The truth about taxes

[Mac1958]

But really Mac. Quit with the claims that I must be angry cause I like to give you a hard time. I am not angry Mac. Just like ******* with you. I think there is another poster that feels the same. The one that, when asked where they are, they say inside Macs head. That's funny Mac.

Funny, you admit you like "*******" with me, and yet you think that you're inside my head.

From the looks of things, it appears to be the other way around.

.

 

[P@triot]

Oh those poor poor rich people.

They suffer so..

Having to support parasites like you who are also ungrateful assholes on top of it? Hell yeah it's suffering......

Why don't you go earn your own way through life instead of being a burden on others?

 

[P@triot]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. But they pay shit in state taxes and payroll taxes, and they really don't pay that high of a percentage in federal taxes because most of their earnings are from capital gains. Quit ignoring all other forms of taxation. Tell me why it is the same people you cry about paying all the income taxes are not paying their fair share of all other taxes. Got an answer?

Here is a much more realistic graph of who pays what when all taxes are taken into account. We do have more than one form of tax in this country. Obviously you are oblivious to that little bit of information.

Now go cry me a ******* river.

The numbers don't lie [MENTION=12997]auditor0007[/MENTION]. The top 1% earns 13% of the income but pays 39% of the taxes.

You people need to stop crying a ******* river, get up off your lazy asses, and go earn your own way through life.

 

[P@triot]

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. Now go cry me a ******* river.

Oh those poor poor rich people. They suffer so..

You have to love the idiot Dumbocrat. For years their official narrative was "the top 1% have 99% of the wealth" (blatant lie) and "they pay no taxes" (blatant lie).

Once they are faced with facts they can no longer deny, they illustrate their hatefulness, their immaturity, and their denial with childish mockery and foul language.

Stay classy Dumbocrats!

 

[JoeNormal]

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. Now go cry me a ******* river.

Oh those poor poor rich people. They suffer so..

You have to love the idiot Dumbocrat. For years their official narrative was "the top 1% have 99% of the wealth" (blatant lie) and "they pay no taxes" (blatant lie).

Once they are faced with facts they can no longer deny, they illustrate their hatefulness, their immaturity, and their denial with childish mockery and foul language.

Stay classy Dumbocrats!

I'm sure this will bounce off your thick skull the way it has every other time someone has attempted to explain it to you. This time rather than introducing you to concepts like logarithmic gaussian distribution or even simple bar graphs, I'll reiterate a very succinct statement made on this board (by whom I can't remember): The rich have all the money, who the **** do you think should pay the taxes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. Now go cry me a ******* river.

Oh those poor poor rich people. They suffer so..

You have to love the idiot Dumbocrat. For years their official narrative was "the top 1% have 99% of the wealth" (blatant lie) and "they pay no taxes" (blatant lie).

Once they are faced with facts they can no longer deny, they illustrate their hatefulness, their immaturity, and their denial with childish mockery and foul language.

Stay classy Dumbocrats!

I'm sure this will bounce off your thick skull the way it has every other time someone has attempted to explain it to you. This time rather than introducing you to concepts like logarithmic gaussian distribution or even simple bar graphs, I'll reiterate a very succinct statement made on this board (by whom I can't remember): The rich have all the money, who the **** do you think should pay the taxes?

And the simple answer is that everybody who benefits from the system should contribute to the system. When that is the policy, there is far more opportunity for the un-rich to become much more rich. When you punish people for their success while rewarding the unsuccessful, which condition do you think you are promoting?

 

[Mac1958]

When you punish people for their success while rewarding the unsuccessful, which condition do you think you are promoting?

"Social justice"



.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. Now go cry me a ******* river.

Oh those poor poor rich people. They suffer so..

You have to love the idiot Dumbocrat. For years their official narrative was "the top 1% have 99% of the wealth" (blatant lie) and "they pay no taxes" (blatant lie).

Once they are faced with facts they can no longer deny, they illustrate their hatefulness, their immaturity, and their denial with childish mockery and foul language.

Stay classy Dumbocrats!

