Myth buster: In fact the rich are making less and paying more taxes

#26
#26
volprof said:
Anyone with enough wealth to find a loophole. Anyhow, gentleman, it's been nice this evening. I'm bowing out of this one once again. I'm not going to change anyone's opinion tonight and have some other things to do. I'll come back to fight another day though. In the meantime, fair ye well!
Click to expand...

I make about 55k/year and I've found a loophole that suits me just fine.

guess I'm wealthy, aint I?
 
#28
#28
If you make $65,000 per year then you are the wealthiest 1% of the world. Would anybody think it fair a 40% income tax on someone that made that little?
 
#29
#29
n_huffhines said:
If you make $65,000 per year then you are the wealthiest 1% of the world. Would anybody think it fair a 40% income tax on someone that made that little?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the cool fact.

The OP refers to US taxpayers though, of which the top 1% make quite a bit more.

Not necessarily agreeing with the current tax rates, but when the majority of the wealth is controlled by a small % of the population in a democracy, it will naturally gravitate towards a progressive tax system. And I highly doubt the top earners actually pay the full rate when it is all said and done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
It's all relative. If it's fair to take from America's top 1% to give to our relatively rich "poor" demographic, then why wouldn't it be fair to take from the world's richest 1% and give their wealth to people that are truly poor?
 
#31
#31
n_huffhines said:
It's all relative. If it's fair to take from America's top 1% to give to our relatively rich "poor" demographic, then why wouldn't it be fair to take from the world's richest 1% and give their wealth to people that are truly poor?
Click to expand...

Because the rest of the world has no say in our tax policy.
 
#32
#32
That's the rationale, or the reason? I get that it's the reason. But if that's the rationale of the bleeding hearts then they are just a bunch of selfish, fraudulent crybabies.
 
#33
#33
It's not like rich people are swimming in money like scrooge mcduck. They are investing it. Those nice apartment complexes, the clean Publix shopping centers or the nice office buildings you work in don't get built on their own. Even if all their money is in cash at a bank, that bank is using that money and loaning it out to a home buyer or someone starting a business

It comes down to who do you want to control the money, private vs government
 
#34
#34
1) Data three years old.

2) Why are they paying more taxes? What tax rate went up between 2007 and 2009?
 
#35
#35
Oh, and I love the correction:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the top one percent earners' share of the country's total income as 26.7 in 2007 and 22.3 in 2009. In fact, the One Percent made 16.7 of the national income in 2007 and 11.5 in 2009.
Click to expand...

Oops, only 40% off on the first try.

Yeah, looks like that was a carefully thought-out and researched article.
 
#36
#36
volprof said:
And I want everyone to be treated equally under the law as well. As I told a poster in another thread, I'm actually opposed to a graduated income tax. I think everyone should pay an equal amount, percentage wise. However, I just don't get why so many posters on here are always rushing to the defense of the super wealthy. I can understand why you might want to defend the small business owner but not necessarily the super wealthy. They're not going to be hurting no matter what in most cases.
Click to expand...

I want to be treated equally under the law and pay a blended rate of 11% or 12%. Currently, I pay 35% on the margin for earned income and 15% for dividends, interest and cap gains. Heck, I'll even go 13%. And as a owner of an LLC, I also pay both portions of SS and Medicare until the maximum is reached and then keep paying 2.9% on every dollar of earned income above the SS maximum. That makes my max on the earned income at the margin 38.9%. If we drive over the fiscal cliff, I'll pay 42.5% on the margin for earned income and dividends. None of this counts the various confiscatory Obamacare tax rates that come to play as surtaxes.

Please, please treat me equally!!!
 
#37
#37
volprof said:
I guess anytime I spend my money I become a bastion of morality then, since I'm thinking about all of the workers who were involved in the process. Workers who may or may not be from the US.
Click to expand...

No one said anything about morality - it's about the bass-ackwards rhetoric that says one group isn't paying their fair share and demands its pound of flesh even if it doesn't help the economy overall.

the rich are good and bad just like any other group.
 
#39
#39
The great fraud is that a higher rate is ever actually paid.

You could say the rate is 80 percent on everything over a million. But if the rate changes based on how you made it and you can get special gimmicky breaks so that you pay 10 percent, I say stfu.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
The great fraud is that a higher rate is ever actually paid.

You could say the rate is 80 percent on everything over a million. But if the rate changes based on how you made it and you can get special gimmicky breaks so that you pay 10 percent, I say stfu.
Click to expand...

The facts don't support your hypothetical but carry on.
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
The great fraud is that a higher rate is ever actually paid.

You could say the rate is 80 percent on everything over a million. But if the rate changes based on how you made it and you can get special gimmicky breaks so that you pay 10 percent, I say stfu.
Click to expand...

then why are you *****ing so loudly about a 15% on capital gains that is ALWAYS paid?
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
The great fraud is that a higher rate is ever actually paid.

