Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you think you ought to be able to pay for everything as a percentage of your income? Big Macs should be 50c for you but 10 dollars for someone who makes more money? You pay a couple of grand and you think it's not fair that some rich guy only paid a few million? Do you realize how pathetic your post is?Originally posted by joelbc1:
Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.
I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.
Kiting...it is percentages that tend to level the playing field. If McDonald's wants to charge based on income, so be it. It's their choice, as a business. I know several wealthy cats who do this already. They will never eat a McDonald's quarter pounder for $5.....Instead they will eat the burger and fries at the local country club for $15. That's America my friend....the land of opportunity and choice in the marketplace........It needs to become a land 'f "fair" as far as taxes go, too. I have thought this thing through...moreso than you.Originally posted by KitingHigh:
Do you think you ought to be able to pay for everything as a percentage of your income? Big Macs should be 50c for you but 10 dollars for someone who makes more money? You pay a couple of grand and you think it's not fair that some rich guy only paid a few million? Do you realize how pathetic your post is?Originally posted by joelbc1:
Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.
I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.
Looks like they were erring on the side of including things in income for everyone, thus making the tax as a % of income look smaller. For example, they include tax exempt interest in income (presumably a bigger item for "rich" folks).Originally posted by theiacowtipper:
I don't have enough of a background to interpret these kinds of studies, but I did look at the chart that the author of this article included in the link, but I also looked at what he did not include, which was the footnotes at the bottom. It looks as though they included a number of items that would serve to inflate the noncash income numbers for the lower and middle tax brackets, specifically, healthcare benefits, in order to improve their income numbers. Again, I could be off in this.
(1) The income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus: [1] tax-exempt interest,
[2] employer contributions for health plans and life insurance, [3] employer share of FICA tax, [4] worker's compensation,
[5] nontaxable Social Security benefits, [6] insurance value of Medicare benefits, [7] alternative minimum tax preference items,
[8] individual share of business taxes, and [9] excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Categories are measured at 2015 levels.
(2) Includes nonfilers, excludes dependent filers and returns with negative income.
(3) Federal taxes are equal to individual income tax (including the outlay portion of the EIC), social insurance tax (attributed to employees),
business taxes (attributed to capital owners and labor) and excise taxes (attributed to consumers).
Individuals who are dependents of other taxpayers and taxpayers with negative income are excluded from the analysis.
Does not include indirect effects.
Originally posted by joelbc1:
  Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.Â
  I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.Â
Can you link those CBO stats, please?Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:
And the CBO says the Top 1%'s average federal tax rate, total amount paid as % of total federal tax collected, and as percentage of GDP, have all steadily declined since 1994. There is no dispute that, right now, the Top 1% have it as good as they have had it in a generation when it comes to minimizing their payments to the U.S. Treasury.
This is, in part, a significant cause of the deficit (not saying we also don't need to work on the other side of the problem).
Not only is there dispute, but you are flat wrong. Taxes for the top 1% have gone up significantly in the past 6 years. Top marginal rate has gone from 35% to 43%...liberals always forget about the 3.8% medicare/obamacare tax. Capital gain rates are higher. Deductions are phased out at lower incomes. 3.8% added to capital gains.Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:
And the CBO says the Top 1%'s average federal tax rate, total amount paid as % of total federal tax collected, and as percentage of GDP, have all steadily declined since 1994. There is no dispute that, right now, the Top 1% have it as good as they have had it in a generation when it comes to minimizing their payments to the U.S. Treasury.
This is, in part, a significant cause of the deficit (not saying we also don't need to work on the other side of the problem).
Data is in report - Start with summary chart on pg. 16 for years through 1979 through 2010.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Can you link those CBO stats, please?Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:
And the CBO says the Top 1%'s average federal tax rate, total amount paid as % of total federal tax collected, and as percentage of GDP, have all steadily declined since 1994. There is no dispute that, right now, the Top 1% have it as good as they have had it in a generation when it comes to minimizing their payments to the U.S. Treasury.
This is, in part, a significant cause of the deficit (not saying we also don't need to work on the other side of the problem).
