Link
My Favorite part of the whole article.
"The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government."
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Damn those evil rich people!!!!
Damn those evil rich people!!!!Follow
They also have more than 90% of the wealth, so whatever.
It's nice that the rich have somehow gotten people like you to stand up for them, though.
It's nice that the rich have somehow gotten people like you to stand up for them, though.
Quote:
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
A family of four making less than $50k probably has bigger problems than federal income tax.
Quote:
"We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing," said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
The GOP should totally run on a "tax poor people more" platform. I'm behind this idea 100%
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
The GOP should totally run on a "tax poor people more" platform. I'm behind this idea 100%
Lol, right?
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Quote:
The GOP should totally run on a "tax poor people more" platform.
Don't they already? Even if unofficially?
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning
Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
ThiefX wrote:
It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government."
Its safe to say that ThiefX is never going to become one of those top 10%. Which makes him a socialist welfare blagger.
Hypocrite.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
I'm confused...
Doesn't the GOP always run on the "we'll lower taxes" ticket? So if the common man isn't paying much in taxes, isn't that exactly what they want?
Doesn't the GOP always run on the "we'll lower taxes" ticket? So if the common man isn't paying much in taxes, isn't that exactly what they want?
ThiefX wrote:
People who make $366,000 and up are paying 75% of the taxes. 75% YOU GET THAT RIGHT? 10% PAYING 75%! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? SHOULD I SPEAK MORE SLOWLY?
You could how learn to read and it would make everyone's life easier, Varus-lite.
I don't care how much money a rich person has to pay in taxes. Honest, I don't.
Apparently Thiefx doesn't know how maths work. Or he'd see the obvious fallacies going on here.
Also exponential curves etc.
----
If you want maths that point to a location of positive conservative reform, you should be using graphs like this, and reform metrics to change said curve discontinuities.
Also exponential curves etc.
----
If you want maths that point to a location of positive conservative reform, you should be using graphs like this, and reform metrics to change said curve discontinuities.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
Apparently Thiefx doesn't know how maths work. Or he'd see the obvious fallacies going on here.
Also exponential curves etc.
----
If you want maths that point to a location of positive conservative reform, you should be using graphs like this, and reform metrics to change said curve discontinuities.
Also exponential curves etc.
----
If you want maths that point to a location of positive conservative reform, you should be using graphs like this, and reform metrics to change said curve discontinuities.
To put it simpler: The fact that wealthier people paid 73% of the fed taxes in a year DOESN'T mean that each or any of them paid anything like 73% of their income to tax.
There you go, if I'd followed the link and looked at the simple little graph in the first place I'd have seen that Americans who earned $140,000 all-up paid $40k net between taxes and benefits. So they lost out less than a third of their income to taxes. And the way the graph trended, people earning more than $140k would be paying a very similar proportion of their income to taxes overall.
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 10:20pm by Aripyanfar
ThiefX wrote:
People who make $366,000 and up are paying 75% of the taxes. 75% YOU GET THAT RIGHT? 10% PAYING 75%! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? SHOULD I SPEAK MORE SLOWLY?
I think you're slow enough already. You don't seem to understand mathematical data and you don't seem to understand how services are used by individuals.
As Sweetums said, the top 10% paying 75% of the taxes is more representative of the wealth gap, and quite sensible if corporate entities are included (browsing through the TPC data I couldn't get a clear answer at first). Second, services aren't used equally. A businesses owner with a fleet of trucks does significantly more damage to the road than an employee driving to work every day.
ThiefX wrote:
People who make $366,000 and up are paying 75% of the taxes. 75% YOU GET THAT RIGHT? 10% PAYING 75%! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? SHOULD I SPEAK MORE SLOWLY?
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
22 posts
Allegory wrote:
A businesses owner with a fleet of trucks does significantly more damage to the road than an employee driving to work every day.
And that business owner is paying significantly more taxes for fuel on his fleet of trucks that only get 6 mpg compared to the person who's vehicle is getting 20+ mpg.
xxmgobluexx wrote:
Allegory wrote:
A businesses owner with a fleet of trucks does significantly more damage to the road than an employee driving to work every day.
