"Fair Share"?

From an editorial

"But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings."

The editorial goes on to ask: just what SHOULD be their "fair share"? Originally Posted by Sidewinder

I would like to know where you get your facts! The middle class has taken the burden for the "Bush Tax Cuts" for as long as the government allows it! I know, because I used to make around $60,000 per year and paid about 25 percent in taxes. Do you think Mitt Romney paid that in taxes? Please don't make me laugh at you. I used to work for a tax attorney. The rich have several loop holes and they do not pay their fair share of taxes. The American people are getting smart. Sorry for you!

I would like to know where you get your facts! The middle class has taken the burden for the "Bush Tax Cuts" for as long as the government allows it! I know, because I used to make around $60,000 per year and paid about 25 percent in taxes. Do you think Mitt Romney paid that in taxes? Please don't make me laugh at you. I used to work for a tax attorney. The rich have several loop holes and they do not pay their fair share of taxes. The American people are getting smart. Sorry for you! Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

The facts come out of the IRS tax tables. Look them up.

You're confusing the low tax rate on capital gains (i.e., sale of a piece of property, stock, interest, dividends, etc.) with the higher tax rate on ordinary income (i.e.., salary from your job).

The top marginal rate is currently 35% on ordinary income. The rate on capital gains is 15%. Rich people get most of their money from investments, not salary. So most of their income is taxed at the 15% rate.

Even so, the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% still added up to 22% of all tax revenue. And the top 40% paid something like 95% of all taxes.

The bottom third paid essentially 0% because their incomes were so low and were only taxed at the lowest rate of 10%

The facts come out the IRS tax tables. Look them up.

You're confusing the low tax rate on capital gains (i.e., sale of a piece of property, stock, interest, dividends, etc.) with the higher tax rate on ordinary income (i.e.., salary from your job).

The top marginal rate is currently 35% on ordinary income. The rate on capital gains is 15%. Rich people get most of their money from investments, not salary. So most of their income is taxed at the 15% rate.

Even so, the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% still added up to 22% of all tax revenue. And the top 40% paid something like 95% of all taxes.

The bottom third paid essentially 0% because their incomes were so low and were only taxed at the lowest rate of 10% Originally Posted by ExNYer

I think I know where dumb blonde jokes come from now

Even so, the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% still added up to 22% of all tax revenue. And the top 40% paid something like 95% of all taxes. Originally Posted by ExNYer

That is a bald face lie and you know it.

I responded by saying that's not how you budget. FIRST, you figure out your revenue, THEN you make your spending choices.

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Is that wtf you propose we start doing with DEFENSE? Our government does not even consider interest that we pay from borrowing for DEFENSE SPENDING as a Defense debt. How stupid is that? Or better put for this thread " How 'FAIR; is that?


http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national debt.

Much of this talk about fatuousness around here, cums off sounding more like flatulence!

Pull ExNYer finger if you don't believe Mr Giz!

That is a bald face lie and you know it. Originally Posted by WTF

No, I don't asshole.

Did you not read the editorial she excerpted right at the top? It's says the top 1% paid 22% right in the excerpt she posted.

Look up the IRS numbers. Check out the federal revenue numbers and which income percentile paid what percentage of the taxes.

First of all, not all government expenditures benefit all people. The SEC might never be worth a single cent to someone who has nothing to invest and little to gain or lose if he is a day laborer whose income goes from hand to mouth.

Likewise, a handicapped person who is chronically unemployed or underemployed might not always derive anything from having the benefit being protected by a strong military or police force.

A sightless person who seldom travels and has little income might not experience personal benefit from an interstate highway system other than its ability to transport the goods he consumes.

The depth of the editorial does not fathom the question far enough to ponder that the pie chart can be cut into many slices but not all people eat a significant amount of the pie. In addition a pie chart has no way to communicate cost of the paper on which it is drawn even though it (or a monitor) is necessary as the platform for the chart to be shown.

The earth is a single planet but it relies ever so slightly on the unseen gravitational forces of other bodies around it and not just the Sun to function in the manner it functions.

In other words, there is far more to examining the equation than simply computing the percentage of return to either the smallest or the largest taxpayer. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Wow...Little Stevie...you are one Smart Person (maybe you should run for President)...fantastic quote...

Kisses and hugs...you are so right.

Is that wtf you propose we start doing with DEFENSE? Originally Posted by WTF

I'm not sure what your question is. But if you are asking if we should cut back on defense to get to a balanced budget, the answer is yes.

