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

Originally posted by Jiggyfly
Not this junk again......
If someone makes 40,000 and pays 20%, they pay 8,000 in taxes.
If someone makes 1,000,000 and pays 10%, they pay 100,000 in taxes.
If someone makes 1,000,000,000 and pays 5%, they pay 500,000.

Not this junk again ...
You are dead wrong.
READ THE THREAD.

Income tax rates on wages

$0 - $8,500 income tax rate is 10%
8,500 - 34,500 income tax rate is 15%
$34,500 - $83,600 income tax rate is 25%
$83,600 - $174,400 income tax rate is 28%
$174,400 - $379,140 income tax rate is 33%
$379,140 and up income tax rate is 35%

Investment income is different and is taxed at 15%
It's done that way as a REWARD for those who invest in our economy and who create jobs.

too much is kinda like failing 5th grade math..

Yep .. I'd say you did.

Originally posted by MidnightTide
I notice how some people only look at the rich, how about those who sit on the government dime. Why do they get a free pass? Sure, make the rich pay more, then lets make those who are dependent on the government start paying their share.

No they shouldn't have to pay more, but they shouldn't have to pay any less either. The wealthy income to tax ratio should at minimum be equal to the middle-class instead of lower.

Also keep in mind even using an equal income (income to tax ratio ) the middle class has a higher likely-hood of still getting the bad end of the stick. If you are barely above poverty and you have to give 30% of your income away you will feel the pain but if you are extremely wealthy and way beyond the poverty line and give 30% of your income you will be ok.

Bottom line the only way to keep it fair is to use (income to tax ratio ) across the middle class and the rich. The wealthy at bare minimum should have the same (income to tax ratio ) as the middle class. Today the (income to tax ratio ) is hugely disproportional and the middle class DOES pay more because they pay 30%-40% of their income while the wealthy pay 0-15%

see my previous post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

More here


www.globalresearch.ca...

To further demonstrate how the mega-wealthy have seized control our political process, consider that the richest 400 Americans paid 30% of their income in taxes in 1995, but they now pay only 18% [59].

In fact, 1,470 Americans [60] earned over $1 million in 2009 and didn’t pay any taxes.

The average tax rate for millionaires was 22.4% in 2009, down from 30.4% in 1995. The average millionaire saves $136,000 [61] a year due to reduced tax rates.

Looking at the tax rate from a long-term perspective, the amount of money the richest people and most profitable corporations pay in taxes has fallen dramatically since 1955. Corporate tax accounted for 27.3% of federal revenue in 1955. In 2010, corporate tax accounted for only 8.9% [62] of federal revenue. Corporate taxes accounted for 4.3% of overall GDP in 1955, in 2010 they accounted for only 1.3% [62].


More links and info at the above url

Originally posted by Laokin

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.

To the OP, nice.
Simple, clear and to the point.

It's not, it's clearly misleading. They pay more money, because they make more, but they pay a smaller percentage out of the money they earn than the rest of us.


It just so happens that if you make more money a lower % ends up being a higher figure. This is how math works.

A simple example.

10% of 100 is 10.

10% of 200 is 20.

That means, 5% of 400 is also 20.

This means 5% of 800 is 40.


So if you make $800 and I make $100 and you pay 5%($40) and I pay 10%($10), you contribute more money, even though I paid in more money on what I earned than you who made 8x what I did.

This is not fair, especially once you consider the fact that those with the $800 have more to spare, and those with the one hundred can barely live, yet the ones with the $100 have to pay more on that $100, even though they can't really afford to.

The OPs Figure of 71% is the total amount of taxes paid, NOT the percentage of what they pay on what they earn.

It's really quite simple. If you don't do it this way, the finite amount of resources gets consolidated into the hands of the wealthy and the government, leaving the rest of the country broke, amongst a myriad of other scams living along side of the tax codes and exemptions for those with power money.

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

Excellent response. What is there to dispute after this accurate answer? There must be a lot of billionaires on this forum for the amount of gnashing teeth when it comes to everyone paying their fair share.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
the damage done by increasing taxes on the "rich" is nothing compared to raising taxes on the poor.