And that business owner is paying significantly more taxes for fuel on his fleet of trucks that only get 6 mpg compared to the person who's vehicle is getting 20+ mpg.
And they are also getting significantly more utility out of the fuel as well. Just dancing for the purpose of dancing, or did you have a point?
Just as Planned.
xxmgobluexx wrote:
Allegory wrote:
A businesses owner with a fleet of trucks does significantly more damage to the road than an employee driving to work every day.
And that business owner is paying significantly more taxes for fuel on his fleet of trucks that only get 6 mpg compared to the person who's vehicle is getting 20+ mpg.
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 9:39pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
xxmgobluexx wrote:
Allegory wrote:
A businesses owner with a fleet of trucks does significantly more damage to the road than an employee driving to work every day.
And that business owner is paying significantly more taxes for fuel on his fleet of trucks that only get 6 mpg compared to the person who's vehicle is getting 20+ mpg.
22 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
xxmgobluexx wrote:
Allegory wrote:
A businesses owner with a fleet of trucks does significantly more damage to the road than an employee driving to work every day.
And that business owner is paying significantly more taxes for fuel on his fleet of trucks that only get 6 mpg compared to the person who's vehicle is getting 20+ mpg.
And they are also getting significantly more utility out of the fuel as well. Just dancing for the purpose of dancing, or did you have a point?
My point is that while the trucks do more damage to our highways, as Allegory pointed out, they pay a hell of alot more for the repairs also.
xxmgobluexx wrote:
My point is that while the trucks do more damage to our highways, as Allegory pointed out, they pay a hell of alot more for the repairs also.
I guess I'm having trouble discerning whether you're agreeing with my point or believe you're contending it. From my perspective that seems appropriate. If you buy one candy bar and I buy ten, then I'm going to pay ten times the sales tax--which is proportionally equal to our use--and that seems perfectly appropriate to me.
Not to mention, if this was in Australia, the cost of the fuel and the trucks get written off as a business expense, and deducted from the income of the business, BEFORE the tax the business has to pay on its profit is calculated.
IE, in Aus business costs like trucks and fuel aren't in effect in the long run paid for by the business at all.
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 11:09pm by Aripyanfar
IE, in Aus business costs like trucks and fuel aren't in effect in the long run paid for by the business at all.
Edited, Apr 7th 2010 11:09pm by Aripyanfar
/yawn
Someone wake me whenthe Virus-wannabe ThiefX discovers an original thought.
Someone wake me when
#23ThiefX,
Posted: Apr 07 2010 at 9:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah yes liberal logic.......
Quote:
And wake me when one of you libs can explain how the rich don't pay their fair share.
Either learn to read Theifx or just go to any college and take either a math or economics class. It has been pointed out time and time again but you refuse to admit to it. Which leads me to two possible reasons. One your a troll trying to get people upset and all that or two, you are blatantly stupid and refuse to educate yourself on basic concepts like math. I know I called you stupid and not ignorant but to call you ignorant says you actually try to learn.
Of course none of what I said prolly made it past your eyes. I'm sure it just looked like "blah blah blah *liberal idea* blah blah blah *anti conservative idea* blah blah blah *welfare rules* blah blah *rich can suck it* blah blah blah". -roll eyes-
ThiefX wrote:
Did it ever cross your mind that the evil owner of the company (I'm sure he's evil because libs tell us they are) pays taxes on those trucks and taxes on the gas that goes into the truck and taxes on each employee driving those trucks and taxes on upkeep of those trucks and taxes on the goods in the back of the truck...........
I'm not sure what you think is special here. Does it occur to you that I paid sales tax on my car and taxes on my gas and a fee for license and registration and tax on maintenance services and taxes on the goods I carry in my car?
I do pretty much everything he does, but he does more of it, hence he pays more.
#26ThiefX,
Posted: Apr 07 2010 at 9:46 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Translation: I can't answer a simple question so I will insult you and hope nobody notices I couldn't answer the question.
Recent Visitors: 236
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Damn those evil rich people!!!!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC