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

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by LErickson
What 10% is that and where did it come from?
Is this just toss out random number day?

Funny how they all just ignored this post. I guess political bias filters out whatever isn't convenient.

Seems like quite a few responded to it. I saw it. It was not in Poet's post though so how exactly are you narrowing down who he is speaking of again?
I am not really sure you understood the information supplied in that post anyway.
Do you understand the difference between effective and marginal?

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Im glad someone posted the data in this thread. The Top 1-10% earn something between 100 000 and 159 000. Not that much actually.

edit on 23-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

You really did not understand that chart at all did you? You think the top income in the US is $159,000 or do you not understand where the top 1% fall?

Originally posted by LErickson
You really did not understand that chart at all did you? You think the top income in the US is $159,000 or do you not understand where the top 1% fall?

Have you noticed that this thread is not about the Top 1%, its about the top 10%?

reply to post by Skyfloating

Im glad someone posted the data in this thread. The Top 1-10% earn something between 100 000 and 159 000. Not that much actually.

You just quoted this,

Top 1%: $380,354

Top 5%: $159,619

Top 10%: $113,799

Didn't this answer the OP though yesterday on pg 5?

The top 10% earned 45.77% of the income, but paid 69.94% of all income taxes.

Issue settled on pg 5 yet working on pg 29 of topical(?) material?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


The top 10% make 113 000. I wasnt aware of how much they make and was surprised to read that. I wouldnt consider them rich and I'd have to consider myself part of the 10%.

I avoid talking about the 1% because they are not the focus of this thread, even though many try to focus on them exclusively.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by LErickson
You really did not understand that chart at all did you? You think the top income in the US is $159,000 or do you not understand where the top 1% fall?

Have you noticed that this thread is not about the Top 1%, its about the top 10%?

Yes.
Unfortunately that does not mean every number included in a post must be 10%.

Besides, you cannot even keep your numbers straight so how about just giving me a straight answer?
I know what that post said. I know what the thread is about.
Need I ask it a third time before you get around to actually answering?

See, the thing is that most of your posts in this thread read like hokey prepared remarks. I am actually asking you to explain something you write and it sure is causing you trouble.

Why so defensive?

Originally posted by SavedOne
Top 1%........23.3%
Top 5%........20.7%
Top 10%......18.7%
Top 25%......15.7%
Top 50%......13.6%
Bottom 50%...2.6%

Now I would dearly love to pay 2.6% in taxes, that would actually leave me with some money that I could buy things with. But no, between college costs for my kids, ongoing bills, and the constant fleecing we "rich people" receive at the whims of the government I'm left with barely enough extra to set aside for a future retirement that I'll probably never be able to afford.

This is pretty much the problem right here. You suggest being in the bottom 50% is something to be envied for their tax liability. Nevermind they do not have homes, cars, get medical care, or afford to even eat halfway decently. No one is stopping anyone from making less money. If it is really so awesome to be poor, just do it.
It is a hell of a lot easier to just decide to be poor than to decide to be rich.
Why are none of you whiners doing it?
Paying 2.6% sounds awesome. So does eating out of dumpsters. No salestax!

reply to post by Skyfloating

The top 10% make 113 000. I wasnt aware of how much they make and was surprised to read that. I wouldnt consider them rich and I'd have to consider myself part of the 10%.

NO NO NO!!!! Top 10% make 113,000 and UP UP UP! Not between 113,000 and 159,000 as you stated. On the OP I agree with you but that statement is not true and you ignored the point about this issue being settled yesterday by Schuyler.

reply to post by Skyfloating


The problem with that link is that the IRS site does not provide data for Effective Rates so how are they achieving their numbers? I posted the 2009 numbers right off the IRS site which I believe is the same numbers your linked chart used to base their claim and it is waaaaaaaaay off.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by LErickson
You really did not understand that chart at all did you? You think the top income in the US is $159,000 or do you not understand where the top 1% fall?

Have you noticed that this thread is not about the Top 1%, its about the top 10%?

You have to understand that it's their only talking point.

They walk around like drones saying the same monotone talking point over and over.

"We are the 99%."

