Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2013, 09:59 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,304,725 times
Reputation: 2314

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Yep, control what you can take home and keep you down, period.

So it is fair that if you make more the higher percentage the government will take? Hey, don't ever dream about making better and better money because the Obama deems it unfair and want a larger percentage.
Yes, it is fair and our progressive income tax has nothing to do with President Obama.

The current American tax system has existed since like 1912 of something at least in terms of collecting income taxes.

There was an amendment that was passed by congress and passed by the states to allow congress to impose an income tax.

The idea of a progressive income tax I think comes from Teddy Roosevelt and others.

Also, our progressive income tax rate is also marginal, meaning you don't pay higher income taxes on all the money you earn.

The first 9000 earned you pay 10%. The next 28000 or so earned you pay 15% on that income and so forth.
Also, we don't pay income taxes on our gross income.

We pay income taxes on our taxable income and the taxable income is after all of the deductions and exemptions and children and homes and etc and so forth have been subtracted from our gross income.

So most people's taxable income is far less than their gross wages.

So if your taxable income if you are single is 100,000 and I think the top tax rate for that income for a single person is 28%, you don't owe 28,000 in federal income taxes. It is far less than that it is probably closer to 20,000.

So this means as you earn more you do keep most of your money.

For example lets say the income brackets broke like 80000 for single person that income tax rate is 25%, but if you earned 80001 that income tax rate jumps to 28%.

That doesn't mean that earning 1 more dollar means all of your income will be taxed 3% higher.

It means 1 dollar will be taxed at 28%, while the other 80000 will be taxed at the lower tax rates up to 25%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:01 AM
 
8,391 posts, read 6,304,725 times
Reputation: 2314
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
even if it wasn't 'progressive' the rich would pay more (by actual number AND by percentage)

say a flat tax of 10%....guy earning an adjust gross of 20k will pay 2k in taxes....guy earning 200k will pay 20k in taxes
Ok and?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:04 AM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,776,820 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
It's not that Obama deems it unfair.

It's that Americans deem it unfair.

Like it or not, there are poor people in our society. There have always been poor people, and there always will be poor people. Charging a poor person the same as a rich person for taxes does not make sense. The poorer person has to use a larger percentage of his income to survive. Charging the same percentage across the board puts poorer people at risk of NOT surviving. That's why EVERY society that institutes income taxes uses a progressive tax system. That's why AMERICANS chose a progressive tax system. It's irrational to insist that someone earning $8100 a year pay the same percentage as someone earning $81 million a year.
Yes there will always be poor no matter how much the government takes from other people. So essentially the poor have become the children that everyone else must take care of. Greed is demanding something of which you give nothing in return. The poor got greedy. The poor are not satisfied, they want more. They want to live the life of someone who works for their keep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:04 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,581,762 times
Reputation: 24780
Default The Rich Do Not Pay The Most Taxes, They Pay "ALL" The Taxes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by gretsky99 View Post
So much for the left's "BS" accusation the well off aren't paying their fair share.

The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

They have "ALL" the money.

Everything's all right forever.

The rich should stop whining. They know what to do if they no longer desire the lifestyle of wealth and privilege.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,180,579 times
Reputation: 4233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Also, the US federal income tax is a progressive tax which means the more money you earn the more you pay.

By the way, no President in over 100 years has attempted to change this progressive income tax.

Over the last 40 years, the top income earners are capturing nearly all the income gains of this nation, and their share of the nation's income has increased while everyone else is capturing less of the nation's income as their share of the nation's total income has decrease.

If you are rational and logical person, then what happens to who pays income taxes is not some shocking surprise. It is expected.

So with the US having a progressive income tax, there is no way the top income earners won't pay a higher share of the income taxes when they are capturing nearly all the income gains in the nation.

If other Americans captured more of the nation's income, they'd pay a greater share of the income taxes.

In laymen's terms, the disproportionate share of income taxes paid by the top earners is evidence of the growing income inequality that exists in this nation.

No. It means that politicians are pandering to the lower classes with subsidies and credits that wealthier people cannot qualify for in return for votes.

I get screwed every year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Austin
15,652 posts, read 10,417,959 times
Reputation: 19565
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a View Post
Good for them. I pay $0 in Federal Income Taxes during the course of the year, then try to exempt as much as possible from how much USA, Inc. says I owe during tax season. I also try to earn money in Cash whenever possible.

I would never want to give a penny more than I legally have to to this Federal Government (even though the Constitution says nothing about income taxes).
Let me guess....are you a liberal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:07 AM
 
643 posts, read 918,812 times
Reputation: 600
The top 5% still doesnt pay nearly a proportional amount to the middle class. So whats the point of this article? Its all pretty common knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:08 AM
 
650 posts, read 514,559 times
Reputation: 53
one things for sure, the rich are involved with all the money, and as far as estimations go on loss, I wonder who is responsible for all the tax's wiggled out of. If true the next thing to wonder about is the word liability. wheres the liability Bob Barker, is it door number 1, door number 2 or door number 3. hmm. IOW how can any plan work with A/C's scouring over yearly tax law 24-7 to get the hero cookie on a hunt to shave anything anywhere at any cost. Nope, the system will work but not without moderation. That word is non-existent. Thats the prob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,180,579 times
Reputation: 4233
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Ok, then lets go with higher taxes for "everyone". At least everyone will pay into the system they use. Everyone will pay for the roads and infrastructure.

In return, how about instituting a "wealth tax" on accumulated fortunes and eliminate income taxes? Let's say a 30% on all net worth over $20 million?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2013, 10:08 AM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,776,820 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Yes, it is fair and our progressive income tax has nothing to do with President Obama.
The poor should be grateful Americans willingly allow welfare to pay for them, but the poor got greedy. No longer are they satisfied that other people work to pay for their existence. The poor now want the same life style as someone who put in the time to increase their skills to make more money. They also use more services than others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top