The U.S. Income Tax Burden

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Look, if the government is going to tax my $100M at a rate of 20% that's a lot of money. Sure, I'll have $80M leftover but I'd rather spend another 20% of that $100M MYSELF on charities and such that *I* choose to help out the lower class individuals as opposed to trusting a shoddy social services program to do it for me.

Look, we take the money in the form of taxes because humans are selfish, people don't donate 20M of their 100M. If you guys are so concerned about taxes, how about paying for the war upfront?

200B/ 200M tax payer ~= $1000. We'll just send the bill out and give you a month to pay. That's right, you don't want to pay for social programs, war or anything else. You want to keep your money and "donate" it. LOL.

You're right. I make $100 mil a year and spend my time talking with you fine people. 😛 And BTW, the charity expense would not be optional. It would be a requirement. You would either have to pay that amount in additional taxes OR donate that amount to charity.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
What's the lowest income of the top 1% of taxpayers? What's the lowest income of the top 5% of the taxpayers?

This link should answer your questions.

For the lazy:
1%: $313K
5%: $128K

Sounds rich, but it's not unusual for a couple with degrees to make $60K each. Well, I guess it is unusual, if only 5% of the country is doing it. Nevermind.

OK, my next point. Assuming the current tax structure is fair, when tax relief is given, why not divide it by the same percentages we take it? If the top 25% of earners pay 67% of the taxes, they should get 67% of the tax cuts.

Heh, I expected them to be higher. $128K isn't rich.

 

[1cito]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

This link should answer your questions.

For the lazy:
1%: $313K
5%: $128K

Sounds rich, but it's not unusual for a couple with degrees to make $60K each. Well, I guess it is unusual, if only 5% of the country is doing it. Nevermind.

OK, my next point. Assuming the current tax structure is fair, when tax relief is given, why not divide it by the same percentages we take it? If the top 25% of earners pay 67% of the taxes, they should get 67% of the tax cuts.

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. 128K AGI doesn't sound like much, but I guess its depends on where you live.

Tax cuts should go to those who would most benifit from them (the struggling middle class). I really don't mind the rich getting a tax cut if our fvcking government would stop pissing away so much money.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
A progressive tax system isn't democratic. I feel that people bitch entirely too much about only the rich getting tax breaks. The money all ends up in the economy in the end anyway. Hell, if anything, lower taxes for the upper class helps the economy. More money in the bank = more money to loan out ($1 in the bank is anywhere from $3 - $7 to loan out). Philanthropy helps the tired, poor, sick, and desperate. Spending that money boosts business. It's trickle-down economics at it's finest.

Umm where does the money go when the goverment taxes you. It not like they burn the money. Explain to me how the money has a greater effect on the economy with rich old hags spending it then the effect of the goverment spending it.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: joshsquall
A progressive tax system isn't democratic. I feel that people bitch entirely too much about only the rich getting tax breaks. The money all ends up in the economy in the end anyway. Hell, if anything, lower taxes for the upper class helps the economy. More money in the bank = more money to loan out ($1 in the bank is anywhere from $3 - $7 to loan out). Philanthropy helps the tired, poor, sick, and desperate. Spending that money boosts business. It's trickle-down economics at it's finest.

Umm where does the money go when the goverment taxes you. It not like they burn the money. Explain to me how the money has a greater effect on the economy with rich old hags spending it then the effect of the goverment spending it.

Some government money would be BETTER spent keeping a fire going than on some of the crap they spend it on. Private capital is about 3 to 5 times as effective as Government capital.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
What's the lowest income of the top 1% of taxpayers? What's the lowest income of the top 5% of the taxpayers?

This link should answer your questions.

For the lazy:
1%: $313K
5%: $128K

Sounds rich, but it's not unusual for a couple with degrees to make $60K each. Well, I guess it is unusual, if only 5% of the country is doing it. Nevermind.

Um, two people are not one people... this information is for taxpayers, not households.

Um, moron, when you pay taxes as a married couple, your tax rate is based on your combined taxable income. You will learn this when you graduate from high school. Until then, please refrain from talking about subjects you obviously don't know anything about.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As for the whining from high income Americans, walk a mile in the shoes of the average wage earner, then get back to me. I'll have tears in my eyes as big as horse turds, much like the crocodile tears they're crying now...

Man, you are the epitome of "liberal". You are the reason I will NEVER vote for a democratic candidate as long as I live, and proudly show my "Bush/Cheney" bumper sticker on my car. The great thing about America is that we provide the opportunity to become as successful as possible. There is no glass ceiling; the sky is the limit to your success. But some Americans (the bad ones) think that when you do become successful, you should be forced by the government to share that wealth with the rest of us who decided not to do whatever it was that you did to become successful.

