All Hell Breaks Loose Over Christian Oscar Nod

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I am in the top 10% and now we are the only one besides the wealthy that can afford taxes . And the top 10% are not wealthy they are just the top of the middle

wealth starts in the top 1%
[/quote]

lol, and? What does it matter. People who shit in crystal clear water, post videos of starving kids that would drink said water around your log, and complain that other people are richer than them is priceless on so many levels.

The wealth pie isn’t finite. It doesn’t matter one bit who has what, there is more wealth to create out there.

And in response to the “facebook proof” linked earlier to try and refute the DOMA statement. The SCOTUS ruling sets precedence for a challenge of any state laws. The ability for a state to pass a law that flies in the face of SCOTUS’s ruling, and win on challenges is unlikely.

102

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The way I see taxation today is , they are taking from the middle class and giving it to the poor (IN ASSISTANCE which I don’t mind so much ) and to the wealthy in forms of tax breaks and write offs . This is part of the lopsided policy I am speaking [/quote]

Could you please explain to me how exactly the middle class is negatively impacted when a business owner lowers his taxable income by claiming business expenses? Do middle class business owners not have the right to write off business expenses also?

The top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of the taxes. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757
The top 10% pay 70% of all income tax. What is lopsided is the more money you make the higher your tax bracket.

103

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The way I see taxation today is , they are taking from the middle class and giving it to the poor (IN ASSISTANCE which I don’t mind so much ) and to the wealthy in forms of tax breaks and write offs . This is part of the lopsided policy I am speaking [/quote]

Could you please explain to me how exactly the middle class is negatively impacted when a business owner lowers his taxable income by claiming business expenses? Do middle class business owners not have the right to write off business expenses also?

The top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of the taxes. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757
The top 10% pay 70% of all income tax. What is lopsided is the more money you make the higher your tax bracket.
[/quote]

We have a graduated tax system in America. Nothing anyone can pull out of their behinds is going to change that fact. For every “bbbuuuttttt Mitt Romney only pays, blah, blah, blah, blah” example, I could (if I wouldn’t lose my job) provide 200 examples of people who paid more in June estimates than the people complaining will pay in a lifetime.

The rules in place certainly do not favor the rich. There are some bad laws on the books, lobbied and paid for by mego corporations, that are just that, bad. However, the entirety of the system is that: THE MORE YOU MAKE, THE MORE YOU PAY. And for the vast, vast majority, this is the case.

No the poor and middle aren’t disparaged for the sake of the upper class, and anyone who continues to express this wrong opinion, with zero evidence to back it up (actual evidence, not some journalist who doesn’t understand taxation or partisan think tank either), should be ignored.

It isn’t a rich person’s fault someone else is poor. It isn’t anyone’s place to take from a rich person what they have and earn and give it to someone else.

104

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The way I see taxation today is , they are taking from the middle class and giving it to the poor (IN ASSISTANCE which I don’t mind so much ) and to the wealthy in forms of tax breaks and write offs . This is part of the lopsided policy I am speaking [/quote]

Could you please explain to me how exactly the middle class is negatively impacted when a business owner lowers his taxable income by claiming business expenses? Do middle class business owners not have the right to write off business expenses also?

The top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of the taxes. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757
The top 10% pay 70% of all income tax. What is lopsided is the more money you make the higher your tax bracket.
[/quote]

We have a graduated tax system in America. Nothing anyone can pull out of their behinds is going to change that fact. For every “bbbuuuttttt Mitt Romney only pays, blah, blah, blah, blah” example, I could (if I wouldn’t lose my job) provide 200 examples of people who paid more in June estimates than the people complaining will pay in a lifetime.

The rules in place certainly do not favor the rich. There are some bad laws on the books, lobbied and paid for by mego corporations, that are just that, bad. However, the entirety of the system is that: THE MORE YOU MAKE, THE MORE YOU PAY. And for the vast, vast majority, this is the case.

No the poor and middle aren’t disparaged for the sake of the upper class, and anyone who continues to express this wrong opinion, with zero evidence to back it up (actual evidence, not some journalist who doesn’t understand taxation or partisan think tank either), should be ignored.

