Richest Americans? Income Doubled as Tax Rate Slashed

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Yeah, between deductions and then credits - no "poor" person should have any net income tax liability.

And if they managed their finances properly they wouldn't be so poor.

My nephew is a college kid doing tax returns....basically everyone making $40k or below takes out a RAL and pays $30 + ~90% interest on their welfare refund.

Obama hands more money to idiots like this, and his company skims off the top. Easy to take money from idiots.

 

[microbial]

This falls under the "It's good to be the King" rule. Rich powerful people make the rules. You'd have to be very innocent to believe that the tax code isn't blatantly written to the advantage of those who write it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Kee-rist, Wheezer- you don't even have the sense to not contradict yourself on the same page of this thread.

First you offer this-

The tax code is borked in so many ways...is it designed by the rich for the rich so they pay less?...certainly, it probably is, but you just cant bitch whine and complain about part of it.....either fix all of it or keep quiet.

And then this-

but no, you want to start writing a whole new book rather than fixing a few chapters.

I didn't offer that the whole thing needed an overhaul, you did, then accused me of making your own proposal. Can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you'd like to...

And putting words in my mouth, a second time-

Second you are saying the entire tax code is written specifically for these people....ok let's go with that.....would it be easier to rewrite the entire system to snag this 1% or would it be easier to close the holes that allow 10-15% to cheat the system?

That's not what I said, at all. I said the portion of the tax code that covers the top 1% is regressive, that the further up one gets in that category, the more the code favors that filer. The facts bear that out, whether you like it or not.

And now we have Winnar making his usual misrepresentations, as if he had the vaguest idea of what he's talking about-

And yet its the husband and wife making $150k each are going to get pulverized by the Obama tax code.

False, and anybody who can actually read knows better-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/ST2008060900950.html

And this bit of disingenuous demagoguery-

And that's why the IRS deems that 15% of EIC returns are fraudulent!

So what? That's not who I was talking about- I was talking about the tens of millions of taxpayers who work and file under the standard deduction because they don't, can't come out ahead by itemizing and whose entire incomes are covered by W-2's.

Not that Winnar can possibly be convinced by reason or fact- he believes what he believes because he believes it, outside the bounds of any sort of analysis whatsoever. I'd rather try to reason with an attack dog.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: microbial
This falls under the "It's good to be the King" rule. Rich powerful people make the rules. You'd have to be very innocent to believe that the tax code isn't blatantly written to the advantage of those who write it.

And then there's the part where we got rid of the king to have democracy and the people get to put in place a fairer tax code.

The question is, when the wealthy then respond with propaganda campaigns to get average citizens to vote for policies benefitting billionares by playing on their fears the poor people might get a dollar here and there, when they counter with propaganda about 'class warfare' while they wage that war, will the average voters fall for it?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

And that's why the IRS deems that 15% of EIC returns are fraudulent!

So what? That's not who I was talking about- I was talking about the tens of millions of taxpayers who work and file under the standard deduction because they don't, can't come out ahead by itemizing and whose entire incomes are covered by W-2's.

Not that Winnar can possibly be convinced by reason or fact- he believes what he believes because he believes it, outside the bounds of any sort of analysis whatsoever. I'd rather try to reason with an attack dog.

You assert that its impossible to commit fraud with W-2's, which simply is not true. The guys claiming EIC aren't exactly rolling in interest income.

Of course, if you want to look at a small portion of the tax return and ignore the rest of it....

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Kee-rist, Wheezer- you don't even have the sense to not contradict yourself on the same page of this thread.

First you offer this-

The tax code is borked in so many ways...is it designed by the rich for the rich so they pay less?...certainly, it probably is, but you just cant bitch whine and complain about part of it.....either fix all of it or keep quiet.

And then this-

but no, you want to start writing a whole new book rather than fixing a few chapters.

I didn't offer that the whole thing needed an overhaul, you did, then accused me of making your own proposal. Can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you'd like to...

And putting words in my mouth, a second time-

Second you are saying the entire tax code is written specifically for these people....ok let's go with that.....would it be easier to rewrite the entire system to snag this 1% or would it be easier to close the holes that allow 10-15% to cheat the system?

That's not what I said, at all. I said the portion of the tax code that covers the top 1% is regressive, that the further up one gets in that category, the more the code favors that filer. The facts bear that out, whether you like it or not.

And now we have Winnar making his usual misrepresentations, as if he had the vaguest idea of what he's talking about-

And yet its the husband and wife making $150k each are going to get pulverized by the Obama tax code.

False, and anybody who can actually read knows better-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/ST2008060900950.html

And this bit of disingenuous demagoguery-

And that's why the IRS deems that 15% of EIC returns are fraudulent!

