The Rich Aren't Paying Their Fair Share?!?

[VolDad]

"The top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. Now if you're not initiated into the Church of the Painful Truth you're probably thinking that the evil top 1% probably earn way over 40% of the income. Well .. you would be wrong. These nasty, disgusting and oh-so-easy to hate high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income. And just how much does some crook have to earn to be in this top 1%? Try $410,000. Remember now .. many, if not most, of these wretched people are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. Still .. they're nasty. Right?

Ok .. more painful truth. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. For those of you who are government educated, that means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the road. "

Nealz Nuze on boortz.com

[T-TownVol]

These numbers do not include the 5% "surcharge" on us if UHC goes through.

[droski]

something lost between all the lawgator and other bs is the fact that the tax loopholes that existed in the 70s and early 80s no longer exist and therefore have raised the effective tax rate on the rich, not lowered it..

[Cartervol]

All part of that spreading the wealth garbage. Welcome to the the united states of the socialist republic.

[VolDad]

Originally Posted by droski

something lost between all the lawgator and other bs is the fact that the tax loopholes that existed in the 70s and early 80s no longer exist and therefore have raised the effective tax rate on the rich, not lowered it..

Don't forget the wonderful Alternative Minimum Tax.

[droski]

Originally Posted by VolDad

Don't forget the wonderful Alternative Minimum Tax.

yup. if you are in a high property value state it's virtually impossible to be a high earner and not be in the AMT.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by VolDad

"The top 1% of taxpayers officially paid 40.4% of total federal income taxes. This is the highest percentage in modern history. Compare that number to twenty years prior (1987) when the top 1% of taxpayers paid 24.8% of income taxes. Now if you're not initiated into the Church of the Painful Truth you're probably thinking that the evil top 1% probably earn way over 40% of the income. Well .. you would be wrong. These nasty, disgusting and oh-so-easy to hate high-achievers actually earned about 22.8% of total adjusted gross income. And just how much does some crook have to earn to be in this top 1%? Try $410,000. Remember now .. many, if not most, of these wretched people are small business owners and their adjusted gross income is really their business income. Still .. they're nasty. Right?

Ok .. more painful truth. The share of taxes paid by the top 1% of taxpayers now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95% of taxpayers. Again, the top 1% paid 40.4% of incomes taxes while the bottom 95% paid 39.4% of the income tax burden. For those of you who are government educated, that means that the top 1% of taxpayers (which is just 1.4 million people) paid a larger share of the income tax burden than the bottom 95% of taxpayers (which is comprised of 134 million people). This means that the evil rich are carrying the road. "

Nealz Nuze on boortz.com

Originally Posted by droski

something lost between all the lawgator and other bs is the fact that the tax loopholes that existed in the 70s and early 80s no longer exist and therefore have raised the effective tax rate on the rich, not lowered it..

Hmmmm .... What does he mean adjusted? And adjusted by what? Exemptions, deductions?

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Hmmmm .... What does he mean adjusted? And adjusted by what? Exemptions, deductions?

Change the point?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[lawgator1]

Also, I reject the premise of "fair share." The definition of that is mind-bogglingly complicated.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Also, I reject the premise of "fair share." The definition of that is mind-bogglingly complicated.

No it isn't. Reasonable people understand equitable. People arguing to get something for nothing twis t themselves in knots over this very simple concept. That's likely because freeloading doesn't fit well in the equation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

Change the point?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No. My point is that the quote is somewhat misleading in that it implies the top 1 % are paying 40% of all taxes but only make 22 % of all income, whereas one of those number is raw, the other altered substantially. And that droski's point about "loopholes" is hardly totally correct.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BigPapaVol

No it isn't. Reasonable people understand equitable. People arguing to get something for nothing twis t themselves in knots over this very simple concept. That's likely because freeloading doesn't fit well in the equation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Your definition is obviously Boortz', which is premised on an absolute fractional taxation system (or one based on pure purchase and consumption), a/k/a flat tax, as opposed to the gradation system we have now, with exemptions, deductions, penalties, incentives, etc.

While a lot can be said for the need to simplify things and to reduce the complexity of the tax code, I can promise yout two things. First, it will be the wealthy advocating going to a flat tax as more reflective of "fair share," and second that it will never happen, politically.

[joevol320]

law, i got a question. if a millionaire complains about not paying enough taxes, then why doesn't he/she just fill out the simple tax forms and pay what is owed?

it seems that many of these guys complain about not paying taxes, but they hire a team of lawyers and accountants to get them tax breaks.

if they really wanted to pay more taxes, shouldn't they just use the simple forms?

[droski]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

No. My point is that the quote is somewhat misleading in that it implies the top 1 % are paying 40% of all taxes but only make 22 % of all income, whereas one of those number is raw, the other altered substantially. And that droski's point about "loopholes" is hardly totally correct.

according to whom it is altered substantially.

and are you a tax lawyer? last time i checked you can't get 200% write offs for funding oil exploration like you could in the late 70s among many many other tax loopholes that reagan eliminated.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Your definition is obviously Boortz', which is premised on an absolute fractional taxation system (or one based on pure purchase and consumption), a/k/a flat tax, as opposed to the gradation system we have now, with exemptions, deductions, penalties, incentives, etc.

While a lot can be said for the need to simplify things and to reduce the complexity of the tax code, I can promise yout two things. First, it will be the wealthy advocating going to a flat tax as more reflective of "fair share," and second that it will never happen, politically.

Remind me why the lowere and lower middle class don't pay taxes. Do they have AGI? Wonder why we try to use that as a leveling measure?
Posted via VolNation Mobile