$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[KissMy]

thats what you libs don't get, its not either welfare or prison----how about a government whose primary goal was to set up an economic system that would create enough new jobs every year to provide employment for every citizen who is able to work?

Instead what we have today is a govt that wants to punish job creators because they have enough money to create jobs---its stupidity.

That would mean totally scrapping Reaganomics & Bush policies. They punish US job creators & rewarded foreign manufacturing. Clinton & Obama brought jobs back to the USA.

Republican policy has failed in every way except making the top 0.1% very rich.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT LIKE THE FOUNDING GENERATION. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. A recent study shows that those making less than $100,000 have zero impact on policy....they should pay 0 taxes.

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

It is unlikely without a massive revolt. But it does help justify 'progressive' taxation.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

I think I like the idea of a progressive land tax actually, and elimination of the mortgage deduction. Unrealistic to have varying taxes on gas, but waste of federal highway spending needs to be reigned in.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

Not really. In our wondrous Obameconomy, Social Security, since 2010, has been paying out more benefits than was paid in from payroll taxes.

 

[Care4all]

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

It is unlikely without a massive revolt. But it does help justify 'progressive' taxation.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

I think I like the idea of a progressive land tax actually, and elimination of the mortgage deduction. Unrealistic to have varying taxes on gas, but waste of federal highway spending needs to be reigned in.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

Not really. In our wondrous Obameconomy, Social Security, since 2010, has been paying out more benefits than was paid in from payroll taxes.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.....that we all have paid in to social security is suppose to take care of its budget to pay out retirements, and we have a couple of decades of SS surplus monies....NOTHING is being taken from the income tax payer for social security payments, other than the income tax payer, PAYING what he BORROWED from the social security payers in earlier years.....

SS still needs tweaking, but it is the Congress's fault for borrowing SS monies to pay for what income taxes should have been paying for all along....don't punish the SS wage earners for this....

 

[Flopper]

Well - the 16% is an "effective" rate. The book rate on the higher income levels is quite a bit higher. But since almost everyone lowers their effective rate with deductions and tax credits, the effective rate for the most wealthy (and the effective rate for everyone) turns out to be a lot lower than the "book rate."

Instead of jacking up the rates, why not eliminate some of the deductions and credits?

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

one thing both right and left could agree on I think is the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.....the right could agree because these bonds fund some of the most idiotic of local projects....unneeded and unused"convention centers" and sports stadiums for the super-rich. ...the left could agree because these bonds go for corporate Welfare and because they are a tax loophole really only useful for the wealthy .

Fax free municipal bonds don't just fund idiotic local projects. They are the major funding source for almost all local projects. Making municipal bonds taxable means they will be less attractive to investors. The result? Instead of money going to public projects – repairing bridges, fixing dams, funding schools – it will go to Apple, Netflix, or Citibank. Is that what we want? There are already plenty of incentives to invest in the private sector; we shouldn't erase incentives to encourage private investment in the public sector.

Opposition from almost every state and local government will insure that municipal bonds remain tax free, at least for most investors. There are proposals in the Obama administration to limit the tax free status.

 

[Care4all]

So, if everybody paid an equal tax percentage, most liberals would find that unfair. And the result ends up being what they call "fair share", which is both unequal and unfair

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

All income should be counted as the same and it should all be taxed at one rate with no exceptions.

You all pay the same tax on a gallon of gas regardless of the marginal utility of that gallon even though surely you can agree that the gallon of gas used to drive to work has more value than the gallon used to drive to a strip club.

Tell me why a dollar earned should be treated any differently?

Because it is unconstitutional to pay federal income taxes on the "dollar earned", we can only be taxed on our GAIN on our labor wages just as businesses are only taxed on their GAIN, not their total revenues.

Why would you want to DICK the little people and not give them what you give businesses and corporations?

 

[Redfish]

In the real world, nobody gets $50K in welfare. And when you destroy welfare, it will cost you ten times as much to keep them in prison. That's as smart as a vegetable.

thats what you libs don't get, its not either welfare or prison----how about a government whose primary goal was to set up an economic system that would create enough new jobs every year to provide employment for every citizen who is able to work?

Instead what we have today is a govt that wants to punish job creators because they have enough money to create jobs---its stupidity.

It's tax deductible for them to create jobs....they won't pay more in federal income taxes if they hire people for their company?

I think we all agree that we should have a government that promotes the general welfare of ALL citizens and having a government that sets up an economic system that would promote job creation for every citizen....