So what? That's not who I was talking about- I was talking about the tens of millions of taxpayers who work and file under the standard deduction because they don't, can't come out ahead by itemizing and whose entire incomes are covered by W-2's.

Not that Winnar can possibly be convinced by reason or fact- he believes what he believes because he believes it, outside the bounds of any sort of analysis whatsoever. I'd rather try to reason with an attack dog.

you really, really, need to work on your reading comprehension, you are like arguing with a woman...you want to pick and choose what facts this is about while ignoring the elephant in the room which is the bigger picture.

#1 this thread was started because the top 400 do not pay their fair share of taxes.

To which I responded why focus on just these 400?...there are so many more people not paying their fair share of taxes....why not focus on them also.

To which you responded about how the tax system is written to be regressive for the top 1% meaning the more they make the less they pay.

And again I ask why just this top 1% why not focus on all the other rich that also use the tax system to their advantage and find loopholes to avoid paying thier fair share.

you have not answered that question yet.

I didn't offer that the whole thing needed an overhaul

so you just want to start with the hard stuff first....I mean first you say it has been designed to be regressive for the top 1% but then you say it doesn't need an overhaul?......really.

So you just want to fix the parts that only affect the top 1%?

so I go back to my question....why only focus there?

if what you say is true and the tax code has been written in their favor then this top 1% wields and amazing amount of power.....do you honestly think it will ever happen?

Or do you do you think it more reasonable to close the holes that allow a greater number of those that consistently make large amounts of money and use the system to their favor thereby avoiding taxes?

see, you can't have it both ways...either the damn thing needs fixed or it does not
and if it does then the entire process needs work...not just the portion that affects those at the very tip top.

 

[Turin39789]

Maybe if we eliminated all of the taxes for the rich and gave them 10% of our income they could make even more jobs for us.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

you really, really, need to work on your reading comprehension, you are like arguing with a woman...you want to pick and choose what facts this is about while ignoring the elephant in the room which is the bigger picture.

Wow. Considering that most women can wipe the floor with you, you should not set yourself up so badly.

And again I ask why just this top 1% why not focus on all the other rich that also use the tax system to their advantage and find loopholes to avoid paying thier fair share.

you have not answered that question yet.

Who says he *only* wants to address the top 1% - but that's a good place to concentrate the fix. They drive the policies, they've beefittted from the changes since Reagan.

As of 1998 - the latest year I had handy, and before their share went far higher fro the Buish policies - the top 1% of Americans owned 38% of the wealth in the nation.

I think that's closer to half now. That's the place to fix things, not by nickle and dimiing the consumers whose spending keeps the eocnomy growing, while the wealthy accumulate.

If you want a third world nation where a sliver of the nation owns most of the wealth and there is widespread poverty, we disagree on what's good for the nation.

Spare me the fallacies about fair taxation on the wealthy shrinking the pie. If you are going to parrot that ignorant nonsense, save us all the trouble.

if what you say is true and the tax code has been written in their favor then this top 1% wields and amazing amount of power.....do you honestly think it will ever happen?

Democracy means it can, once in a while, happen, as it did with Teddy Roosevelt, With FDR, with JFK. It depends whether people believe Jhhnn or believe you.

Or do you do you think it more reasonable to close the holes that allow a greater number of those that consistently make large amounts of money and use the system to their favor thereby avoiding taxes?

see, you can't have it both ways...either the damn thing needs fixed or it does not
and if it does then the entire process needs work...not just the portion that affects those at the very tip top.

False dilemma. What needs fixing most is simply the policy makers serving the publc instead of the few most wealthy.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Craig234
....

I can't even believe the blinders you have on.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: venkman
Tell me again why I'm paying 35% and they are paying 17%?

Cuz you don't know how to shelter your income from taxes like rich people do. That's why they are rich and you're not. . .they know how to play the game better than you.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: venkman
Tell me again why I'm paying 35% and they are paying 17%?

Cuz you don't know how to shelter your income from taxes like rich people do. That's why they are rich and you're not. . .they know how to play the game better than you.

You know... .skimming through this thread I'm suprised everyone is focused on tax shelters and SS / medicare caps.

The single biggest reason the %'s are skewed is because capital gains tax is only 15%. Now you can argue the merits of that, but all this partisan bickering about SS/medicare/tax shelters is a bit redicilous when you consider it's not the heart of the issue.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

You haven't actually responded to that question yet. You keep trying to dance around around it, but you have done nothing towards providing an answer.

Answer the question.

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

Ever compared the percentage of taxes paid to total net worth and income?

Didn't think so ...