It isn’t a rich person’s fault someone else is poor. It isn’t anyone’s place to take from a rich person what they have and earn and give it to someone else. [/quote]

Thee top rate is what a little over 39% and now those folks pay 20% on dividend income, seems fair…

105

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Thee top rate is what a little over 39% and now those folks pay 20% on dividend income, seems fair…[/quote]

You really have to look at effective rates. Start there and peel back the layers after that. Once you’ve peeled back the layers (foreign taxes paid being one) you have to add in the precursors to that individuals income. (For example if they own a business, the taxes paid by the business are essentially paid by the individual for macro discussion purposes.)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=366&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=31

Tax policy center is a think tank, but the data they have shown has matched up with the data 've gotten off the .gov websites in the past.

That first table shows, that people who have an AGI of 50k or less, lower class, students, retired folks, etc, only have about 40% of those included in that range paying tax. Of that, virtually all of it is 10% or less. Even those filers who make 100k or less are paying 15% or less, effectively, virtually 100% of the time.

Now look at the far right column. Those that make more than 200k a year, virtually all of those tax payers pay 16%-30% in tax, effective rate.

That one table destroys pitt’s claims alone, absolutely destroys it.

106

Now, lets look at the bottom to charts here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=534&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=39

Looking at this, the “bottom 99%” share of adjusted gross income has hovered between 78-89% since 1986. In 2009 it was 83%. That means the bottom 99% of earners actually earned 83% of the “wealth” earned in 2009. Conversely, the top 1% would then have had to earn 17% of the income in that year.

So… If pittbull is correct, what share of the tax paid would be expect that bottom 99% to have paid… At least equal to their 83% of the income right? Well, guess what, not even close. The bottom chart shows that the “bottom 99%” only paid 63% of the tax collected. But wait, how can that be if the tax code favors the rich you ask? Well, that could be because the Top 1% earning 17% of the income actually foot the bill for our tax revenue to the tune of 37%.

To recap:

Bottom 99% share of income earned - 83%
Bottom 99% share of taxes paid - 63%
Top 1% share of income earned - 17%
Top 1% share of taxes paid - 37%

hmmm… Something isn’t right here… Either the liberals are full of shit, don’t know what they are talking about, or bad at math…

Please also note, the share of taxes paid by the bottom 99% has fallen since “Trickle Down Reagan” by 10.98%, and their share of income has only fallen by 5.63%. Hmmm, is that another talking point destroyed?

(If we could have avoided recession, that share of taxes paid would likely be lower than it is in 2009, because a recessionary period wil see the share paid by non-owners go up, as the owner burden larger losses during recessionary periods.)

107

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Thee top rate is what a little over 39% and now those folks pay 20% on dividend income, seems fair…[/quote]
Countingbeans wrote a bunch of stuff about tax…

[/quote]

Absolutely, I was just making a general statement about the basic rate structure.

I’m surprised you aren’t busy yet?

108

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Thee top rate is what a little over 39% and now those folks pay 20% on dividend income, seems fair…[/quote]

You really have to look at effective rates. Start there and peel back the layers after that. Once you’ve peeled back the layers (foreign taxes paid being one) you have to add in the precursors to that individuals income. (For example if they own a business, the taxes paid by the business are essentially paid by the individual for macro discussion purposes.)

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=366&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=31

Tax policy center is a think tank, but the data they have shown has matched up with the data 've gotten off the .gov websites in the past.

That first table shows, that people who have an AGI of 50k or less, lower class, students, retired folks, etc, only have about 40% of those included in that range paying tax. Of that, virtually all of it is 10% or less. Even those filers who make 100k or less are paying 15% or less, effectively, virtually 100% of the time.

Now look at the far right column. Those that make more than 200k a year, virtually all of those tax payers pay 16%-30% in tax, effective rate.

That one table destroys pitt’s claims alone, absolutely destroys it. [/quote]

BUT beans those poor downtrodden poor that have been ravaged by the rich and stolen from!!! What about them!!!

109

[quote]Bauber wrote:
BUT beans those poor downtrodden poor that have been ravaged by the rich and stolen from!!! What about them!!![/quote]

haha.

I look at it from a perspective of, people are either poor or rich for the same reasons:
100% Environment (born into it)
50% Environment & 50% one’s reaction to their environment (income mobility)
100% reaction to their environment (Bill Gates is a decent, but not perfect example)

Where someone stays where they started in step 1, is going to depend on the other two.