Where Cons and libs differ is we believe our government has failed because they have favored the corporations OVER the individual with their regulations and tax deductions and tax credits and protections that give them monopolies like the Pharma industry and deregulation and bailouts that only end up hurting the every day citizen in the USA, and have made it very easy and lucrative for our American companies to just ship their factories and corporate headquarters some times too, overseas...leaving the nation with a jobless recovery while they vote down Obamacare for the thousandth time or have another Benghazi or IRS dog and pony show....while we pay them.....

Corporations HAVE ENOUGH money to hire people, record profits for them....yet they don't..they spend their time figuring out how to go overseas and get cheap labor or cheap goods....

they could be rehauling the corporate tax structure that would not only benefit corps but benefit the American people with getting rid of certain loopholes and keeping jobs here....

As far as the top 10% paying for 72% of the federal income taxes....the Supreme court says we can only be income taxed on our GAIN...if 47% of the families in this nation filing federal income tax owe no tax, it is because they have not made a GAIN, to be taxed....THIS IS NOT their fault that those in the top 10% did make huge GAINS and are taxed on it.

Simple as that....

Most Americans are losing ground with cost of living going up and fuel prices, EXCEPT the top 10%...they still had a GAIN to be taxed.....it is a sad state of affairs for 47% of the tax payers to not be getting ahead....THAT'S what those figures say imo.

Care

your jealousy of successful people is noted. Income taxes are not based on net annual profit, as you claimed, they are based on income minus legal deductions and exemptions.

If you don't like what the rich and corporations are paying, blame the democrats--they have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years and they wrote much of the tax code.

are you really so partisan ignorant that you think only republicans get help from corporations ?

 

[KissMy]

It is unlikely without a massive revolt. But it does help justify 'progressive' taxation.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

I think I like the idea of a progressive land tax actually, and elimination of the mortgage deduction. Unrealistic to have varying taxes on gas, but waste of federal highway spending needs to be reigned in.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

Not really. In our wondrous Obameconomy, Social Security, since 2010, has been paying out more benefits than was paid in from payroll taxes.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.....that we all have paid in to social security is suppose to take care of its budget to pay out retirements, and we have a couple of decades of SS surplus monies....NOTHING is being taken from the income tax payer for social security payments, other than the income tax payer, PAYING what he BORROWED from the social security payers in earlier years.....

SS still needs tweaking, but it is the Congress's fault for borrowing SS monies to pay for what income taxes should have been paying for all along....don't punish the SS wage earners for this....

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES were stolen for tax cuts for the 0.1% to stimulate outsourcing of jobs. They will never accept an across the board 19% flat tax with no deductions, or having to pay the same rate as employees or the middle class have to pay. Much less pay back what they stole.

 

[Flopper]

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

It is unlikely without a massive revolt. But it does help justify 'progressive' taxation.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

I think I like the idea of a progressive land tax actually, and elimination of the mortgage deduction. Unrealistic to have varying taxes on gas, but waste of federal highway spending needs to be reigned in.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

Not really. In our wondrous Obameconomy, Social Security, since 2010, has been paying out more benefits than was paid in from payroll taxes.

If there is no change in revenue coming into the fund or benefits paid out, the fund will be exhausted in 2033 and benefits would reduce by about 20% and by 2087 benefits would reduce by 25%. However, we know there will be changes.

Trustees Report Summary

 

[Redfish]

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

Not really. In our wondrous Obameconomy, Social Security, since 2010, has been paying out more benefits than was paid in from payroll taxes.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.....that we all have paid in to social security is suppose to take care of its budget to pay out retirements, and we have a couple of decades of SS surplus monies....NOTHING is being taken from the income tax payer for social security payments, other than the income tax payer, PAYING what he BORROWED from the social security payers in earlier years.....

SS still needs tweaking, but it is the Congress's fault for borrowing SS monies to pay for what income taxes should have been paying for all along....don't punish the SS wage earners for this....

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES were stolen for tax cuts for the 0.1% to stimulate outsourcing of jobs. They will never accept an across the board 19% flat tax with no deductions, or having to pay the same rate as employees or the middle class have to pay. Much less pay back what they stole.

Horseshit---SS funds were merged with the general fund by LBJ. the same president who said "I'll have them ******* voting democrat for the next 200 years"

it had nothing to do with the 1% or the tax rates for any person or corporation.

