Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010 [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010


snerd
04-16-2012, 10:05
I think we definitely need to rework the tax code.
According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.

In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.

......... data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/americans-making-over-50000-year-paid-933-percent-all-taxes-2010

wjv
04-16-2012, 10:19
I think we definitely need to rework the tax code.

Yup. . . They need to pay 99.9999%. . .

It's just not fair that those making under $50K per year had to pay a whopping 6.7% of the tax burden.

Evil 1 percenters!!!!

:tongueout:

How much do you want to bet that 99.9% of all jobs creation is done by those making more than $50K per year. . .

Brucev
04-16-2012, 11:05
That's fine. We make the money. So, we pay the tax. Makes perfect sense.

Javelin
04-16-2012, 11:10
And the 48% in this country that are on government support making under $50K (the majority of the under $50K wage earners).

--------> With the bulk of low wage earners on welfare how are you going to tax someone on welfare? Your tax dollars are giving them money... not taking it.

Only answer: Take away welfare & tax tax tax the poor. Hey don't laugh it worked in England just a few centuries ago.

aircarver
04-16-2012, 11:11
and.... We make the money.... we keep the money .... :thumbsup:

.

certifiedfunds
04-16-2012, 12:10
That's fine. We make the money. So, we pay the tax. Makes perfect sense.

Don't you run a non-profit?

Brucev
04-16-2012, 13:36
And the 48% in this country that are on government support making under $50K (the majority of the under $50K wage earners).

--------> With the bulk of low wage earners on welfare how are you going to tax someone on welfare? Your tax dollars are giving them money... not taking it.

Only answer: Take away welfare & tax tax tax the poor. Hey don't laugh it worked in England just a few centuries ago.

Is the big concern that the wrong social class is benefiting from all this federal largess?

Is it possibly the idea that we should rather pay what amounts to a head tax rather than a tax on relative "prosperity" (since with built in loopholes those who are most prosperous pay far less in percentage).

Is there any proof demonstrable that taxing the poor produces the revenue necessary to fund the equivalent of a victorian imperialism ala old world britain?

If there is no proof demonstrable, then is the main idea that America hope that supply-side 2.0 will not be a worse failure than the original version of voodoo once foisted on the U.S.?

Brucev
04-16-2012, 13:37
Don't you run a non-profit?

Perish the thought. I work for a living. You know. As in wages, tips, salary, etc.

Green70
04-16-2012, 13:45
You're welcome...

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 15:03
That's fine. We make the money. So, we pay the tax. Makes perfect sense.

Everyone that makes money should pay tax. Not just some.

Brucev
04-16-2012, 15:52
Everyone that makes money should pay tax. Not just some.

No. Even the supposedly "fair tax" recognizes that that would be to institutionalize inequity. A tax floor is appropriate. From that point on, a progressively graduated schedule should be put in place. For a start, use the scale that was the norm of the post-WWII 1950's era. Apply it to all money received, i.e., wages, tips, salary, capital gains, interest, dividends, etc. And... since corporations are "persons" let corporations pay the same income tax rates progressively graduated of course, on whatever wages, tips, salaries, capital gains, interest, dividends, etc. they as "persons" might receive either generated domestically or overseas. At the same time cut military spending a minimum of 10% and eliminate all overseas bases along with the attendant support facilities, etc. Do the same exact thing with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Then and only then will it be appropriate to start talking about cutting social programs, etc.

Snowman92D
04-16-2012, 16:00
$50,000, huh? The "evil rich" who aren't paying their fair share. Imagine that.

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 16:50
No. Even the supposedly "fair tax" recognizes that that would be to institutionalize inequity.

Beee Esss.

No such thing. Not fair at all, just a system built on envy.

If everyone paid a flat, say, 15%, that would be ..equitable.

A guy making 10,000 would pay 1,500.
A guy making 100,000 would pay 15,000.

There is nothing inequitable about that.

Make more, pay more.

None of this class warfare, envy based, "you make more, therefore we take a higher proportion out of envy".

Childishness like that has no place at the adult table of real solutions equitable in society.

The sewage you dispensed in your post is nothing more than socialistic theft, redistribution of income out of sheer envy that the little guy hasn't made it up the ladder…and he has the same chance to that everyone else does. If he underperforms, than its up to him to improve his situation. cushioning failure by funding it with money taken from others out of jealousy is not a way to manage a civil society.