I'm sure this will bounce off your thick skull the way it has every other time someone has attempted to explain it to you. This time rather than introducing you to concepts like logarithmic gaussian distribution or even simple bar graphs, I'll reiterate a very succinct statement made on this board (by whom I can't remember): The rich have all the money, who the **** do you think should pay the taxes?

Everyone should take a fair stake in paying taxes with absolutely no exceptions, regardles if they are poor or well off.... hell even the Amish pay their share. That being said, I believe the only "fair" option would be a flat 10% Federal tax on all purchases (cars, all electronics, small boats to luxury yacht, airline tickets to private jets, furniture, etc). Only those who have "skin in the game" will care how our government chooses to spend taxpayer dollars. Our Federal government, on the same token, must learn to live within their means, as a flat tax on purchases would take the place of the Federal Income Tax. No individual should be penalized for being successful, nor should any class of society be completely exempt from their obligation to contribute - fair is fair. Immigrants who have not abided by the same Federal Immigration Law process that other foreigners must follow to become citizens, should also receive no government benefits, nor assistance (to include unemployment benefits), nor receive college tuition assistance, nor Federal grants. Such a hard stance against Federal aid or compensation to illegals is completely justified without prejudice. Our nation should never place itself in the position to establish policy that would condone, encourage, or enable further disregard to Federal Immigration Laws, by those who willfully choose to sneak across our boarders - period. In short, if you don't pay your share of taxes to help fund our government, you should receive none of the benefits or assistance from those who ARE the contributing taxpayers.

 

[P@triot]

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. Now go cry me a ******* river.

Oh those poor poor rich people. They suffer so..

You have to love the idiot Dumbocrat. For years their official narrative was "the top 1% have 99% of the wealth" (blatant lie) and "they pay no taxes" (blatant lie).

Once they are faced with facts they can no longer deny, they illustrate their hatefulness, their immaturity, and their denial with childish mockery and foul language.

Stay classy Dumbocrats!

I'm sure this will bounce off your thick skull the way it has every other time someone has attempted to explain it to you. This time rather than introducing you to concepts like logarithmic gaussian distribution or even simple bar graphs, I'll reiterate a very succinct statement made on this board (by whom I can't remember): The rich have all the money, who the **** do you think should pay the taxes?

You mean, the rich have all the money like the "1% owns 99% of the money" liberal LIE or the rich have all the money like the "1% earned 13% of the wealth" reality?

Here's the thing that you are incapable of grasping [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION] - only a ****'n moron rewards failure and punishes success. Because someone wasn't as smart as Steve Jobs, didn't work as hard as Steve Jobs, and wasn't willing to take risk like Steve Jobs, you think they should be rewarded with a free ride while Steve Jobs is punished with carrying the load for you millions of free loading parasites? Really?

It's no wonder liberal policy always ends with failure, collapse, and poverty...

 

[JoeNormal]

You have to love the idiot Dumbocrat. For years their official narrative was "the top 1% have 99% of the wealth" (blatant lie) and "they pay no taxes" (blatant lie).

Once they are faced with facts they can no longer deny, they illustrate their hatefulness, their immaturity, and their denial with childish mockery and foul language.

Stay classy Dumbocrats!

I'm sure this will bounce off your thick skull the way it has every other time someone has attempted to explain it to you. This time rather than introducing you to concepts like logarithmic gaussian distribution or even simple bar graphs, I'll reiterate a very succinct statement made on this board (by whom I can't remember): The rich have all the money, who the **** do you think should pay the taxes?

You mean, the rich have all the money like the "1% owns 99% of the money" liberal LIE or the rich have all the money like the "1% earned 13% of the wealth" reality?

Here's the thing that you are incapable of grasping [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION] - only a ****'n moron rewards failure and punishes success. Because someone wasn't as smart as Steve Jobs, didn't work as hard as Steve Jobs, and wasn't willing to take risk like Steve Jobs, you think they should be rewarded with a free ride while Steve Jobs is punished with carrying the load for you millions of free loading parasites? Really?

It's no wonder liberal policy always ends with failure, collapse, and poverty...

