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

[Crystalclear]

Why are you using a distribution of wealth chart to make a point about the income tax? Do you not understand the difference?

The question at the time was determining a "fair share"

Get it?

Yes. Why tax income if you're trying to redistribute wealth? Why not push for a consumption tax? Regardless of the income, those who have a lot spend a lot.

Consumption tax is also better for the poor, since they don't have to pay a regular amiunt of money over their income, but can cut down on tax spendings by buying less.

 

[Redfish]

Back when we had unions and a highly progressive income tax, the middle class paid more as a percentage, yet taxes/gnp was not a lot different.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

That's the part the lefties never understand. The percentage of total taxes paid skews towards the top when marginal rates are lowered.

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

 

[nodoginnafight]

If the supply doesn't increase with the demand, prices increase. Basic common sense tells you that.

OK, then explain why diamonds are so expensive?

Because DeBeers have controlled the supply for the last 100 years or so...

De Beers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have a WINNER!

When you consolidate the supply into the hands of a few (what would happen if you eliminate milk price supports) then those who control the commodity, can manipulate the market all by themselves and virtually lock out competition.

 

[bendog]

That's the part the lefties never understand. The percentage of total taxes paid skews towards the top when marginal rates are lowered.

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

dude, try to follow the thread. I'm not gonna listen to you talking in tongues.

 

[asterism]

Back when we had unions and a highly progressive income tax, the middle class paid more as a percentage, yet taxes/gnp was not a lot different.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

That's the part the lefties never understand. The percentage of total taxes paid skews towards the top when marginal rates are lowered.

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

Tax rates had been cut from the 1980s until 2010.

Look at the share of the total burden paid by the top 1% and the top 10%. Those increased. Look at the bottom 90%. The total share of taxes paid by them decreased.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's the part the lefties never understand. The percentage of total taxes paid skews towards the top when marginal rates are lowered.

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

57% of American will pay income tax this year.

 

[Claudette]

That's the part the lefties never understand. The percentage of total taxes paid skews towards the top when marginal rates are lowered.

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

Yup and one has to wonder what happens when that figure reaches beyond 50%. We will have more takers than producers.

Greece anyone??

 

[asterism]

OK, then explain why diamonds are so expensive?

Because DeBeers have controlled the supply for the last 100 years or so...

De Beers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have a WINNER!

When you consolidate the supply into the hands of a few (what would happen if you eliminate milk price supports) then those who control the commodity, can manipulate the market all by themselves and virtually lock out competition.

Eliminating price support does not automatically mean consolidation of supply. In many instances (like sugar) it actually keeps out smaller competitors.

 

[asterism]

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

57% of American will pay income tax this year.

Where did that statistic come from?

 

[DiamondDave]

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

57% of American will pay income tax this year.

43% short of where it should be

 

[DiamondDave]

Because DeBeers have controlled the supply for the last 100 years or so...

De Beers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have a WINNER!

When you consolidate the supply into the hands of a few (what would happen if you eliminate milk price supports) then those who control the commodity, can manipulate the market all by themselves and virtually lock out competition.

Eliminating price support does not automatically mean consolidation of supply. In many instances (like sugar) it actually keeps out smaller competitors.

Yes.. because in every other business that does not have government subsidy, it is always a monopoly

This guy is about as confused as a blind lesbian in a fish market

 

[nodoginnafight]

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

57% of American will pay income tax this year.

43% short of where it should be

I agree - I'm just keeping it real.

 

[JimH52]

And that would be lower if all ranchers paid to graze their cattle on federal land. But the RW loons on here feel that a rancher that has a multi-million dollar ranch should not pay his fair share. They should be glad that they are paying it for him....idiots.

 

[bendog]

That's the part the lefties never understand. The percentage of total taxes paid skews towards the top when marginal rates are lowered.

Math is not a strongsuit for you. Or perhaps logical fallacies are. And perhaps both.

Tax rates had been cut from the 1980s until 2010.

Look at the share of the total burden paid by the top 1% and the top 10%. Those increased. Look at the bottom 90%. The total share of taxes paid by them decreased.

[/QUO

I responded to another poster simply pointing out the fact that in 2013 and 1966 fed taxes as a % of gnp were equal, yet rates were much different, and the middle class paid more (and earned more) then than now.

And, ps, you apparently missed the point that my post did not indicate one decade was "better" than another. I think the 60s were undoubtedly better if you were middle class, though. Not that there's any going back now.

 

[nodoginnafight]

then why does 50% of working america pay no income tax?

57% of American will pay income tax this year.

Where did that statistic come from?

43% Of Americans Don't Pay Federal Income Tax - Business Insider

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because DeBeers have controlled the supply for the last 100 years or so...

De Beers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have a WINNER!

When you consolidate the supply into the hands of a few (what would happen if you eliminate milk price supports) then those who control the commodity, can manipulate the market all by themselves and virtually lock out competition.

Eliminating price support does not automatically mean consolidation of supply. In many instances (like sugar) it actually keeps out smaller competitors.

Not automatically - as I said before, speculation about what would happen is just that - speculation. But it is clear that supply & demand doesn't always command the market or the prices.

Diamonds are one instance - there are others.

Pretending this doesn't happen is what hacks do.

 

[Redfish]

57% of American will pay income tax this year.

Where did that statistic come from?

43% Of Americans Don't Pay Federal Income Tax - Business Insider

ok now tell us why its good that 43% of americans pay nothing towards the expense of government. Do you think those 43% might feel differently about govt waste if some of it was coming out of their pockets?

 

[Redfish]

we have a WINNER!

When you consolidate the supply into the hands of a few (what would happen if you eliminate milk price supports) then those who control the commodity, can manipulate the market all by themselves and virtually lock out competition.

Eliminating price support does not automatically mean consolidation of supply. In many instances (like sugar) it actually keeps out smaller competitors.

Not automatically - as I said before, speculation about what would happen is just that - speculation. But it is clear that supply & demand doesn't always command the market or the prices.

Diamonds are one instance - there are others.

Pretending this doesn't happen is what hacks do.

supply and demand does set the price of diamonds--------but the supply is being artifically controlled to keep the prices up---------------sorta like farm subsidies where farmers are paid not to grow crops.

 

[nodoginnafight]

ok now tell us why its good that 43% of americans pay nothing towards the expense of government. Do you think those 43% might feel differently about govt waste if some of it was coming out of their pockets?

What was Mitt Romney's effective tax rate? About 16% if memory serves.

Makes it pretty silly to argue that the rich are over taxed.

But I think everyone - even street corner beggars - should pay SOMETHING. Even if it's $2.
That gives them ownership and a greater interest in where our tax dollars go.

The idea that the government has this endless fountain of money has got to stop.

My answer to your question - was already answered.

 

[DiamondDave]

And that would be lower if all ranchers paid to graze their cattle on federal land. But the RW loons on here feel that a rancher that has a multi-million dollar ranch should not pay his fair share. They should be glad that they are paying it for him....idiots.

1) Fair is subjective
2) It should not be federal land.. please review the treaty signed and the fact that all land was to be used to create new states and to be sold off as to not have the federal government being a land baron, owning the majority of land in these new territories expected to become states
3) Please understand that the federal government has no municipal police rights