All You Hear About Are Tax Cuts For The Rich, But..

[Tominator]

..Who pays the most taxes?

However, even most Democrat nominees are saying in their [desperate!] campaign ads that they were for the tax cuts! Yet we still here of 'targeted tax cuts.' You know, the cuts for 'everyday people!' Even the arch socialist Dick Gephardt is saying we need BIGGER tax cuts!


The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.

Now. Who are 'The Rich?'

It seems, it is you and I!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tominator
..Who pays the most taxes?

However, even most Democrat nominees are saying in their [desperate!] campaign ads that they were for the tax cuts! Yet we still here of 'targeted tax cuts.' You know, the cuts for 'everyday people!' Even the arch socialist Dick Gephardt is saying we need BIGGER tax cuts!


The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.

Now. Who are 'The Rich?'

It seems, it is you and I!

I told this fact to some fellow in the voting lines the other day and he looked at me like I was lying to him.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Microsoft as a company do not pay taxes (last I heard anyhow), even with morons throwing up proprietary Microsoft formats every chance they get.... .xls? Not worth the time to find a program to convert it to something readable.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Microsoft as a company do not pay taxes (last I heard anyhow), even with morons throwing up proprietary Microsoft formats every chance they get.... .xls? Not worth the time to find a program to convert it to something readable.

Microsoft pays taxes and they pay alot of it.

 

[XMan]

I heard somewhere that if you make 50,000 a year or more, you are in the top quarter of all Americans.

That would include quite a few people here at ATOT . . . . you'd think that more of y'all would be interested in keeping your own money!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: X-Man
I heard somewhere that if you make 50,000 a year or more, you are in the top quarter of all Americans.

That would include quite a few people here at ATOT . . . . you'd think that more of y'all would be interested in keeping your own money!

Because there are few college students on this board who are stilling living out of mom and dads wallet.

 

[glenn1]

Microsoft as a company do not pay taxes (last I heard anyhow)

Their SEC 10K filing says that on operating income of $11,513,000,000.00 in FY02, provisions for income taxes were $3,684,000,000.00.

Now admittedly $3.68 billion isn't much compared to the $18 billion Phillip Morris paid in taxes last year, but three and a half supersize still ain't chump-change, even to Uncle Sam.

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Microsoft as a company do not pay taxes (last I heard anyhow)

but three and a half supersize still ain't chump-change, even to Uncle Sam.

I'll buy THAT for a dollar!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Microsoft as a company do not pay taxes (last I heard anyhow)

Their SEC 10K filing says that on operating income of $11,513,000,000.00 in FY02, provisions for income taxes were $3,684,000,000.00.

Now admittedly $3.68 billion isn't much compared to the $18 billion Phillip Morris paid in taxes last year, but three and a half supersize still ain't chump-change, even to Uncle Sam.

And you are leaving off property tax, sales tax, tax on profits of sold shares,.... You could probably even include payroll tax if you were inclined.

 

[bsobel]

Because there are few college students on this board who are stilling living out of mom and dads wallet.

Well, I can't take credit for initially writing this, but it's about time someone explained to these people how the world works. On that note, I present you:


"Tax Cuts Explained"


Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Unfortunately, TOO MANY COMPLAINERS cannot grasp this straight-forward logic!

 

[tcsenter]

The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.

Not really startled me, I knew that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes, as they should, they're the only ones who can afford to. haha

But you're right in that there is this pervasive misconception among the public that the 'little guy' is always getting screwed in taxes. I know several people who pay more annually in federal income tax than I've ever grossed in one year. Yet, my piddley contribution, by comparison, gets me the same police protection, the same fire protection, the same public school benefits, the same water and sewer systems, the same air quality, the same roads and highways, the same social security benefits, et al.

Hmm...who is getting more bang for their buck?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The IRS has released the year 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.

Not really startled me, I knew that the rich pay the lion's share of taxes, as they should, they're the only ones who can afford to. haha

But you're right in that there is this pervasive misconception among the public that the 'little guy' is always getting screwed in taxes. I know several people who pay more annually in federal income tax than I've ever grossed in one year. Yet, my piddley contribution, by comparison, gets me the same police protection, the same fire protection, the same public school benefits, the same water and sewer systems, the same air quality, the same roads and highways, the same social security benefits, et al.

Hmm...who is getting more bang for their buck?

The fellows that dont pay any income taxes and still get a refund?

 

[glenn1]

And you are leaving off property tax, sales tax, tax on profits of sold shares,.... You could probably even include payroll tax if you were inclined.

LOL, perhaps, but i can't verify those by an SEC Edgar filing. I'm sure ol' Bill is a healthy contributor to the Treasury himself.... you know he ain't using the 1040EZ form.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: glenn1

And you are leaving off property tax, sales tax, tax on profits of sold shares,.... You could probably even include payroll tax if you were inclined.