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 16:51
Is the big concern that the wrong social class is benefiting from all this federal largess?

Yes, the suckup class, being trained not to work and being paid for it in encouragement.

windplex
04-16-2012, 17:03
Is the big concern that the wrong social class is benefiting from all this federal largess?

Is it possibly ... supply-side 2.0 will not be a worse failure than the original version of voodoo once foisted on the U.S.?

Sorry I cant paste this chart better.

However, BruceV, to answer your question the problem is that 50.87% of households (2005 census data) earn less than 50K and vote. while Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010.

I know I mixed up two different census years but consider that a large percentile of American voters can control the vote and yet do not pay anything close to what their share would be if we divided up the expense of our government to all households.

so we have reached a point where people can literally vote themselves money from other tax payers by voting for the guy who promisses them more money and to make the 1% pay more to do so.

so we fix this now or America is over as we knew it and as it was designed to be.

Does the world really need America to be another Greece? Or would it be better to have America remain something remotely close to what it was designed to be and that has benefitted the world so much todate.

This graph shows the distribution of annual household income in the United States in 2010.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

pipedreams
04-16-2012, 17:13
[QUOTE=Javelin;18852740]And the 48% in this country that are on government support making under $50K (the majority of the under $50K wage earners).

--------> With the bulk of low wage earners on welfare how are you going to tax someone on welfare? Your tax dollars are giving them money... not taking it.
QUOTE]
Most of those that make under $50k get a check from the government every month and then at the end of the year the file a tax return and get a refund.

"data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS.'

Could that be double dipping?? Add the refund on top of the monthly check plus other bennies makes for at pretty good take a tax payers expense.

Gundude
04-16-2012, 17:29
Beee Esss.

No such thing. Not fair at all, just a system built on envy.

If everyone paid a flat, say, 15%, that would be ..equitable.

A guy making 10,000 would pay 1,500.
A guy making 100,000 would pay 15,000.

There is nothing inequitable about that.

Make more, pay more.You agree then, that the current system unfairly favors the rich (along with the poor) since the effective tax rates that multimillionaires and billionaires pay always appear to be lower than those of the middle class?

googanelli
04-16-2012, 17:29
I've always thought we need go back to laws from the origins of this country. You get not vote if you don't own property. Either that or a straight tax on all. I prefer a sales tax. That way everyone pays the same. That's the ONLY way to make taxes fair.

Joe

Gundude
04-16-2012, 17:32
Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010

I think we definitely need to rework the tax code.
Wouldn't we have to know what percent of total income that same group made in order to know for sure?

Norske
04-16-2012, 18:46
Why is a tax based on income so sacred?

I am in favor of the Fair Tax. A tax based on spending, not on income.

The Fair Tax was designed by businessmen, at their own expense. It is designed to benefit the Country, as a whole.

By contrast, the Income Tax was designed by politicians.

Those self-same politicians will tell you that the purpose of the Income Tax system is to provide revenue for Government operations.

The real function of the income tax is to provide power to those politicians. :upeyes:

Power by means of their ability to diddle the tax system to favor those they favor. And punish those they wish to punish.

The main reason we will probably never see the Fair Tax is that it would have to be passed by Politicians who would recognize that they are voting away their own power. And that is something they will never do.

Norske
04-16-2012, 18:53
I've always thought we need go back to laws from the origins of this country. You get not vote if you don't own property. Either that or a straight tax on all. I prefer a sales tax. That way everyone pays the same. That's the ONLY way to make taxes fair.

Joe

I would go one step further.

I think the number of the votes you may cast should be directly tied to the amount of taxes you pay.

"One Man, One Vote". That is, if you pay NO taxes at all. You get ONE vote.

If I pay $10,000 in taxes in a given year, and you pay $20,000 of taxes in that same year, you are twice as valuable than I am in terms of funding our Government. Why should you not have twice the say as I do in how that Government is run?

That Bill Gates has the same one vote as the most worthless Crack Mom out there hooking on the streets for her next rock is asinine. :upeyes:

Con43
04-16-2012, 18:58
The sewage you dispensed in your post is nothing more than socialistic theft, redistribution of income out of sheer envy that the little guy hasn't made it up the ladder…and he has the same chance to that everyone else does. If he underperforms, than its up to him to improve his situation. cushioning failure by funding it with money taken from others out of jealousy is not a way to manage a civil society.