The simple truth is that the richest 10% pay about 70% of the income taxes.

All reasonable Americans can see that they pay more than their fair share in taxes.

reply to post by Kali74


The chart in the OP is 2006 from the Heritage Foundation. On what basis do you claim their numbers to be way off as the numbers you posted are inconceivable?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


so this has become a matter of semantics and you guys are for raising taxes on the top 1% then?
im not understanding how this is relevant to the core of the argument
or is the spirit of an argument less important than its literal wording because it seems like most people are talking about the top 1% and this is very clear regardless of the wording

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Right because everyone who disagrees with faulty math is a liberal occupier? Kindly remove your generalizations. Please tell me how it's possible for (based on the top 10% starting at 113K income which is taxed at 28%) 314,498,418 to equal 71% of 953,407,786?

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

so this has become a matter of semantics and you guys are for raising taxes on the top 1% then?
im not understanding how this is relevant to the core of the argument
or is the spirit of an argument less important than its literal wording because it seems like most people are talking about the top 1% and this is very clear regardless of the wording

edit on 23-2-2012 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

If you read the title of the thread, it says the Top 10%.

In other words clearly the rich pay their fair share.

In addition to income taxes, they also pay property taxes.
---------

The whole argument about the 1% is just a tool in the Marxist toolbox.

That's what Occupy Wall Street was all about.

It's simply class warfare. Make the poor envious of the rich.

Always remember Socialism = Gospel of Envy.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Right because everyone who disagrees with faulty math is a liberal occupier? Kindly remove your generalizations. Please tell me how it's possible for (based on the top 10% starting at 113K income which is taxed at 28%) 314,498,418 to equal 71% of 953,407,786?

Your argument has no legs.

Clearly the richest 10% pay their fair share in taxes. That is the purpose of this thread.

In addition to the income taxes, they also pay sky high property taxes.

Stop trying to punish success. That's the fatal mistake Greece made.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012


If you read the title of the thread, it says the Top 10%.

In other words clearly the rich pay their fair share.

Did Mitt Romney pay his fair share?
Explain fair share.

In addition to income taxes, they also pay property taxes.

They do? Those poor bastards. No one else has to pay property taxes. How unfair. Oh wait, the rest of us pay property taxes too.

---------

The whole argument about the 1% is just a tool in the Marxist toolbox.

That's what Occupy Wall Street was all about.

It's simply class warfare. Make the poor envious of the rich.

Always remember Socialism = Gospel of Envy.

Whenever I see the word Marxist just loosely tossed onto a pile of rubbish I realize my error was in taking it seriously.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Hmm I thought it was 2009 but still, things didn't change that dramatically in 3 years.
Should I post the 2006 data?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Your argument has no legs.

You have no argument.

Clearly the richest 10% pay their fair share in taxes. That is the purpose of this thread.

Do the math. Show your work. Not one of you that is so worried about the poor rich has been willing to plug in some actual numbers. Why is that?

In addition to the income taxes, they also pay sky high property taxes.

Stop trying to punish success. That's the fatal mistake Greece made.

That is just stupid to think only rich people pay property taxes. Where the hell did you get that?
Do you even have a clue what kinds of taxes a good rich person's accountant gets them out of paying that most middle class people always have to pay?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
You have to understand that it's their only talking point.

They walk around like drones saying the same monotone talking point over and over.

"We are the 99%."

Quote one person in this thread saying that.
Just one.

The simple truth is that the richest 10% pay about 70% of the income taxes.

With back up can you show exactly what percentage of taxes they pay and what percentage of wealth they hold?
Then can you define fair?

It seems like all you have is talking points. There is not substance to your posts. Where are the numbers you bandy about from?

All reasonable Americans can see that they pay more than their fair share in taxes.

How so?
When I pay more of what I earn in taxes than someone who makes more than me how is it fair?

Mitt Romney paid about 13% in taxes. I paid way more than that. How about you?
Tell me how that is fair.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Hmm I thought it was 2009 but still, things didn't change that dramatically in 3 years.
Should I post the 2006 data?

2006 you can check it. I would like to see some figures that add up from both sides.