I can guarantee that I have way more in common with Steve Jobs than you do you ******* moron. There comes a point when throwing more money at something doesn't create any further effect. (I thought that was a conservative cornerstone.) People are no more motivated to do what they do if you give them billions of dollars than if you gave them a hundred million.

 

[Foxfyre]

People who have wealth pay sales taxes on what they spend, and pay property taxes on real estate they own, and pay fuel taxes on the gasoline they put in their cars or whatever. But it doesn't matter how much people own that determines how much income tax they pay. It matters how much their earn.

The liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/poltical class want to charge sky high income taxes on the rich because they have so much. But the net effect is simply to encourage the rich to a) not use their money because they'll be punished for it if they do or b) to take their money elsewhere to invest where the tax climate is friendlier.

In other words, the class envy group invariably cuts off their noses to spite their faces in their obsession with somehow taking down the rich.

How much more compassionate, productive, and reasonable would it be to encourage those rich as much as possible to use their money to start and grow businesses and hire people and give folks a chance to become rich? Or at least richer? And a uniform flat tax would accomplish just that.

Modern day American conservatives mostly think like that. But others simply can't put aside their envy, jealousy, and resentment of the rich long enough to see the forest amidst the trees.

 

[Redfish]

I'm sure this will bounce off your thick skull the way it has every other time someone has attempted to explain it to you. This time rather than introducing you to concepts like logarithmic gaussian distribution or even simple bar graphs, I'll reiterate a very succinct statement made on this board (by whom I can't remember): The rich have all the money, who the **** do you think should pay the taxes?

You mean, the rich have all the money like the "1% owns 99% of the money" liberal LIE or the rich have all the money like the "1% earned 13% of the wealth" reality?

Here's the thing that you are incapable of grasping [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION] - only a ****'n moron rewards failure and punishes success. Because someone wasn't as smart as Steve Jobs, didn't work as hard as Steve Jobs, and wasn't willing to take risk like Steve Jobs, you think they should be rewarded with a free ride while Steve Jobs is punished with carrying the load for you millions of free loading parasites? Really?

It's no wonder liberal policy always ends with failure, collapse, and poverty...

I can guarantee that I have way more in common with Steve Jobs than you do you ******* moron. There comes a point when throwing more money at something doesn't create any further effect. (I thought that was a conservative cornerstone.) People are no more motivated to do what they do if you give them billions of dollars than if you gave them a hundred million.

So you want a law that would limit how much a person could earn? really?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm sure this will bounce off your thick skull the way it has every other time someone has attempted to explain it to you. This time rather than introducing you to concepts like logarithmic gaussian distribution or even simple bar graphs, I'll reiterate a very succinct statement made on this board (by whom I can't remember): The rich have all the money, who the **** do you think should pay the taxes?

You mean, the rich have all the money like the "1% owns 99% of the money" liberal LIE or the rich have all the money like the "1% earned 13% of the wealth" reality?

Here's the thing that you are incapable of grasping [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION] - only a ****'n moron rewards failure and punishes success. Because someone wasn't as smart as Steve Jobs, didn't work as hard as Steve Jobs, and wasn't willing to take risk like Steve Jobs, you think they should be rewarded with a free ride while Steve Jobs is punished with carrying the load for you millions of free loading parasites? Really?

It's no wonder liberal policy always ends with failure, collapse, and poverty...

I can guarantee that I have way more in common with Steve Jobs than you do you ******* moron. There comes a point when throwing more money at something doesn't create any further effect. (I thought that was a conservative cornerstone.) People are no more motivated to do what they do if you give them billions of dollars than if you gave them a hundred million.

That's the same type of argument which could be said about the "war on poverty". With all the billions and billions of dollars being thrown, there is no data to show that people are any more motivated to get themselves out of poverty.

 

[JoeNormal]

You mean, the rich have all the money like the "1% owns 99% of the money" liberal LIE or the rich have all the money like the "1% earned 13% of the wealth" reality?

Here's the thing that you are incapable of grasping [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION] - only a ****'n moron rewards failure and punishes success. Because someone wasn't as smart as Steve Jobs, didn't work as hard as Steve Jobs, and wasn't willing to take risk like Steve Jobs, you think they should be rewarded with a free ride while Steve Jobs is punished with carrying the load for you millions of free loading parasites? Really?

