries raising taxes but not getting nearly the amount of expected revenue. Why? Because there is a change in behavior when you raise taxes, the wealthy people will find ways to avoid paying the higher rate even if it means moving that money offshore. And if you rise taxes enough they'll relocate themselves offshore too, and take their money with them. It may be politically smart, but economically speaking it's usually unwise unless maybe your economy is overheating or inflation is rising too fast.