Please, stop the lies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is unlikely without a massive revolt. But it does help justify 'progressive' taxation.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

I think I like the idea of a progressive land tax actually, and elimination of the mortgage deduction. Unrealistic to have varying taxes on gas, but waste of federal highway spending needs to be reigned in.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

Not really. In our wondrous Obameconomy, Social Security, since 2010, has been paying out more benefits than was paid in from payroll taxes.

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.....that we all have paid in to social security is suppose to take care of its budget to pay out retirements, and we have a couple of decades of SS surplus monies....NOTHING is being taken from the income tax payer for social security payments, other than the income tax payer, PAYING what he BORROWED from the social security payers in earlier years.....

SS still needs tweaking, but it is the Congress's fault for borrowing SS monies to pay for what income taxes should have been paying for all along....don't punish the SS wage earners for this....

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.....

Have ended.

The claim that "Social Security taxes now fund a large chunk of federal government", is no longer true.

 

[DiamondDave]

thats what you libs don't get, its not either welfare or prison----how about a government whose primary goal was to set up an economic system that would create enough new jobs every year to provide employment for every citizen who is able to work?

Instead what we have today is a govt that wants to punish job creators because they have enough money to create jobs---its stupidity.

It's tax deductible for them to create jobs....they won't pay more in federal income taxes if they hire people for their company?

I think we all agree that we should have a government that promotes the general welfare of ALL citizens and having a government that sets up an economic system that would promote job creation for every citizen....

Where Cons and libs differ is we believe our government has failed because they have favored the corporations OVER the individual with their regulations and tax deductions and tax credits and protections that give them monopolies like the Pharma industry and deregulation and bailouts that only end up hurting the every day citizen in the USA, and have made it very easy and lucrative for our American companies to just ship their factories and corporate headquarters some times too, overseas...leaving the nation with a jobless recovery while they vote down Obamacare for the thousandth time or have another Benghazi or IRS dog and pony show....while we pay them.....

Corporations HAVE ENOUGH money to hire people, record profits for them....yet they don't..they spend their time figuring out how to go overseas and get cheap labor or cheap goods....

they could be rehauling the corporate tax structure that would not only benefit corps but benefit the American people with getting rid of certain loopholes and keeping jobs here....

As far as the top 10% paying for 72% of the federal income taxes....the Supreme court says we can only be income taxed on our GAIN...if 47% of the families in this nation filing federal income tax owe no tax, it is because they have not made a GAIN, to be taxed....THIS IS NOT their fault that those in the top 10% did make huge GAINS and are taxed on it.

Simple as that....

Most Americans are losing ground with cost of living going up and fuel prices, EXCEPT the top 10%...they still had a GAIN to be taxed.....it is a sad state of affairs for 47% of the tax payers to not be getting ahead....THAT'S what those figures say imo.

Care

your jealousy of successful people is noted. Income taxes are not based on net annual profit, as you claimed, they are based on income minus legal deductions and exemptions.

If you don't like what the rich and corporations are paying, blame the democrats--they have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years and they wrote much of the tax code.

are you really so partisan ignorant that you think only republicans get help from corporations ?

She acts like the government is there to help equalize outcome.. uber government control... thru the unequal treatment of those citizens they are jealous of and wish to vilify...

Take more from them.. because.. well.. we want it.. and we FEEL they can afford more.. and we feel it is good.. and we feel it is fair.. and we feel it is, uhhhhh well WE JUST WANT IT...
That is the liberal mindset to use tyranny to take what they want, when they want it, because they feel their cause can better use it than the person who actually earned it

In a word.. they are assholes

 

[Care4all]

thats what you libs don't get, its not either welfare or prison----how about a government whose primary goal was to set up an economic system that would create enough new jobs every year to provide employment for every citizen who is able to work?

Instead what we have today is a govt that wants to punish job creators because they have enough money to create jobs---its stupidity.

It's tax deductible for them to create jobs....they won't pay more in federal income taxes if they hire people for their company?

I think we all agree that we should have a government that promotes the general welfare of ALL citizens and having a government that sets up an economic system that would promote job creation for every citizen....

Where Cons and libs differ is we believe our government has failed because they have favored the corporations OVER the individual with their regulations and tax deductions and tax credits and protections that give them monopolies like the Pharma industry and deregulation and bailouts that only end up hurting the every day citizen in the USA, and have made it very easy and lucrative for our American companies to just ship their factories and corporate headquarters some times too, overseas...leaving the nation with a jobless recovery while they vote down Obamacare for the thousandth time or have another Benghazi or IRS dog and pony show....while we pay them.....