It's no wonder liberal policy always ends with failure, collapse, and poverty...

I can guarantee that I have way more in common with Steve Jobs than you do you ******* moron. There comes a point when throwing more money at something doesn't create any further effect. (I thought that was a conservative cornerstone.) People are no more motivated to do what they do if you give them billions of dollars than if you gave them a hundred million.

So you want a law that would limit how much a person could earn? really?

Not quite. I advocate a strongly progressive income tax (and similar capital gains tax) at least of the type that existed during the Reagan years - preferably the one that JFK put in place.

 

[JoeNormal]

You mean, the rich have all the money like the "1% owns 99% of the money" liberal LIE or the rich have all the money like the "1% earned 13% of the wealth" reality?

Here's the thing that you are incapable of grasping [MENTION=37583]JoeNormal[/MENTION] - only a ****'n moron rewards failure and punishes success. Because someone wasn't as smart as Steve Jobs, didn't work as hard as Steve Jobs, and wasn't willing to take risk like Steve Jobs, you think they should be rewarded with a free ride while Steve Jobs is punished with carrying the load for you millions of free loading parasites? Really?

It's no wonder liberal policy always ends with failure, collapse, and poverty...

I can guarantee that I have way more in common with Steve Jobs than you do you ******* moron. There comes a point when throwing more money at something doesn't create any further effect. (I thought that was a conservative cornerstone.) People are no more motivated to do what they do if you give them billions of dollars than if you gave them a hundred million.

That's the same type of argument which could be said about the "war on poverty". With all the billions and billions of dollars being thrown, there is no data to show that people are any more motivated to get themselves out of poverty.

What's a person to do when there's no job to be had and they don't own any land they can use to grow crops? Not saying that the government is handling it optimally - I would make people on assistance do something productive. Clean up freeways and inner cities, remove graffiti, whatever.

 

[Redfish]

I can guarantee that I have way more in common with Steve Jobs than you do you ******* moron. There comes a point when throwing more money at something doesn't create any further effect. (I thought that was a conservative cornerstone.) People are no more motivated to do what they do if you give them billions of dollars than if you gave them a hundred million.

So you want a law that would limit how much a person could earn? really?

Not quite. I advocate a strongly progressive income tax (and similar capital gains tax) at least of the type that existed during the Reagan years - preferably the one that JFK put in place.

Why? what exactly do you think that would accomplish? punishing the rich is not an acceptable answer.

How would taking more money from successful people and giving it to the government help the economy and make everyone better off?

But lets take your idea to its logical extreme. How about if the government takes 100% of everything earned by all citizens and then allocates it back out as it sees fit?

 

[JoeNormal]

People who have wealth pay sales taxes on what they spend, and pay property taxes on real estate they own, and pay fuel taxes on the gasoline they put in their cars or whatever. But it doesn't matter how much people own that determines how much income tax they pay. It matters how much their earn.

The liberals/statists/progressives/leftists/poltical class want to charge sky high income taxes on the rich because they have so much. But the net effect is simply to encourage the rich to a) not use their money because they'll be punished for it if they do or b) to take their money elsewhere to invest where the tax climate is friendlier.

In other words, the class envy group invariably cuts off their noses to spite their faces in their obsession with somehow taking down the rich.

How much more compassionate, productive, and reasonable would it be to encourage those rich as much as possible to use their money to start and grow businesses and hire people and give folks a chance to become rich? Or at least richer? And a uniform flat tax would accomplish just that.

Modern day American conservatives mostly think like that. But others simply can't put aside their envy, jealousy, and resentment of the rich long enough to see the forest amidst the trees.

It would be counterproductive for most of the people at the very top to help others start businesses. Those businesses would just compete with their own interests. Much more effective to create an environment where average people are afraid they might get axed and for the jobs that can be moved, find the lowest paid slave labor they can.

 

[JoeNormal]

So you want a law that would limit how much a person could earn? really?

