Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 who pays how much under current federal law, considering ALL federal taxes combined. just the facts, no spin, no warren buffett strawman bullchit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So is this telling me that the top 20% pay 25.5% of the included incomes in taxes, while the bottom 20%, all of whom are below $17,802, pay 1.6% of the included incomes in taxes? Note that the included incomes do not include capital gains. I suppose all those people below $17,802 are making bank off their capital gains tax being only 15%, the bastards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) Note that the included incomes do not include capital gains. that is incorrect. edit to add: Cash income includes wages and salaries, employee contribution to tax-deferred retirement savings plans, business income or loss, farm income or loss, Schedule E income, interest income, taxable dividends, realized net capital gains, social security benefits received, unemployment compensation, energy assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), worker’s compensation, veteran’s benefits, supplemental security income, child support, disability benefits, taxable IRA distributions, total pension income, alimony received, and other income including foreign earned income. Cash income also includes imputed corporate income tax liability and the employer’s share of payroll taxes. This puts the income measure on a pretax basis. Edited September 22, 2011 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 So what? If it's not 23.9% better being in the top bracket than the bottom, nobody is forcing you to be rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 So is this telling me that the top 20% pay 25.5% of the included incomes in taxes, while the bottom 20%, all of whom are below $17,802, pay 1.6% of the included incomes in taxes? not sure what you mean by "included income". this is their effective federal tax rate, including all federal taxes (including payroll taxes, cap. gains income, corporate taxes....all of it). in other words, this is what percentage of their "cash income" the average person in each quintile pays in federal taxes. the measure, as best I can tell, includes all forms of income and all federal taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 So what? we are all free to draw our own conclusions, but I would say it speaks to the issue of who is and is not "paying their fair share". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 we are all free to draw our own conclusions, but I would say it speaks to the issue of who is and is not "paying their fair share". Well then the question is, is being rich 23.6% better than being poor? If it is, one has to assume the problem with America is the lazy 80% of us not in the top bracket because we choose not to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 we are all free to draw our own conclusions, but I would say it speaks to the issue of who is and is not "paying their fair share". THis isn't about who is paying their fair share, it's about math... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 that is incorrect. edit to add: OK, good. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 not sure what you mean by "included income". this is their effective federal tax rate, including all federal taxes (including payroll taxes, cap. gains income, corporate taxes....all of it). in other words, this is what percentage of their "cash income" the average person in each quintile pays in federal taxes. the measure, as best I can tell, includes all forms of income and all federal taxes. I used "included" because, until you clarified it, it was not apparent that all possible income streams were included in the calculation. It looked at first as if capital gains and investment income was not included - that omission alone would very heavily skew the numbers at the top end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 who pays how much under current federal law, considering ALL federal taxes combined. just the facts, no spin, no warren buffett strawman bullchit. just be sure: are those average effective tax rates for each income group? I ask because it is likely that within each income group not everyone pays the same taxes--hence you could indeed have some higher income people who pay lower effective tax rates than some lower income people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 just be sure: are those average effective tax rates for each income group? I ask because it is likely that within each income group not everyone pays the same taxes--hence you could indeed have some higher income people who pay lower effective tax rates than some lower income people. Yes you could, there are exceptions to every rule. But, I posted an article in another thread that breaks it out a bit more and does indeed show that overall effective rates are higher as income progresses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geeteebee Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Well then the question is, is being rich 23.6% better than being poor? If it is, one has to assume the problem with America is the lazy 80% of us not in the top bracket because we choose not to be. Unfortunately, your math is a little off. We aren't talking about a 23.6% difference. We are talking about a 1,593% difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Well then the question is, is being rich 23.6% better than being poor? If it is, one has to assume the problem with America is the lazy 80% of us not in the top bracket because we choose not to be. 80% aren't lazy and do not choose to make less. A good deal of them don't have the faculties to be able to do the tasks that the top .01 - 20% can do. I would say only the bottom 20% are too lazy and have no drive or motivation to pull themselves out of the morass in which they are stuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Unfortunately, your math is a little off. We aren't talking about a 23.6% difference. We are talking about a 1,593% difference. Dude, if ConAgra can call a 1/4 second spray of Pam a serving size then my math is close enough. Semantics anyways. If it's not 1,593% better being in the top tax bracket than the bottom, why is anyone torturing themselves to be rich? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geeteebee Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 If it's not 1,593% better being in the top tax bracket than the bottom, why is anyone torturing themselves to be rich? Perhaps because they feel pride in contributing to society and not living off of the government's teet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Perhaps because they feel pride in contributing to society and not living off of the government's teet? Isnt that they just want to contribute LESS to society? Great quote on The Daily Show interview with Governor Daniels from Indiana. "corporations are now considered people. The problem is those 'people' arent Americans." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Perhaps because they feel pride in contributing to society and not living off of the government's teet? Hey, if you think Paris Hilton contributes more to society than Salvatore Giunta that's your problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 80% aren't lazy and do not choose to make less. A good deal of them don't have the faculties to be able to do the tasks that the top .01 - 20% can do. I like how idealistic you cold hearted conservatives get when it comes to rich people. I've worked for plenty of dumb and marginally talented rich people. Typically I'm one of the people making them rich. Some were born in the right family, some got lucky, or mainly happened to be in the right place at the right time. I'm not a big fan of Krugman, but I thought this quote on this pic made some sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 23, 2011 Author Share Posted September 23, 2011 I agree with that rawls quote completely, and I'd much rather be born in a freer society than a "more equal" one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Isnt that they just want to contribute LESS to society? Great quote on The Daily Show interview with Governor Daniels from Indiana. "corporations are now considered people. The problem is those 'people' arent Americans." here's a tip for you ... society does not equal government. and trying to make our corporations faceless villians is shooting ourselves in the foot. wake up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 (edited) I agree with that rawls quote completely, and I'd much rather be born in a freer society than a "more equal" one. freer and less equal than we are today? (not commenting, just asking) I'd prefer to live in a society where there is more equality of opportunity than what we have now. If that means some people lose some "freedom" (such as paying higher taxes to provide for more educational/training/re-training opportunities) then so be it. Edited September 24, 2011 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I agree with that rawls quote completely, and I'd much rather be born in a freer society than a "more equal" one. I'm willing to debate how "free" a society is when so much wealth is concentrated at the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I'm willing to debate how "free" a society is when so much wealth is concentrated at the top. George Soros? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 our corporations Ours? They aren't "ours", they are globalized entities, no more beholden to a particular nation than the moon is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.