Another reason the uber wealthy NEED more tax cuts. (illegal, illegal immigration, support)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The flaw in your reply is that the upper middle class WAGE EARNERS that pay at highest marginal tax rate are few and far between. By the time you ladder your way up the tax brackets and take your exemptions, credits and loopholes and feed your IRA's that high WAGE EARNER is paying an EFFECTIVE tax rate far below that 35%. A sure sign someone is BSing about how much they pay is to hear them say they pay 35% in federal income tax. Based on the brackets you could earn a bazillion dollars in WAGES and not pay 35%. Those high WAGE EARNERS are not the uber wealthy leisure class, they actually work. They are the ones being singled out wrongly for the wild abuses of the 1%.
FYI, the uber wealthy leisure class are not predominately WAGE EARNERS, they get most of their income from capital gains. 15% tax is a great deal.
Ms Woods, I guess someone handed her a check for doing nothing more than tolerating Tiger's lifestyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
1) Don't know about the "leisure class", but if you check the figures, you'll find that people with Tiger Woods income levels pay close to 50% (federal, state, etc). Some may evade paying those rates, but that's a different story. We are discussing tax levels by the law.
2) "Income pie exploded" - its the twisted way the American society rewards people, but that's not against any law. I agree that as a society we should redefine how people are rewarded, but not through taxation.
3) That been said, we reward people with millions, they do not rob it at gunpoint.
4) When we pay someone $50m for a job they do, it is unconditional. As a society, we don't say "since you earn $50m, you'll have to fund the government". Not only that, but the very idea of how much the government costs is controversial. In any case, it is you who decided to put the burden on them, but they didn't accept it. It is an open issue.
It turns out that the building was structually unsafe do to termite infestation.
Habitat for Humanity was given free reign to take any usable materials that it wanted.
Damn those rich people!
Damn. Those rich people found another way to avoid taxes. If they sold the materials they would have had to pay taxes on revenue. However, by donating it, they avoided the taxes. Damn those rich people.
As long as the wealthy/corporations have money for lobbyists and shill politicians, they will "desperately need" more tax cuts. Period. Most individuals only put their hands out when in genuine (or perceived need), with corporations need has nothing to do with it. They have zero shame.
It is up to us to decide what they need.....or not.
Buzzard, since you are concerned with effective tax rates, you should have no problem discussing the negative effective tax rates due to refundable credits. Do you think that is fair?
It turns out that the building was structually unsafe do to termite infestation.
Habitat for Humanity was given free reign to take any usable materials that it wanted.
Damn those rich people!
I am sure some people would like a vapor barrier on their crawl space. What's that got to do with that creating more jobs? No one is disputing that its a good thing to spend your own money on yourself. However the argument seems to be we must lower taxes on the wealthy to help everyone. Its the ole rising tide crap.
Pyramids were built with slave labor. Thus one brick upon the other is not a qualification for good economic thought. A slave laborer who might know a better way to lift bricks cannot fund the idea. He has to convince an inbred and insane royal of a gain in efficiency. If he was a comely slave he would more likely become a catamite before he presents a movable pulley.
Say's Law: Take a bucket of water from one end of the lake, walk to the other side and pout it in.
Thats what giving more money to the wealthy does, especially the idle wealth who are so far removed from production, they don't know where to put it. So they invest in :
Anyone ever have trouble getting good ideas to the top? Raise your hand.
Here are people who worked with real capital like the Wright brothers who know where to allocate capital:
Royalist right wingers like privatized leftist ideas. Jack booted Republicans like to make fun of defunct Keynesian concepts, but not when its a private label instead of white box band marX.
The only real impact she is having, as far as I am concerned, is that my civil liberties are impacted by signs that say "private property". I ask that she pay taxes on it because her house would have been rather costly were it located at Kitty Hawk.
Buzzard, since you are concerned with effective tax rates, you should have no problem discussing the negative effective tax rates due to refundable credits. Do you think that is fair?
You might like to investigate those refundable credits you mention. An individual earning above poverty level wages really doesn't see much if any refunds. I assume you are citing the earned income credit.
Tell me which "family" do you want to trade places with. The single guy making $7500 gross income that get $457 or the family of five that earns $21,500 that gets $5,666? You really hate the working poor that much. Do you seriously think a family of five can put a roof over there head, feed everyone and pay their taxes? Would you have them seek welfare or fill the gap that employers like Walmart create?
FYI $21k is a ten buck an hour full time job. Basically slave labor with zero medical care.
You might like to investigate those refundable credits you mention. An individual earning above poverty level wages really doesn't see much if any refunds. I assume you are citing the earned income credit.
Tell me which "family" do you want to trade places with. The single guy making $7500 gross income that get $457 or the family of five that earns $21,500 that gets $5,666? You really hate the working poor that much. Do you seriously think a family of five can put a roof over there head, feed everyone and pay their taxes? Would you have them seek welfare or fill the gap that employers like Walmart create?
FYI $21k is a ten buck an hour full time job. Basically slave labor with zero medical care.
Child tax credit? $1,000 a kid, fully refundable. Part of the Bush tax cuts.
I don't hate the poor or the working poor. Do you really hate the rich?
What I dislike is misinformation and rhetoric. Hyperbole and double-speak.
Prepare a sample tax return for your family of five. They have a negative effective tax rate. Later when I make the statement that they pay no taxes, you can argue they pay payroll taxes. I'll point out that they are refunded and they pay nothing. You will deflect and accuse me of hating the poor. One thing we can both agree on is that this hypothetical father of yours will retire on SS someday without paying anything into the system. A social insurance system like that can't stay solvent.