Re-read the gibberish you wrote and focus on definition 2 and possibly 4. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Your inability to understand common English and pretty simple concepts doesn't make me illiterate.

I responded by saying that's not how you budget. FIRST, you figure out your revenue, THEN you make your spending choices.

Your analogy was that's not how families budget. And to that, i agree. But the government is not a household, so your analogy is ridiculous. When you have the options to increase or decrease revenues that government has at its disposal, you absolutely can make your spending choices first and then determine the best way to acquire the dollars to pay for it.

That is an altogether common sense answer to the false premise you set up.

And my answer about how a fair tax rate is whatever's needed to pay for the needs of the country is an altogether common sense answer to the question. Look, you might not like the answer, you may disagree with the answer, but simply suggesting it's a failure to answer the question is just idiotic.

Frankly, this whole argument has become stupid.

We are $14 trillion in debt because the government has been doing what you suggest.

No, we are $14 trillion in debt because the government sets tax rates at what people want them to be with no attention paid to what they should be to pay for what we spend.

You say tomato, i say tomahto.

There are no absolute "needs". Everything is a "want" to one degree or another.

Fair enough. And i conceded this when i suggested that what we consider a "need" is not something we need to agree on for sake of what's a fair tax rate to pay.

I asked you a question about what happens if we define our needs in excess of our revenue and you respond with 4 examples of our revenue meeting or exceeding our needs. Divert much?

You asked a rhetorical question. I followed up with more rhetorical questions. For some reason, you seem to think you can use certain debating tactics, but when i respond in kind, you wig out. Why is that?

At least you made a passing reference to us being "screwed" if we can't raise the cash, but what exactly does "screwed" mean?

Does that mean we continue to borrow to meet our needs and go deeper in debt?

Or do you finally accept that we have to cut spending, including entitlements? And if you can cut entitlements, were they ever really "needs" in the first place?

Who's the one going off on tangents now? This thread is about a fair tax rate. If you want to talk about debt, and entitlements, and whether "needs" are really "needs", start a new thread.

Or at least that's what Captain Midnight would say.

Are you talking about Captain Midnight or yourself? Because that little bit describes most of your responses in this thread.

No, I don't asshole.

Did you not read the editorial she excerpted right at the top? It's says the top 1% paid 22% right in the excerpt she posted.

Look up the IRS numbers. Check out the federal revenue numbers and which income percentile paid what percentage of the taxes. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Do you know the difference between all tax revenue and all Federal tax revenue? There is a huge difference. That you would still defend your lie after I pointed it out makes me wonder just how much (or little) you actually know about this subject.

If you want to look at the numbers the tax rat at the Federal level has went down in the last thirty years and at the state and local level they have went up. One is progressive, one is regressive. Can you guess which segment has benifited most? Our income disparity has increased, IS THAT FAIR?

''the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household''


Originally Posted by ExNYer

Even so, the amount of taxes paid by the top 1% still added up to 22% of all tax revenue. And the top 40% paid something like 95% of all taxes.

. . . .
Frankly, this whole argument has become stupid. . . . Originally Posted by Doove

Probably the most precise, most lucid, straightforward, undeniable fact you have ever bestowed upon us! Bravo'

I'm not sure what your question is. But if you are asking if we should cut back on defense to get to a balanced budget, the answer is yes. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, my question was should we only spend what we have? No more. That was wtf you said you did when setting a budget. You found out how much revenue you had coming in and then that was wtf you spent.

What I have been telling you is that SS and Medicare have their own seperate tax system. They have not exceeded their tax revenue, if fact they have had a huge surplus.

So that leaves DEFENSE. Should we then find out just how much tax revenue is coming in for that? That is what our Federal tax dollars go to, that is the biggest expense from our FEDERAL INCOMW TAX. For what we spend on Defense, it has not been near enough. They have just cooked the books and taken it out of SS and Medicare surplus. That would be SS and Medicare.Nobody disputes that but you can not seem to grasp that your party thinks it ok to rob from what the other party has set as their top priority.

So the folks that call for this police force all over the world (Conseratives) and fiscial responsibility want to pay for that with the others sides savings (Liberals). Is that fair?

Who's the one going off on tangents now? This thread is about a fair tax rate. If you want to talk about debt, and entitlements, and whether "needs" are really "needs", start a new thread.
Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, you're a hypocrite. You already went off on this tangent you now declaim, and you failed to -- and you continue to fail to -- differentiate between legitimate "wants" and "needs" to justify increasing taxes for the purpose of expanding disfunctional and ill-administered social welfare programs.