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

reply to post by poet1b

Children don't have to file taxes to be considered income earners subject to tax.

Would they not have to file a separate return in order to have an effect on the total number of returns from which "top 10%" is derived? This is one of the reasons I asked you specific questions that you chose to avoid. Can you answer that question?

ETA: Remember top 10% is based on AGI. To have AGI you must file a return.
Kiplingers
Are they bogus too?

reply to post by poet1b


If that were true the IRS would have recorded 311,591,917 tax returns in 2011.

That is the population of the United States.

The filed 150million or so returns.

Which falls right in line with the US's total labour force minus those in the labour force that made no income at all.

reply to post by poet1b

It is really sad when large number of people have become convinced that greed is good.

Doing whatever to get what you want should not be considered a good thing.

What is really sad is when people can't admit that the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax collected. What's the problem with that? It's sad that you equate conceding that fact with being convinced that greed is good. Greed is evil and so is envy. At least greed involves some effort where E = G/L. Envy equals greed divided (diminished) by lazy. All three are evil. How do any of you "rich haters" expect to get anywhere denying obvious facts. Acknowledging the truth of the matter should be the first step toward any resolution of this massively inequitable "distribution" of income. How we've come to this point is for another thread. If someone starts it I'll see you there.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
What is really sad is when people can't admit that the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax collected.

Why is it that none of you can show that in 39 pages without trying to muck it up? Refer directly to the OP who tries to use that to claim they are paying over 50% of their worth.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
What is really sad is when people can't admit that the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax collected.

Why is it that none of you can show that in 39 pages without trying to muck it up? Refer directly to the OP who tries to use that to claim they are paying over 50% of their worth.

edit on 24-2-2012 by LErickson because: (no reason given)

It has been clearly shown many times, many ways. Who is trying to muck it up? What do you mean? I've read the OP, don't see the paying over 50% of their worth thing. Could you post a quote to show that. There's over 38 pages here, mostly just an opinion hydrant with a few facts. I would like to see that quote as I couldn't let a claim like that go unchecked.

reply to post by poet1b

What is reported as tax returns is all taxable incomes. I provided a link with that info, see above. Children don't have to file taxes to be considered income earners subject to tax. Their income is report by the banks.

Poet my brother, that link you provided was from the IRS. The IRS only has jurisdiction over "taxpayers" so anything they state on their website is in regards to "taxpayers". You are correct that what is reported upon a "valid tax return" is "taxable income" because that is what the tax has been imposed upon: Taxable Income:

26 USC § 1 - Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

~26 USC Section 1 (In Part)~

The question now becomes; what is taxable income?

26 USC § 63 - Taxable income defined

(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions

In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—

www.law.cornell.edu...

So, depending upon how one is filing, "taxable income" means either "gross income" or "adjusted gross income", but now we are not only left with the question of what these two new terms mean, we are also left with the question of why "taxable income" seems to be only in regard to those filing? If one wants to know if they are liable, wouldn't they turn to Section 1 that clearly states "tax imposed" to find out? Yet, doesn't section 1 and the subsequent definition only seem to be in regards to people who have all ready been made liable? If one is not all ready liable, why would they be filing?

That question notwithstanding, let's look at "gross income" defined:

(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

~26 USC Section 61 (In Part)

What follows is an itemization of 15 various opportunities of earning income. Now, most people who have bothered to look at the actual tax code (which generally means "tax attorneys" and "tax accountants" and "tax collectors") will insist that Section 61 of the tax code is what makes "everyone who earns income" liable for this tax, but that is demonstrably not so, since Section 61 is simply a definition of what "taxable income" means.

Insisting that the definition of the word "taxable income" is the same section that imposed a tax is tantamount to arguing that horses are large hoofed mammals therefore all large hoofed mammals are horses. Thus, for the purposes of filing all zebras, elephants and gazelles will be known as "horses". For the purposes of who is liable for this tax, however, we will not call them "horses". So what do we call them? Let's first look at "gross income" defined

(a) General rule For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions:

(1) Trade and business deductions The deductions allowed by this chapter (other than by part VII of this subchapter) which are attributable to a trade or business carried on by the taxpayer, if such trade or business does not consist of the performance of services by the taxpayer as an employee.

(In Part Emphasis Added)

Nope, not a horse, but rather a "taxpayer":

(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

So, there you have it! Pretty easy to understand, no? First, to determine liability, you turn to Section 1 that tells you a tax is imposed upon "taxable income", then we discover that this means either "gross income'" or "adjusted gross income", and through this we discover that people who earn "gross" or "adjusted gross income" are "taxpayers"...wait...who's on first? That's right. Who's on first? Yes. What's the name of the guy on first? Oh, he's on second.

What's a horse? A horse is horse, of course of course!

If anything, even if we ended up paying the same in taxes, I would love to see the flat tax system...you made xxx gross you pay 5%, you made xxx gross you pay 10% and so on. At least this way EVERTHING would be simple and above the board in who paid or didn't pay. But then about 1/2 a million unemployment would be added with all the people not needed anymore in the tax business.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What's the name of the guy on first?

It's half man, half bear and half pig. Is that so hard to understand?

What's a topic for anyway. Resume quilting.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

What's the name of the guy on first?

It's half man, half bear and half pig. Is that so hard to understand?

What's a topic for anyway. Resume quilting.

Are you suggesting that actually looking at the actual statutes regarding "income tax" in a thread titled: The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax" is off topic?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Are you suggesting that actually looking at the actual statutes regarding "income tax" in a thread titled: The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax" is off topic?

That would be crazy to suggest. It's every bit as topical as blueberries are to the topic of blueballs.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Are you suggesting that actually looking at the actual statutes regarding "income tax" in a thread titled: The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax" is off topic?

That would be crazy to suggest. It's every bit as topical as blueberries are to the topic of blueballs.

Sure, who needs to actually know the facts of this so called "income tax", isn't it just a whole lot more fun engaging in class warfare? Let's just ignore the "income earners" and "federal income tax" portion of the title and O.P. and just focus on the "top 10%" and all have a class warfare instead and say stupid things like there is no relation between the actual tax code, liability, and how much the top 10% should be paying.

God forbid people act reasonably and understand the importance of what the legislation actually say's. It is just to richly fun to have a mindless argument on "fair" tax.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
It has been clearly shown many times, many ways. Who is trying to muck it up?

Well many but the OP is the main offender.

What do you mean? I've read the OP, don't see the paying over 50% of their worth thing. Could you post a quote to show that.

Yes I can.

There's over 38 pages here, mostly just an opinion hydrant with a few facts. I would like to see that quote as I couldn't let a claim like that go unchecked.

Are you even reading any of the OP's posts? That is her main theme in this thread. It starts in post 1.
I have a pile of quotes for you but first let me ask something.
Everyone seems to have retreated to their own reality in this thread. Before I even bother to pretend reality is reality again only to be told I said things I did not because someone wants to discuss liability over say moral obligation, duty to country, etc. when that caveat only exists within that argument itself anyway or some other such nonsense.
So.
If 15% of my income is taxed and 30% of your income is taxed, which one of us is being taxed more?]/i]