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.
Our household income is $136,000 and we only pay an effective federal income tax rate of 10%. When we made a little under $100,000 we only paid around 9%.
That means the rich are paying ~ 50% more than us on the rate and a hole lot more in actual money. So what's the beef from the liberals? No one actually pays 28% to begin with.
Our household income is $136,000 and we only pay an effective federal income tax rate of 10%. When we made a little under $100,000 we only paid around 9%.
That means the rich are paying ~ 50% more than us on the rate and a hole lot more in actual money. So what's the beef from the liberals? No one actually pays 28% to begin with.
Federal income tax =/= federal tax. The rich are different from you and me...They don't pay FICA and if they do it is a tinsy winsy %.
So what's the beef from the liberals? No one actually pays 28% to begin with.
Ask any liberal what America should be, and he'll chew your ear off. Ask him what's wrong with America, and he'll offer you a reading list. But ask him what America is-- besides a massive social service center or a collection of war crimes and corporations, and he'll have no real answers and just go to the liberal handbook and deflect as usual.
They do pay FICA. They pay FICA on income earned up to the same amount of income as everyone else.
But I'm talking about federal income tax. Please stay on topic.
Since when did FICA apply to capital gains? After all you did say "the rich" and mention the magic 15% number which might as well be code for capital gains tax. As to what the beef is. FICA is a substantial federal tax that funds a large part of the government because it is more or less dumped into the general fund (alas Al Gore never got his much maligned "lockbox"). As such I see it as being only fair that they, being the rich, contribute more in federal income tax to offset this Of course I would be more then happy to see FICA levied on capital gains as though it was self employment, but somehow I doubt the wealthy would appreciate that.
Since when did FICA apply to capital gains? After all you did say "the rich" and mention the magic 15% number which might as well be code for capital gains tax. As to what the beef is. FICA is a substantial federal tax that funds a large part of the government because it is more or less dumped into the general fund (alas Al Gore never got his much maligned "lockbox"). As such I see it as being only fair that they, being the rich, contribute more in federal income tax to offset this Of course I would be more then happy to see FICA levied on capital gains as though it was self employment, but somehow I doubt the wealthy would appreciate that.
FICA doesn't apply to cap gains for rich, middle income or poor.
Please stay on the topic of federal income taxes please.
FICA doesn't apply to cap gains for rich, middle income or poor.
Please stay on the topic of federal income taxes please.
FICA doesn't apply to capital gains or dividends, therefore it is a pitifully small part of the effective federal tax rate for people who earn their income this way.
I understand you wish to close the universe to only federal income taxes. This is obviously because when you don't look at the entire tax code it makes it very easy to make some provisions look unfair, when in fact they are balanced out by other things.
Our household income is $136,000 and we only pay an effective federal income tax rate of 10%. When we made a little under $100,000 we only paid around 9%.
That means the rich are paying ~ 50% more than us on the rate and a hole lot more in actual money. So what's the beef from the liberals? No one actually pays 28% to begin with.
Probably the main thing is that the effective tax rate for the highest earners through history has varied wildly. All the way up to 91%. The point being is that there is precedent all the way up to that tax rate.
If it is in fact true that the top 1% of wage earners received 93% of the new income in 2010 I don't think it's unfair to ask for a smaller graduated rate (39.6%) since they are earning most of the new money. When you add the issues with the deficit I don't think it's unfair that we ask all of us to pay a little bit more and for government recipients (other than social security) to take a cut in benefits.
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.
