Who Pays Taxes

[mettech]

Households

 

Top 1% = 38% $380K+

Top 5% = 59% $160K - 380K

Top 10% = 70% $114K - 160K

Top 25% = 86% $67K - 114K

Top 50% = 97% $33K - 67K

 

Bottom 50% = 2.7% <$33K

 

47% of Households pay 0% of income tax.

 

National Taxpayers

 

Not only is this unfair.... but it isn't healthy for our country. Everyone must pay their fair share. Nothing more.. nothing less...

 

Responsibility must be shared by everyone. Not just by 50% of the households.

 

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$380,354

38.02

Top 5%

$159,619

58.72

Top 10%

$113,799

69.94

Top 25%

$67,280

86.34

Top 50%

$33,048

97.30

Bottom 50%

<$33,048

2.7

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Edited December 9, 2010 by mettech

[RangerM]

Better late than never.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama says a congressional vote on the tax-cut deal he negotiated with Republicans will determine whether the nation's economy "moves forward or backward."

 

The president again pressed Congress to pass the agreement, saying it has the potential to create millions of jobs. He said if it fails, Americans would see smaller paychecks and it would result in fewer jobs.

 

It's the right thing to do.

[EdselBryantFord]

the bottom 47% pay a crap load of gasoline, alcohol cigarette and other sales taxes and not to mention they ay social security on 100% of their income, while any one who makes over 100k stops paying social security!

the top 10% may pay more taxes but they also keep a lot more usually only paying 5% of their incoem while the bottom of the barrel can pay 50% of their income

Edited December 9, 2010 by EdselBryantFord

[NickF1011]

the bottom 47% pay a crap load of gasoline, alcohol cigarette and other sales taxes

 

So do the wealthy.

 

and not to mention they pay social security on 100% of their income, while any one who makes over 100k stops paying social security!

 

They only stop paying on amounts above the limit. They still pay (over 3 times) more into SS than someone making $30,000.

[mettech]

the bottom 47% pay a crap load of gasoline, alcohol cigarette and other sales taxes and not to mention they ay social security on 100% of their income, while any one who makes over 100k stops paying social security!

the top 10% may pay more taxes but they also keep a lot more usually only paying 5% of their incoem while the bottom of the barrel can pay 50% of their income

 

 

Want to bet that the country pays more in health care for the poor than is collected due to poor health choices?:reading:

 

And what is the quantitative value of "crap load"?

 

I should not be held accountable for someone that has embraced poor health choices, refuses to lean new work skills, refuses to move where jobs are, and expects the government to support them to remain uneducated, unskilled and unfit.

[Versa-Tech]

As long as we're under a progressive tax system, those who receive more benefits than taxes paid should not be able to vote. I'm not saying that any american should be denied the right to vote, only that they should be given the choice to opt out of wealth redistribution. It's very simple. If you are being promised compensation for your vote, you are accepting a bribe. You can throw all the frothy emotional crap you want at me, but the bottom line remains the same.

 

I grew up poor as hell, was homeless off and on in my early twenties... and I made the decision (just as my father before me), to stick it out and pay my own way... starving for months at a time in my conviction. Guess what? I didn't need any help from the government. Yeah, it really sucked, but I had to pay for my own mistakes to learn how to live responsibly... and now I do.

[mettech]

As long as we're under a progressive tax system, those who receive more benefits than taxes paid should not be able to vote. I'm not saying that any american should be denied the right to vote, only that they should be given the choice to opt out of wealth redistribution. It's very simple. If you are being promised compensation for your vote, you are accepting a bribe. You can throw all the frothy emotional crap you want at me, but the bottom line remains the same.

 

I grew up poor as hell, was homeless off and on in my early twenties... and I made the decision (just as my father before me), to stick it out and pay my own way... starving for months at a time in my conviction. Guess what? I didn't need any help from the government. Yeah, it really sucked, but I had to pay for my own mistakes to learn how to live responsibly... and now I do.