Couldn't agree more being one of the super rich that pays 93.3% of all taxes :steamed: :steamed:

aircarver
04-16-2012, 19:03
....That Bill Gates has the same one vote as the most worthless Crack Mom out there hooking on the streets for her next rock is asinine. :upeyes:

Totally agree :thumbsup:

.

Norske
04-16-2012, 19:06
"Wealth" and "Income" are not the same thing!!!!

"Income" is what you use to buy "Wealth".

"Income" is money.

"Wealth" is what you buy with the money.

You trade your time for money.

"Time is Money".

So true.

When Government taxes that money in the form of your Income Tax bill, what it is in effect doing is confiscating the time you spent to earn that money. And in a lot of cases, giving a piece of your life to people who did not earn that time you expended and who do not deserve it.

The Rich have Wealth. That is, they have "stuff" that they have already spent the money on after the Government taxed away .Gov's cut of their income.

Since we base our tax system on Income, not Wealth, the Rich no longer need "Income".

They already have enough (already taxed!) Wealth and already-taxed Cash to live on without requiring continuing sources of Income that still is subject to Taxes.

I do not begrudge the Wealthy their Wealth (although I take a somewhat dimmer view of inherited Wealth, that was not earned by those who now own it. Although they certainly have more right to it than I do!)

certifiedfunds
04-16-2012, 19:08
You agree then, that the current system unfairly favors the rich (along with the poor) since the effective tax rates that multimillionaires and billionaires pay always appear to be lower than those of the middle class?

No, it does not favor the "rich" and you are making entirely too many assumptions.

Many millionaires are wage earners who pay much higher rates than the middle class. There are no shelters or loopholes for them that you so often hear talked about. In fact, they're phased out of most all deductions that the middle class takes advantage of.

What I think you are referring to is long term cap gain rate and dividend tax, which many wealthier folks pay on the fruits of their investments. Let me ask you: What would happen if you tax those things as ordinary income? Think about it now.......what would happen if there was no advantage to risking that money in the market?

Even still, those "rich" pay far, far more in tax than the average American ever will.

NMG26
04-16-2012, 19:09
“When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” -Plato

NMG26
04-16-2012, 19:09
double post slow internet

certifiedfunds
04-16-2012, 19:12
I would go one step further.

I think the number of the votes you may cast should be directly tied to the amount of taxes you pay.

"One Man, One Vote". That is, if you pay NO taxes at all. You get ONE vote.

If I pay $10,000 in taxes in a given year, and you pay $20,000 of taxes in that same year, you are twice as valuable than I am in terms of funding our Government. Why should you not have twice the say as I do in how that Government is run?

That Bill Gates has the same one vote as the most worthless Crack Mom out there hooking on the streets for her next rock is asinine. :upeyes:

Actually, crack mom probably votes several times as she rides the church bus around from poll to poll.

Naelbis
04-16-2012, 19:13
The poor envy the rich...the rich despise the poor...and everyone wants control. Sounds like a recipie for fun times to me...

certifiedfunds
04-16-2012, 19:13
Perish the thought. I work for a living. You know. As in wages, tips, salary, etc.

Pretty sure you posted that you ran a non-profit some time back.........

Norske
04-16-2012, 19:18
Everyone that makes money should pay tax. Not just some.

Think about what you are saying here.

You say "Everyone who makes money should pay tax". Why should making money be punished? Why not "punish" at some other point of the economic cycle?

Income-based Taxation is confiscation. Nothing but.

Confiscation is punishment.

Why punish people because they "make money"?

The "Fair Tax" "punishes" spending.

If you do not want to be "punished", do not spend.

You are instead encouraged to invest as an alternative.

Which in the end benefits us all, in a healthier overall economy.

In a healthy economy, we are all making more. So we can either invest, or spend.

And in that spending, revenue to the Government goes up.

Government has a vested interest in improving the economy as a whole. Not selecting "Crony Capitalist" winners and losers (like Solindra?) on the basis of election fund donations as at present.

certifiedfunds
04-16-2012, 19:29
1. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

2. Have the Fed apportion taxation amongst the states according to census.

3. Have the Senators explain to their respective state legislators why they, in turn, have to tax the people in their respective communities.

