US continues to go backward...

[steross]

You must not like to accept facts. The Top 1% pay 40% of all income tax revenue. They used to pay 25%.

The average tax rate of the Top 1% is 26%. Nearly 8x higher than the bottom 50% of taxpayers.

At least if you are going to counter-point..stop and use facts. I get your opinion is wealthy people should pay even more…but they pay more than you. In raw dollars and percentage. Stupid silly one-off examples of one-year for a Trump and a Romney just illustrate how much you want to ignore real facts

Give us evidence that Romney's tax was "one-off."

Don't bother, I know for a fact it isn't. I also know that he made 78 times what I made. Yet, I have NEVER had a "one-off" where my rate was that low.

The top 1% pay a higher percent of taxes than in the past because they have more of income/wealth. We have not had any significant tax increases and in fact had the largest tax cut so they aren't paying more based on rate. It is because they are getting more of the money. Should we maybe give them ALL THE MONEY then you can say how horrible we are because we make them pay 100% of the income taxes?

If our system was even close to just there should be no possible way for even a "one-off' time that a $43 MILLION dollar income pays FAR lower than a normal income. Yet, it happens and we have fools defending it.

And, link where you are getting these averages. and how they are calculated. The lower end of the top 1% is going to be high-income professionals paid as W2 with high effective rates on relatively low income relative to the Hedge fund millionaires paying low rates. The method used will hugely sway that calculation.

It is easy to try to look up stats that show what you want to believe, then call them "facts." Fact is what you are saying makes no logical sense. And we can all find stats to show our point. So, then what, a stat fight? Even that would be better than the lame justification of "Well, those were one-offs." LOL at that absurdity.

For example of the pointlessness of your stats, here are "facts" that billionaires pay a lower effective rate than middle class families.

For the first time in history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower tax rate than the working class last year​

 

[Polds4OSU]

So now white Nationalist marching in the streets of our city and chanting racist slogans is a False flag done by the Left ??

 

[JTOSU]

Give us evidence that Romney's tax was "one-off."

Don't bother, I know for a fact it isn't. I also know that he made 78 times what I made. Yet, I have NEVER had a "one-off" where my rate was that low.

The top 1% pay a higher percent of taxes than in the past because they have more of income/wealth. We have not had any significant tax increases and in fact had the largest tax cut so they aren't paying more based on rate. It is because they are getting more of the money. Should we maybe give them ALL THE MONEY then you can say how horrible we are because we make them pay 100% of the income taxes?

If our system was even close to just there should be no possible way for even a "one-off' time that a $43 MILLION dollar income pays FAR lower than a normal income. Yet, it happens and we have fools defending it.

And, link where you are getting these averages. and how they are calculated. The lower end of the top 1% is going to be high-income professionals paid as W2 with high effective rates on relatively low income relative to the Hedge fund millionaires paying low rates. The method used will hugely sway that calculation.

It is easy to try to look up stats that show what you want to believe, then call them "facts." Fact is what you are saying makes no logical sense. And we can all find stats to show our point. So, then what, a stat fight? Even that would be better than the lame justification of "Well, those were one-offs." LOL at that absurdity.

For example of the pointlessness of your stats, here are "facts" that billionaires pay a lower effective rate than middle class families.

For the first time in history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower tax rate than the working class last year​

Using a recent CBS News article.
* The top 1% pay an average tax rate of 25.9%. Vs All taxpayer average of 14.9%
So yes, you making a claim about Romney is absolutely one-off. But I get it, many were fooled by Harry Reid falsely accusing Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years.
* The top 1% pay $653K in taxes on average. Vs $14K for all taxpayers
* The top 1% earned 26% of AGI and paid 46% of fed income taxes
* You are incorrect stating that the lower end of the top 1% pay a tax rate that “hugely sway that calculation”. The top .1% pay 25.7% avg tax rate…slightly below the 25.9% for all of top 1%

Average Fed Income Tax Rates (2021 data)
Top 1% of earners = pay 25.9% of AGI
1% to 5% of earners = pay 18.9% of AGI
5% to 10% of earners = pay 14.3% of AGI
10% to 25% of earners = pay 10.3% of AGI
25% to 50% = pay 7.2% of AGI
Bottom 50% = pay 3.3% of AGI

Americans think they pay too much in taxes. Here's who pays the most and least to the IRS.