You are also demonstrably wrong. I pay an effective rate of right at 40%, with around 30% going to the feds. Folks like you simply like to repeat this false narrative as a way of taking more from those who earn something.Originally posted by joelbc1:
Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.
I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.
And this brings you to tax year 2011.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Can you link those CBO stats, please?Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:
And the CBO says the Top 1%'s average federal tax rate, total amount paid as % of total federal tax collected, and as percentage of GDP, have all steadily declined since 1994. There is no dispute that, right now, the Top 1% have it as good as they have had it in a generation when it comes to minimizing their payments to the U.S. Treasury.
This is, in part, a significant cause of the deficit (not saying we also don't need to work on the other side of the problem).
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
Thanks for the link.Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:
Data is in report - Start with summary chart on pg. 16 for years through 1979 through 2010.Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Can you link those CBO stats, please?Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:
And the CBO says the Top 1%'s average federal tax rate, total amount paid as % of total federal tax collected, and as percentage of GDP, have all steadily declined since 1994. There is no dispute that, right now, the Top 1% have it as good as they have had it in a generation when it comes to minimizing their payments to the U.S. Treasury.
This is, in part, a significant cause of the deficit (not saying we also don't need to work on the other side of the problem).
Well of course, we post on HROT after all. About time the rabble pay their share. I'm just constantly amazed at the number of the rabble who think they will pay less under this system.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
The top 1% is fluid. I sold a home and cashed out some investments in 2010 and cracked into the 1% for a year. I hope to do it again many more times.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Well of course, we post on HROT after all. About time the rabble pay their share. I'm just constantly amazed at the number of the rabble who think they will pay less under this system.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
Holy hell where do I sign up? I absolutely will pay less. What flat % are we talking about? I want to make sure we're all speaking the same languageOriginally posted by naturalmwa:
Well of course, we post on HROT after all. About time the rabble pay their share. I'm just constantly amazed at the number of the rabble who think they will pay less under this system.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
Me thinks they a higher percentage no matter what it's figured onOriginally posted by joelbc1:
  Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.Â
  I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.Â
This is about all one needs to keep in mind. In fact, when these words are placed in that order, it is a foregone conclusion that the last 7 words are redundant.Originally posted by KitingHigh:
Joel,
you haven't thought this through very well.
show me 22 where I said that?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
If the budget is $3.8 trillion, then everyone owes about $12,000 in federal taxes. That's per man, woman and child. So a family of 4 would owe $48,000.Originally posted by timinatoria:
Holy hell where do I sign up? I absolutely will pay less. What flat % are we talking about? I want to make sure we're all speaking the same languageOriginally posted by naturalmwa:
Well of course, we post on HROT after all. About time the rabble pay their share. I'm just constantly amazed at the number of the rabble who think they will pay less under this system.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
I think you are confused as usualOriginally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
If the budget is $3.8 trillion, then everyone owes about $12,000 in federal taxes. That's per man, woman and child. So a family of 4 would owe $48,000.Originally posted by timinatoria:
Holy hell where do I sign up? I absolutely will pay less. What flat % are we talking about? I want to make sure we're all speaking the same languageOriginally posted by naturalmwa:
Well of course, we post on HROT after all. About time the rabble pay their share. I'm just constantly amazed at the number of the rabble who think they will pay less under this system.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
What should happen to those who make under $12K per family member?
And don't forget the state taxes and such.
Lol...but "Warren Buffet's" secretary pays more I tads than he does is as true as can be, right?Originally posted by joelbc1:
Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.
I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.
Warren Buffet's claim was that his secretary paid an effective rate higher than his, which was quite likely true. However because the marginal rates as well as capital gains rates have increased, this may longer be true.Originally posted by YellowSnow51:
Lol...but "Warren Buffet's" secretary pays more I tads than he does is as true as can be, right?Originally posted by joelbc1:
Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.
I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.
It was likely true because Buffet paid his secretary enough to put her at the top marginal tax bracket, and most likely in the top 1%.Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:
Warren Buffet's claim was that his secretary paid an effective rate higher than his, which was quite likely true. However because the marginal rates as well as capital gains rates have increased, this may longer be true.Originally posted by YellowSnow51:
Lol...but "Warren Buffet's" secretary pays more I tads than he does is as true as can be, right?Originally posted by joelbc1:
Methinks the Committee's words are very carefully parsed.
