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

reply to post by Kali74


That's why Schuyler's data is more accurate, as it's categorized by returns. With your method you need to find out how much of each bracket to attribute to higher incomes.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Oh it happened, sport. You openly admitted you had no clue as to what I was talking about, but it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I am saying. Simple math will do.

I said quote me.
I see no quote.

Is your argument so weak that lies and personal attacks are all you have left?

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

Originally posted by Skyfloating
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.

$113,000 is top tier? That is not the top 10% that is BS. Thats the near average for middle class America E.G. Husband and Wife filing jointly. If they have kids they are not payng very much tax at all!

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

en.wikipedia.org...

actually pretty high for your average husband and wife filing jointly
113k is in the top 10%
theyre far far far closer to us than the million/billionaires
income inequality
its one thing to work for and earn your money its an entirely different thing to force yourself in as a middleman and rig the game in favor of you and your company

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Actually it was I posted the returns numbers for 2009 in one post and then when I posted the 2006 data I didn't post the returns. I don't see the need to, the number of returns doesn't change the tax dollars generated per bracket.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Oh it happened, sport. You openly admitted you had no clue as to what I was talking about, but it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what I am saying. Simple math will do.

I said quote me.
I see no quote.

Is your argument so weak that lies and personal attacks are all you have left?

Do you seriously believe you can distract me into believing that my argument is how clueless you are? If you want to go around talking to people about their tax liability it would behoove you to actually know they are liable to begin with. Someone with a clue would understand that. Simple math really.

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Kali74

 

Easy tiger. I'm not saying that they are backing Obama. I'm saying that they are regrouping to focus on politics and the election. Why are Occupiers showing up at GOP events? They have there eyes on the 2012 election.

Enjoy the reading. This is just the tip of the iceberg

allianceforajustsociety.org...

The Occupiers are failing miserably.

They work outside the system.

The Tea Party on the other hand works inside the system and it's working.

- November 2010 Election -

Obama called it a shellacking.

The tea party succeeded because they took the situation Bush set up and turned it into lemonade.

That is the Conservative M.O, enter the government, mess it up from the inside because it falls
right in line with what they want.

(after destroying the economy via their efforts) "See! I told you, the government is bad!!!"

Oh look here ->

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

Eurisko LOOK

See that???

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Do you seriously believe you can distract me into believing that my argument is how clueless you are?

As if that were even close to anything I have said.
You started with my saying I have admitted that I am clueless.
I never stated any such thing.
Is this really the game you want to play? Can you not discuss the topic?
This is schoolyard bullcrap. You cannot even discuss like an adult, instead you start off by telling me that I am running around bragging about my own cluelessness.

Again, if you have to make crap up then you obviously have no argument. If what you have to make up is this stupid then I have no idea what you think you are getting at.

What I do know though is you have no refutation or rebuttal for the on topic things I have written so all you can do is make things up about what I posted.

If you want to go around talking to people about their tax liability it would behoove you to actually know they are liable to begin with. Someone with a clue would understand that. Simple math really.

I never disputed anything about tax liabilities. You are obviously responding to something someone else wrote. That right there seems pretty clueless to me. How about you find the poster that was discussing liabilities with you and send your schoolyard mockery that way.

reply to post by Kali74


The brackets do not indicate who that money is from. Interpretation is required with your method. Again this info is attributed to the IRS

Top 10%: 13,996,068 returns paid $721,421mil for 45.77% AGI for 69.94% of taxes

Can you disprove this rather than create doubt with inconclusive material? I am flat broke, have no affinity for the rich nor disdain for the poor.

reply to post by Kali74


Their claim is accurate in comparison to the graph presented.

Two things to keep in mind though:
1) The graph is for taxes paid, so we are talking absolute dollars.
2) The graph only pertains to Federal Taxes.

In terms of absolute dollars, I am actually shocked that it is that low, based on the media reports we get in Canada.

I am guessing that the graph would change quite a bit if all tax levels were included (State, Municipal, etc.), but that would be a monumental task.

reply to post by LErickson

Jean Paul Zodeaux and LErickson....shut the hell up all youre doing right now is making noise
youre both extremely intelligent and probably two of the more similar posters here that are actually taking issue
this is a complete waste
turn your efforts to the chuckleheads who you REALLY disagree with

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by LErickson

 

Jean Paul Zodeaux and LErickson....shut the hell up all youre doing right now is making noise
youre both extremely intelligent and probably two of the more similar posters here that are actually taking issue
this is a complete waste
turn your efforts to the chuckleheads who you REALLY disagree with

I agree it is nothing but noise and I am really surprised at where it came from. That said, I actually wanted a conversation and that was just ridiculous so I will leave this for the echo chamber for now. I am going to spend my day working and feeling bad for poor sky and all her money.