Not quite. I advocate a strongly progressive income tax (and similar capital gains tax) at least of the type that existed during the Reagan years - preferably the one that JFK put in place.

Why? what exactly do you think that would accomplish? punishing the rich is not an acceptable answer.

How would taking more money from successful people and giving it to the government help the economy and make everyone better off?

But lets take your idea to its logical extreme. How about if the government takes 100% of everything earned by all citizens and then allocates it back out as it sees fit?

At the very least, it would provide the funds for government to provide the infrastructure and social support to keep the country running.

And let's not take it to the logical extreme. We never have before - not even when the top tax bracket was over 90%.

 

[Redfish]

Not quite. I advocate a strongly progressive income tax (and similar capital gains tax) at least of the type that existed during the Reagan years - preferably the one that JFK put in place.

Why? what exactly do you think that would accomplish? punishing the rich is not an acceptable answer.

How would taking more money from successful people and giving it to the government help the economy and make everyone better off?

But lets take your idea to its logical extreme. How about if the government takes 100% of everything earned by all citizens and then allocates it back out as it sees fit?

At the very least, it would provide the funds for government to provide the infrastructure and social support to keep the country running.

And let's not take it to the logical extreme. We never have before - not even when the top tax bracket was over 90%.

The government already has plenty of revenue. Do you think that private businesses, states, charities, and individuals cannot provide "social support" more efficiently than the government?

when the top bracket was 90%, no one paid that. There were thousands of deductions and exemptions so the rich actually paid less than they do now. Careful what you wish for.

I do agree that we have some infrastructure issues that need to be addressed. How about reallocating some funds from wasteful things like foreign aid and military bases in foreign countries and wasteful stupid wars, and using that money for roads and bridges,etc.

the problem is not that the govt is short of money, the problem is that the govt is wasting our money.

 

[auditor0007]

• The top 1% of the wealthy earn 13% of all income but pay 39% of all income taxes (that is 3x's as much taxes as their share of the income: 13x3=39)

• The top 5% pay an astounding 64% of all income taxes

• The top 20% —the “rich”—already pay 94.1% of income taxes

• The bottom 60% pay on net less than zero income taxes, once the tax credits the government pays them are taken into account

Top 1% earns 13% of the wealth but pays 39% of the taxes

Top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their 'fair' share?

Top 20% Paid 94.1% of Income Taxes in 2009

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

Boo hooo hooo, the rich pay all the federal income taxes. Boo hoo hoo. But they pay shit in state taxes and payroll taxes, and they really don't pay that high of a percentage in federal taxes because most of their earnings are from capital gains. Quit ignoring all other forms of taxation. Tell me why it is the same people you cry about paying all the income taxes are not paying their fair share of all other taxes. Got an answer?

Here is a much more realistic graph of who pays what when all taxes are taken into account. We do have more than one form of tax in this country. Obviously you are oblivious to that little bit of information.

Now go cry me a ******* river.

The numbers don't lie [MENTION=12997]auditor0007[/MENTION]. The top 1% earns 13% of the income but pays 39% of the taxes.

You people need to stop crying a ******* river, get up off your lazy asses, and go earn your own way through life.

Richest 1% earn biggest share since Roaring '20s

The gulf between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America is the widest it's been since the Roaring '20s.

The very wealthiest Americans earned more than 19 percent of the country's household income last year—their biggest share since 1928, the year before the stock market crash. And the top 10 percent captured a record 48.2 percent of total earnings last year.

U.S. income inequality has been growing for almost three decades. And it grew again last year, according to an analysis of Internal Revenue Service figures dating to 1913 by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics and Oxford University.

Richest 1% earn biggest share since Roaring '20s

You also miss the point that much of the top 1% income is not from wages and therefore not considered income. Last of all, when it comes to actual wealth, the numbers become staggering with the top 1% controlling over 40% of the wealth. The worst part of it is that the bottom 80% only control 7% of the wealth. If we want to discuss distribution of wealth, it is easy to see that the vast majority of the wealth lies in the hands of the very few.

What has happened over the past 40 years is not good in any way, regardless of how it happened.

The last chart should make anyone cringe.