Problem solved.

juggy4711
04-16-2012, 20:40
1. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

2. Have the Fed apportion taxation amongst the states according to census.

3. Have the Senators explain to their respective state legislators why they, in turn, have to tax the people in their respective communities.

Problem solved.

And we have a winner.

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 22:51
You agree then, that the current system unfairly favors the rich (along with the poor) since the effective tax rates that multimillionaires and billionaires pay always appear to be lower than those of the middle class?

No, I don't even agree with your premise.

The foolishness you swallow is to pretend, in the infamous Buffet example is that Buffet and the secretary are in the same boat.

They are NOT.

The secretary is making more…drum roll…


Because she's PAID MORE.

The Secretary is a W2 employee and has a high income, six figures reportedly.

Warren Buffet does not accept a salary. He gets nothing.

All his money comes from capital gains, which are taxed differently. And at the same rate available to all other tax payers who have CAPITAL GAINS.

And with the OP's story about the top half of income earners paying 93 % of the wealth while the bottom half is paying next to nothing, your basic premise is wrong.

So wrong, that if this disagreement were a death match, you'd be bleeding out by a severed jugular vein. What a mess. But you've failed and I'm victorious on top of being right. How does it feel?

Numb, and getting dark fast, I suspect.:rofl:

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 22:55
Think about what you are saying here.

You say "Everyone who makes money should pay tax". Why should making money be punished? Why not "punish" at some other point of the economic cycle?

Well we need some methodology by which to collect revenue to operate legit functions of government.

Fine. Cancel the income tax.

Replace it with a national sales tax.

Also works for me.

G29Reload
04-16-2012, 22:58
[COLOR=Blue][B]1. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.

What the heck does direct election of senators have to do with this?

Methodology of how Senators are elected is about as irrelevant as it gets. Seriously.

About as effective as saying dems and repubs have to switch which side of the House that they sit on.

Taphius
04-17-2012, 02:01
What the heck does direct election of senators have to do with this?

Methodology of how Senators are elected is about as irrelevant as it gets. Seriously.

About as effective as saying dems and repubs have to switch which side of the House that they sit on.

Majority vote (the people not paying taxes) in people who will give them money.

Tyranny of the majority?

Restless28
04-17-2012, 05:57
Tax Churches.

certifiedfunds
04-17-2012, 06:14
What the heck does direct election of senators have to do with this?

Methodology of how Senators are elected is about as irrelevant as it gets. Seriously.

About as effective as saying dems and repubs have to switch which side of the House that they sit on.

G29 - think on it. Think about why the Progressives ratified the amendment in the first place within a year or so if the 16th amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Think about the 20th century unraveling of the COTUS and the fundamental causes.

Think about why the founders would have set it up that way vs what we have now with popular election of senators, i.e. Direct unfettered democracy

The 17th amendment is the key.......the cornerstone of Progressive-crap that makes everything else possible.

I can't spoon feed you this stuff :supergrin:

certifiedfunds
04-17-2012, 06:18
Majority vote (the people not paying taxes) in people who will give them money.

Tyranny of the majority?

Yup..

Norske
04-17-2012, 06:38
G29 - think on it. Think about why the Progressives ratified the amendment in the first place within a year or so if the 16th amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Think about the 20th century unraveling of the COTUS and the fundamental causes.

Think about why the founders would have set it up that way vs what we have now with popular election of senators, i.e. Direct unfettered democracy

The 17th amendment is the key.......the cornerstone of Progressive-crap that makes everything else possible.

I can't spoon feed you this stuff :supergrin:

Income-based tax schemes were ruled unconstitutional by the SCotUS at least twice before the 16th/17th Amendments made them constitutional and the SCotUS allowed it to stick.

To our sorrow.

The Founders knew what they were about.

It is a pity that the politicians since have not been worthy of the legacy the Founders handed down to them.

:steamed:

windplex
04-17-2012, 08:31
You agree then, that the current system unfairly favors the rich (along with the poor) since the effective tax rates that multimillionaires and billionaires pay always appear to be lower than those of the middle class?