So even if you are capable of rising above, and enjoying the life that most don't get to live, we will try our best to keep you down with the rest of us. That's pure evil. I don't see how anyone with a conscience can vote democratic.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: joshsquall
A progressive tax system isn't democratic. I feel that people bitch entirely too much about only the rich getting tax breaks. The money all ends up in the economy in the end anyway. Hell, if anything, lower taxes for the upper class helps the economy. More money in the bank = more money to loan out ($1 in the bank is anywhere from $3 - $7 to loan out). Philanthropy helps the tired, poor, sick, and desperate. Spending that money boosts business. It's trickle-down economics at it's finest.

Umm where does the money go when the goverment taxes you. It not like they burn the money. Explain to me how the money has a greater effect on the economy with rich old hags spending it then the effect of the goverment spending it.

Some government money would be BETTER spent keeping a fire going than on some of the crap they spend it on. Private capital is about 3 to 5 times as effective as Government capital.

Well, do you know where most govenment borrowing come from? Yeah that's right, private investment in the form of treasury/government bond. Increase deficit lead to increase borrowing and lead to reduction in private investment that could've gone to other investment viehicle. So if you give tax cut by increase deficit, the amount private capital increase becomes a wash.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Um, moron, when you pay taxes as a married couple, your tax rate is based on your combined taxable income. You will learn this when you graduate from high school. Until then, please refrain from talking about subjects you obviously don't know anything about.

Um... asshat, it says 'taxpayers'. If it were couples and/or households, it would say that.

The whole point to filing as a married couple is to pay less taxes - not to add your income together, and pay in a higher tax bracket.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Um, moron, when you pay taxes as a married couple, your tax rate is based on your combined taxable income. You will learn this when you graduate from high school. Until then, please refrain from talking about subjects you obviously don't know anything about.

Um... asshat, it says 'taxpayers'. If it were couples and/or households, it would say that.

The whole point to filing as a married couple is to pay less taxes - not to add your income together, and pay in a higher tax bracket.

Sorry, you're wrong again. Whether you file single, head of household, married jointly, whatever, you're called a taxpayer. Nowhere does it say "taxpayer, filing single".

EDIT (rephrased): Whether you file married separate or married jointly depends on which filing status provides the greatest tax benefit. In most cases, couples will file married jointly, as they can combine expenses that count towards deductions, etc. The downside is that is doubles your taxable income, increasing your tax bracket. When the government is quoting stats on taxpayers, only an ignorant person would assume they only mean people who file individually. I would assume most adults who pay taxes are married, and file married jointly. Leaving them out of a statistic would skew the results.

 

[biostud]

AFAIK the very rich doesn't get their money from normal income, I thought they earn their money, selling stocks etc., so most of their income is not taxated as an income. I could be wrong though.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
EDIT (rephrased): Whether you file married separate or married jointly depends on which filing status provides the greatest tax benefit. In most cases, couples will file married jointly, as they can combine expenses that count towards deductions, etc. The downside is that is doubles your taxable income, increasing your tax bracket. When the government is quoting stats on taxpayers, only an ignorant person would assume they only mean people who file individually. I would assume most adults who pay taxes are married, and file married jointly. Leaving them out of a statistic would skew the results.

Wow that's crazy... I really honestly think that's whacked - I know both of my parents file returns in Canada***, and because only one has income they get to claim a deduction for the other.

But you really file jointly and effectively only count as one person? Do they even know how much each person earns? If that's really the case I'm shocked by the low level of the top 5% income.

OTOH, it means every two married people only count as one taxpayer, and the 5% may represent considerably more than 5% of the working population. I would expect most filings however are by single people; what percentage of the tax-filing population is married (and then divide that by 2 if filing jointly is usually better). The results are also skewed by students and the like who file returns with very low incomes (I've been filing for almost 10 years now, and I'm still in university, so I've never worked a full-time 12 month a year job). I'm still surprised though.

***i.e. sometimes I obviously assume too many things are pretty similar!

 

[imported_tss4]

You know you say that and maybe in a lot of cases its true, but there other programs where the government is more effective. Out sourcing of government IT is all the rage right now but speaking from experience at my government job, we now get less services and pay much more than we did when we handled our own IT. I'm not saying the private sector is more affective in certain areas, I'm just saying its not a magic cure all to say use the private sector.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: joshsquall
A progressive tax system isn't democratic. I feel that people bitch entirely too much about only the rich getting tax breaks. The money all ends up in the economy in the end anyway. Hell, if anything, lower taxes for the upper class helps the economy. More money in the bank = more money to loan out ($1 in the bank is anywhere from $3 - $7 to loan out). Philanthropy helps the tired, poor, sick, and desperate. Spending that money boosts business. It's trickle-down economics at it's finest.