And then there is the fact that there will always be rich people and poor people, there will always be less rich than poor, and they will always have a lot more than those that have little. This is never, ever going to change, it never has, and never will.

And because of this, no one will ever be able to tell you or anyone what the “fair” income distribution is, or what should be done to end those “evil rich people & republicans”.

110

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:
BUT beans those poor downtrodden poor that have been ravaged by the rich and stolen from!!! What about them!!![/quote]

haha.

I look at it from a perspective of, people are either poor or rich for the same reasons:
100% Environment (born into it)
50% Environment & 50% one’s reaction to their environment (income mobility)
100% reaction to their environment (Bill Gates is a decent, but not perfect example)

Where someone stays where they started in step 1, is going to depend on the other two.

And then there is the fact that there will always be rich people and poor people, there will always be less rich than poor, and they will always have a lot more than those that have little. This is never, ever going to change, it never has, and never will.

And because of this, no one will ever be able to tell you or anyone what the “fair” income distribution is, or what should be done to end those “evil rich people & republicans”.

[/quote]

We think exactly alike. I must be fucking evil.

111

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I am in the top 10% and now we are the only one besides the wealthy that can afford taxes . And the top 10% are not wealthy they are just the top of the middle

wealth starts in the top 1%
[/quote]

lol, and? What does it matter. People who shit in crystal clear water, post videos of starving kids that would drink said water around your log, and complain that other people are richer than them is priceless on so many levels.

The wealth pie isn’t finite. It doesn’t matter one bit who has what, there is more wealth to create out there.

And in response to the “facebook proof” linked earlier to try and refute the DOMA statement. The SCOTUS ruling sets precedence for a challenge of any state laws. The ability for a state to pass a law that flies in the face of SCOTUS’s ruling, and win on challenges is unlikely. [/quote]

I know i heard from Mitt himself that he paid 14% income tax and he probably paid more than he had to because of the pressure of running for PREZ . My family’s was double at least

Mitt’s dollar worth $.86

Pitt’s dollar $.72
_____

                $.14

I hope taht is not too complicated :slight_smile:

112

Then add all the sales taxes and fees that a household pays then look at the percentage I bet the top of the middle is up around %70 and the top is still around %14

113

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Then add all the sales taxes and fees that a household pays then look at the percentage I bet the top of the middle is up around %70 and the top is still around %14[/quote]

The top of the middle pays 70%…care to back that up with some kind of documentation?

Edit: The top 1% don’t pay sales tax???

114

"You make between $40,000 and $100,000 a year
The median income for a four-person household is $68,274, according to the Pew Research Center. You can use that as a starting point to come up with an income range for the middle class. And forget about President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney defining middle class as up to $250,000, as they did in their presidential campaigns. That’s just not realistic.

They came back with this: A typical middle-class family needs a median household income of $85,000 in the East, $70,000 in the South, $60,000 in the Midwest and $70,000 in the West."

Let’s assume the $250K (even though it’s way high):

My tax knowledge is limited, so maybe someone can help me here?

In 2013 $250K puts you in the 33% bracket (if single or married filling jointly). Assume you live in MD, that’s an additional 4.84% on $150K + 5.50% of the remaining $100K (for single tax payers).

Can some please explain how the above, which doesn’t include a single deduction or credit, comes even close to 70%?

115

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I hope taht is not too complicated :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Do me a favor.

Add back his Foreign Tax Credit. What is his percentage then.

Also, then add back his charitable contributions.

I hope your utter lack of understanding of the subject isn’t too complicated.

117

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
…anyone who continues to express this wrong opinion, with zero evidence to back it up…should be ignored.

[/quote]
[/quote]

118
119

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I hope taht is not too complicated :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Do me a favor.

Add back his Foreign Tax Credit. What is his percentage then.

Also, then add back his charitable contributions.

I hope your utter lack of understanding of the subject isn’t too complicated. [/quote]

What ? you mean the money he makes and keeps in other counties ?

120

If Mitt paid American taxes that exceeded middle class’s he would have probably been PREZ. I am betting the only reason he paid %14 is because if he paid his usual people would have been aghast .