| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
     Blake |
Again... Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 - 03:03 pm: Steve (Aussie), What percentage of multi-million dollar per year income earners are earning most of their income via capital gains? What is the average income tax rate paid by multi-million dollar income earners? Your assumption seems to be that the vast majority of multi-million dollar income earners are like Buffet & Romney. I personally don't know the stats. I do know that on average, the highest income earners pay a lot more than 15% income tax. More facts please, less emotion. If you aren't trolling, you'll take time to learn and answe the above. Also, what is your employment? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
>>> Funny thing is..., Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Nixon at one time were considered conservative. All presided over and even lobbied for MUCH more progressive tax systems. Source for that? I don't buy it. But to add to the irony, Kennedy reduced the top tax rate, and Reagan is the conservative's latest Presidential model of favor; he also reduced the top tax rate. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reindog |
I asked you where you think your job comes from. Hint: It isn't the poor. Curious how you use the word aristocrats, though. Hurling epithets doesn't win arguments. You should rent the movie "The Aristocrats" if you want to laugh your butt off and be simultaneously offended  Mostly, I am curious as to who you are and what makes you tick. Hopefully, you haven't used the phrase "1%" lately except when buying milk. Remember, there is no such thing as "fair" and there will never be anything that is "fair" It is all relative. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aussie2126 |
Blake, William Howard Taft endorsed the 16th Amendment, the federal progressive income tax, which became part of the Constitution at the end of his term in early 1913. Herbert Hoover raised the top income tax rate from 24 to 63 percent in 1932, in the worst moments of the Great Depression. Dwight D. Eisenhower argued for and succeeded in a top income tax rate over 90 percent during the 1950s, in order to help promote a balancing of the budget. Richard Nixon raised the capital gains tax rate from 25 to 35 percent in 1969, and supported the concept of a minimum tax. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rohorn |
What was the real percentage of income tax paid by those who were in the 90 percent bracket back then? Clue: Nowhere near 90 percent. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
I'm nice. I found it for you... Income Brackets by Percentile
Average Tax Rate (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)
Source http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html See Tables 7 & 8. (Message edited by blake on January 25, 2012) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Did I miss the word "progressive" in the 16th Amendment? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aussie2126 |
Rohorn, I would guess that you are absolutely right - when it came time that my marginal income was to be taxed at 90%, I would probably leave it in the business, and continue on. Not generally considered a bad thing. Instead, now it is taken as a bonus and sent to the Cayman islands. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
That is false. Seek truth. See following graphic: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/20 10/graphics.cfm Problem? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
Rohorn, I would guess that you are absolutely right - when it came time that my marginal income was to be taxed at 90%, I would probably leave it in the business, and continue on. Not generally considered a bad thing. Instead, now it is taken as a bonus and sent to the Cayman islands. When you leave money inside a C-Corporation, it gets taxed at the corporate tax rate. When you leave money inside a pass-through (LLC, S-Corp, Partnership, sole prop), that income is taxed at the personal tax rate of the individual owner. Do you do your own taxes for your business Aussie? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Rohorn, It's a tax bracket, not an overall tax rate; it only applies to income in excess of that particular bracket's threshold. You'd have to have income far in excess of the threshold where that 90% rate kicked in to get anywhere near an overall 90% tax rate. But what that did mean is that there was almost no incentive to earn anything greater than the threshold one considered over-bearing. See http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_ rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf
(Message edited by blake on January 25, 2012) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aussie2126 |
Ft, You missed two court cases - I believe it was Tyee Realty v. Anderson and Thome v. Aderson. Blake, I was addressing Rohorns concern about tax rates in the fifties and speculating after I agreed with him. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Let me clarify. >>> Instead, now it is taken as a bonus and sent to the Cayman islands. That is fallacious. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
Is a Progressive Tax Constitutional? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sifo |
This is ridiculously funny. Complaining about tax loopholes for the rich a lamenting for the days when nobody ever paid anything near the 90% top tax rate because of the Swiss cheese tax code we had back then that REALLY favored the rich. It's getting to where I'm not sure if your are stupid or trolling. The simple reality is that regardless of the tax code, there will be the poor, the middle class and the rich. The actual individuals are even unlikely to change where they fall. There's a simple reason for this. Some people are very focused on creating wealth. Others are not. It's not rocket science. There are numerous examples of people who are regulars here who have done very well for themselves. I'm glad we have a system that promotes that. What I don't like is that at the bottom end we also have a system that promotes government dependance. That creates the multi-generational poor class that will never make anything of themselves. That part of our system is pure evil. Then we feel the need to give the poor more because we feel bad about the circumstances they find themselves in. This lures more from trying to better themselves, into serfdom. I apologize to those whom I have upset by suggesting that you may be better than that. Please go back to begging for your pittance from those in power. Revel in your dependance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aussie2126 |