Let me just leave this question one more time.
Why do poor people try to be rich but I do not see rich people trying to be poor?
If being rich is such a burden, it is easily fixed. Why whine and bitch? Give away your money and shut up!

reply to post by LErickson

I never disputed anything about tax liabilities. You are obviously responding to something someone else wrote. That right there seems pretty clueless to me. How about you find the poster that was discussing liabilities with you and send your schoolyard mockery that way.

No sport, I was originally in a discussion with OutKast when you decided to smarmily interject with your snide sarcasm that was all about presumption of liability. You made some stupid claim that you were "with me" when you clearly had no idea what I am talking about and it is clear you remain clueless still.

It was your mistake to single me out to spout your nonsensical sarcasm. I have maintained from since I entered this thread that it makes little difference who owes what until we can reasonably determine who actually owes the tax. The discussion I had with OutKast was over someone else claiming their overtime taxes make it not worth working overtime. OutKast disagreed with that and I entered that discussion to share my experience of it when I was stupidly employed with a company that insisted I authorize them to act as a fiat tax collector. It was a specific discussion regarding specific facts, and like a gleeful ignoramus you jumped in and began yammering on about 50% of a million blah blah blah.

Your insane hypothetical of 50% taxes on a million dollars had nothing to do with my job and if I were ever on track to make a million a year at that job I would still be working there. I would have never made a million dollars a year no matter how much overtime I put in, and the ceiling appeared to be at around $2,000 gross $1,1000 after taxes. $55k a year is not nearly enough money to demand 70 hours a week. It is that simple. Now close to 100 grand might be worth it, but that would mean keeping employers from withholding pay. In the end, I have determined that it is best I no longer work for employers and just simply work for myself.

So, how much I may or may not owe, what percentages are involved has no meaning until liability has been well established. That has been my argument all along, and your cluelessness is not my argument nor my problem.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Your contributions to this article are off of the topic.

The premise of the original article accepts the fact that

income tax occurs in this country. This article is about the

specific and ratios of that tax and how they apply to the

highest tax brackets. You are disrupting the discussion by

injecting a caveat that has been the subject of debate for 99

years already. In effect you blocking the real thrust of the

discussion which is that wealthy people pay enough taxes.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller


Your presumption that I do not accept the fact that income tax occurs in this country is off base. I have never once argued that there is no income tax. All I am saying is that this thing we call "income" tax has to have a subject. We have to know the subject of this tax before we can have any intelligent discussion about this tax.
I have said it before, I will say it again, any fool can pay a tax on "income" without question or concern. It takes much more critical thought to get to the subject of that tax. You may believe this thread was not intended to invite critical thought, but if you do, I believe you are mistaken.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


baby steps
you arent doing anybody any favors tossing them into the deep end
the fact is most people dont know what the hell youre on about even
not your problem? i respectfully disagree as does your frustration
youve pretty much lost anybody that didnt already agree with you and are alienating the ones who do

reply to post by Skyfloating

Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048

See the problem with looking at this, is that there are way more peeps in the 50% bracket.
If 50*$33,048 creates a much larger number of $380,354.
Then again I'm looking as the percent groups as a whole, not individual people.

I think richer people pay more in dollar, and poor people pay more in percentage.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


It's not inconclusive material it's right of the IRS website. I don't hate the rich either, I want true information and I don't believe the claim is true so I put forth why I don't think it is.

The top 10% filed 18,283,473 returns, generating $483,086,092 Tax dollars for 45% of Federal Taxes in 2006.

I can see a huge discrepancy between mine and the post you linked even though the data is separated by 4 years it doesn't seem right. I'm not sure what is wrong. As I've said before, I'm not great with math. I'm just taking the data provided and adding it up like it seems I'm supposed to.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

baby steps
you arent doing anybody any favors tossing them into the deep end
the fact is most people dont know what the hell youre on about even
not your problem? i respectfully disagree as does your frustration
youve pretty much lost anybody that didnt already agree with you and are alienating the ones who do

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

That is the beauty of the rule of law. It doesn't require agreement. Law does not need a democracy to agree upon it. It is not as if the truth needs agreement either. I am not selling anything. I am speaking to the truth as best I know how. If you want to be alienated by my efforts that is your prerogative.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller

 

Your presumption that I do not accept the fact that income tax occurs in this country is off base. I have never once argued that there is no income tax. All I am saying is that this thing we call "income" tax has to have a subject. We have to know the subject of this tax before we can have any intelligent discussion about this tax.
I have said it before, I will say it again, any fool can pay a tax on "income" without question or concern. It takes much more critical thought to get to the subject of that tax. You may believe this thread was not intended to invite critical thought, but if you do, I believe you are mistaken.

OK

For fools who believe that the tax is valid and for those who pay it,

there is debate about how much people should pay. My position

is that this country did not have a severe budgetary crisis prior

to the nearly

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
My position is that this country did not have a severe budgetary crisis prior to the nearly