The U.S. tax system is designed to be progressive, with rich people paying a larger share of their income to the IRS. Here's what to know.

www.cbsnews.com

If you are interested in understanding Romney’s taxes, then here is a good article for you:

Mitt Romney Paid 30%, Not 13% In Federal Income Taxes

The majority of the Romneys’ income is taxed twice – first at the corporate level, and a second time when they report it on their personal income tax return.

www.forbes.com

 

[Polds4OSU]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Polds4OSU]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[steross]

Using a recent CBS News article.
* The top 1% pay an average tax rate of 25.9%. Vs All taxpayer average of 14.9%
So yes, you making a claim about Romney is absolutely one-off. But I get it, many were fooled by Harry Reid falsely accusing Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years.
* The top 1% pay $653K in taxes on average. Vs $14K for all taxpayers
* The top 1% earned 26% of AGI and paid 46% of fed income taxes
* You are incorrect stating that the lower end of the top 1% pay a tax rate that “hugely sway that calculation”. The top .1% pay 25.7% avg tax rate…slightly below the 25.9% for all of top 1%

Average Fed Income Tax Rates (2021 data)
Top 1% of earners = pay 25.9% of AGI
1% to 5% of earners = pay 18.9% of AGI
5% to 10% of earners = pay 14.3% of AGI
10% to 25% of earners = pay 10.3% of AGI
25% to 50% = pay 7.2% of AGI
Bottom 50% = pay 3.3% of AGI

Americans think they pay too much in taxes. Here's who pays the most and least to the IRS.

The U.S. tax system is designed to be progressive, with rich people paying a larger share of their income to the IRS. Here's what to know.

www.cbsnews.com

If you are interested in understanding Romney’s taxes, then here is a good article for you:

Mitt Romney Paid 30%, Not 13% In Federal Income Taxes

The majority of the Romneys’ income is taxed twice – first at the corporate level, and a second time when they report it on their personal income tax return.

www.forbes.com

Did you ever take a stats class?

If I tried to use average data to treat individual patients I would be killing people left and right. Absolutely comical that you think posting averages (again, without methods) would show something is a “one-off.”

And that article attempting to claim corporate taxes as Romneys rate is not even a bad joke.

 

[steross]

Using a recent CBS News article.
* The top 1% pay an average tax rate of 25.9%. Vs All taxpayer average of 14.9%
So yes, you making a claim about Romney is absolutely one-off. But I get it, many were fooled by Harry Reid falsely accusing Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years.
* The top 1% pay $653K in taxes on average. Vs $14K for all taxpayers
* The top 1% earned 26% of AGI and paid 46% of fed income taxes
* You are incorrect stating that the lower end of the top 1% pay a tax rate that “hugely sway that calculation”. The top .1% pay 25.7% avg tax rate…slightly below the 25.9% for all of top 1%

Average Fed Income Tax Rates (2021 data)
Top 1% of earners = pay 25.9% of AGI
1% to 5% of earners = pay 18.9% of AGI
5% to 10% of earners = pay 14.3% of AGI
10% to 25% of earners = pay 10.3% of AGI
25% to 50% = pay 7.2% of AGI
Bottom 50% = pay 3.3% of AGI

Americans think they pay too much in taxes. Here's who pays the most and least to the IRS.

The U.S. tax system is designed to be progressive, with rich people paying a larger share of their income to the IRS. Here's what to know.

www.cbsnews.com

If you are interested in understanding Romney’s taxes, then here is a good article for you:

Mitt Romney Paid 30%, Not 13% In Federal Income Taxes

The majority of the Romneys’ income is taxed twice – first at the corporate level, and a second time when they report it on their personal income tax return.

www.forbes.com

I know mentioning it goes against your theme, but do you really not know why Romney taxes are that low and why it isn’t a “one-off?”

 

[JTOSU]

Did you ever take a stats class?

If I tried to use average data to treat individual patients I would be killing people left and right. Absolutely comical that you think posting averages (again, without methods) would show something is a “one-off.”

And that article attempting to claim corporate taxes as Romneys rate is not even a bad joke.

Not trying to be rude. But you don’t appear to understand statistics and what averages show.

Claiming the Top 1% pay a smaller tax rate than other classes and using one-year of Romney’s taxes as an example and proof to support your claim is laughable.
I supplied you with actual facts that the top 1% pay, in fact, higher average rate. Averages tax tax for all of the Top 1%, not just one person.

