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)
 
 
Old 04-04-2014, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,214 posts, read 8,103,064 times
Reputation: 7746

Advertisements

Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:00 AM
 
69,165 posts, read 31,881,974 times
Reputation: 9186
They already do pay more in taxes.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,214 posts, read 8,103,064 times
Reputation: 7746
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
They already do pay more in taxes.
I'm talking about effective tax rates, not dollar amounts...of course you probably knew that already, neo-con.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:05 AM
 
24,839 posts, read 33,041,601 times
Reputation: 11472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
LOL....when I do it right it IS an deduction.

Just ask Sores about foundations.

Same thing......but, a lefty.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:06 AM
 
18,637 posts, read 20,364,815 times
Reputation: 8021
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
I'm talking about effective tax rates, not dollar amounts...of course you probably knew that already, neo-con.
They already paid more in effective tax rates...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,214 posts, read 8,103,064 times
Reputation: 7746
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
They already paid more in effective tax rates...
Not as much as you'd often think.

Still, can any of you actually answer the question in my OP?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 74,007,680 times
Reputation: 27598
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
Kind of a theoretical question that must be asked in lieu of the Supreme Court's decision earlier this week. If the rich have so much money to give that they needed the high court to allow them to give even more money to political campaigns, they should be able to afford to pay higher taxes, right?
The problem is that Uncle Sam thinks $200K a year in salary is just as "rich" as tens of millions in a Trust Fund for someone that doesn't work.

Someone making $200K a year is not donating "millions" to SuperPACs.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:10 AM
 
69,165 posts, read 31,881,974 times
Reputation: 9186
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
I'm talking about effective tax rates, not dollar amounts...of course you probably knew that already, neo-con.
I AM talking about effective tax rates.

Here's the IRS's latest published average effective federal income tax rates by income group:

Top 1%: 23.5%

Top 1-5%: 17.7%

Top 5-10%: 12.8%

Top 10-25%: 9.7%

Top 25-50%: 7%

Bottom 50%: 3.13%

Latest IRS Federal Income Tax Data
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats...omplete-Report)

Where are you getting your false information? And why are you ignorant of the actual facts?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,214 posts, read 8,103,064 times
Reputation: 7746
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The problem is that Uncle Sam thinks $200K a year in salary is just as "rich" as tens of millions in a Trust Fund for someone that doesn't work.

Someone making $200K a year is not donating "millions" to SuperPACs.
Very true. Maybe the tax brackets need to be expanded upward.

Or maybe it's time to start taxing political donations. I think dollar for dollar taxation would be a good start.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2014, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
8,984 posts, read 3,075,785 times
Reputation: 4932
Even if tax rates were equal, as with a flat tax, the rich would still pay massively more per person.

Using 10% to keep it simple, someone who makes a million dollars a year is paying 10X as much as someone who makes 100K a year would.
And someone who makes 100K per year would pay twice as much as someone making 50k.

This is how taxes should work, not subjecting people to paying a higher % of their income just because they make more money.
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.


 
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top