Child tax credit? $1,000 a kid, fully refundable. Part of the Bush tax cuts.
I don't hate the poor or the working poor. Do you really hate the rich?
What I dislike is misinformation and rhetoric. Hyperbole and double-speak.
Prepare a sample tax return for your family of five. They have a negative effective tax rate. Later when I make the statement that they pay no taxes, you can argue they pay payroll taxes. I'll point out that they are refunded and they pay nothing. You will deflect and accuse me of hating the poor. One thing we can both agree on is that this hypothetical father of yours will retire on SS someday without paying anything into the system. A social insurance system like that can't stay solvent.
yep, that father will retire on SS, with a monthly check of what? $400 a month? FYI, "According to the Brookings Institution, a single worker with no children earning income at the 2008 poverty line ($11,014) would owe nearly $1,000 in federal taxes even after receiving the EITC". http://www.results.org/issues/us_pov...me_tax_credit/
As long as we permit employers to underpay their workers we'll continue to have an underclass that needs support. Not all of us have the intelligence, wherewithal and/or silver spoon to start a profitably business from scratch or excel at anything. The old bell curve thing, you know.
Last edited by buzzards27; 01-09-2012 at 06:20 PM..
yep, that father will retire on SS, with a monthly check of what? $400 a month? FYI, "According to the Brookings Institution, a single worker with no children earning income at the 2008 poverty line ($11,014) would owe nearly $1,000 in federal taxes even after receiving the EITC". RESULTS - Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) - The Power to End Poverty
As long as we permit employers to underpay their workers we'll continue to have an underclass that needs support. Not all of us have the intelligence, wherewithal and/or silver spoon to start a profitably business from scratch or excel at anything. The old bell curve thing, you know.
Gross Income of $11,000 less the $5800 standard deduction and the $3700 personal exemption = taxable income of $1500. At 10%, the tax is $150. Less the refundable EIC of $464 = a REFUND of $314. His effective tax rate is then $-314 / $11,000, or -0.028, or almost -3%. That is a NEGATIVE effective tax rate.
"Yeah, but he paid payroll taxes!"...
OK, add back his payroll taxes, which were 4.2% of $11,000, and he paid a total of $140 in taxes on $11,000 ($440 + (-$314)), or about 1%. But assume he applied for food stamps, which at his income would grant him another $200 a month in SNAP, along with a few other benefits. His net contribution is zero. If he collected all $2400 in food stamps, his income was $11,000, and his net contribution was -$2400 + $140 or about -$2,260, or an effective tax rate of -20%. This is why the country is broke. Not because of this one guy, but because of millions of these "one guys". You can argue that he shouldn't have to pay. You can argue that you think others should pay more. But you can't argue that the truly poor are paying their fair share, because they don't pay anything. Period. Zero. His net disposable income for the year is about $1200 a month. I will grant that it is a small amount, and would not afford a lavish lifestyle in any fashion. That issue is separate from the issue of how much he pays in taxes.
I challenge you to show me how he would have to pay $1,000 in federal taxes, let alone payroll taxes.
You see nothing wrong with someone working a full time minimum wage job qualifying AND NEEDING food stamps?
WITHOUT AID LOOK AT THIS FELLA'S COSTS:
RENT: $400 X 12 = $4800
FOOD: $500 X 12= $6000
WOW, that $11k is wiped out by the very basics, forget UTILITIES, HEAT, LIGHTS, WATER, clothes, transportation, the costs associated with income production, AND the taxes this poor fella does pay.
Pretty much forget owning a car, having insurance, taking vacations or entertainment.
What that $11k a year example defines is legalized slavery.
No, I don't feel sorry for some billionaire's pocket change being used to help correct this income inequality created by this system we call capitalism.
I guess you didn't take the time to visit my link or download the Brookings' report....
According to the Brookings Institution, a single worker with no children earning income at the 2008 poverty line ($11,014) would owe nearly $1,000 in federal taxes even after receiving the EITC.
If you do, the link to the report is there. There would be the answer you seek. You can lead a horse... You know the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Gross Income of $11,000 less the $5800 standard deduction and the $3700 personal exemption = taxable income of $1500. At 10%, the tax is $150. Less the refundable EIC of $464 = a REFUND of $314. His effective tax rate is then $-314 / $11,000, or -0.028, or almost -3%. That is a NEGATIVE effective tax rate.
"Yeah, but he paid payroll taxes!"...
OK, add back his payroll taxes, which were 4.2% of $11,000, and he paid a total of $140 in taxes on $11,000 ($440 + (-$314)), or about 1%. But assume he applied for food stamps, which at his income would grant him another $200 a month in SNAP, along with a few other benefits. His net contribution is zero. If he collected all $2400 in food stamps, his income was $11,000, and his net contribution was -$2400 + $140 or about -$2,260, or an effective tax rate of -20%. This is why the country is broke. Not because of this one guy, but because of millions of these "one guys". You can argue that he shouldn't have to pay. You can argue that you think others should pay more. But you can't argue that the truly poor are paying their fair share, because they don't pay anything. Period. Zero. His net disposable income for the year is about $1200 a month. I will grant that it is a small amount, and would not afford a lavish lifestyle in any fashion. That issue is separate from the issue of how much he pays in taxes.
I challenge you to show me how he would have to pay $1,000 in federal taxes, let alone payroll taxes.
Last edited by buzzards27; 01-10-2012 at 08:45 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
