The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax

reply to post by beezzer


As philosophy is not based on relativist ideology, but rather on logical study, a philosophical question doesn't appropriately have a relativist answer. There is such thing as a correct economic philosophical answer. Not all answers have equal epistemic merit.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


Your point of an insane debt culture in Washington D.C. begins with Regan ignores several points in order to make a point that is a mistake of fact. Washington D.C.'s insane debt culture actually began shortly after the creation of the "income tax", a fact you are willfully ignoring because you do not want to make it appear as if income taxes had anything to do with this ridiculous debt culture, but regardless of how you would like it to appear, it appears as if the insane debt culture began with the passing of the "income tax" in 1913.

You insist on ignoring facts and demand that everyone agree to your delusions. Ronald Regan did not make Congress reduce taxes. It matters not how zealous of an advocacy he gave to the strategy, in the end it was Congress and Congress alone who hold that authority and are the only ones that can change the tax structure. Whatever you think you saw, you did not see a President legislate an act to reduce taxes. That is for certain.

He established the practice, most business use debt as a means to recoup larger profit, debt is usually used to increase profits at a later time. It is an investment model that can work, if it is done responsibly. But increasing debt by 4 or five times the established rate is not sensible, it is wreck-less

I am quoting this because of its complete gibberish. "Recoup" by definition means to regain something that was lost and has no direct correlation to "larger profit". Regan did not establish the practice of incurring debt to expand business in the expectation of higher profits. That model was older than Regan then and even older now.

By delineating the national debt absurdity as being drawn when Regan presided as President is to argue that the exponential growth that preceded the Regan era was acceptable. I would suggest that the passage of the "income tax" was more than enough money to pay off the national debt back in 1913 and the revenue raised was enough to do it. Instead, year after year after year, the national debt increased. All of which seems to be perfectly fine with you until Regan was elected and then suddenly this exponential growth had gone to far and began with Regan!

Garbage in garbage out.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

The collectivist must always create straw men arguments in order to re-frame the argument. For the collectivist, individualism becomes translated into "everyman for himself" in order to create an appearance of chaos and anarchy. It is nothing more than sophistry.

I believe you miss my point. I believe the system should be fair rather than just benefit a few, is that what you call collectivism? "Too big to fail", really, isn't that what they told us? We cannot afford for the wealthy to fail. So only the small guy can fail and it be acceptable. Again, the system is supposed to be of the people and for the people, is that also collectivism? Shouldn't we balance the system, does it have to be all of one or the other?

reply to post by Skyfloating


The OP and the chart are both correct. Keep in mind that it is referencing income earners, which includes investors, capital gains from their investment, as well as profits reported from owning businesses outright. The overall tax burden on these people is significantly higher than on those who aren't as heavily invested. Not every wealthy person has all of their money stashed in offshore accounts and tax shelters because they are money grubbing, greedy criminals. Some play by the rules, even when it bites them in the rear. This chart proves that the entire "rich don't pay their fair share" meme is a myth, which I'm sure will bring out an entire host of leftist naysaying, just like it did in Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution.

reply to post by AQuestion


Dear AQuestion,

I suspect you are a collectivist because you keep pointing to all the crimes and misdemeanors perpetuated by government officials to dismiss the rule of law, and then disingenuously claim you want some system of fairness. If you cannot recognize the fairness in the rule of law, that fairness being that all people everywhere have the same rights and need no permission by anyone to exercise these rights and when charged with a "crime" by the state the rule of law demands that a presumption of innocence be held against the one charged. The rule of law demands that we "a jury of his peers" view government as suspect and the defendant as innocence until the state can prove otherwise. This is the actual system in place for anyone with the wherewithal to use the system in that fashion.