Ft, Wow!!! You're arguing that a progressive tax system is unconstitutional, but a regressive one that is "required" to prevent the rich from fleeing the market is not?? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
You are arguing that our current tax system isn't progressive enough. I posted the article as a point of discussion. Many who advocate for equal protection under the law for gay marriage are also advocates of a heavily progressive income tax. Those two positions appear to be completely at odds with one another. YOU made the assertion that the current tax system is regressive. That position is simply false. Only a small portion of the income received is capital gains. Most income is, in fact, EARNED income subject to the heavily progressive tax rates. Why was the capital gains rates lowered? Why is home interest deductible? Why are children deductible dependents? Why is there a child tax credit? Why are charitable contributions deductible? Why are business expenses deductible? Why is student loan interest deductible? All of these deductions, reductions in the amount of income includible for tax purposes, are there because they were deemed beneficial to society and economic growth. Now you can make the argument that you don't believe that these particular tax treatments aren't necessary, but to claim that our tax system is regressive is simply retarded. The top 1% EVEN WITH the capital gains treatment STILL payid 24.01% of ALL the taxes paid! http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Until the bottom 50% cough something into the coffers, I frankly don't care what they believe to be fair or not. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Even better FtB, that's 24.01% of their AGI, not of the total tax burden. The top 1% EVEN WITH the capital gains treatment STILL payed 36.73% of ALL the income taxes paid! See Table 6 at http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html (Message edited by blake on January 26, 2012) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aussie2126 |
I said that the capital gains tax was regressive. Millionaires pay 15%on capital gains, income earners pay 25%. That's regressive. Going after the bottom 50% sounds bitter. It certainly is not going to plug the deficit. Let's make sure that the disabled, blind, and mentally ill PAY UP!!! before even thinking about asking the rich to kick in anymore. Sounds like a recipe for an American Dickens novel, not where I want to live. >>>>>>When you leave money inside a C-Corporation, it gets taxed at the corporate tax rate. I thought that I said when it was reinvested in the corporation, (new equipment or expansion). Sorry if that was miscommunicated!! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
Used to be you looked at the house on the hill and told your kid, "stay out of trouble, stay in school, work hard, and that could be yours." Now it's "see that guy on the hill, you don't have anything because he has it all. Don't worry, though, we'll just elect people who will take what he has and give us some of it." If you think you'll never have it, you're right you won't. You lack what it takes to get it. I have a final interview Friday with a new company in a new industry. I have been working and seeking this opportunity for 4 years. It will require me to be gone 4-5 days a week from my family. It will require 50-60 hours per week MINIMUM. It will require me to give up socializing with my family, my friends. It will require me to almost NEVER get to ride. Why am I doing it? Because if I work hard, and I apply myself. I will have the opportunity to create a new skillset that I can use to enhance my marketability. It's going to suck for the next 2-4 years, but it's the ONLY way I know that I can move ahead. The sad part is that there are people willing to work even harder, longer, and sacrifice even more to get less than I hope to get. Honestly, I'm pissed that Romney even had to give up 15% of his earnings. The Federal Government PISSES that money away. It's WASTED. Instead of getting mad that the Federal Government is wasting someone else's money, you are pissed that they didn't pay in more? How ridiculous. If you aren't where you are supposed to be, you are either short on brains or drive or both. It ain't a zero sum game. Romney (or whomever is "rich") having isn't keeping you from having. The only two things that keep you from having are your own limitations and the Federal Government. I can only work to fix the Federal Government. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Buellinmke |
Blake said: Until the bottom 50% cough something into the coffers, I frankly don't care what they believe to be fair or not. Sorry Blake, you've been caught lying once again. The 51 percent figure is an anomaly that reflects the unique circumstances of 2009, when the recession greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes and when temporary tax cuts created by the 2009 Recovery Act — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect. Together, these developments removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired. Source Don't be a liar. Liars are sucky. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aussie2126 |
