What most news media doesn't talk about? (speech, crime, money)
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.
ok, now compare that to how much of the income they received, when you are done figuring I think you'll find they are paying a much smaller percentage of what they earn.
it is easy to pay a larger percentage of the taxes when you earn most of the income.
But you said in 1979 they were paying the same percent of incoem tax collected
what business do you work in? does it meet the criteria i laid out?
I used verizon as an example; they made $10 billion in profit. You tax a share of that, and it will not "put them out of business."
Your "out of business" argument makes NO sense, because a company with 0 profit would pay 0 taxes.
You seem to have a problem with profit.They are in business to make profit. So, if they are doing so well, why don't you buy into their success by purchasing a share in their success? Would you be against a profit that you made from rising stock prices in a company?
try looking at the charts at post #51 again, take a moment to think. i think you are overlooking the underlying FACTS in the charts, particularly the second one, the top 1% AFTER TAX income has gone up over 120% while the bottom 80% of EVERYONE (tax payer and tax free loaders) AFTER TAX income has gone down, as much as 30% in the last 30 some years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
But you said in 1979 they were paying the same percent of income tax collected
Almost all companies set prices as high as the market will bear. That's called competition and that's what keeps prices low. If you raise taxes on all phone companies, they will all raise prices.
Not if they are setting their prices as high as the market will bear, they won't.
Companies price for optimum profit, and sometimes that means setting prices lower than the market will bear. Competition drives prices down. Sometimes you lower your price to undercut your rival and gain marketshare. There are many strategies to pricing, and given your hazy understanding of the topic, it's difficult to believe you were ever employed in this capacity.
Not all markets have high levels of competition. Some markets are monopolies and oligopolies, who have room to lower prices, but simply no reason to. In this case, raising taxes will come out of the profit of the company, and not in the form of higher prices for the consumer.
Quote:
So adding 36% of profit to the price of a product is minor?
like i said, i don't think that's the effect of corporate taxes.
Because I want to tax it, you think I have a "problem" with it? You do understand we need taxes to fund government, right? How do you propose we do that, if not through taxes?
I'm not "against" profit -- I just think that if I pay income taxes, corporations need to pay corporate taxes. They should pay a share of their profit, just as I do my wages.
Quote:
They are in business to make profit. So, if they are doing so well, why don't you buy into their success by purchasing a share in their success?
I do. Who said that I don't?
Quote:
Would you be against a profit that you made from rising stock prices in a company?
I never said I was against profit. That's a false premise.
Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 12-15-2011 at 08:38 AM..
not at all, i am a 5%er myself, but i willing pay the taxes i owe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
Oh, my...do I detect a bit of greed and envy?
Outsource the government? ...let's see...what country would do a better job, do you think?
BTW, jobs have been going overseas for a long time, mostly due to the lure of lower taxes and wages, and fewer restrictions. Unions are partly responsible for that as well. Ironic, isn't it. They claim they're there to protect jobs, yet they drive the wages and demands so high that companies have to close shop and go overseas. Unions are rutheless political orgs and will hasten the death of any hopes we might have for restoring jobs to this country.
For those who are willing to pay a higher price for goods and services, remember that you also end up paying higher sales and local taxes (where applicable) on those higher prices, so you pay twice, maybe more.
Maybe instead of clamoring for higher taxes on select segments of our society, we should all lower our demands for handouts and try being more self sufficient. Government is NOT the answer to everything.
try looking at the charts at post #51 again, take a moment to think. i think you are overlooking the underlying FACTS in the charts, particularly the second one, the top 1% AFTER TAX income has gone up over 120% while the bottom 80% of EVERYONE (tax payer and tax free loaders) AFTER TAX income has gone down, as much as 30% in the last 30 some years.
You choose to ignore income tax payed.
You said in 1979 the rich payed a higher percent of income tax then they pay now.
Your assertion on that is not correct.
As far as your charts go. They show the top 1 percent make more income .
As they made more income they have paid more taxes.
That's how it works.
In 1979 they paid 15 percent of the taxes collected now they pay 38 percent if federal income tax collected.
YOU are confusing TWO concepts, one is the percentage of individual income that is paid in taxes (what I am talking about) and the percentage of the overall tax receipts someone pays (what you are talking about). FACT the wealthy used to pay a much large portion of their income toward taxes then they do today. As their overall income has mushroomed the percentage of that income used to pay taxes has shrunk. Sure they pay more of the overall tax receipts today, but they also take a huge share of the income. The growth in taxes they pay has not kept pace with their growth in income....
but you already knew that, but we both know you are only here to confuse the issue, not to seriously discuss FACTS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
You choose to ignore income tax payed.
You said in 1979 the rich payed a higher percent of income tax then they pay now.
Your assertion on that is not correct.
As far as your charts go. They show the top 1 percent make more income .
As they made more income they have paid more taxes.
That's how it works.
In 1979 they paid 15 percent of the taxes collected now they pay 38 percent if federal income tax collected.
YOU are confusing TWO concepts, one is the percentage of individual income that is paid in taxes (what I am talking about) and the percentage of the overall tax receipts someone pays (what you are talking about). FACT the wealthy used to pay a much large portion of their income toward taxes then they do today. As their overall income has mushroomed the percentage of that income used to pay taxes has shrunk. Sure they pay more of the overall tax receipts today, but they also take a huge share of the income. The growth in taxes they pay has not kept pace with their growth in income....
but you already knew that, but we both know you are only here to confuse the issue, not to seriously discuss FACTS.
The only issue and point i have made is that he wealthy one percent pay 38% of the federal income tax collected. In 1979 it was 15%. And those are the facts .sorry you are confused
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.
Outsource the government? ...let's see...what country would do a better job, do you think?