Umm where does the money go when the goverment taxes you. It not like they burn the money. Explain to me how the money has a greater effect on the economy with rich old hags spending it then the effect of the goverment spending it.

Some government money would be BETTER spent keeping a fire going than on some of the crap they spend it on. Private capital is about 3 to 5 times as effective as Government capital.

How is the money ineffective. Does the goverment stick the cash under it matrees? Private companies may get a 3 to 5 times more out of their money because they don't purchase 10K dollar tiolet seets but that doesn't mean their spend help the ecomony more then the goverment spending money.

 

[Shelly21]

Someone said it best, It is a honor for young kids to give up their lives for this country, but it is a burdon for the rich to pay more tax.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Fingolfin269, I'd suggest that even if you ever make that kind of money, which is statistically extremely unlikely, that it would largely be a product of the environment in which you live, the society, and even at 50% tax rates, you'd still have plenty of excess income for charity work.

A Warren Buffet points out, the kind of opportunities that allowed his success don't exist in Bangladesh...

One of the deceptive aspects of evaluating the whole concept of wealth is that the truly wealthy hide in the top 1%, as unlikely as that might sound. The Right, of course, makes the attribution that "Leftists" think anybody who makes $60K is rich, which is typical hyperbole, and far from the truth. People at the entry level to the top 1% are well off, for sure, but they still depend on their paychecks. People in the top .01 percentile are an entirely different story. the income distribution curve having gone vertical at some point well before then, and their individual net worth exceeding that of many entire countries...

And speaking of net worth, any group whose net worth has exploded like the Forbes 400 has over the last 20 years or so definitely isn't overtaxed... While the marginal rates have fallen considerably since 1980, some of them still whine piteously, stash as much income as possible overseas, engage in questionable sheltering practices, and guys like Rip take up their cause, even though most of them probably wouldn't piss on his head if his hair was on fire...

The sad truth is that either govt spending has to be cut radically, to a level few Americans would actually accept, or taxes need to be raised considerably for those who can afford to pay more, or some compromise between the two... Half a trillion dollar a year deficits will destroy the fiscal integrity of the govt, and a lot sooner than most even suspect...

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Someone said it best, It is a honor for young kids to give up their lives for this country, but it is a burdon for the rich to pay more tax.

The wealthy young soldiers aren't singled out and killed more horrifically. It's a disproportionate burden, and the cost of government is a burden created for, and which should be supported by, all Americans.

 

[Ferocious]

Every single wealthy person I know (without exception) did not mind the tax rates under Clinton.

Sure they would prefer lower taxes. Who wouldn't. But the middle class NEEDS it more.

Nearly all of them agree with Kerry's philosophy of reverting tax rates for the wealthy back to Clinton levels.....and even helping out the middle class with an additional tax break for them.

The VAST majority of people who complain about taxes (Clinton levels) on the rich are usually nowhere near being rich. I think a lot of that stems from a time when the wealthy did complain a lot....back before the Reagan tax cuts.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Every single wealthy person I know (without exception) did not mind the tax rates under Clinton.

Sure they would prefer lower taxes. Who wouldn't. But the middle class NEEDS it more.

Nearly all of them agree with Kerry's philosophy of reverting tax rates for the wealthy back to Clinton levels.....and even helping out the middle class with an additional tax break for them.

The VAST majority of people who complain about taxes (Clinton levels) on the rich are usually nowhere near being rich. I think a lot of that stems from a time when the wealthy did complain a lot....back before the Reagan tax cuts.

The wealthy, like Kerry and Edwards, have already made their fortune and they'll be rich regardless. What about those who aspire to become wealthy like they did?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, Fingolfin269, I'd suggest that even if you ever make that kind of money, which is statistically extremely unlikely, that it would largely be a product of the environment in which you live, the society, and even at 50% tax rates, you'd still have plenty of excess income for charity work.

A Warren Buffet points out, the kind of opportunities that allowed his success don't exist in Bangladesh...

