Forum Post: Surprise! The 1% Are Paying Their Fair Share
Posted 11 years ago on April 23, 2012, 4:32 p.m. EST by chatman
(-478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904331904577321660464506838.html
President Obama says, "If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30% in taxes." Data on the top 1% show that the "fairness" rule already applies.
Recently poster 'epa1nter' quoted from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (1776) and it singularly bears repeating here :
fiat lux et fiat iustitia ...
they already pay the lions share of taxes. So the above doesn't apply does it. Define "fair" how much do the bottom 50% contribute? the poor find it difficult to get food - that is why we have food stamps. which by the way is up 70% under BHO - the food stamp president.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-defend-afghanistan-decade-drawdown-112505244.html you would rather food stamps go to other countries? while you still pay?
The agreement also says the U.S. will help support Afghan economic development, health care programs, education and social initiatives, and stresses that the U.S. remains committed to defending human rights and the right of free speech.
yea - all that foreign junk needs to end.
He he
Barrons. The magazine of the 1% says the 1% are paying their "fair" share.
If they have it so rough?
Why do they still have enough left over to buy our government?
Jeez.....Talk about an elephant in the room.
[Removed]
Not true.
OWS has lots of respect for unions that pay a decent wage.
They just want the rest to have that opportunity.
It's you who doesn't
define fair
Why are you asking me?
This is what you should be asking Barrons. It is after all, their article.
I ask you because OWS is fixated on fairness . seems like an appropriate question for you.
The way I look at it, is like this.
If they are making enough money to buy our government, they are making too much money.
Since you started this thread, why don't you tell us what you think is unfair?
you can only buy the govt if the govt is willing to take your money. What happened to the campaign pledge Obama made to agree to public financing of the presidential campaign? Then as soon as he got the nomination that went out the window. He doesnt want a level playing field any more than anyone else. Then he has the audacity to scold the Supreme Court at the state of the union. Absolutely classless.
Fair is a flat tax. everyone pays 10% on everything. The way it is now - it is unfair 50% of the population have no skin in the game when it comes to federal income tax. That is unfair.
Those very same people have used their money to fund Stuff like ALEC.
These use that to make it ever easier to buy government.
If they have enough money to do that, they are making too much money.
It's not that difficult a concept.
[Removed]
I am all for ALEC .
That's because you are a sick, anti-democratic person.
In your weird world, all governments should be sold to the highest bidder.
Why bother wasting money on a middleman like ALEC?
Just hold an open auction. All bidders welcome.
At least that would be honest.
[Removed]
fair is a property tax on non primary residence land
define top 1%.
the 1% are taxpayers who's net income is above $367,000.00 . Your turn - define fair
Another brilliant post, shooz.
How many times have you used "1%" in your posts over the past 6 months? I'm surprised your "1" key hasn't worn out yet.
It's so typical of your education level to launch a personal attack, rather than respond to the statement.
The 1% thing is in response to the thread title. That's how Barrons put it.
I guess that OccupyWallstreet thing really is starting to have an effect.
funny how the drones of the fascists never address the issue, and always attack the man,. . it would be a little funny, if it was not so pathetic.
From the article: "According to CBO estimates, if you add the share paid by the top 1% of the federal government's payroll, excise, and corporate income taxes, the effective burden on the top 1% comes to 30.4% in 2006-07, down from 35.8% in 1979-80."
But for a fair comparison, ask: what is the poor man's tax rate when you include the other 6% FICA tax that comes out of his paycheck? When you count the excise taxes on his alcohol and tobacco? What about the corporate taxes that increase the price of what you buy at the market, just as surely as they affect what the CEO takes home in pay? For that matter, why does the first hidden 6% of the FICA tax that the article counted - the part "paid by the employer" - count for the wealthy owner rather than the worker, when you know full well that this cost still affects what the worker is paid? Apply these more fairly, and perhaps the rich are paying 24%, perhaps less, and the poor are probably paying more than that. That's not even getting into state taxes, which are far more biased against the poor in the hope that they might move somewhere else.
the poor man get's his 6% fica back when he retires or becomes disabled. It is not used to run the federal govt. although the govt has raided SS fund depleting it and spending the money on their friends. So much for Govt trust fund.
Well, that's provided that the $2.6 trillion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund is actually repaid, and still has significant real value when it is.
yup - another reason to get rid of govt run retirement plan - they steal from it & spend the money on their friends. No different than Madoff - & look at him now.
I would prefer I just keep mine.
thats ok - as long as it is a choice. Freedom is about freedom to choose.
But Fica isn't like a real tax, it funds a future entitlement claim. Real taxes don't come with a annual letter telling how much more you'll get later. No such letters come after paying income, capital gains, or excise taxes. Try again.
If anything, that article proves the >>majority<< of the wealthy are not paying their fair share.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/out-of-state-corporations-fighting-to-keep-tax-loophole-are-top-us-tax-dodgers-says-consumer-watchdog-2012-04-18
The 1% paying their fair share? Nice joke.
The 1% should pay more and it should go to the families of fallen and maimed soldiers who payed the ultimate price for the freedom of the 1% to drone on endlessly about how they earned their 1% all by themselves.
But you are relying on the 1% to rewrite the laws for hte 1%.
That doesnt make sense.
All this demanding change, with absolutely no thought onto how to get there.
My statement was more rhetorical than strategic.
We need more strategic.
fallen soldiers fought for everyone's freedom not just the 1%
So Mitt Romney's paying 13.9% is what the data show is at least 30%?
Something's clearly wrong with that data.
I don't think we know what Mitt Romeney's real net worth is, or will every really know. There's a lot of money in off-shore accounts that is effectively hidden from scrutiny.
I'm not saying I know that to be true, it's simply a logical conclusion, for him and all the ultra-wealthy.
No, we don't know what he's making. The OP states that the wealthy are paying over 30% of their income now. We know that, at best, Romney paid only 13.9%. We also know from the IRS records that the wealthy pay less than 30%. The OP is lying. What a surprise.
the long term cap gains tax is 15% - then he has some tax deductions lowering his income - big deal - SO you want toraise the cap gains rate? everybody pays capital gains when they realize a gain. If you want to add a disincentive to investment & risk taking go ahead - raise the rate.
are you saying that Mitt Romney is paying 30%? I am fairly sure he pays a 15% effective rate
if he is taking long term cap gains - the rate is 15% you are correct.
[Removed]
Im not for corporations paying zero taxes. Im also not for ANYONE having to take more than a third of their money and give it to these criminals to misspend.
then great - it sound like you are for the Ryan plan !