 

[steross]

Not trying to be rude. But you don’t appear to understand statistics and what averages show.

Claiming the Top 1% pay a smaller tax rate than other classes and using one-year of Romney’s taxes as an example and proof to support your claim is laughable.
I supplied you with actual facts that the top 1% pay, in fact, higher average rate. Averages tax tax for all of the Top 1%, not just one person.

You aren’t being rude, just ignorant. And, you ignored my question. Did you take stats or not?
What was claimed was that there were too many loopholes that allowed the ultrawealthy to pay very low taxes. You replied with averages and made the absurd claim that we picked two “one -offs” and there isn’t an issue with billionaires getting out of taxes.

Averages can mislead. NOBODY is claiming that the entire 1% is paying a lower rate than others (except using the methods of the article I posted). But, posting averages tells us nothing of the ultrawealthy utilizing loopholes. I can explain this if you need it. I hinted at a potential reason in my post yesterday.

 

[JTOSU]

You aren’t being rude, just ignorant. And, you ignored my question. Did you take stats or not?
What was claimed was that there were too many loopholes that allowed the ultrawealthy to pay very low taxes. You replied with averages and made the absurd claim that we picked two “one -offs” and there isn’t an issue with billionaires getting out of taxes.

Averages can mislead. NOBODY is claiming that the entire 1% is paying a lower rate than others (except using the methods of the article I posted). But, posting averages tells us nothing of the ultrawealthy utilizing loopholes. I can explain this if you need it. I hinted at a potential reason in my post yesterday.

I am unclear what you are missing here. I am game to debate on opinion, but you appear to not understand factual data.

Using Romney is an example of how some ultra-rich pay a lower tax rate. Yes, some pay lower than the others in the 1.5M of Top 1%. But you are then ignoring the other 1.5M of the ultra-rich. The FACT is that group pay more in federal income taxes and in tax rate is not arguable. And it is not close.

You may want to argue that they should pay even more. As someone the leans heavily to personal liberty and freedoms, I would strongly disagree with that, but both of those are OPINIONS.

 

[steross]

I am unclear what you are missing here. I am game to debate on opinion, but you appear to not understand factual data.

Using Romney is an example of how some ultra-rich pay a lower tax rate. Yes, some pay lower than the others in the 1.5M of Top 1%. But you are then ignoring the other 1.5M of the ultra-rich. The FACT is that group pay more in federal income taxes and in tax rate is not arguable. And it is not close.

You may want to argue that they should pay even more. As someone the leans heavily to personal liberty and freedoms, I would strongly disagree with that, but both of those are OPINIONS.

No. Not all of the top 1% are ultra rich. Around $900k a year. I would guess the low end of the top 1% are paying very high effective rates, particularly if w-2 income like high income professionals . That is why I keep harping on the methods used.

You can’t understand because you want to force your opinion down everyone’s throats instead of reading. I understand simple averages. I have not disputed them. I also know when someone doesn’t understand well enough and misuses them.

 

[JTOSU]

No. Not all of the top 1% are ultra rich. Around $900k a year. I would guess the low end of the top 1% are paying very high effective rates, particularly if w-2 income like high income professionals . That is why I keep harping on the methods used.

You can’t understand because you want to force your opinion down everyone’s throats instead of reading. I understand simple averages. I have not disputed them. I also know when someone doesn’t understand well enough and misuses them.

100% agree that all of the Top 1% are not ultra-rich. I would even say the majority of them are absolutely not.

I am not misusing averages. You made a claim earlier that the using the lower end of the Top 1% would “hugely change the calculation”. As I pointed out with actual data, even when you segment to show tax rates for the Top .1%…it is virtually the same as the entire Top 1%.

Yes, I am of the opinion the people should be able to keep the money they earn. I fully understand there has to be some level of taxes. My point is that those of the Top 1%, 5%, or 10% are already paying a significant share of their pay and as a percentage of total federal income.

 

[steross]

100% agree that all of the Top 1% are not ultra-rich. I would even say the majority of them are absolutely not.

I am not misusing averages. You made a claim earlier that the using the lower end of the Top 1% would “hugely change the calculation”. As I pointed out with actual data…it does not.