You want to point to "too big to fail" as being some sort of official government policy but I assure you it is not the official policy because if it were it would be a policy that flies in the face of long established anti-trust laws, but all government had to do was put a spokesperson or two in front of a television camera and declare that banks and other institutions were "too big to fail" and then let the ignorance of the people do their work. Now no one is concerned over who failed to enforce the established anti-trust laws and have a meaningful discussion on how we can make sure in the future these laws are enforced, instead the populace wants to whine about "too big to fail". "See? It's so unfair JPZ! Your pie in the sky idealism and philosophy has no meaning in the practical world".

Here is the reality of failure, it cannot even exist without success. What this means that if we are going to have an economic model - of which we do - based upon success and failure rates then it is observably so that no company is "too big to fail". The government bail-outs were just one more variation on the game of plunder that the "income tax" has facilitated. It's all about plunder, and when we plunder others we are necessarily abrogating and derogating their rights.

reply to post by Duamutef9


Mitt Romney paid ZERO income tax last year. He did however pay 15% of his capital gains as tax. I paid 30% of my INCOME as tax.

This whole fiasco completely ignores the fact that Capital gains and income are taxed differently and that while Mitt Romney made 20 million Dollars last year NONE OF IT IS CONSIDERED INCOME FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES.

It skews the results and makes the entire argument VOID.

It might also be due to the fact that the top 1% have spent the past two decades outsourcing middle income jobs to other countries therefore lowering the tax base while increasing their profits.

So their outsourcing has done this.

Lowered Wages for income earners in the US while increasing profits to the top 1%.


So the top 1% pays more taxes now than ever because they are making MORE MONEY THAN EVER.
So the Middle class and poor are paying less taxes than ever BECAUSE THEY ARE MAKING LESS MONEY THAN EVER.


Get it?, GOT IT? , GOOD!!!!

The top 1% should have to pay more taxes simply for the FACT that they have outsourced tens of millions of jobs in an attempt to drive down wages in this country. They also leave the borders wide open to drive down wages even further.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

The rule of law demands that we "a jury of his peers" view government as suspect and the defendant as innocence until the state can prove otherwise. This is the actual system in place for anyone with the wherewithal to use the system in that fashion.

The rule of law is no longer followed. Under the Patriot Act and the NDAA they can arrest you and not give you a trial. Yes, I keep talking about how the system has been corrupted because it has. If you really believe that we are all treated equal in court then you do not understand the system. During the OJ Simpson trial, his legal team managed to hire as many of the law students in the area as possible to investigate as many possible issues as possible, I could not afford to do that. Your chances of winning in court go up drastically if you can afford to pay more. By the way, we have now arrested a few judges for taking bribes or kickbacks in exchange for determining the outcome of cases.

The rich have something like 85% of the wealth, yet they only pay 70% of the taxes?? That sounds like they're cheating to me.

What I see here is linguistic confusion and/or equivocation by how some persons are using the term "in proportion" without sharing the same context and definition of the term: (1) in proportion based on absolute numbers (how much of their total income was payed in taxes), and (2) in proportion based on relative numbers (that is, relative to personal income). In political economics, the relative number is more meaningful for comparing taxation differentials among various economic groups.

While the top 10% may pay more in absolute numbers than others, what this chart fails to mention is that the proportion of this payed taxes to how much they have made (whether by deception, robbery, or earnings) is actually less than their fair share. In relative numbers, the very rich pay less than their fair share, and the middle class pays much more than their fair share. This is the economic problem. It is uneconomic to make people that can afford the least pay the most in proportion to (as a percentage of) their income.

It is important to keep in mind, as well, everyone pays sales taxes, even the unemployed and homeless, which means that the poor pay more than their fair share of sales taxes, because they spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on food expenses than others. If you want the unemployed to pay income tax, help them to get adequate work. That's the only fair way, not out of their welfare cheques, which would make no sense at all.

For me it's not who is paying too much or too little.

It is who could pay more and who needs to pay less.

If someone making 200k a year pays 2% more in taxes...are they going to go hungry or lose their house...probably not.

If someone making 15k a year pays 2% more in taxes...are they going to go hungry or lose their house....quite possible.