I would still bet those in the "1%" pay less % of a tax on their income than I do. I pay 10-11% of my "gross" to the Fed...about 3% of my gross to the State and right at 3% to the County, city and schools. Screw the "adjusted" income...that is pure BS meant to confuse. I am talking taxes as a percentage of what I am paid.
Slam friggin' dunk.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
The top 1% is fluid. I sold a home and cashed out some investments in 2010 and cracked into the 1% for a year. I hope to do it again many more times.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Well of course, we post on HROT after all. About time the rabble pay their share. I'm just constantly amazed at the number of the rabble who think they will pay less under this system.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
I paid a ton in taxes that year of money that I busted my ass to earn and grow. So, I don't like to be told that I didn't do my part.
If the 1% is paying 49% of the country's tax revenue and it is not enough, then there is no better example that we clearly have a spending issue in this country.
Originally posted by bagdropper:
Was it John Dillinger who answered the question of why he robbed banks with "that's where they keep the money"?
bag....it was Willie Sutton who said this.
Joel knows this because he relates to a fellow robber. Like most liberals, he is too lazy and cowardly to do it himself, and prefers to have the government do it from him. Must make a fellow proud.Originally posted by joelbc1:
Originally posted by bagdropper:
Was it John Dillinger who answered the question of why he robbed banks with "that's where they keep the money"?
bag....it was Willie Sutton who said this.
How is he confused? I think that is fairly accurate. The FY 2014 budget included 3.5 trillion dollars in all spending. There are 319 million in population. That gives us a total of about 11k per person, man/woman and child. If you account for all government spending of 6 trillion dollars, federal, state and local, that would come out to almost 19k per person. How many on this board pay total taxes of 19k per person per year. I know I do not.Originally posted by *33*:
I think you are confused as usualOriginally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
If the budget is $3.8 trillion, then everyone owes about $12,000 in federal taxes. That's per man, woman and child. So a family of 4 would owe $48,000.Originally posted by timinatoria:
Holy hell where do I sign up? I absolutely will pay less. What flat % are we talking about? I want to make sure we're all speaking the same languageOriginally posted by naturalmwa:
Well of course, we post on HROT after all. About time the rabble pay their share. I'm just constantly amazed at the number of the rabble who think they will pay less under this system.Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Works for me.Originally posted by naturalmwa:
Are we in agreement that if we went this path, 99% of people would pay more to give a tax break to the top 1%?Originally posted by 22*43*51:
I agree with Joel.
We need a flat tax.
What should happen to those who make under $12K per family member?
And don't forget the state taxes and such.
LOL. $19k is a rounding error for my household.Originally posted by theiacowtipper:
How is he confused? I think that is fairly accurate. The FY 2014 budget included 3.5 trillion dollars in all spending. There are 319 million in population. That gives us a total of about 11k per person, man/woman and child. If you account for all government spending of 6 trillion dollars, federal, state and local, that would come out to almost 19k per person. How many on this board pay total taxes of 19k per person per year. I know I do not.
Per person, that's a bunch of coin.Originally posted by coffhawk:
LOL. $19k is a rounding error for my household.Originally posted by theiacowtipper:
How is he confused? I think that is fairly accurate. The FY 2014 budget included 3.5 trillion dollars in all spending. There are 319 million in population. That gives us a total of about 11k per person, man/woman and child. If you account for all government spending of 6 trillion dollars, federal, state and local, that would come out to almost 19k per person. How many on this board pay total taxes of 19k per person per year. I know I do not.
There are 4 people in my household, and $76k in federal taxes would be a significant tax cut.Originally posted by theiacowtipper:
Per person, that's a bunch of coin.Originally posted by coffhawk:
LOL. $19k is a rounding error for my household.Originally posted by theiacowtipper:
How is he confused? I think that is fairly accurate. The FY 2014 budget included 3.5 trillion dollars in all spending. There are 319 million in population. That gives us a total of about 11k per person, man/woman and child. If you account for all government spending of 6 trillion dollars, federal, state and local, that would come out to almost 19k per person. How many on this board pay total taxes of 19k per person per year. I know I do not.