Corporations HAVE ENOUGH money to hire people, record profits for them....yet they don't..they spend their time figuring out how to go overseas and get cheap labor or cheap goods....

they could be rehauling the corporate tax structure that would not only benefit corps but benefit the American people with getting rid of certain loopholes and keeping jobs here....

As far as the top 10% paying for 72% of the federal income taxes....the Supreme court says we can only be income taxed on our GAIN...if 47% of the families in this nation filing federal income tax owe no tax, it is because they have not made a GAIN, to be taxed....THIS IS NOT their fault that those in the top 10% did make huge GAINS and are taxed on it.

Simple as that....

Most Americans are losing ground with cost of living going up and fuel prices, EXCEPT the top 10%...they still had a GAIN to be taxed.....it is a sad state of affairs for 47% of the tax payers to not be getting ahead....THAT'S what those figures say imo.

Care

your jealousy of successful people is noted. Income taxes are not based on net annual profit, as you claimed, they are based on income minus legal deductions and exemptions.

If you don't like what the rich and corporations are paying, blame the democrats--they have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years and they wrote much of the tax code.

are you really so partisan ignorant that you think only republicans get help from corporations ?

Nope, a far cry from the truth Redfish, I am not jealous in any way shape or form....just FACTS and the facts are that those at the very top are making a GAIN on their earnings or they wouldn't be paying taxes at all, just like the peon not making a GAIN.

We can't be taxed on our total income, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we can only be taxed on our GAIN from our total income, just as businesses and corporations can only be taxed on their GAIN from their revenues brought in.

People around here seem to think that we are income taxed on our total GROSS income....we are NOT, and have NEVER EVER been taxed on our total gross income....the personal exemption and standard deduction is the means used now, or schedule A etc, to make certain we are not taxed on our gross income....if we were taxed on our gross income, with no deductions, it would be considered a DIRECT TAX, and a direct tax has to be apportioned per capita....per the constitution....

I have been both poor and wealthy in my lifetime, and being wealthy is a heck of a lot easier, hands down.

And I appreciate corporations, they... and my hard work, day and night, for them, is what has made me wealthy....

I just don't think they and the congressmen kissing their rear ends are PERFECT, such as you seem to think....

 

[Redfish]

It's tax deductible for them to create jobs....they won't pay more in federal income taxes if they hire people for their company?

I think we all agree that we should have a government that promotes the general welfare of ALL citizens and having a government that sets up an economic system that would promote job creation for every citizen....

Where Cons and libs differ is we believe our government has failed because they have favored the corporations OVER the individual with their regulations and tax deductions and tax credits and protections that give them monopolies like the Pharma industry and deregulation and bailouts that only end up hurting the every day citizen in the USA, and have made it very easy and lucrative for our American companies to just ship their factories and corporate headquarters some times too, overseas...leaving the nation with a jobless recovery while they vote down Obamacare for the thousandth time or have another Benghazi or IRS dog and pony show....while we pay them.....

Corporations HAVE ENOUGH money to hire people, record profits for them....yet they don't..they spend their time figuring out how to go overseas and get cheap labor or cheap goods....

they could be rehauling the corporate tax structure that would not only benefit corps but benefit the American people with getting rid of certain loopholes and keeping jobs here....

As far as the top 10% paying for 72% of the federal income taxes....the Supreme court says we can only be income taxed on our GAIN...if 47% of the families in this nation filing federal income tax owe no tax, it is because they have not made a GAIN, to be taxed....THIS IS NOT their fault that those in the top 10% did make huge GAINS and are taxed on it.

Simple as that....

Most Americans are losing ground with cost of living going up and fuel prices, EXCEPT the top 10%...they still had a GAIN to be taxed.....it is a sad state of affairs for 47% of the tax payers to not be getting ahead....THAT'S what those figures say imo.

Care

your jealousy of successful people is noted. Income taxes are not based on net annual profit, as you claimed, they are based on income minus legal deductions and exemptions.

If you don't like what the rich and corporations are paying, blame the democrats--they have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years and they wrote much of the tax code.

are you really so partisan ignorant that you think only republicans get help from corporations ?

She acts like the government is there to help equalize outcome.. uber government control... thru the unequal treatment of those citizens they are jealous of and wish to vilify...

