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

reply to post by LErickson


It's an absolutely honest answer to the question. I immediately think, more what?

ETA: I already said 30% is more

As a tax rate of course 30% is more than 15% however

ETA2: If for some #d up reason someone paid 15% tax 200k they would be paying more in taxes than if one paid 30% on 50k. Would suck but would be true. Nothing wrong with allowing for that in my response.

Just as an aside, i was wondering if theres any comparison between their kids and ours...ie what percentage of their kidss were KIA or wounded in the expansionist wars?
I would ventre to bet they kept their kids alive.....
Besides percentage of colledge eds etc etc....
The top ten percent of incomes dont need any more money at all...they already have more than they can spend in a lifetime or more.....
Id say reaally do make everyone equal....pay everyone the same base wage.....regardless what they do.....
That base wage would be calculated on GDP....make it an even split for everyone in the country......

Originally posted by Kali74
I hate math.

One thing we have in common. .I dislike unecessary complexity too because it can be used to mask the truth of something.

I think the 71% claim is way off but I haven't been able to prove it.

Oh, OK then.

Anyway most of this thread turned into liberal bashing so, I'm out.

OK. Thanks for your contributions. Your voice was fairly moderate compared to others here.

Originally posted by poet1b
The whole thread should be tossed in the hoax bin.

If you have discovered a hoax campaign staged by the prestigious Heritage Foundation that could surely get your face to headlines and evening news. I suggest you submit your discovery to the newspapers. I`m sure they'd pay you a few thousand dollars for you being able to prove a hoax.

Is that why you haven't proven a hoax on this thread yet...because you are keeping the data to yourself so that you can take it to Huffington Post or NYTimes?

Good luck

reply to post by stirling

The top ten percent of incomes dont need any more money at all...they already have more than they can spend in a lifetime or more.....

Absolutely false. Do you even know what top 10% even means? Apparently not.

Id say reaally do make everyone equal....pay everyone the same base wage.....regardless what they do.....

Absurd. You think this hasn't been tried already? It can never work on a large scale by force. It's contrary to human nature.

Originally posted by poet1b
Note the source provides no definition for what it claims are income earners.

The second sentence states that 32% of all tax returns paid no federal income tax. Note the change of language. Clearly there is a distinction between income earners and those who filed tax returns.

Who are these people who pay no taxes? The Heritage foundation fails to identify who these people are. That is because this would expose the article as the blatant propaganda that it is. They are going after school kids, those filing tax returns would be those working after school jobs, and retirees. It is really pathetic.

What you are saying is that they consider children income earners. Do you have any reference for this?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yes, you are right, I have not created a thread regarding the tax code.

The average attention span on ATS and Internet-Discussion Boards in general would not make the thread a success imo.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
In the US, the richest country in the world, 400 individuals own more than the bottom 150 MILLION. Nuff freaking said. The bottom 150 million are fighting and killing themselves for scraps when they should be uniting and fixing this broken system that allows such a gross injustice to take place. The system is crumbling, which side will you be on?

The U.S. is also one of the few places where the poor own cars and TV Sets, as far as I know. Thats why my concern for the poor goes more to other places in the world where they are struggling for water and rice.

Originally posted by stirling
The top ten percent of incomes dont need any more money at all...they already have more than they can spend in a lifetime or more.....

I wish it were so. Throughout this thread I learned I am a 5%er (I thought I was a 10%er). I could feed a family and have one vacation but thats about it.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by poet1b
The whole thread should be tossed in the hoax bin.

If you have discovered a hoax campaign staged by the prestigious Heritage Foundation that could surely get your face to headlines and evening news. I suggest you submit your discovery to the newspapers. I`m sure they'd pay you a few thousand dollars for you being able to prove a hoax.

Is that why you haven't proven a hoax on this thread yet...because you are keeping the data to yourself so that you can take it to Huffington Post or NYTimes?

Good luck

There is no hoax. They are like deer looking into headlights.

Frozen.

They don't know what to do.

---------
It turns out that the 99% crowd has been living a lie.

That's a difficult thing to admit.

reply to post by Skyfloating

I wish it were so. Throughout this thread I learned I am a 5%er (I thought I was a 10%er). I could feed a family and have one vacation but thats about it.

You have got to be kidding me! You imply that you earn 160k or more. COULD feed a family and 1 vacation, that's about it. How in the hell can you not see the inconsistencies in your position?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thanks, you get it. I looked into this back when. They don't identify exactly what an income earner is, no matter how deeply you dig.

Banks report income on 1098 forms, employers report on W2 and there are various other forms, which could all be reported as tax returns, as defined by the IRS.

Lets face it, the complete use of the term "return" is a misnomer if there ever was one.

The only intention is to collect and keep tax money.

reply to post by peck420

The filed 150million or so returns.

Or so returns? Or so you just made that number up.

What about joint returns, where two income earning people file the same return.

What about illegals?

reply to post by Eurisko2012


I don't know about the 99%, which is most of the people, in case you haven't figured it out, but from you post, it sounds like you are living vida loca, mucho loco.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
You have got to be kidding me! You imply that you earn 160k or more. COULD feed a family and 1 vacation, that's about it. How in the hell can you not see the inconsistencies in your position?

Where I live I pay about 45% of my income to taxes, which leaves me with about 90K if Im lucky. Substract from that paying the rent, the car, food and other basics Im left with about 10K a year to spend. Thats alright, but its not like I could afford a second car, much less charter a jet.

reply to post by poet1b


Are you gonna answer this or run and hide?

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 Skyfloating


I get your point, do you get mine? If it's "difficult" for you then how much more "difficult" would it be for a family on half or much less? If I understand you, you come off as heartless.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I get your point, do you get mine? If it's "difficult" for you then how much more "difficult" would it be for a family on half or much less? If I understand you, you come off as heartless.

Oh I see. I didn't get your point before. My counter-point would be: I know a number of people who earn less than me but end up with the same standard of living because they pay less tax. I am not referring to the VERY poor here.

I bring it up as a rebuttal of the idea that all of us are greedy and rich assholes. And I dont consider my situation "difficult" and even if it were, I dont consider challenging situations to be a "bad" thing. I come from fairly poor circumstances myself and am glad I had the opportunity to go through difficult times and work my way up. That way having money is much more rewarding than if I had gotten it from birth. I dont think people who get money without having earned it are that content with their lives. Likewise many "poor" people arent as discontent as they say.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
You have got to be kidding me! You imply that you earn 160k or more. COULD feed a family and 1 vacation, that's about it. How in the hell can you not see the inconsistencies in your position?

Where I live I pay about 45% of my income to taxes, which leaves me with about 90K if Im lucky. Substract from that paying the rent, the car, food and other basics Im left with about 10K a year to spend. Thats alright, but its not like I could afford a second car, much less charter a jet.

Yes, i would pass on the Marquee Jet Card for now but if you clear $90,000

you must be paying sky high rent.

You could pay for a new Lexus GS in cash. - no financing required -

One trip to Maui would be easy. - Four Seasons Hotel -

Count your blessings.

You are clearly paying your - fair share - of Federal Income Taxes.

reply to post by Skyfloating

That sounds reasonable but I would love to see how this happens

I know a number of people who earn less than me but end up with the same standard of living because they pay less tax.

Is that really possible?