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

[BillyV]

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.

Sorry to mess up your "class warfare" rhetoric with facts, but what I stated above is absolutely true and irrefutable. The investor purchases the stock with already-taxed dollars with the hope of making a further profit. That further profit is what I'm talking about. Dividends are, by definition, a distribution of corporate profits earned over and above the investment in the entity. Try reading it again; maybe it makes more sense the second time around.

 

[California Girl]

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?

What the military needs are bodies. Let the 1% serve. They need to protect their money.

My family either have or currently are serving. We are the 1% and we pay our taxes, and we serve this nation.

You?

 

[syrenn]

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.

I don't care how much they have.....its not mine, yours or any one else right to lay grubby greedy paws on.....just because they can "afford" to pay more...or becasue of foisting others notions of social justice upon them.

They should be taxed at the same the same as every else. Just as the ones who pay nothing in federal tax should be forced to pay federal tax.

 

[syrenn]

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.

do they pay at a higher federal tax rate then the ones who pay 0% tax rate?

 

[syrenn]

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?

A good percent of the 1% are Hollywood people, athletes, musician, farmers, small business owners,

 

[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%

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.

The income is taxed. At 15% for dividends and at the same rate as ordinary income for interest.

 

[kaz]

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

..

If any group should receive preferential treatment it is the 99 % that do pay the bills,

The top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Taxes. How much would be enough for you? I think they'd probably like to stop getting your "preferential treatment" ...

 

[Meister]

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.

Common good? Kinda like, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That kind of "common good"?
I think we all know just what you're talking about, Chris.

 

[merrill]

The top 400 earners in the U.S. paid an average tax rate of 18 percent, according to a Bloomberg TV report noticed by Think Progress. And though that's a far lower rate than the 26.5 percent that many families making less than $100,000 pay annually in taxes, some of America's super-rich have been able to whittle their tax bill down even more, paying a tax rate as low as one percent, according to Bloomberg.

How? Many of the super rich take advantage of a variety of tax loopholes to lower their tax burden. For some of America's rich, most of their wealth comes from stock appreciation, according to Bloomberg, which some billionaires don't end up defining as taxable income.

These findings echo earlier reports, which suggest that the super rich may not be paying their full share in taxes. More than 1,400 millionaires paid no U.S. income taxes in 2009, according to an August report from the Internal Revenue Service.

In addition, 25 percent of all millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income taxes than millions of middle class households.

But billionaires aren't the only ones that use loopholes to pay lower taxes. Thirty of America's most profitable corporations used rules like the "active financing exception" -- allowing corporations to sidestep paying taxes on overseas profits if they were derived by "actively financing" some activity or deal -- to pay less than zero in income taxes, according to a recent report from the Center for Tax Justice.

Though many super wealthy Americans and very rich corporations use loopholes to lower their tax burden, some have advocated for raising taxes on themselves. Warren Buffett became the most prominent advocate for raising taxes on the rich when he wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in August encouraging lawmakers to raise taxes on millionaires so that they pay the same or higher rate as middle class earners.

Earlier this week, a band of millionaires went to Capitol Hill to lobby Congress to raise their taxes. And they seem to have the support of millionaires around the country, nearly 70 percent of whom said in a survey last month that they support raising taxes on those making $1 million or more.

Huffington Post

 

[syrenn]

The top 400 earners in the U.S. paid an average tax rate of 18 percent, according to a Bloomberg TV report noticed by Think Progress. And though that's a far lower rate than the 26.5 percent that many families making less than $100,000 pay annually in taxes, some of America's super-rich have been able to whittle their tax bill down even more, paying a tax rate as low as one percent, according to Bloomberg.

How? Many of the super rich take advantage of a variety of tax loopholes to lower their tax burden. For some of America's rich, most of their wealth comes from stock appreciation, according to Bloomberg, which some billionaires don't end up defining as taxable income.

These findings echo earlier reports, which suggest that the super rich may not be paying their full share in taxes. More than 1,400 millionaires paid no U.S. income taxes in 2009, according to an August report from the Internal Revenue Service.

In addition, 25 percent of all millionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income taxes than millions of middle class households.

But billionaires aren't the only ones that use loopholes to pay lower taxes. Thirty of America's most profitable corporations used rules like the "active financing exception" -- allowing corporations to sidestep paying taxes on overseas profits if they were derived by "actively financing" some activity or deal -- to pay less than zero in income taxes, according to a recent report from the Center for Tax Justice.