This is a generalization. It really depends. Some poor get ambitious and grow $100 stronger if you raise their taxes by $5. Some middle class get discouraged and grow $100 poorer if you increase their taxes by $5.

We need to stop throwing around political slogans and look into this more deeply.

I don't subscribe to the thinking that taxes have an effect on people's motivation to make more or less money. I also don't believe taxes have anything to do with hiring employees.

There is no example that can be provided that demonstrates that making more money will actually net you less money due to taxes. Even if you jump to a new "tax bracket"...only the money made above that threshold is taxed at the higher rate...not the entire income.

The motivation to make more money comes from a variety of factors...but taxes are not one of them. There are also a variety of reasons that people decide to stop trying to make more money....they may say it's because of taxes, but their logic is flawed because like I said above, there is no situation where you net less money by making more due to taxes.


When talking about tax policy...you absolutely must generalize to determine what group in general is able to handle the higher tax burden the best.

reply to post by wcrockett


so their "savings" is close to the average annual income of 3 households ...interesting

There is a story in the Bible where a little old lady was blessed by Jesus because she contributed only "two mites", which turns out, was all she had.

Yep. Looks like that's what they would love the middle class to do. Contribute all they have.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jiggyfly
Not this junk again......
If someone makes 40,000 and pays 20%, they pay 8,000 in taxes.
If someone makes 1,000,000 and pays 10%, they pay 100,000 in taxes.
If someone makes 1,000,000,000 and pays 5%, they pay 500,000.

Not this junk again ...
You are dead wrong.
READ THE THREAD.

Income tax rates on wages

$0 - $8,500 income tax rate is 10%
8,500 - 34,500 income tax rate is 15%
$34,500 - $83,600 income tax rate is 25%
$83,600 - $174,400 income tax rate is 28%
$174,400 - $379,140 income tax rate is 33%
$379,140 and up income tax rate is 35%

Investment income is different and is taxed at 15%
It's done that way as a REWARD for those who invest in our economy and who create jobs.

too much is kinda like failing 5th grade math..

Yep .. I'd say you did.

UK tax rates here
www.hmrc.gov.uk...

reply to post by sirhumperdink


I am aware of that...

reply to post by FlyersFan

Someone earns $150 .... the state takes away $100 and leaves them $50.
Someone earns $75 ... the state takes away $25 and leaves them $50.

What motivation is left for the person who earns $150 Why bother working harder or investing smarter if the state is just going to come along and take it anyways?

Except this example you gave will never happen with the US tax system.

So it is dishonest to use examples like this to argue against the system because the example doesn't accurately portray the system.

Statistics can be tricky to read and understand.
Personally I would argue that all this number reflects is how wealth is divided in the US - clearly few have a lot and most have only a little. The fact that some pay a larger % in tax does not reflect the total amount earned or paid by neither of the two, only that some have more than others.
I doubt that this inequality has anything to do with some people working harder than others, but rather is the result of an imbalanced system.

Either way, I don't think anyone needs to worry on behalf of the top 10% income earners in the US.

Life isn't fair. Many economic problems trace their roots to people trying to force life to be fair.

Either accept it and aim to be a success, or wallow in your own self pity in some effluent-ridden tent outside "Occupy TheLocalDollarStore" while complaining about how "it's... like... the rich man... yeah they're... like... keeping us down, man... it's all the Man, man...". It's not The Man keeping anyone down, it's the fact that the poor downtrodden "victim" is sitting around waiting for someone else to make life "fair" for them.

The world is full of rags-to-riches stories involving people who took major knocks in their life but got on with fighting and rebuilding, instead of waiting for the "fairness fairy" to sprinkle their magic money dust everywhere.

The rich don't need to pay more. The pretend poor need to get off their backsides and pay for their own alcohol and drugs so the money can be spent on the genuine poor who really need the help. The problem is the amount of money going out, not the amount coming in.

Originally posted by Laokin
Name a super rich guy that doesn't think he's better than you....