Take more from them.. because.. well.. we want it.. and we FEEL they can afford more.. and we feel it is good.. and we feel it is fair.. and we feel it is, uhhhhh well WE JUST WANT IT...
That is the liberal mindset to use tyranny to take what they want, when they want it, because they feel their cause can better use it than the person who actually earned it

In a word.. they are assholes

"mommy, Tommy has a new bike and mine is old, tell the govt to take it from him and give it to me, its not fair that he has a new one and I want it" ":but Tommy delivers papers every morning at 6 am and he paid for the bike with the money he earned, I don't care, I still want it"

 

[Flopper]

Horseshit---SS funds were merged with the general fund by LBJ.

How so? The 1935 Social Security Act required that Social Security funds be invested in government securities.

 

[Care4all]

It's tax deductible for them to create jobs....they won't pay more in federal income taxes if they hire people for their company?

I think we all agree that we should have a government that promotes the general welfare of ALL citizens and having a government that sets up an economic system that would promote job creation for every citizen....

Where Cons and libs differ is we believe our government has failed because they have favored the corporations OVER the individual with their regulations and tax deductions and tax credits and protections that give them monopolies like the Pharma industry and deregulation and bailouts that only end up hurting the every day citizen in the USA, and have made it very easy and lucrative for our American companies to just ship their factories and corporate headquarters some times too, overseas...leaving the nation with a jobless recovery while they vote down Obamacare for the thousandth time or have another Benghazi or IRS dog and pony show....while we pay them.....

Corporations HAVE ENOUGH money to hire people, record profits for them....yet they don't..they spend their time figuring out how to go overseas and get cheap labor or cheap goods....

they could be rehauling the corporate tax structure that would not only benefit corps but benefit the American people with getting rid of certain loopholes and keeping jobs here....

As far as the top 10% paying for 72% of the federal income taxes....the Supreme court says we can only be income taxed on our GAIN...if 47% of the families in this nation filing federal income tax owe no tax, it is because they have not made a GAIN, to be taxed....THIS IS NOT their fault that those in the top 10% did make huge GAINS and are taxed on it.

Simple as that....

Most Americans are losing ground with cost of living going up and fuel prices, EXCEPT the top 10%...they still had a GAIN to be taxed.....it is a sad state of affairs for 47% of the tax payers to not be getting ahead....THAT'S what those figures say imo.

Care

your jealousy of successful people is noted. Income taxes are not based on net annual profit, as you claimed, they are based on income minus legal deductions and exemptions.

If you don't like what the rich and corporations are paying, blame the democrats--they have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years and they wrote much of the tax code.

are you really so partisan ignorant that you think only republicans get help from corporations ?

She acts like the government is there to help equalize outcome.. uber government control... thru the unequal treatment of those citizens they are jealous of and wish to vilify...

Take more from them.. because.. well.. we want it.. and we FEEL they can afford more.. and we feel it is good.. and we feel it is fair.. and we feel it is, uhhhhh well WE JUST WANT IT...
That is the liberal mindset to use tyranny to take what they want, when they want it, because they feel their cause can better use it than the person who actually earned it

In a word.. they are assholes

ahhhhh, talk to the hand DD....

I am not talking about taking from anyone, just laying down the FACTS, an the facts are....we can NOT be taxed on our gross wage income, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we can ONLY be taxed on our Gain from our income, just as corps and businesses can only be income taxed on their GAIN, not their total revenues.....so if the top 10% are paying income taxes, it is because they have personally had a GAIN....and the 47% not owing taxes is because they have not had a GAIN.....

And are you implying that there has been no favoritism shown towards corporations regarding income taxation? That they receive no subsidies or deductions or financial incentives to ship jobs overseas by Congress? Tell K street that....

I didn't think you were naive enough to believe something like that.....

 

[Redfish]

Horseshit---SS funds were merged with the general fund by LBJ.

How so? The 1935 Social Security Act required that Social Security funds be invested in government securities.

and kept separate from the general fund until LBJ. He merged the two in order to make ends meet rather than show a deficit.

Investing in govt securities is quite different from using the SS fund to pay the bills.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

your jealousy of successful people is noted. Income taxes are not based on net annual profit, as you claimed, they are based on income minus legal deductions and exemptions.

If you don't like what the rich and corporations are paying, blame the democrats--they have controlled congress for most of the last 75 years and they wrote much of the tax code.

are you really so partisan ignorant that you think only republicans get help from corporations ?

She acts like the government is there to help equalize outcome.. uber government control... thru the unequal treatment of those citizens they are jealous of and wish to vilify...