LOL, perhaps, but i can't verify those by an SEC Edgar filing. I'm sure ol' Bill is a healthy contributor to the Treasury himself.... you know he ain't using the 1040EZ form.

Actually his property tax on his house was more than $600k

 

[n0cmonkey]

Ok, I was wrong about the Microsoft tax thing (I know it was true at some point that they were not paying taxes for something..). Anyhow, aside from the complaining about the crappy file format it all sounds fair. The people that work overtime and forgo many amenities to make more money to live the way they want to live, or pay off previous debts they incurred before they wisened up should pay more. They make more, so why not make them pay more to bring them down to the level of everyone else?

I work an extra 20 hours one week and make massive overtime to help out with an unexpected car problem? I should spend that overtime pay on taxes, plus what I normally pay. An extra $100 should be good enough for 20 hours right?

Not that I have to worry about all of this right now..

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Ok, I was wrong about the Microsoft tax thing (I know it was true at some point that they were not paying taxes for something..). Anyhow, aside from the complaining about the crappy file format it all sounds fair. The people that work overtime and forgo many amenities to make more money to live the way they want to live, or pay off previous debts they incurred before they wisened up should pay more. They make more, so why not make them pay more to bring them down to the level of everyone else?

I work an extra 20 hours one week and make massive overtime to help out with an unexpected car problem? I should spend that overtime pay on taxes, plus what I normally pay. An extra $100 should be good enough for 20 hours right?

Not that I have to worry about all of this right now..

Sounds like you are overtaxed as well.

Also no company actually pays taxes. Tax costs are just passed onto the consumer.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Ok, I was wrong about the Microsoft tax thing (I know it was true at some point that they were not paying taxes for something..). Anyhow, aside from the complaining about the crappy file format it all sounds fair. The people that work overtime and forgo many amenities to make more money to live the way they want to live, or pay off previous debts they incurred before they wisened up should pay more. They make more, so why not make them pay more to bring them down to the level of everyone else?

I work an extra 20 hours one week and make massive overtime to help out with an unexpected car problem? I should spend that overtime pay on taxes, plus what I normally pay. An extra $100 should be good enough for 20 hours right?

Not that I have to worry about all of this right now..

Sounds like you are overtaxed as well.

Also no company actually pays taxes. Tax costs are just passed onto the consumer.

Im not over taxed right now. I would have to have a job to pay income tax... Ask me in a couple of weeks...

 

[Ornery]

Man, whoever wrote that ought to get credit!

• Tax Cuts Explained - by Bernie Baltic
  
  Tax Cuts Explained - By: Anonymous Submitted by: Hoeken, Submit Date: 2002-06-06
  
  Tax Cuts Explained - Posted July 1, 2002, Thanks to the Advocates for Self-Government for the above story, which appeared in their online publication, The Liberator.

Perfect for spoon feeding the truth to some of our slower, left leaning members! Lord knows, I've tried!

 

[glenn1]

Also no company actually pays taxes. Tax costs are just passed onto the consumer.

That's only half true. A company can (if it's able and has pricing power) raise its prices to cover its income tax liability it's true. But that just means their revenue (and corresponding tax liability) will rise by the amount of the price increase in the following year, thus making the price increase moot. You can't pass the tax buck indefinitely.

 

[HendrixFan]

Twisted and misinformed numbers. They dont even begin to tell the truth, though I think that is by design more than anything.

Lets start with the specific numbers in the original post. Half of Americans pay 96% of income tax. First, limiting to income tax is unfair, as far as tax burdens are concerned, but lets not deal with that now. The way that is computed is by assigning a negative income tax to the bottom bracket. You see, the really really poor people get EIC, and get back MORE than they paid in income taxes. Its essentially a form of welfare (before you complain, remember Bush RAISED the bar for recieving this welfare and included it as part of his "tax cut"). Not only do they not end up paying taxes, but they get money back. So it counts as a negative number, dragging down the bottom half's contribution and skewing those results. For simplicity's sake, lets say the bottom 50 pay $50 and the upper 50 pay $50 (perfectly split in half). And the bottom 10% recieve $10. That would result in the bottom fifty paying a net of $40, and the upper 50 paying a net of $50, so now they have an "unfair" 56%, even though the bottom fifty pay in $50 just the same, and in fact, the 11-50% range are paying $50 versus all of the 51-100% paying $50. While it seems as though the upper 50 have the burden, the 11-50 are actually carrying the most. Since the bottom portion doesnt pay income tax, they shouldnt be included in the numbers when determining "fairness".

More to come later, gotta go play some basketball. I have plenty more to share on the subject.