 

 

+1

[goinbroke2]

As long as we're under a progressive tax system, those who receive more benefits than taxes paid should not be able to vote. I'm not saying that any american should be denied the right to vote, only that they should be given the choice to opt out of wealth redistribution. It's very simple. If you are being promised compensation for your vote, you are accepting a bribe. You can throw all the frothy emotional crap you want at me, but the bottom line remains the same.

 

I grew up poor as hell, was homeless off and on in my early twenties... and I made the decision (just as my father before me), to stick it out and pay my own way... starving for months at a time in my conviction. Guess what? I didn't need any help from the government. Yeah, it really sucked, but I had to pay for my own mistakes to learn how to live responsibly... and now I do.

 

+2

 

 

YEAH! What the esoteric freakazoid said.... :stats:

[Mark B. Morrow]

Your chart ignores the important Fact that income distribution is heavily concentrated at the top.

 

The top 400 households (out of about 150 million) represent the top 0.0002667% of households. This tiny fraction of the households controlled in 2006 over 1.3% of the entire national income.

 

The year 2006, the latest year for which data is available, has seen concentration of income by the top percentiles which has not been observed since the late 1920′s. Following a three-decade long process of increasing concentration of income by top percentiles, in 2006, a tenth of the U.S. population controlled half the national income, a hundredth of the population controlled a quarter of the income, a thousandth of the population controlled an eighth of the income and one ten-thousandth of the population controlled one-sixteenth of the income. Thus, the top x percentile group controls about 2 times more income than the top x/10 percentile group.

 

http://probonostats.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/share-of-income-of-top-percentiles-of-us-households/

 

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% controls 2.5% of the national wealth as the top 1% has 33.8% (2007)

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2

 

As of 2006, the gap between the top 0.01% and the bottom 90% was higher than any time since 1928.

 

At the same time, the top marginal tax rate on the top 0.01% fell to 35%and the wealthiest paid just 23% of their income in federal income tax. This doesn't count the 15% rate on capital gains income, including the Hedge Fund Carried Interest loophole that permits Hedge Fund managers to pay the Cap Gains rate on their income.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn

 

Certainly the distribution of taxes by percentage of tax payers seems unfair as long as you ignore the distribution of income. When you factor in who has the income dollars it is much more fair.

 

The Middle class and lower are losing ground as the top amasses more of the national wealth.

Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006

 

Income

[u ]Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent [/u]

1982 12.8% 39.1% 48.1%

1988 16.6% 38.9% 44.5%

1991 15.7% 40.7% 43.7%

1994 14.4% 40.8% 44.9%

1997 16.6% 39.6% 43.8% Clinton

2000 20.0% 38.7% 41.4%

2003 17.0% 40.8% 42.2%

2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%

 

From Wolff (2010).

 

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[Mark B. Morrow]

As long as we're under a progressive tax system, those who receive more benefits than taxes paid should not be able to vote. I'm not saying that any american should be denied the right to vote, only that they should be given the choice to opt out of wealth redistribution. It's very simple. If you are being promised compensation for your vote, you are accepting a bribe. You can throw all the frothy emotional crap you want at me, but the bottom line remains the same.

 

 

 

This is quite possibly the worst idea I have ever read on this forum. The principle the US was founded on was that all [men] are created equal and that justice was to be administered without reference to wealth and station. If the poor lose the right to vote, they lose the right to demand equal justice through the electoral process. The wealthy will elect representatives who will serve their interests alone. Your idea is a perfect receipe for a feudal system where the wealthy land owners make the rules to keep themselves in power.

[suv_guy_19]

Welcome to the British Empire in about...oh....the 1700s.

[RangerM]

This is quite possibly the worst idea I have ever read on this forum. The principle the US was founded on was that all [men] are created equal and that justice was to be administered without reference to wealth and station. If the poor lose the right to vote, they lose the right to demand equal justice through the electoral process. The wealthy will elect representatives who will serve their interests alone. Your idea is a perfect receipe for a feudal system where the wealthy land owners make the rules to keep themselves in power.

How is it better that the poor vote their representatives based of promises of ever greater social welfare programs?