Take more from them.. because.. well.. we want it.. and we FEEL they can afford more.. and we feel it is good.. and we feel it is fair.. and we feel it is, uhhhhh well WE JUST WANT IT...
That is the liberal mindset to use tyranny to take what they want, when they want it, because they feel their cause can better use it than the person who actually earned it

In a word.. they are assholes

ahhhhh, talk to the hand DD....

I am not talking about taking from anyone, just laying down the FACTS, an the facts are....we can NOT be taxed on our gross wage income, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we can ONLY be taxed on our Gain from our income, just as corps and businesses can only be income taxed on their GAIN, not their total revenues.....so if the top 10% are paying income taxes, it is because they have personally had a GAIN....and the 47% not owing taxes is because they have not had a GAIN.....

And are you implying that there has been no favoritism shown towards corporations regarding income taxation? That they receive no subsidies or deductions or financial incentives to ship jobs overseas by Congress? Tell K street that....

I didn't think you were naive enough to believe something like that.....

we can NOT be taxed on our gross wage income, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we can ONLY be taxed on our Gain from our income,

What is "our Gain from our income"?
Is it like capital gain, the difference between purchase price and sale price?

 

[Care4all]

She acts like the government is there to help equalize outcome.. uber government control... thru the unequal treatment of those citizens they are jealous of and wish to vilify...

Take more from them.. because.. well.. we want it.. and we FEEL they can afford more.. and we feel it is good.. and we feel it is fair.. and we feel it is, uhhhhh well WE JUST WANT IT...
That is the liberal mindset to use tyranny to take what they want, when they want it, because they feel their cause can better use it than the person who actually earned it

In a word.. they are assholes

ahhhhh, talk to the hand DD....

I am not talking about taking from anyone, just laying down the FACTS, an the facts are....we can NOT be taxed on our gross wage income, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we can ONLY be taxed on our Gain from our income, just as corps and businesses can only be income taxed on their GAIN, not their total revenues.....so if the top 10% are paying income taxes, it is because they have personally had a GAIN....and the 47% not owing taxes is because they have not had a GAIN.....

And are you implying that there has been no favoritism shown towards corporations regarding income taxation? That they receive no subsidies or deductions or financial incentives to ship jobs overseas by Congress? Tell K street that....

I didn't think you were naive enough to believe something like that.....

we can NOT be taxed on our gross wage income, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, we can ONLY be taxed on our Gain from our income,

What is "our Gain from our income"?
Is it like capital gain, the difference between purchase price and sale price?

Yes, it is something similar to that Todd....

I posted the links either in this thread or another ongoing thread on taxes and the Supreme court ruling that helped define ''income'' for the purposes of income taxing....

Basically, the personal exemption and standard deductions are suppose to cover the minimal expense amount needed to survive on before we can be income taxed by the gvt. there is long form/schedule A if you have further eligible deductions that can reduce your GAIN, reduce your taxable income.

 

[alan1]

No, what Libs find unfair is flatening the progressive income tax without flatening all the other regressive taxes and not counting all income the same.
Get it?

All income should be counted as the same and it should all be taxed at one rate with no exceptions.

You all pay the same tax on a gallon of gas regardless of the marginal utility of that gallon even though surely you can agree that the gallon of gas used to drive to work has more value than the gallon used to drive to a strip club.

Tell me why a dollar earned should be treated any differently?

You really think that gas analogy is a winning one don't cha?

How about housing. All taxes on houses should be the same. Right? The guy living in the 10 million dollar house should pay the same as the guy living in the 50k house. Right?

I mean they both are putting a roof over someones head.

So the guy with the 10 million dollar house should pay the exact same amount as the 50 thousand dollar house guy.

Or should it be the other way around? You know, the 50k guy paying the same as the 10 million dollar guy?

A house is a house just like a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. Some people get 45 mpg and some get 10, so all use of gas is not equal. Like houses.

Who pays what in taxes though? Poor pays the rich amount or the other way around?

1% of $10 million is more money than 1% of $50 thousand.
Only a fool doesn't understand that.

 

[edthecynic]

Horseshit---SS funds were merged with the general fund by LBJ.

How so? The 1935 Social Security Act required that Social Security funds be invested in government securities.

and kept separate from the general fund until LBJ. He merged the two in order to make ends meet rather than show a deficit.

Investing in govt securities is quite different from using the SS fund to pay the bills.

BULLSHIT!
And more BULLSHIT!

It is criminal that you No-Information voters get to nullify my vote!

Social Security History

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.