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

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Hi John Paul!

(My name is John Paul also, but withholding my surname)

No, legislation is not law, but do laws not come from legislative acts and legislation?

Aren't "bills" and "legislation" nearly the same thing? (Yep, I'm ignorant of some things)




Edit to add: They are not called "Legislation makers", they are called "Lawmakers". right?

reply to post by poet1b

It is not irrelevant that kids are counted as income earners, especially students with jobs, and this throws all the numbers off.

You continue to ignore the facts.

Quit trolling. It's all there for anyone to see. You continually ignore the MULTIPLE sources that I and others have provided throughout the thread. Your game is lame. How is top 10% determined in the context of this topic? Bogus is not an explanation. Aren't you better than that?

reply to post by ILikeStars


The Constitution that grants Congress the authority to legislate clearly states that "Congress shall make law...", which is an unfortunate use of verbiage on our Founder's part.

Not all legislation must describe actual law. Actual law is rooted in the rights of humanity. The establishment of a government is not actual law, merely legislation set forth the establish government. Therefore taxation is not actual law merely legislation. Such acts of legislation are valid acts of legislation in that the U.S. government was established to protect the rights of individuals and failing that to offer remedy for any violation of rights.

If an act of legislation is not violating the rights of individuals it is valid legislation. If legislation tramples upon the rights of individuals it is not valid. This is why we have the long standing practice of judicial review.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Are you saying "laws" against DUI violate my Irish heritage?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Are you saying "laws" against DUI violate my Irish heritage?

If they do, you are the one making the assertion, thus the burden of proof lies with you. I am saying that rights can be identified by one of two ways. The right to defense are those rights that justify use of force. All other rights cause no harm to another. The DUI or DWI legislation is an interesting set of circumstances. It is arguable the state has a compelling argument to enact such legislation because of the demonstrative harm drinking and driving can cause, but just the same, the limit or gauge by which it is determined that one is under the influence is fairly arbitrary.

What I am saying is that government does not have a right to violate the rights of those they serve. If you believe your right to drink and drive has been violated it is up to you to prove you are not causing any harm by doing so and that such an act is actually a right.

My Irish heritage informs me I have the right to get salty with my language and even let my temper boil and most certainly drink, but nothing about my Irish heritage informs me I have the right to harm others or place others in harm to enjoy drinking under dubious circumstances.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It was a bit of a joke however you bring up the point about do no harm. Aside from arbitrary BAC issues if no harm is done what has been violated. An improper evaluation of statistics will show that traffic deaths are caused 2:1 by sober drivers. Anyway, you're always good for exercising the grey matter.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It was a bit of a joke however you bring up the point about do no harm. Aside from arbitrary BAC issues if no harm is done what has been violated. An improper evaluation of statistics will show that traffic deaths are caused 2:1 by sober drivers. Anyway, you're always good for exercising the grey matter.

I figured you were teasing, but it was also a valid question and look at you, all ready forming a legal argument! Someday, my friend, we will join each other in a fine Irish Whiskey and drink to freedom. Here or in the next life.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


And you continue to ignore the many sources I have provided that prove your sources to be nothing but meaningless propaganda.

Ignoring who the top 10% are, and who the rest of the tax payers are, and how long they are in those tax brackets is clinging to ignorance.

Oh, and I did not ignore the sources, I read them, evaluated them, and proved how they are meaningless propaganda.

Who's the troll here?

Your 1st post in the thread.

Originally posted by poet1b

That anyone buys into this propaganda is pathetic.

Yeah, all those lazy school kids who have savings accounts aren't paying their fair share of taxes.

The top 1% should be paying all of the income tax. Income tax was only created for the wealthy, and not for the rest, because it is only the wealthy that get back anything from the fed gov.

Unless you own a factory in China, or any income you get from stocks you own from corporations manufacturing in China (profiting on slave labor and child labor like any of you got a moral leg to stand on) you shouldn't be paying income taxes.