 

I would not favor taking voting rights away based on being poor alone, but if a person is on welfare I'd have no problem with it. The only thing I'd question is whether or not it would be a violation of the Constitution (referring to the Poll Tax, specifically), but I think it would pass muster.

[mettech]

This is quite possibly the worst idea I have ever read on this forum. The principle the US was founded on was that all [men] are created equal and that justice was to be administered without reference to wealth and station. If the poor lose the right to vote, they lose the right to demand equal justice through the electoral process. The wealthy will elect representatives who will serve their interests alone. Your idea is a perfect recipe for a feudal system where the wealthy land owners make the rules to keep themselves in power.

 

 

And how is it fair that nearly 50% don't pay income tax.

 

I am feed up supporting people that don't progress in life.

 

Why should I be forced to pay taxes for medical care on the fat ass SOB that doesn't work out? or for a smoker... or for someone that eats a poor diet.. or does hard drugs?

 

Why should I be forced to pay taxes for someone's 99 weeks+ of unemployment benefits that hasn't learned a new skill or relocated?

Edited December 10, 2010 by mettech

[aneekr]

As long as we're under a progressive tax system, those who receive more benefits than taxes paid should not be able to vote. I'm not saying that any american should be denied the right to vote, only that they should be given the choice to opt out of wealth redistribution. It's very simple. If you are being promised compensation for your vote, you are accepting a bribe. You can throw all the frothy emotional crap you want at me, but the bottom line remains the same.

Absolutely among the most sagacious recommendations - automotive related or not - I've read here on Blue Oval Forums. Bravo Versa-Tech! :yup:

[Ford Jellymoulds]

USA debt clocks reading $13,836,212,000,000 - USA total debt is £54 trillions, every US taxpayer is saddled with $125,000 of USA national debt.

With 15 million unemployed & still rising unabated in the USA despite TARP, QE1, QE2 printing money and now tax cuts for the rich few, l hope you enjoy the party for a couple of years whilst the artificial boom lasts.

 

All l can see is high interest rates coming in the future that will stuff a lot more home owners Stateside as a result of printing so much money, Grandchidren not born yet will still be paying for this two year debt junkies party on USA's credit card for decades & decades to come.

 

Enjoy the party whilst it lasts.

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[mettech]

As long as we're under a progressive tax system, those who receive more benefits than taxes paid should not be able to vote. I'm not saying that any american should be denied the right to vote, only that they should be given the choice to opt out of wealth redistribution. It's very simple. If you are being promised compensation for your vote, you are accepting a bribe. You can throw all the frothy emotional crap you want at me, but the bottom line remains the same.

 

I grew up poor as hell, was homeless off and on in my early twenties... and I made the decision (just as my father before me), to stick it out and pay my own way... starving for months at a time in my conviction. Guess what? I didn't need any help from the government. Yeah, it really sucked, but I had to pay for my own mistakes to learn how to live responsibly... and now I do.

 

 

IMHO, the intent of the post is to high light how easy it is to buy votes.

 

I have no problem with helping a person during hard times.. but if that person doesn't spend 8-12 hours/day..everyday.. working toward being more employable

[RangerM]

and now tax cuts for the rich few

 

The rich and the middle class will be paying what they've already been paying. The only "cut" proposed that I know of is the payroll tax cut, and that applies equally to everyone.

[Mark B. Morrow]

IMHO, the intent of the post is to high light how easy it is to buy votes.

 

I have no problem with helping a person during hard times.. but if that person doesn't spend 8-12 hours/day..everyday.. working toward being more employable

 

 

The wealthy and corporate interests have been buying votes and legislation for decades. Citizens United just made it easier to buy elections. The point is that the ultra rich aren't hurting at all. They are paying less of their income in taxes than at any time since income taxes were instituted.

[mettech]

The wealthy and corporate interests have been buying votes and legislation for decades. Citizens United just made it easier to buy elections. The point is that the ultra rich aren't hurting at all. They are paying less of their income in taxes than at any time since income taxes were instituted.

 

 

Please post the % of income they pay in taxes.... Then post the % for all others.

