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

#1
V

VolDad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
13,051
Likes
2
#1
"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
 
#2
#2
These numbers do not include the 5% "surcharge" on us if UHC goes through.
 
#3
#3
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..
 
Last edited:
#4
#4
All part of that spreading the wealth garbage. Welcome to the the united states of the socialist republic.
 
#5
#5
droski said:
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..
Click to expand...

Don't forget the wonderful Alternative Minimum Tax.
 
#7
#7
VolDad said:
"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
Click to expand...

droski said:
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..
Click to expand...




Hmmmm .... What does he mean adjusted? And adjusted by what? Exemptions, deductions?
 
#9
#9
Also, I reject the premise of "fair share." The definition of that is mind-bogglingly complicated.
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
Also, I reject the premise of "fair share." The definition of that is mind-bogglingly complicated.
Click to expand...

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
 
#11
#11
BigPapaVol said:
Change the point?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


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.
 
#12
#12
BigPapaVol said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
#13
#13
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?
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

you listen to Boortz and say he wants the flat tax?
 
#17
#17
joevol320 said:
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?
Click to expand...

buffett is probably the biggest tax cheat in the history of this country, yet supports obama's "share the wealth" philosophy.
 
#19
#19
joevol320 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The team of lawyers and accountants is a reflection of the bureacracy that has grown up around the tax code. In principle I have got zero problem with trying to correct that. But that does not necessarily translate into "everybody pay x%."



droski said:
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.
Click to expand...


There's one example. Out of thousands.

BigPapaVol said:
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
Click to expand...


As I say, if you want to tinker with the code to make it more "level" or streamlined, I am totally good to go.

But beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
#20
#20
So almost 61% of taxes are paid by the top 5%? Wow - I can see why raising rates here makes a lot of sense.

What's the tipping point? At some point raising rates on this group will reduce the numbers in this group and reduce total revenues.
 
#21
#21
lawgator1 said:
There's one example. Out of thousands.
Click to expand...

you mean out of the thousands that were eliminated? the only "tax loopholes" left in this country are in real estate. and perhaps you can include trusts that try to minimize estate tax, but we are talking about personal income tax. as a person who spends a good deal of his day trying to limit his clients tax bill I absolutely disagree with this theory that the rich are screwing the gov't when it comes to tax loopholes. do you think the IRS is stupid? In my experience the IRS is VERY good at what they do and the rich get a much bigger look at than joe public does. YOu clearly just don't know what you are talking about.
 
#22
#22
volinbham said:
So almost 61% of taxes are paid by the top 5%? Wow - I can see why raising rates here makes a lot of sense.

What's the tipping point? At some point raising rates on this group will reduce the numbers in this group and reduce total revenues.
Click to expand...

Hell I would just move. Ease of travel along with modern technology can erase many of the cons that would have existed in the past, in terms of choosing to move.
 
#23
#23
What Barry doesn't mention.

It is not easy to investigate foundations, not even for Congress to attempt it: the giant foundations are powerful and have powerful friends. A special committee was created by the House of Representatives of the 83rd Congress to investigate tax-exempt organizations. It is generally referred to as the “Reece Committee” after its chairman, Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee.
..............................................
The chief motivation in the creation of foundations has long ceased to be pure philanthropy—it is now predominantly tax avoidance or minimization. . . . The increasing tax burden on income and estates has greatly accelerated a trend toward creation of foundations as instruments for the retention of control over capital assets that would otherwise be lost.

..............................................
An “élite” has thus emerged, in control of gigantic financial resources operating outside of our democratic processes, which is willing and able to shape the future of this nation and of mankind in the image of its own value concepts.
........................................
Political control is thus to be left in the hands of the “élite,” the “social engineers.” What the people want is not necessarily good for them; they are not competent to decide. The Führers must decide it for them, so that we can have a scientifically based and intelligent society.
.......................................
Theoretically, a society could be completely made over in something like 15 years, the time it takes to inculcate a new culture into a rising group of youngsters.
....................................................
The growing radicalism which was beginning rapidly to permeate academic circles was no grass-roots movement. Mr. [Aaron] Sargent cited a statement by Professor Ludwig Von Mises that socialism does not spring from the masses but is instigated by intellectuals “that form themselves into a clique and bore from within and operate that way. * * * It is not a people’s movement at all. It is a capitalization on the people’s emotions and sympathies toward a point these people wish to reach.”
Click to expand...
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
The team of lawyers and accountants is a reflection of the bureacracy that has grown up around the tax code. In principle I have got zero problem with trying to correct that. But that does not necessarily translate into "everybody pay x%."






There's one example. Out of thousands.




As I say, if you want to tinker with the code to make it more "level" or streamlined, I am totally good to go.

But beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Click to expand...

Dang straight, better be careful and tax these mongrels at 80%!
 
#25
#25
Another interpretation.

Soon after (or possibly from their inception) foundations became a loop hole that the financial elite used to avoid taxes. "By the time the income tax became law in 1913, the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations were already operating.

Income tax didn't soak the rich, it soaked the middle class," wrote Perloff. "Because it was a graduated tax, it tended to prevent anyone from rising into affluence. Thus it acted to consolidate the wealth of the entrenched interests, and protect them from new competition."
Click to expand...

The income tax wasn't prosecuted very hard until FDR came along with the 'financial crisis' that was caused by the super secret private Federal Reserve banking system.

(Bernanke, one of the top authorities on the great depression, admits the Federal Reserve caused the depression, he implies that was by accident but some will always believe it was done on purpose.)

When FDR began to levy heavy taxes, most all of the real wealth in America made the transition to tax free foundation status.

The American government has shown a great resolve to avoid examining leftist tax exempt groups, you can't even get an audit of PETA for cripes sake.

So when you hear this talk about Obama's programs may filter down and increase the tax burden on the middle class, that is total BS, the middle class already pay 95% of all taxes.

Support H.R. 1207; "The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009."

This act has 275 sponsors in the House of Representatives.

This bill needs to pass congress, go to the senate and receive precedence over any other legislation considered.

Don't let this go down the memory hole, talk about it with everyone you come in contact.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top