More of the old soft shoe routine in response to my question. C'mon. We all know what the answer is. It was a rhetorical question in the first place, so you don't even really need to answer it.

Your attempt at avoiding answering it, in a not so deft manner, is a bit hilarious though.

Your the one who started the dance routine.

Who pays the most in taxes? The people who MAKE THE MOST MONEY.

They also have the best homes, health care, etc., etc., etc. Good for them but they shouldn't act like a bunch of dickwads expect the rest of us to feel sorry for them.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

You haven't actually responded to that question yet. You keep trying to dance around around it, but you have done nothing towards providing an answer.

Answer the question.

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

Ever compared the percentage of taxes paid to total net worth and income?

Didn't think so ...

More of the old soft shoe routine in response to my question. C'mon. We all know what the answer is. It was a rhetorical question in the first place, so you don't even really need to answer it.

Your attempt at avoiding answering it, in a not so deft manner, is a bit hilarious though.

Your the one who started the dance routine.

Who pays the most in taxes? The people who MAKE THE MOST MONEY.

They also have the best homes, health care, etc., etc., etc. Good for them but they shouldn't act like a bunch of dickwads expect the rest of us to feel sorry for them.

They also have the money that invests in and creates businesses so people can afford to buy computers and then bitch on the internet about how the rich make too much money and don't pay enough taxes.

And I think your attitude is hilarious too. You expect them to feel sorry for everyone else but, fuck those dickwads. lol.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

You haven't actually responded to that question yet. You keep trying to dance around around it, but you have done nothing towards providing an answer.

Answer the question.

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

Ever compared the percentage of taxes paid to total net worth and income?

Didn't think so ...

More of the old soft shoe routine in response to my question. C'mon. We all know what the answer is. It was a rhetorical question in the first place, so you don't even really need to answer it.

Your attempt at avoiding answering it, in a not so deft manner, is a bit hilarious though.

Your the one who started the dance routine.

Who pays the most in taxes? The people who MAKE THE MOST MONEY.

They also have the best homes, health care, etc., etc., etc. Good for them but they shouldn't act like a bunch of dickwads expect the rest of us to feel sorry for them.

They also have the money that invests in and creates businesses so people can afford to buy computers and then bitch on the internet about how the rich make too much money and don't pay enough taxes.

And I think your attitude is hilarious too. You expect them to feel sorry for everyone else but, fuck those dickwads. lol.

I'm not the one constantly complaining about my taxes, they are... so fuck the dickwads. I pay my fair share and it hurts me a lot more then what they pay hurts them.

And please give your pathetic "trickle down" threat its much needed rest. Money isn't what defines what is good and having it doesn't automatically make you better then the next guy no matter how spectacular you THINK you are at the soft shoe. :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

I'm not the one constantly complaining about my taxes, they are... so fuck the dickwads. I pay my fair share and it hurts me a lot more then what they pay hurts them.

And please give your pathetic "trickle down" threat its much needed rest. Money isn't what defines what is good and having it doesn't automatically make you better then the next guy no matter how spectacular you THINK you are at the soft shoe. :laugh:

Sometimes I think the only places where Reaganomics still lives on is on the GOP website, Freep, and ATPN. Everyone else got the memo a decade or two back that it doesn't work.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I'm not the one constantly complaining about my taxes, they are... so fuck the dickwads. I pay my fair share and it hurts me a lot more then what they pay hurts them.

And please give your pathetic "trickle down" threat its much needed rest. Money isn't what defines what is good and having it doesn't automatically make you better then the next guy no matter how spectacular you THINK you are at the soft shoe. :laugh:

It sure seems you're the one complaining. You're not complaining about YOU though, you're complaining about THEM. In fact, that's really the basic premise of this thread, complaining about the rich.

You are also mistaken. I'm not wearing any soft shoe. I'm wearing hip waders to avoid all the whine from the sour grapers that constantly bitch by using statements like "They also have the best homes, health care, etc., etc., etc." as if everything in this world should be equal for all. 'Fooking Tiger Woods has a Lear Jet and I don't. WAAAAH!'

btw, who do you think creates jobs in this country? It sure isn't the middle class and poor. So I think I'll let my trickle down statement stand, because as much as certain people (like our resident socialists and communist wannabees) love to claim it's not true, anyone with a modicum of sense knows they are fos. Let the rich pull up stakes and leave the US with their money and assets. You, me, and the rest of this country would be fucked.

Last but not least, your red herring of an argument of money not defining what's good doesn't even belong here. It's nothing that I implied nor have I seen anyone else in here imply such a thing. It does seem to expose the bitterness in your mind regarding the rich though.