Comparitively...the damage done by increasing taxes on the "rich" is nothing compared to raising taxes on the poor.

reply to post by AQuestion

The rule of law is no longer followed.

If you are going to deal with me as an individual then you are going to have to follow the rule of law and just like any parent would say to their children, I will not tolerate pointing out any examples of other children who don't follow the rule of law. If you intend to argue that no individual can turn to U.S. government and expect the rule of law it is merely you transposing your own disregard for the rule of law.

We do not establish governments because lawfulness abounds, quite the contrary we establish government because lawlessness abounds! It is not government that has abandoned the rule of law it is people who have done so. It is people who have abdicated their own inherent political power in favor of a "democracy" and the belief that "representation" is more than enough to govern effectively that has created this lawlessness. It is your disingenuous affectation at helplessness typing as if you were shrugging your shoulders sadly to declare: "The rule of law is no longer followed", that contributes to this lawlessness. You certainly have the right to express your opinion, but trample upon the rights of some of the better informed members in this site and you will fast discover how much the rule of law is followed and how that will translate into dire consequences for you.

You continually use this sadly shrugging your shoulders in genuine helplessness despair and keep pointing to examples such as the cadre of lawyers it took to get an acquittal for O.J. Simpson as if that microcosmic case had anything at all to do with how the rule of law works, and indeed, that microcosm of a case does demonstrate how the rule of law works and how the presumption of innocence works, but you hope to diminish that example by making it a class distinction that only the wealthy can mount such a successful defense. Indeed, you clearly believe that you would need to spend a fortune on attorneys fees in order to see justice and seem to be perfectly okay with your own clear ignorance of the law unwilling to make any direct correlation between those two behavioral problems.

You may as well just point to all the corpses on the planet to show that life is no longer in vogue, otherwise why would so many living creatures keep dying?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

It is your disingenuous affectation at helplessness typing as if you were shrugging your shoulders sadly to declare: "The rule of law is no longer followed", that contributes to this lawlessness. You certainly have the right to express your opinion, but trample upon the rights of some of the better informed members in this site and you will fast discover how much the rule of law is followed and how that will translate into dire consequences for you.

How quick you are to put words in the mouth of others, clearly all knowledge begins and ends with you. I don't live in a fantasy world, I live in this one and the rule of law is no longer followed by the rich or the poor. Earlier you even disregarded Aristotle. Effective societies work together in cooperation. In order to return to the law, we need all to recognize that what we have currently is not working fairly or well. If you really think the nation is being run properly or even improving then we clearly disagree. You seek to blame those who have the least power or influence for the misuse by those who have the most.

Our society is failing because people only look out for themselves. You somehow believe it will improve if we become more selfish and less of a community working together, Heaven forbid we work together as then we would all be collectivists. My issue is one of corruption being tolerated and promoted, my issue is with privileged that is bought and not earned.

Both the housing bubble and the stock market crash were allowed to occur because a small group that was supposed to control these things found they could make more by letting them occur and they did not care about the effect it would have on society. Yes, many people lied on their loan applications and they deserve to pay the consequences; but, the system itself had become corrupt which allowed it to happen.

How many bankers were jailed for fraud because of the housing crisis and their actions? Recently, congress has been attempting to pass a law that would outlaw insider trading by congressman because it wasn't illegal before. You seem to think that everything is fine with the way the system is working. I think we can do better. Peace.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
They should pay more and entitlements should be reformed.

And there you have it!
Could have come straight from the Obama administration. The wealthy need to pay their "fair share". And 71% isn't fair enough yet.

I much prefer Balance and Obama seems to get it, while you repeat ideas that
have been failing for 30 years.

edit on 21-2-2012 by jacklondonmiller because: (no reason given)

Get what? he has racked up more debt than all previous presidents combined. Simple checkbook economics will tell you you can't spend more than you taker in and going back to the people carrying you already is just ruinous for our society. I'll tell you what doesn't work it's the form of socialism Obama adores. Ask the Greeks Russians, French if it works. You really need to educate yourself on the consequences, or just fire up another dube and forget about it

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller

 

Your point of an insane debt culture in Washington D.C. begins with Regan ignores several points in order to make a point that is a mistake of fact. Washington D.C.'s insane debt culture actually began shortly after the creation of the "income tax", a fact you are willfully ignoring because you do not want to make it appear as if income taxes had anything to do with this ridiculous debt culture, but regardless of how you would like it to appear, it appears as if the insane debt culture began with the passing of the "income tax" in 1913.