>>>If you aren't where you are supposed to be, you are either short on brains or drive or both. I will fess up on being short on brains, probably even on drive, but where have I ever said that I was bitching about where I am suppose to be. Where have I said that the man on the hill can't keep his house. I have been accused of being a marxist, (apparently in good company with those Republican presidents), a troll, and an idiot. I simply believe that given the choice of how to fix the problem, cut off all government social services to the poor and disabled, OR go back to tax policies that worked for over eighty years in this country - I choose the second. Beating up on the poor will not fix the problem or provide an environment I want to live in. By the way Ft, good luck with the interview, hope ya get it! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gregtonn |
Heard a great analogy on the way home from work today comparing our tax system to a Viking ship. It went kind of like this: One guy rows all the time. A couple of guys row most of the time. A few guys row on a part time basis. The rest don't row or just dip their oars occasionally and complain the first guy isn't rowing nearly hard enough. Do you get it now??? G | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aesquire |
Millionaires pay 15%on capital gains, income earners pay 25%. That's regressive. No, that's an apples and Oranges deliberate lie. Millionaires pay 15% on capital gains, and so do I. So do you. The reason that half of us don't pay federal income tax is that Bush's cuts were setup to give the poor a BETTER break than the rich. The exact opposite of the lie often spoken by D minions and leftists. It is however NOT fair to say they ( the people who don't pay federal income tax ) don't pay any taxes. In fact, a larger percentage of their total wealth is taxed than could possibly be considered "fair". This does NOT count the redistribution of wealth that is the EIC, and the payments to those who qualify. But, nonetheless, the "poor" are very heavily taxed in ways that the politicians deny, and hide. One of Barack's first actions after taking office was to raise the tobacco tax, which affects the poor far more than the rich. Obama's gas taxes, again, affect the poor more than the rich, as does the deliberate ( or perhaps utter incompetence ) inflation of Food prices under the food for fuel, and ( stated clearly and often by this admin. ) deliberate inflation of fuel costs to promote alternative energy. ( too expensive to be otherwise profitable, when it even exists outside a fever dream ) So we really shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking, ever, that the poor don't pay their fair share. You raise capital gains, you don't hurt the rich as much as the average guy. You raise the rich guys taxes, and he'll just use the loopholes that an obligingly bribe oriented Congress will slide in. Nobody paid a 90+% tax rate back in the good old days. Not anyone with brains. Certainly a "flat" tax with zero deductions would "level the field" but, since I actually have structured my life around the existing Law, would do me serious dirt. ( and millions of others who pay a bank to pretend to own a home, for 20+ years ) What really amazes me is how people can take a dishonest multimillionaire's word that they should envy the "rich" when he is heavily supported by other millionaires and billionaires to use them as tools to make more money... off their ignorance. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kenm123t |
News flash Mike My Sweety got back more than she paid in taxes for 09 -10 she got a refund and an additional $5200.00 How I was paying over 6 figures The bottom fifty get more back than they pay in due fairness its not fair for all THOSE people to get deductions on that But you didnt pay any taxes covered by that deduction doesnt matter they still get the money back thats the problem I had one employee 3 in the family claiming 11 deductions book keeper showed me his W4 I looked it over then asked him do you really want to claim 11 people Yes he did. I contacted the IRS they were interested till the ( ) agent found out richard was ( ) too then called me and said its cool you know man! Thats the problem look at The Pigford case on local radio they are advertising for women hispanics and other to get your $ from USDA for farm loans that were denied even if you didnt have a farm! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reepicheep |
Mitt Romney paid 3 million last year in taxes, while you paid $20k, and somehow you are the one getting screwed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gregtonn |
Reep gets it. G | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rohorn |
I simply believe that given the choice of how to fix the problem, cut off all government social services to the poor and disabled, OR go back to tax policies that worked for over eighty years in this country - I choose the second. What sort of social services for the poor and disabled were there in said 80 year period? Compare the revenues of that time to the present. Compare the spending of that time (such as %GDP) to the present. Do increased tax rates always result in increased tax revenues? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ft_bstrd |
I simply believe that given the choice of how to fix the problem, cut off all government social services to the poor and disabled, OR go back to tax policies that worked for over eighty years in this country - I choose the second. Can we go back to the plan design of 80 years ago as well? Begin benefits at 65, dead by 67? I'm good with that. How about benefit levels more like what was provided 80 years ago? I'm good with that too. It's what it's going to take to make this work. In a previous post, it is going to take 49% of the AGI over EVERY tax payer in the top 50% just to pay the current $3.6T budget. It doesn't matter whether Romney pays 15% or 35%, he would have to pay MUCH more just to meet the current budget. Next year it would be 8% more. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Blake |
Joe, The 50% figure is true for 2010, probably 2011 too. For 2009, it was 47%. It certainly is no lie. Wise up. |