The PTB have done a great job of dumbing down the masses.

Then you said this

If a six year old child has a savings account, they are counted as income earners.
That is how the con works.

Then

Don't buy into the propaganda.
The ops title ignore the major factor that every school kid with a bank account is counted as an income earner, and so are retired people. Those people make up the vast majority of people paying no income tax.

Then I asked

Can you substantiate this pile of your propaganda?

You replied

Will you admit you have been suckered by this propaganda when I do?
Know anyone with kids who have savings accounts? If you do, ask them if those kids are reported as income earners and receive tax information from those banks, and you will find out that they are included as federal income earners.
Look up the percentage of the population that is of school age or younger, and the percentage who are retired, and you will find the proof, and the truth. Last I checked that is close to 50% of the population.
Then ask yourself what kind of fool pushes to make kids pay income taxes.

Do you remenber saying this

Its lazy when you refuse to do your own research and verify if what someone is saying is right. You can check the figures yourself, and f I am wrong prove me wrong, instead of demanding that I provide you information easy to find.

I did ask myself what kind of fool thinks that anyone is is pushing to make kids pay income taxes or are included in the figures.
You go on

The banks report the income of everyone who has an account, and that makes them income earners. It has nothing to do with filing by an individual.

False. To be included in these statistics based on returns a return must be filed. LOOK

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

From the Kiplingers link

The latest numbers from the IRS -- based on 2009 tax returns -- show what it takes to be among the top 1% of income earners: adjusted gross income of $343,927 or more. The 1.4 million Americans with this elite status reported 16.9% of all the country's taxable income.

Our income and tax-burden breakdowns come from information reported on 2009 individual income tax returns. Income categories are based on adjusted gross income.

And from the Tax Foundation, more of the same

The Tax Foundation

The IRS data below include all of the 137.98 million tax returns filed in 2009 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. These figures exclude those tax returns filing a return merely to receive a stimulus check.

Notice the AGI? Adjusted Gross Income is a tax return figure.

Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, taxpayers with an AGI of $159,643 or more in 2009 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of income earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $343,947 or more, which was 10 percent lower than the 2008 threshold of $380,354. The income threshold to break into the top 0.1 percent also fell dramatically from 2008 to 2009, from about $1.8 million in 2008 to $1.4 million in 2009.

Do you honestly maintain that you have read what I presented and hold to your original assertion? It's impossible to read with comprehension my evidence and agree with you. If you're going to label something as propaganda it's best to know what you're talking about. Kids have savings accounts, good one.
And as for this

Oh, and I did not ignore the sources, I read them, evaluated them, and proved how they are meaningless propaganda.

For some reason the word integrity comes to mind.

reply to post by Skyfloating


my thoughts are:

Are you rich? are you paying these percentages?

if not:
you can slow down a bit , they are never going to let you catch that carrot.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Of course you ignored this post, where I do provide the facts to back up my claims.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My post.

If you follow a link posted above, and then on to the IRS data, you will find this statement.

www.irs.gov...=133521,00.html

Individual Income Tax Returns with Modified Taxable Income - MTI is a term used to describe "income subject to tax", the actual base on which tax is computed. For current-year returns, MTI is identical to taxable income. For prior-year returns, taxable income is modified to equal an amount necessary to generate the tax actually shown on these returns using current-year rates.


Interest on savings accounts is "INCOME SUBJECT TO TAX". I researched it a long time ago, and if I remember right, Income earners include grade schoolers with savings accounts, based on returns from banks. It all gets pretty fuzzy, but kids working part time jobs are required to file tax returns. Even if you ignore kids who aren't filing tax returns, aren't working part time jobs, working students and seniors make up most of the bottom 50%, and then there are the disabled, most with legit disabilities.

And of course you fail to provide links to any of the quotes provided, out of context, to prevent anyone from verifying what I had provided.

The actual IRS website is a far more credible source than Kiplingers, which is a site for investors.