Though many super wealthy Americans and very rich corporations use loopholes to lower their tax burden, some have advocated for raising taxes on themselves. Warren Buffett became the most prominent advocate for raising taxes on the rich when he wrote an op-ed in The New York Times in August encouraging lawmakers to raise taxes on millionaires so that they pay the same or higher rate as middle class earners.

Earlier this week, a band of millionaires went to Capitol Hill to lobby Congress to raise their taxes. And they seem to have the support of millionaires around the country, nearly 70 percent of whom said in a survey last month that they support raising taxes on those making $1 million or more.

Huffington Post

so whats your thread about here?

the 1% bitching about the ones who don't pay jack shit in federal tax using up what they put in for.... ie: the bitch in the grocery line buying a cart load of snack food on her food stamp card...

or is this about how much the 1% pay in taxes in compassion to the 30% of us who DO pay federal taxes.

 

[merrill]

Social Services:

Unemployment Pay

Food stamps
rent assistance
medical assistance
child care assistance

etc etc etc etc

Lower income folks don't have tax havens/loopholes as such therefore Social Services is a means by which they can get some of their tax dollars back.

Lower income can be up to 40k a year... if my memory serves me well.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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?

What the military needs are bodies. Let the 1% serve. They need to protect their money.

As a matter of fact, the US military IS the 1%, just a different 1%.

 

[syrenn]

Social Services:

Unemployment Pay

Food stamps
rent assistance
medical assistance
child care assistance

etc etc etc etc

Lower income folks don't have tax havens/loopholes as such therefore Social Services is a means by which they can get some of their tax dollars back.

Lower income can be up to 40k a year... if my memory serves me well.

So what is your point here in the thread...

you seem to be mixing many issues up and trying to lump them into one single idea.


If you are low income enough to qualify for social services.... you pay 0% federal income tax in the first place.

Sounds like a win win to me..... pay no federal income tax...AND suck up social services at the same time.


So as someone who DOES pay federal income tax..... i have every right to bitch about that little scam they got working.

 

[merrill]

Social Services:

Unemployment Pay

Food stamps
rent assistance
medical assistance
child care assistance

etc etc etc etc

Lower income folks don't have tax havens/loopholes as such therefore Social Services is a means by which they can get some of their tax dollars back.

Lower income can be up to 40k a year... if my memory serves me well.

So what is your point here in the thread...

you seem to be mixing many issues up and trying to lump them into one single idea.


If you are low income enough to qualify for social services.... you pay 0% federal income tax in the first place.

Sounds like a win win to me..... pay no federal income tax...AND suck up social services at the same time.


So as someone who DOES pay federal income tax..... i have every right to bitch about that little scam they got working.

You are assuming one never paid taxes.... even low income pay taxes

 

[syrenn]

Social Services:

Unemployment Pay

Food stamps
rent assistance
medical assistance
child care assistance

etc etc etc etc

Lower income folks don't have tax havens/loopholes as such therefore Social Services is a means by which they can get some of their tax dollars back.

Lower income can be up to 40k a year... if my memory serves me well.

So what is your point here in the thread...

you seem to be mixing many issues up and trying to lump them into one single idea.


If you are low income enough to qualify for social services.... you pay 0% federal income tax in the first place.

Sounds like a win win to me..... pay no federal income tax...AND suck up social services at the same time.


So as someone who DOES pay federal income tax..... i have every right to bitch about that little scam they got working.

You are assuming one never paid taxes.... even low income pay taxes

You assume that low income folks do ever pay federal income taxes as well.


So again...what is the point of your OP?

 

[merrill]

No assistance comes for free. A variety of taxes have been paid in over years and years to provide funding in the event of unemployment.

Which is to say most likely those drawing these benefits paid into a fund somehow.

Why is it wrong to access these funds if necessary?

 

[Inthemiddle]

If you are low income enough to qualify for social services.... you pay 0% federal income tax in the first place.

That's not true. And speaking of mixing up issues, most social services are doled out by the state. The federal government provides part of the funding, but the states also provide a large part of the funding, which they collect through state taxes. So even if your claim here were true, and a person had zero federal tax liability, they can still incur a state income tax liability.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Wow... thread four were you whine about what everybody else has!!!

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wow... thread four were you whine about what everybody else has!!!

Which is exactly what you do whenever you whine about people receiving government benefits.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wow... thread four were you whine about what everybody else has!!!

Which is exactly what you do whenever you whine about people receiving government benefits.

Because people like me get handed the bill for said benefits... and people like you, the receivers, never say thank you, only demand more. So, go fuck yourself dry and hard.

Thanks for playing!