Well, he's super-rich and you're not. I find myself rather inclined to agree with his point of view.

Poor Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff -
Killed from paying too much taxes!

No, they aren't the exception. The very rich in the US do it the old fashioned way - they steal it. They outsource jobs to other countries to avoid paying decent wages to US workers while still reaping the profits and simultaneously avoiding taxes. They lobby (BRIBE) public officials to have legislation passed that protects their money while emptying someone else's pockets for the bill (like TARP).
They are also enriching themselves by naked short selling and betting against such things as commodities, treasury rates, etc while being in a position to know beforehand these same things will fall in value due to their insider contacts.

Many others have shown how the 10% pay less in taxes but there's more; the 10% are often paid in ways that are taxed very little if at all through compensation packages. Like the big bankers who only make a measly $20 million a year but also get deferred stock options, personal jets and limousines, company vacation homes, gold plated toilets, etc often worth many times the salary they receive.

You still think it's somehow fair? Can YOU get 10 minutes with your Congressman anytime you need them? They can (not the 10% but the .01%)

They are rich because they're smarter than the rest; I know many PhD College professors who are probably much more intelligent than the very rich yet they remain solidly middle class. The rich are smart alright, smarter at gaming the system. And maybe that is the heart of this issue - that many of us feel money is a game and if we bend or break the rules it's alright so long as you don't get punished for it.

I would argue that the wealth gap in the US is symptomatic of the decline of ethical and moral behaviors. Money and financial success are the the new religion and US foreign policy has become enslaved to corporate dictation.

It would be remiss if no-one were to mention the concept of the commons and how the wealthy profit from it. Originally named for the town square where visiting farmers could keep their livestock while they traded in town the commons grew to mean anything for public use that is provided through government. Roads, water and sewage systems, public lands, port facilities, publicly subsidized railroads - these are all things that businesses use to conduct commerce and therefore benefit from. Those who use them the most and benefit the most should also pay the most for their upkeep, another valid reason for the rich to pay more in taxes

Just my 2 cents Sky, this is quite the discussion you've generated.
This is a very important issue we should all be well informed on.

reply to post by FlyersFan


right because they need a reward or incentive to invest in a company that seems like it will produce profits....
i could see this argument if they were doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but theyre investing ONLY because they think its going to bring them profits
if investments were taxed at 20% or even 30% would you choose not to invest in a company that seems like a sure thing (which is what these guys are doing... usually with insider information)
it also doesnt change the risk involved if i invest in a failing company

i really dont see how this is incentive to invest
please explain "flyersfan"

....man i feel dirty just responding

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


oh i know you are
but not everybody is
or not everybody has it in mind all the time

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I found a chart sourced from the IRS that shows how the top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax. This is pretty interesting because it would mean that all those calls that the rich should pay more taxes or that they dont pay enough taxes are wrong. The 10%ers seem to be paying plenty of taxes.

Thoughts?

Yeah, they also hold 90% of the wealth. So yeah, they should pay 90% of taxes.

Originally posted by Jiggyfly
Not this junk again......

If someone makes 40,000 and pays 20%, they pay 8,000 in taxes.

If someone makes 1,000,000 and pays 10%, they pay 100,000 in taxes.

If someone makes 1,000,000,000 and pays 5%, they pay 500,000.

This has been explained numerous times in this thread. So I understand why you preface it with "not this junk again".

Do you know why tax payments are preferrably counted in percentages and not amounts?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Except this example you gave will never happen with the US tax system. So it is dishonest to use examples like this to argue against the system because the example doesn't accurately portray the system.

No. There is nothing 'dishonest' about it. The point is .. this is EXACTLY what people who scream 'MAKE THEM PAY MORE' are trying to do. They want the whole thing flattened out. You say it would 'never happen'. But yes, if the people here got their way that is exactly what would happen.

Originally posted by nuclear12346
. These people don't add anything to the economy by holding massive amounts of money in overseas accouns that are taxed at lower rates.

This applies to 10% of the population?
Thats news to me.