Gundude, If offered a choice
would you choose 30% of $100,000 or
10% of $2,000,000?

clearly the person paying 30% is paying way too much and the person paying 10% is paying way too little -- according to many folks. so why would you choose the lower percentage (I am guessing that would be your choice)???

Gundude
04-17-2012, 08:54
No, I don't even agree with your premise.

The foolishness you swallow is to pretend, in the infamous Buffet example is that Buffet and the secretary are in the same boat.

They are NOT.

The secretary is making more…drum roll…


Because she's PAID MORE.

The Secretary is a W2 employee and has a high income, six figures reportedly.

Warren Buffet does not accept a salary. He gets nothing.

All his money comes from capital gains, which are taxed differently. And at the same rate available to all other tax payers who have CAPITAL GAINS.

And with the OP's story about the top half of income earners paying 93 % of the wealth while the bottom half is paying next to nothing, your basic premise is wrong.

So wrong, that if this disagreement were a death match, you'd be bleeding out by a severed jugular vein. What a mess. But you've failed and I'm victorious on top of being right. How does it feel?

Numb, and getting dark fast, I suspect.:rofl:All that explanation of why rich people pay a lower effective tax rate than middle class people when it's already obvious to most, and isn't the point at all. We all know that they do. Most of us know why they do. The question was: is it equitable? It's not the flat tax you described earlier as equitable.

aircarver
04-17-2012, 08:55
1 man - 1 vote ..... 1 equal portion of the government cost.

.

Naelbis
04-17-2012, 09:13
Income-based tax schemes were ruled unconstitutional by the SCotUS at least twice before the 16th/17th Amendments made them constitutional and the SCotUS allowed it to stick.

To our sorrow.

The Founders knew what they were about.

It is a pity that the politicians since have not been worthy of the legacy the Founders handed down to them.

:steamed:
The Supreme court didn't allow anything...once the amendments were ratified they became the Constitution. The Court had no say in the matter.

windplex
04-17-2012, 09:19
Actually, crack mom probably votes several times as she rides the church bus around from poll to poll.

thats how they roll in WI

ChuteTheMall
04-17-2012, 09:23
Everyone that makes money should pay tax. Not just some.



Everyone ______ should pay tax. Not just some.

Fixed it for ya.

Everyone should participate in this IRS nonsense as a prerequisite for voting or receiving benefits.

Make them fill out paperwork, meet a deadline, and maybe they will remember this at the polls.

series1811
04-17-2012, 10:55
It sounds like a really good idea when Obama and the Democrats say we need to tax the hell out of the rich.

Right up to the point you figure out they are talking about you (and you didn't even know you were rich).

cowboy1964
04-17-2012, 12:38
Taxes ain't the problem, it's spending. We could double the rich's taxes and start taxing the 51% that don't pay any income tax and we would still run a deficit.

Kingarthurhk
04-17-2012, 12:44
Well, typically taxes come from the Middle Class. The Lower Class doesn't pay them, and the Upper Class tends to have quite a few loopholes to avoid paying much of it either. So, traditionally the guys in the middle get stuck.

pipedreams
04-17-2012, 13:36
Taxes ain't the problem, it's spending. We could double the rich's taxes and start taxing the 51% that don't pay any income tax and we would still run a deficit.
:goodpost:

certifiedfunds
04-17-2012, 18:51
All that explanation of why rich people pay a lower effective tax rate than middle class people when it's already obvious to most, and isn't the point at all. We all know that they do. Most of us know why they do. The question was: is it equitable? It's not the flat tax you described earlier as equitable.

I thought taxes were about funding government? Now taxes are about equity?

How equitable is it for one man to pay $200,000 in taxes and another man pay $2,000?

If you must tax citizens directly, and since you folks are so concerned with equity, tax each citizen over the age of 21 the same exact DOLLAR AMOUNT, and reduce the size of government to fit that revenue.

You do want equity, don't you?

certifiedfunds
04-17-2012, 18:53
Well, typically taxes come from the Middle Class. The Lower Class doesn't pay them, and the Upper Class tends to have quite a few loopholes to avoid paying much of it either. So, traditionally the guys in the middle get stuck.

You are factually incorrect.

Would a guy making $50,000 with 2 kids, a modest mortgage, modest retirement savings and the usual deductions quality as middle class to you? That guy pays virtually no income tax.

Also, please provide some example of your loopholes.