One of the deceptive aspects of evaluating the whole concept of wealth is that the truly wealthy hide in the top 1%, as unlikely as that might sound. The Right, of course, makes the attribution that "Leftists" think anybody who makes $60K is rich, which is typical hyperbole, and far from the truth. People at the entry level to the top 1% are well off, for sure, but they still depend on their paychecks. People in the top .01 percentile are an entirely different story. the income distribution curve having gone vertical at some point well before then, and their individual net worth exceeding that of many entire countries...

And speaking of net worth, any group whose net worth has exploded like the Forbes 400 has over the last 20 years or so definitely isn't overtaxed... While the marginal rates have fallen considerably since 1980, some of them still whine piteously, stash as much income as possible overseas, engage in questionable sheltering practices, and guys like Rip take up their cause, even though most of them probably wouldn't piss on his head if his hair was on fire...

The sad truth is that either govt spending has to be cut radically, to a level few Americans would actually accept, or taxes need to be raised considerably for those who can afford to pay more, or some compromise between the two... Half a trillion dollar a year deficits will destroy the fiscal integrity of the govt, and a lot sooner than most even suspect...

I don't know that Rip is taking up for the case of the super-millionaires, but moreso for pretty much everyone. If I remember my numbers correctly, the upper half of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. So basically, half of the country is shouldering the load for the other half.

That line, however, starts, IIRC, at around 40K. So if you make 40K you're in the upper half of wage earners in the country. That upper half is obviously going to get the lion's share of any tax cut as they pay the vast majority of all taxes. The strangeness comes in when the left likes to say that Bush is giving all the money to the upper half and leaving out the bottom half - well, the problem is, they're only paying 4% of the taxes - of course their cut is going to be smaller.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: TheBDB
I would support lower taxes for everyone if the budget was reduced. The bottom line is POOR PEOPLE CANNOT PAY FOR ALL THE SH!T WE HAVE. You can't tax the poor people more because they already have it tough. So, you either cut spending or rich people suck it up.

:thumbsup:

 

[NeoV]

hey dumb4ss, I mean rip....if the top 1% pay 29% of the taxes, should they get nearly 45% of the tax cuts?

Don't you have something to go hunt? Why don't you go track down that mystery animal in Maryland, you can blame that on Kerry too

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: TheBDB
I would support lower taxes for everyone if the budget was reduced. The bottom line is POOR PEOPLE CANNOT PAY FOR ALL THE SH!T WE HAVE. You can't tax the poor people more because they already have it tough. So, you either cut spending or rich people suck it up.

:thumbsup:

lol You know, the funny thing is my mom, for example, grew up dirt poor, family of 15 children, father died in 1955. They've paid taxes on their income and never complained about it; they use the roads just the sames as much as everyone else, if not more. You make the room to pay because you use the services provided.

No one said life is easy, or right, but just because life is hard doesn't give someone license to steal from another. Attitudes like that breed communism.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I gotta get somebody to throw $40K my way so I can stop paying interest 😉

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, X-Man, don't engage in false attributions, like this-

"The strangeness comes in when the left likes to say that Bush is giving all the money to the upper half and leaving out the bottom half"

It's not that, at all, but more along the lines of what Neo V pointed out, that 45% of the cuts go to the top 1%, and that the lion's share of those go to the very wealthiest among that group...

Meanwhile, the debt is soaring, and the growth in spending sponsored by the Republicans is the greatest in 50 years...

All perpetrated under the banners of "tax relief", a concept so loaded as to be laughable. Ask a guy making $40K if he'd be willing to pay 1980 tax rates on $300K, and you'd probably get a rather enthusiastic "YES!"- I certainly would. And there's always the exploitation of the "Not Fair" argument, which sounds peachy on the surface, until you realize that the huge disparities in income in our society aren't fair, either... Did the guy raking in $3M work 100 times harder than the guy making $30K, or was he 100 times smarter, or some combination of the two? Obviously not.

The last time we fought a real war, in a real national emergency, was WW2, and marginal tax rates on the wealthy were in excess of 90%- in the spirit of egalitarian struggle against a common enemy, those who could pay more were called upon to do so.

What we're experiencing now is another kind of war entirely, one being waged against the middle class by the extremely wealthy, one designed to forever alter the balance between the power of wealth and the power of our democratic government. Explosive federal debt is the vehicle, and provides the illusion of well being required to mask the looting currently occurring... If you'd care to see where this kind of policy leads, look no further than Brazil, and Argentina- They're currently owned, the governments hamstrung by overwhelming debt, and they dance to the tune of their creditors. We'll be next, if the Republican reactionaries currently in power are allowed to proceed as planned, to the dawn of a new "Golden Age", reminiscent of the McKinley era, and all that entails...