Yes, I am of the opinion the people should be able to keep the money they earn. I fully understand there has to be some level of taxes. My point is that those of the Top 1%, 5%, or 10% are already paying a significant share of their pay and as a percentage of total federal income.

And, as was pointed out, many, including hed fund managers like Romney using carried interest, are not. For some reason you want to defend all rich no matter if they are paying or not. It is very fanboy-like. And using an average to defend that is a misuse.

 

[mugatu]

100% agree that all of the Top 1% are not ultra-rich. I would even say the majority of them are absolutely not.

I am not misusing averages. You made a claim earlier that the using the lower end of the Top 1% would “hugely change the calculation”. As I pointed out with actual data, even when you segment to show tax rates for the Top .1%…it is virtually the same as the entire Top 1%.

Yes, I am of the opinion the people should be able to keep the money they earn. I fully understand there has to be some level of taxes. My point is that those of the Top 1%, 5%, or 10% are already paying a significant share of their pay and as a percentage of total federal income.

But they are the ones most able to support paying taxes. You can only squeeze so much water out... the bottom 80% is paycheck to paycheck and if you tax them more it shuts down the economy becausethey dont have the money to support life and a higher tax load. The top earners will continue with little change to how they live/spend with increases in their tax burden. It would be great to be able to provide essential services to the entire population on $5 a day, but that's not how the world works.

 

[JTOSU]

And, as was pointed out, many, including hed fund managers like Romney using carried interest, are not. For some reason you want to defend all rich no matter if they are paying or not. It is very fanboy-like. And using an average to defend that is a misuse.

Then say your issue is specific item in the tax code. You will get little argument from me that carried-interest application should be changed. In fact, I stated that a couple of months ago when someone asked me about what I would think is fair with tax increases.

 

[steross]

Yes, I am of the opinion the people should be able to keep the money they earn. I fully understand there has to be some level of taxes.

How about this, any person who has made a huge income that has not been aided by the free spending government policies of the past 50 years can pay the normal tax rate. If some has an ultra high income and their income has been supported by the deficit spending that has occurred then they pay a 10% deficit reduction surcharge. That way, those that earned it can keep it and those that got an enormous advantage of a free spending government can help avoid passing their debt on to kids who got nothing.

 

[steross]

Then say your issue is specific item in the tax code. You will get little argument from me that carried-interest application should be changed. In fact, I stated that a couple of months ago when someone asked me about what I would think is fair with tax increases.

This is where this started . Note the discussion of gaming and loopholes. It isn’t just carries interest. It is all of them.

so you would choose A.? Carefully read the following again from option B (or read for first time) and tell me which part is wrong or which part you disagree with...

Ultra-rich Americans don't just game the system, they rig it to their advantage, and hoard their wealth through access to tax loopholes and preferential policies enforced by lawyers, accountants, wealth advisers, and the politicians they've bought. While the vast majority of Americans are one unfortunate event away from disaster, the ultra-rich—individuals who have $40 million or more in assets or earn at least $2 million per household in annual income—must pay what they owe. (from newsweek article)

 

[JTOSU]

But they are the ones most able to support paying taxes. You can only squeeze so much water out... the bottom 80% is paycheck to paycheck and if you tax them more it shuts down the economy becausethey dont have the money to support life and a higher tax load. The top earners will continue with little change to how they live/spend with increases in their tax burden. It would be great to be able to provide essential services to the entire population on $5 a day, but that's not how the world works.

To be clear, I don’t support any tax increases on lower tax earners. Never said nor implied that.

I disagree with your assumption that tax increases would have little change to top earners (ie Top 5-10%). But even if it didn’t, I don’t support taxing them more either.

It is their money. They earned it. It is not mine and shouldn’t be ours.

 

[JTOSU]

This is where this started . Note the discussion of gaming and loopholes. It isn’t just carries interest. It is all of them.

So what does it mean by “must pay what they owe”?
I certainly don’t feel they are not paying what they owe.

Carried interest is part of the tax code. They are paying what they owe.

 

[steross]

So what does it mean by “must pay what they owe”?
I certainly don’t feel they are not paying what they owe.

Carried interest is part of the tax code. They are paying what they owe.

I didn’t repost some else’s post for you to nitpick every line. You asked why I didn’t point out loopholes. Because loopholes was the topic. Close loopholes and that effective rate would no longer be 14% below the marginal rate and no need for an increase.