 

[Zebo]

Blah
I paid more in total dollars when I was single, much less income, than I do now with much more dual income...Hows that possible? DEDUCTIONS! Don't forget those or your numbers mean little. And it's easy to find them once you have your basics paid for, unlike when I lived in an apartment, single and basically broke with no possiblity of deductions other than a little 403B.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Twisted and misinformed numbers. They dont even begin to tell the truth, though I think that is by design more than anything.

Lets start with the specific numbers in the original post. Half of Americans pay 96% of income tax. First, limiting to income tax is unfair, as far as tax burdens are concerned, but lets not deal with that now. The way that is computed is by assigning a negative income tax to the bottom bracket. You see, the really really poor people get EIC, and get back MORE than they paid in income taxes. Its essentially a form of welfare (before you complain, remember Bush RAISED the bar for recieving this welfare and included it as part of his "tax cut"). Not only do they not end up paying taxes, but they get money back. So it counts as a negative number, dragging down the bottom half's contribution and skewing those results. For simplicity's sake, lets say the bottom 50 pay $50 and the upper 50 pay $50 (perfectly split in half). And the bottom 10% recieve $10. That would result in the bottom fifty paying a net of $40, and the upper 50 paying a net of $50, so now they have an "unfair" 56%, even though the bottom fifty pay in $50 just the same, and in fact, the 11-50% range are paying $50 versus all of the 51-100% paying $50. While it seems as though the upper 50 have the burden, the 11-50 are actually carrying the most. Since the bottom portion doesnt pay income tax, they shouldnt be included in the numbers when determining "fairness".

More to come later, gotta go play some basketball. I have plenty more to share on the subject.

JUggle the numbers all you want, the top 50% pays 96% of the federal income tax bill. The bottoms 50% pays the remaining 4%.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Twisted and misinformed numbers. They dont even begin to tell the truth, though I think that is by design more than anything.

Lets start with the specific numbers in the original post. Half of Americans pay 96% of income tax. First, limiting to income tax is unfair, as far as tax burdens are concerned, but lets not deal with that now. The way that is computed is by assigning a negative income tax to the bottom bracket. You see, the really really poor people get EIC, and get back MORE than they paid in income taxes. Its essentially a form of welfare (before you complain, remember Bush RAISED the bar for recieving this welfare and included it as part of his "tax cut"). Not only do they not end up paying taxes, but they get money back. So it counts as a negative number, dragging down the bottom half's contribution and skewing those results. For simplicity's sake, lets say the bottom 50 pay $50 and the upper 50 pay $50 (perfectly split in half). And the bottom 10% recieve $10. That would result in the bottom fifty paying a net of $40, and the upper 50 paying a net of $50, so now they have an "unfair" 56%, even though the bottom fifty pay in $50 just the same, and in fact, the 11-50% range are paying $50 versus all of the 51-100% paying $50. While it seems as though the upper 50 have the burden, the 11-50 are actually carrying the most. Since the bottom portion doesnt pay income tax, they shouldnt be included in the numbers when determining "fairness".

More to come later, gotta go play some basketball. I have plenty more to share on the subject.

Of course, when I work overtime at the job I had, which already paid well, I ended up paying *EVEN MORE* than I was before. So I worked harder to give myself a better life, and got screwed for it. Whereas, if I had been a slackass idiot I would not have paid extra income tax. It makes no sense why people that work harder to make a better life should be punished and the people working fewer hours at jobs that do not require as much work/education should be fine.

 

[nord1899]

So if I read that right, to be considered in the top 25%, you have to make at least $55,225?

Wow, never realized I was that high in the percentiles.

 

[bsobel]

Lets start with the specific numbers in the original post. Half of Americans pay 96% of income tax. First, limiting to income tax is unfair, as far as tax burdens are concerned, but lets not deal with that now. The way that is computed is by assigning a negative income tax to the bottom bracket. You see, the really really poor people get EIC, and get back MORE than they paid in income taxes. Its essentially a form of welfare (before you complain, remember Bush RAISED the bar for recieving this welfare and included it as part of his "tax cut"). Not only do they not end up paying taxes, but they get money back. So it counts as a negative number, dragging down the bottom half's contribution and skewing those results. For simplicity's sake, lets say the bottom 50 pay $50 and the upper 50 pay $50 (perfectly split in half). And the bottom 10% recieve $10. That would result in the bottom fifty paying a net of $40, and the upper 50 paying a net of $50, so now they have an "unfair" 56%, even though the bottom fifty pay in $50 just the same, and in fact, the 11-50% range are paying $50 versus all of the 51-100% paying $50. While it seems as though the upper 50 have the burden, the 11-50 are actually carrying the most. Since the bottom portion doesnt pay income tax, they shouldnt be included in the numbers when determining "fairness".

Oh I see, make numbers up with no basis in fact and then attack the real numbers as Twisted and misinformed numbers. Nicely done, future career in politics

Bill