You could say the rate is 80 percent on everything over a million. But if the rate changes based on how you made it and you can get special gimmicky breaks so that you pay 10 percent, I say stfu.
Click to expand...

Are Fing kidding me??? I pay almost 40% on the margin on earned income and have been for years. To the extent I have cap gains, I pay 15% but thanks to the recession I have cap loss carryovers for the forseeable future. That means until I can generate some cap gains, I get to deduct $3000 per year of money I've lost. If I can't generate cap gains, I'll be writing off losses for 50+ years. That's the federal government's ultimate "heads I win, tails you lose" game.
 
#44
#44
MG1968 said:
then why are you *****ing so loudly about a 15% on capital gains that is ALWAYS paid?
Click to expand...


Its the starting point. He pays 15 % but then after deductions the effective rate is even less than that.

It should start at 28 %, just like for anybody making that amount of money the old fashioned way.
 
#45
#45
Redstater said:
Are Fing kidding me??? I pay almost 40% on the margin on earned income and have been for years. To the extent I have cap gains, I pay 15% but thanks to the recession I have cap loss carryovers for the forseeable future. That means until I can generate some cap gains, I get to deduct $3000 per year of money I've lost. If I can't generate cap gains, I'll be writing off losses for 50+ years. That's the federal government's ultimate "heads I win, tails you lose" game.
Click to expand...


That is powerful incentive for you to just invest money to make an income, isn't it?
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
That is powerful incentive for you to just invest money to make an income, isn't it?
Click to expand...

To the shock of many liberals even after Solyndra, there is inherent risk in investing and some times you actually lose money. Of course, Solyndra, Fisker, etc. losses were taxpayer money which wasn't real money and doesn't count.

"The difference between Republicans and Democrats - Republicans sign the front of the check and Democrats sign the back."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#47
#47
Making less?

CEO pay and the top 1%: How executive compensation and financial-sector pay have fueled income inequality | Economic Policy Institute



- The significant income growth at the very top of the income distribution over the last few decades was largely driven by households headed by someone who was either an executive or was employed in the financial sector. Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005. These estimates understate the role of executive compensation and the financial sector in fueling income growth at the top because the increasing presence of working spouses who are executives or in finance is not included.

- From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.

- Using a measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options granted to an executive, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 18.3-to-1 in 1965, peaked at 411.3-to-1 in 2000, and sits at 209.4-to-1 in 2011.

- Using an alternative measure of CEO compensation that includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year, CEOs earned 20.1 times more than typical workers in 1965, 383.4 times more in 2000, and 231.0 times more in 2011
Click to expand...
 
#48
#48
Redstater said:
To the shock of many liberals even after Solyndra, there is inherent risk in investing and some times you actually lose money. Of course, Solyndra, Fisker, etc. losses were taxpayer money which wasn't real money and doesn't count.

"The difference between Republicans and Democrats - Republicans sign the front of the check and Democrats sign the back."
Click to expand...


There's not much risk if you know a stock's fair market value is $20 a share and will be released next week, but that you have the authority to self-proclaim that it is worth 10 cents a share today and place into your IRA.

That's how $450,000 max contribution over 15 years can be worth $102 million at the end of that 15 years.

And in fact so far that is the only credible explanation for how Romney did it. And we know from reports that others in Bain were doing it. They have admitted to it.

If there is an alternative explanation, I'd love to hear it. My guess is that he will be asked, point blank, in the debates how he got that up to %102 million. He will try to deflect, and then give some oversimplified answer along the lines of "good investment strategy." When pressed, he will say he's answered the question.

To a chorus of boos. And he'll lose ten points right off the top. Really hope Obama goes for the jugular on this. Don't let up.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
There's not much risk if you know a stock's fair market value is $20 a share and will be released next week, but that you have the authority to self-proclaim that it is worth 10 cents a share today and place into your IRA.

That's how $450,000 max contribution over 15 years can be worth $102 million at the end of that 15 years.

And in fact so far that is the only credible explanation for how Romney did it. And we know from reports that others in Bain were doing it. They have admitted to it.

If there is an alternative explanation, I'd love to hear it. My guess is that he will be asked, point blank, in the debates how he got that up to %102 million. He will try to deflect, and then give some oversimplified answer along the lines of "good investment strategy." When pressed, he will say he's answered the question.

To a chorus of boos. And he'll lose ten points right off the top. Really hope Obama goes for the jugular on this. Don't let up.
Click to expand...


You have heard it, but you're either too stupid to understand it or ignoring it or a mixture of both because it doesn't fit your political agenda.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
Its the starting point. He pays 15 % but then after deductions the effective rate is even less than that.

It should start at 28 %, just like for anybody making that amount of money the old fashioned way.
Click to expand...

it's still about the percentage with you, isn't it? 15% of $100 million is a lot more than 28% of $100,000.

You've bought into Obama's "fairness" BS
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top