You are pivoting to the validity of the Income tax, why can't you stick to what we were dicussing

earlier? The previous spending to GDP was not insane, but I guess you are going to find a way

to twist the notions of insanity too.

In my opinion 40% secured debt to earnings operational costs is not insane, many companies take on

that amount of debt each year to build profit through investment.

Increasing that margin to 189% is insanity in the business world and in Government.

You insist on ignoring facts and demand that everyone agree to your delusions. Ronald Regan did not make Congress reduce taxes. It matters not how zealous of an advocacy he gave to the strategy, in the end it was Congress and Congress alone who hold that authority and are the only ones that can change the tax structure.

I suppose Hitler did not not kill 6 million Jews because he only talked about it, huh?

Congress enacted exactly what Regan preached, he signed the budgets, again, he

signed the budgets.

You sure can do some mental gymnastics over there.

Whatever you think you saw, you did not see a President legislate an act to reduce taxes.

That is for certain.

I saw a president push for a top down economic model and I saw a president who was able

to put his talk into action, at least the taxation half. What are you arguing anyways?

I am quoting this because of its complete gibberish. "Recoup" by definition means to regain something that was lost and has no direct correlation to "larger profit". Regan did not establish the practice of incurring debt to expand business in the expectation of higher profits. That model was older than Regan then and even older now.

Recoup means that government spends and does contribute their income to private endeavors,

through contracts and liabilities. Regan's fight against the USSR was exactly an exercise in taking

on debt to achieve profits at a later date. All the industrialized Soviet goods that stopped being

made after the fall of the USSR were fair game for US contractors and producers. You have your

entire mind inside a small cage. You forget that government and business are directly influenced by

one another for better or for worse. The US has invested Trillions in the American Private sector,

what planet are you living on?

If this investment remains steady, but the income is reduced, the debt ratio rise continue to rise,

that was a choice. Now that ratio is hopelessly out of balance because that fool and his Corporate

friends advertised a false dichotomy to Americans. Trickle down is the real garbage and that

is where this phase of insane debt modeling started. If you respond to this explain how a 40%

debt burden is comparable to 189%, if you have any decency in your argument, you will establish

your reasoning.

By delineating the national debt absurdity as being drawn when Regan presided as President is to argue that the exponential growth that preceded the Regan era was acceptable. I would suggest that the passage of the "income tax" was more than enough money to pay off the national debt back in 1913 and the revenue raised was enough to do it. Instead, year after year after year, the national debt increased. All of which seems to be perfectly fine with you until Regan was elected and then suddenly this exponential growth had gone to far and began with Regan!

Garbage in garbage out.

National debt increased as a form of investment, now wether or not that is wise or not,

I cannot say. Considering the mess that has been made in the last three decades maybe not.

But I also recognize that the US became the world super power in that time, due to that

investment, or theft of tax money, or whatever you'd like to call it. Very few companies can grow

past a certain point without spending to spur the growth. Being that everyone seems to enjoy

being richer as opposed to poorer I am not sure another path would have stood a chance.

Can't we agree with Ron Paul's stance on how the income tax should return to 0%?

Originally posted by MightyQuincunx
Sourced from the IRS??? Now that's reputable ::laughs:: I just found out that the government has never lied to us about anything. Source: The Easter Bunny & The Tooth Fairy

edit on 21-2-2012 by MightyQuincunx because: I needed to add one more reputable source.

This right here. I'm surprised a moderator of this site would be fooled by the very people ATS conspires about.

Click here for more information.