Why does the 1% bitch about the 99% using what they pay for?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here are the top marginal rates according to income. The first % is income, the second % is Investment income. You're wrong. They penalize working and reward wealth.

< $16,750 10% 0%
$16,750 - $68,000 15% 0%
$68,000 - $137,300 25% 15%
$137,300 - $209,250 28% 15%
$209,250 - $373,650 33% 15%
> $373,650 35% 15%

Interest is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

So... you're saying the table that I provided is a lie?

guess that's a lie too.

I'm telling you your understanding is weak.

 

[syrenn]

35% is no indication that they paid anything near in taxes what the 99% shell out.

35% does not represent dollars or sense.

I'm left with my jaw hanging over this one. ANY clue how stupid you sound? Th so far gone there is no point in anyone with any critical thinking skills trying to discuss this with you. Yeah honey, what they mean when they say the top 1% pay 35% of all federal income taxes all by themselves -is it is really gummy bears, not money.

Seems to me that if the 1% pay 35% and 50% pay nothing(as you guys repeatedly vomit), then that means that 49% of the people pay 65%.....and most of that 49% know that if the 1% keeps getting their way.... they will probably drop into that "other" 50% quite easily.... while the 1% could pay 50% of the taxes and not really be affected at all.

No...

it means that 35% of the total people are the ones paying for most everything in terms of federal income tax.

It means that 50% of the total people pay jack shit in, zip, zero, nada in terms of income tax.

Why should the 1% pay more then the rest?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't know why you elitists b@#@* so much. Nor do I understand why you think you are entitled to having the government rob the rest of us so you can be idle and lazy.

 

[percysunshine]

If 99% of people think they are 1% of people, and 1% of people think they are 99% of people, which group has the real problem?

 

[syrenn]

I don't know why you elitists b@#@* so much. Nor do I understand why you think you are entitled to having the government rob the rest of us so you can be idle and lazy.

Can you be a bit more clear on who you think is being robbed? I am a bit confused as to whom you think wants to be lazy and idle.

 

[Meister]

35% is no indication that they paid anything near in taxes what the 99% shell out.

35% does not represent dollars or sense.

I'm left with my jaw hanging over this one. ANY clue how stupid you sound? Th so far gone there is no point in anyone with any critical thinking skills trying to discuss this with you. Yeah honey, what they mean when they say the top 1% pay 35% of all federal income taxes all by themselves -is it is really gummy bears, not money.

Seems to me that if the 1% pay 35% and 50% pay nothing(as you guys repeatedly vomit), then that means that 49% of the people pay 65%.....and most of that 49% know that if the 1% keeps getting their way.... they will probably drop into that "other" 50% quite easily.... while the 1% could pay 50% of the taxes and not really be affected at all.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul*dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent&#8212;those below the median income level&#8212;now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don&#8217;t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes &mdash; The American Magazine

So actually, Steelie, the bottom 90% pay 32% of the income tax. Maybe that puts it into perspective for you.

 

[The T]

I'm left with my jaw hanging over this one. ANY clue how stupid you sound? Th so far gone there is no point in anyone with any critical thinking skills trying to discuss this with you. Yeah honey, what they mean when they say the top 1% pay 35% of all federal income taxes all by themselves -is it is really gummy bears, not money.

Seems to me that if the 1% pay 35% and 50% pay nothing(as you guys repeatedly vomit), then that means that 49% of the people pay 65%.....and most of that 49% know that if the 1% keeps getting their way.... they will probably drop into that "other" 50% quite easily.... while the 1% could pay 50% of the taxes and not really be affected at all.

No...

it means that 35% of the total people are the ones paying for most everything in terms of federal income tax.

It means that 50% of the total people pay jack shit in, zip, zero, nada in terms of income tax.

Why should the 1% pay more then the rest?

And those that don't pay get a return...HOW on Earth does that work?

 

[Chris]

I'm left with my jaw hanging over this one. ANY clue how stupid you sound? Th so far gone there is no point in anyone with any critical thinking skills trying to discuss this with you. Yeah honey, what they mean when they say the top 1% pay 35% of all federal income taxes all by themselves -is it is really gummy bears, not money.