 

The USA is about being fair. Someone paying a higher % than others is not fair.

 

Why should a family be penalized because they make more money. Any other form of discrimination would be illegal.

[grbeck]

Just because someone else got richer doesn't mean that everyone else got poorer. They got poorer in relation to the person who got richer - but that is irrelevant.

 

What we really need to ask is whether their standard of living declined. Do they have less disposable income? Did the cost of goods change? How long does a person have to work to buy the necessities of life? These tend to be driven by taxation and regulatory policies (for example, zoning to preserve green space will drive up the cost of housing), not income distribution.

 

For that matter, what are the necessities of life?

 

Today people consider internet access (and thus, a computer with at least a modem) to be a necessity. In rural Pennsylvania, in the mid 1960s, there were working class people who did without ANY phone service. In the early 1940s, my paternal grandparents did without a car for many years, and, when they did get one after World War II, it was an old Ford that didn't have too much life left. And they did not live in a poor area. Today, I drive though the "slums" of Harrisburg and see nearly new SUVs and Chrysler 300s parked in front of shabby rowhouses.

 

We also have to account for the quality of goods when considering their cost. Well into the 1970s, virtually any car was considered used up by 100,000 miles. Today, cars may be more expensive, but, with proper care, they can last for 200,000 miles (with a few exceptions - I wouldn't trust a Northstar Cadillac with over 100,000 miles on the odometer).

Edited December 10, 2010 by grbeck

[grbeck]

As long as we're under a progressive tax system, those who receive more benefits than taxes paid should not be able to vote. I'm not saying that any american should be denied the right to vote, only that they should be given the choice to opt out of wealth redistribution. It's very simple. If you are being promised compensation for your vote, you are accepting a bribe. You can throw all the frothy emotional crap you want at me, but the bottom line remains the same.

 

I grew up poor as hell, was homeless off and on in my early twenties... and I made the decision (just as my father before me), to stick it out and pay my own way... starving for months at a time in my conviction. Guess what? I didn't need any help from the government. Yeah, it really sucked, but I had to pay for my own mistakes to learn how to live responsibly... and now I do.

 

Poor people tend not to vote as much as others. The group that votes most consistently is senior citizens; hence, politicians of both parties and all ideologies are most afraid of crossing them. Like it or not, the toughest choices regarding spending will have to be made with programs that benefit senior citizens (at the federal level - at the state level, the big drivers of spending are education, pension benefits for public employees, and Medicare).

[Ford Jellymoulds]

The rich and the middle class will be paying what they've already been paying. The only "cut" proposed that I know of is the payroll tax cut, and that applies equally to everyone.

 

 

Sure its seems very equal to me.

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[mettech]

Sure its seems very equal to me.

 

 

 

 

 

And the boat is sinking due to the dead weight of the parasite leaches. The people that consume more than what they pay for.

 

Get rid of the leaches and see how fast and far this boat will go. Right now, this country is dragging a heavy anchor of nonproductive, non progressive leaches.

[EdselBryantFord]

Want to bet that the country pays more in health care for the poor than is collected due to poor health choices?:reading:

 

And what is the quantitative value of "crap load"?

 

I should not be held accountable for someone that has embraced poor health choices, refuses to lean new work skills, refuses to move where jobs are, and expects the government to support them to remain uneducated, unskilled and unfit.

how about the poor health choice of joining the army and getting injured?

[EdselBryantFord]

So do the wealthy.

 

 

 

They only stop paying on amounts above the limit. They still pay (over 3 times) more into SS than someone making $30,000.

sure a person making 100k pays three times as much of their income in SS, but a person making 1 million pays 1/30 of what the 30k a year person does on percentage basis.

we can count dollars all day and millionaires do pay more, but there is less millionaires who pay little percentage of their income verses many poor, or less than 100k 50 k 30k or whatever cut off you choose that pay a larger percentage of their income.

from the governments perspective those who pay more pay more end of story, but from the individual perspective the poor pay more of their individual assests.

that being said lets give more tax breaks to the rich, because paying 3-5% is just unreasonable.