 

[fskimospy]

Someone should go tell the Congressional Budget Office that they don't have a modicum of sense. They seem to have come to the conclusion that the supply side tax cuts we've enacted not only screwed over tax revenues, but gave us a whopping long term benefit of 0.7% GDP growth for our trouble. They must be commies too.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Someone should go tell the Congressional Budget Office that they don't have a modicum of sense. They seem to have come to the conclusion that the supply side tax cuts we've enacted not only screwed over tax revenues, but gave us a whopping long term benefit of 0.7% GDP growth for our trouble. They must be commies too.

Huh? Tax cuts aren't what screwed over our tax revenues or GDP growth. In fact, the CBO has been tweaking taxes on the rich for decades now to try to find the sweet spot for taxing the rich. Tax the rich too much and revenues decrease. So the secret is to find the tax rate that generates the most revenue, which isn't always a rate that taxes the everliving crap out of the rich, as so many in here want to see done. It's just not that simple as slapping extra taxes on the rich and our problems are solved, and I think you know that.

 

[Train]

Some of these rich people are rich because of the "good ideas" put forth by the very socialists who hate them.

"Lets create an incentive to hire people!.. ya great idea!"

guess who hires people? It ain't Tyrone on the street corner. It's rich people. They then have the special case deductions where they get a shit ton of thier income tax free because the socialist had this bright idea to get more out of them.

Theres a ton of other "brilliant" socialist ideas that have backfired like this becase the idiots who thoguht them up can't see further than 2 feet in front of thier face.

Even more painful to watch is how they cant even see the error of thier ways... they see the result of thier repeated idiocy and blame the capitalists. "hmm, next time we need MORE socialism! ya that will do it. Downward spirals FTMFL

I've been saying for a while that socialism and progressive taxation actually FAVORS the richest among us.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Corn
Doesn't matter, PUNISH THE RICH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doesn't matter, PUNISH THE POOR!!!!!!!!!!!!

The poor don't pay taxes in the first place.

They don't?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

I just got pwned.

Now I'm going to attempt to divert away from the response with a red herring question.

Fixed for accuracy.

If you had any accuracy you would have answered my last assertion. You owned yourself by avoiding it.

Fixed again.

And it was responded to, but in case you missed it, here it again for you.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

It was a question. It ended in a question mark. Allow me to help you out:

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

You haven't actually responded to that question yet. You keep trying to dance around around it, but you have done nothing towards providing an answer.

Answer the question.

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

The consumer does, ultimately. Every cost of producing any good or service is passed on to them.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

[snipped]

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

The consumer does, ultimately. Every cost of producing any good or service is passed on to them.

the consumer is a role, not a person or demographic.

You could make an equally stupid reply and say "the taxpayer does".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Craig234
....

I can't even believe the blinders you have on.

Your thorough analysis to back up your attack is... as expected. Lame, missing, and a complete embarrassment for you, if you had enough of a clue to get embarrassed.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Craig234
....

I can't even believe the blinders you have on.

Your thorough analysis to back up your attack is... as expected. Lame, missing, and a complete embarrassment for you, if you had enough of a clue to get embarrassed.

To start with you'd have to first have a basic understanding of history, which you clearly demonstrated a severe lack of. Not only would that take a long time, it would also likely fail, since you've also demostrated a learning disability by failing to acknowledge basic facts and or premises of logic on many occasions.

If you really want to debate though, feel free to respond to any of the other posts I've made in this thread.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

[snipped]

"Who pays the most in taxes, by FAR, in this country?"

The consumer does, ultimately. Every cost of producing any good or service is passed on to them.

the consumer is a role, not a person or demographic.

You could make an equally stupid reply and say "the taxpayer does".

The consumers are a group of people, as are the rich. If you are going to engage in a debate and defend or promote class division, you need to know how all of the little pieces fit into it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Craig234
....

I can't even believe the blinders you have on.

Your thorough analysis to back up your attack is... as expected. Lame, missing, and a complete embarrassment for you, if you had enough of a clue to get embarrassed.

To start with you'd have to first have a basic understanding of history, which you clearly demonstrated a severe lack of.

Well, you just moved the head of my idiot list. You just didn't stand out enough before.

I think even my critics here would say that my posts tend to show the opposite of what you claim, about history. Indeed, I've had many positive comments about that prefacing whatever disagreement they have. What this shows is that you are simply the worst sort of poster who makes up a false attack without any consideration for the truth.

As such, you took the shortcut to my 'do not read, ask you not to reply to me' list.

In anticipation of your continued whiny and dishonest posts despite my request, let's note that you are the one who chose to post your attacks without *any* support.