Seems to me that if the 1% pay 35% and 50% pay nothing(as you guys repeatedly vomit), then that means that 49% of the people pay 65%.....and most of that 49% know that if the 1% keeps getting their way.... they will probably drop into that "other" 50% quite easily.... while the 1% could pay 50% of the taxes and not really be affected at all.

No...

it means that 35% of the total people are the ones paying for most everything in terms of federal income tax.

It means that 50% of the total people pay jack shit in, zip, zero, nada in terms of income tax.

Why should the 1% pay more then the rest?

Because they have more than the rest.

Because they currently pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

For the common good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Seems to me that if the 1% pay 35% and 50% pay nothing(as you guys repeatedly vomit), then that means that 49% of the people pay 65%.....and most of that 49% know that if the 1% keeps getting their way.... they will probably drop into that "other" 50% quite easily.... while the 1% could pay 50% of the taxes and not really be affected at all.

No...

it means that 35% of the total people are the ones paying for most everything in terms of federal income tax.

It means that 50% of the total people pay jack shit in, zip, zero, nada in terms of income tax.

Why should the 1% pay more then the rest?

Because they have more than the rest.

Because they currently pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

For the common good.

No they don't.

 

[Chris]

No...

it means that 35% of the total people are the ones paying for most everything in terms of federal income tax.

It means that 50% of the total people pay jack shit in, zip, zero, nada in terms of income tax.

Why should the 1% pay more then the rest?

Because they have more than the rest.

Because they currently pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

For the common good.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because they have more than the rest.

Because they currently pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.[/b]

For the common good.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

How does a guy making $100k pay a lower rate than a guy making $30k?

Or a guy making $200k? Or $500k? Or $5 million?

Spell it out. Be as specific as you can.

 

[Chris]

No they don't.

Yes they do.

How does a guy making $100k pay a lower rate than a guy making $30k?

Or a guy making $200k? Or $500k? Or $5 million?

Spell it out. Be as specific as you can.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes they do.

How does a guy making $100k pay a lower rate than a guy making $30k?

Or a guy making $200k? Or $500k? Or $5 million?

Spell it out. Be as specific as you can.

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.

Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com

Can you be more specific?

 

[Chris]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Keep trying.....

 

[auditor0007]

It's not what the 1% have or don't have. It is the preferential treatment that sucks.

The 1% cannot pay the bills, fill the military needs nor provide the health care this country demands.

If any group should receive preferential treatment it is the 99 % that do pay the bills, fill the military needs and spend tons and tons of money that which keeps the USA
in what jobs are left. The 99% are the primary stakeholders of the USA!

When it comes to funding Social Service needs in this country it is the 99% so why does the 1% bitch about the 99% using what they pay for?

Idiot.....


Of that 99% i would guess only about 30% are the "primary stakeholders"..... you know the middle class who pay for everything. They are the ones who work and pay for the ones who don't pay for jack shit....

and lets define thoes who dont pay for jack shit before you get your panties in a wad..... the ones who do not pay any federal income tax at the end of the day... the ones who get it all back.... or get back more then what they pay into it.

Yup, those people who pay much more in taxes at the state level than anyone else.

 

[chanel]

How about the tax code that gives preferential treatment to pre-existing wealth?

A surgeon who makes $400k/year gets taxed at 35%. A Trust fund baby who doesn't work at all, but collects the same amount in interest and dividends gets taxed at 15%.

A good percentage of the "1 percent" are doctors. Greedy little fuckers, eh? What percentage of the 1 percent don't work and live off trust funds? Anyone have the stats?

 

[BillyV]

How about the tax code that gives preferential treatment to pre-existing wealth?

A surgeon who makes $400k/year gets taxed at 35%. A Trust fund baby who doesn't work at all, but collects the same amount in interest and dividends gets taxed at 15%.

Since we don't tax wealth, how is it preferential treatment?

Interest is taxed at your income tax rate.

Here are the top marginal rates according to income. The first % is income, the second % is Investment income. You're wrong. They penalize working and reward wealth.