Your own lack of integrity integrity should come to mind.

reply to post by poet1b

The actual IRS website is a far more credible source than Kiplingers, which is a site for investors.

Then source some numbers that contradict the "propaganda". If the Heritage Foundation, Kiplingers, Taxpayers Union and Tax Foundation are all pulling numbers from the IRS and twisting them you could prove that by presenting "correct" numbers from the IRS. Until you do you have nothing but unsubstantiated allegations

Do you stand by this or not?

The banks report the income of everyone who has an account, and that makes them income earners. It has nothing to do with filing by an individual.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Yeah, you keep trying to narrow down the debate to the only facts you care to consider. More of that integrity problem.

But, here is the census information on how income and age comes to play into tax distribution.

www.census.gov...

www.census.gov...

When you consider the percentage of the population between 15 and 30, and the number over 65, factor in the number filing married jointly in their distribution of the population, and the percentage of people filing tax returns in comparison to the the number of people over the age of 15, you will find that approximately 50% of the population falls into the category of between 15 and 30 or over 65, and so the bulk of people in the lower income brackets. These people will spend a significant part of their adult lives paying taxes in the higher tax brackets.

This proves the information in the op as being very narrow cherry picked information that does not accurately portray how the percentage of income tax being paid by income groups.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by poet1b

 

The actual IRS website is a far more credible source than Kiplingers, which is a site for investors.

Then source some numbers that contradict the "propaganda". If the Heritage Foundation, Kiplingers, Taxpayers Union and Tax Foundation are all pulling numbers from the IRS and twisting them you could prove that by presenting "correct" numbers from the IRS. Until you do you have nothing but unsubstantiated allegations

Do you stand by this or not?

The banks report the income of everyone who has an account, and that makes them income earners. It has nothing to do with filing by an individual.

He cannot disprove the Heritage Foundation numbers because they are correct.

So the only option for him is to - change the game-.

Look how long this thread is. The numbers - still - stand.

They stick to the - poet - like fly paper.

He can't shake them.
--------
Always remember the Title of the Thread.

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

Translation: The Top 10% are paying more than their fair share of taxes.

The 99% crowd don't have a leg to stand on. - Class warfare has failed.......again. -

reply to post by poet1b


This should be simple for you. Remember this?

Originally posted by poet1b

Don't buy into the propaganda.

The ops title ignore the major factor that every school kid with a bank account is counted as an income earner, and so are retired people. Those people make up the vast majority of people paying no income tax.

Can you substantiate this pile of your propaganda?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I have already proven this to be true. Look up the 1098 form.

See links provided.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Only as long as you ignore that it is the top 10-1% who are paying most of the taxes, subsidizing the super rich, who are the .001% of tax payers, who receive most of the benefits from fed gov expenditures under free market communism. Those top 10-1% are only in those tax brackets for a short time in their life.

Yeah, the upper middle class pays too much in taxes, while the rich pay too little. That is all that has been proven.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Only as long as you ignore that it is the top 10-1% who are paying most of the taxes, subsidizing the super rich, who are the .001% of tax payers, who receive most of the benefits from fed gov expenditures under free market communism. Those top 10-1% are only in those tax brackets for a short time in their life.

Yeah, the upper middle class pays too much in taxes, while the rich pay too little. That is all that has been proven.

So, in other words....The Top 10% of income earners pay 71% of federal income tax.

The Heritage Foundation numbers are correct. Okay, i see the truth.

reply to post by poet1b


1098 form is mortgage interest. Are you saying these poor kids with savings accounts have mortgages?
As for your links, they prove that you can't offer any relevant support for your claims that

The ops title ignore the major factor that every school kid with a bank account is counted as an income earner, and so are retired people. Those people make up the vast majority of people paying no income tax.

If a six year old child has a savings account, they are counted as income earners.

That is how the con works.

Epic fail.

Its amazing how people who are barely middle class love to suck the rich off while the rich don't give a # about them.