< $16,750 10% 0%
$16,750 - $68,000 15% 0%
$68,000 - $137,300 25% 15%
$137,300 - $209,250 28% 15%
$209,250 - $373,650 33% 15%
> $373,650 35% 15%

What gets completely lost in the debate over rates is the fact that the tax on dividends is actually the second time that same money has been taxed; the corporation that earned the income has to pay tax on it first. In a simple scenario: Corporation A earns $1,000,000 in profit and pays 35% in income taxes ($350,000), leaving $650,000. It then decides to declare a dividend for the rest. That $650,000 dividend is taxed at 15%, or $97,500, for a total tax bill of $447,500, almost 45% of the $1,000,000 profit. You see, the corporation gets no tax deduction for paying dividends to its owners. This “double taxation” almost never becomes part of the discussion, but was one of the main arguments used to support lowering the rate in 2003. If both the corporation and the shareholder had to pay ordinary rates on the earnings, the resulting federal tax rate on that $1,000,000 profit would be close to 60%.

The other issue that is rarely discussed is the idea that lower rates on dividends (as opposed to interest, which is taxed at the same rate as other earned income) encourage investment in risk assets (stocks) that can and do lose money for the investor but are vital to the growth of the economy. Investing in an interest bearing investment (i.e. bonds) is generally safer (it is often if not usually secured by hard assets), and also provides a tax deduction to the corporation. Take the above example: Corporation A earns $1,000,000 profit before interest expense, then pays out that same $650,000 in interest. Corporation A then has $350,000 in taxable income, and the individual lender has $650,000 in interest income, and the $1,000,000 profit is only taxed once – total combined federal tax of $350,000 at 35%.

So what some may see as a tax “dodge”, others see as a more fair and equitable tax policy.

 

[MeBelle]

What gets completely lost in the debate over rates is the fact that the tax on dividends is actually the second time that same money has been taxed... <snip>

It doesn't get lost, it gets ignored.

 

[Steelplate]

Since we don't tax wealth, how is it preferential treatment?

Interest is taxed at your income tax rate.

Here are the top marginal rates according to income. The first % is income, the second % is Investment income. You're wrong. They penalize working and reward wealth.

< $16,750 10% 0%
$16,750 - $68,000 15% 0%
$68,000 - $137,300 25% 15%
$137,300 - $209,250 28% 15%
$209,250 - $373,650 33% 15%
> $373,650 35% 15%

What gets completely lost in the debate over rates is the fact that the tax on dividends is actually the second time that same money has been taxed; the corporation that earned the income has to pay tax on it first. In a simple scenario: Corporation A earns $1,000,000 in profit and pays 35% in income taxes ($350,000), leaving $650,000. It then decides to declare a dividend for the rest. That $650,000 dividend is taxed at 15%, or $97,500, for a total tax bill of $447,500, almost 45% of the $1,000,000 profit. You see, the corporation gets no tax deduction for paying dividends to its owners. This “double taxation” almost never becomes part of the discussion, but was one of the main arguments used to support lowering the rate in 2003. If both the corporation and the shareholder had to pay ordinary rates on the earnings, the resulting federal tax rate on that $1,000,000 profit would be close to 60%.

The other issue that is rarely discussed is the idea that lower rates on dividends (as opposed to interest, which is taxed at the same rate as other earned income) encourage investment in risk assets (stocks) that can and do lose money for the investor but are vital to the growth of the economy. Investing in an interest bearing investment (i.e. bonds) is generally safer (it is often if not usually secured by hard assets), and also provides a tax deduction to the corporation. Take the above example: Corporation A earns $1,000,000 profit before interest expense, then pays out that same $650,000 in interest. Corporation A then has $350,000 in taxable income, and the individual lender has $650,000 in interest income, and the $1,000,000 profit is only taxed once – total combined federal tax of $350,000 at 35%.

So what some may see as a tax “dodge”, others see as a more fair and equitable tax policy.

Bullshit. The ORIGINAL monies are already taxed. The income that's generated off of those monies have never been taxed.