Rich pay most federal taxes

[Truth-Bringer]

I have no republican masters.

Then tell the IRS you don't want to pay them anymore and see what happens. Try to keep the fruits of your labor. See if Bush will come save you when they show up with guns at your house.

Do you have something to add to the conversation, or is sniping from the sidelines at the participants the extent of your intellectual capability?

Still arrogant after all this time, I see...not to mention truly delusional... You'd think after all the beatings I've given you, you'd begin to show a little respect...

Tsk, tsk...

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Absolutely correct. The tax laws are so convoluted, in fact, that those who enforce them don't universally understand them.

There is NO LAW

that states the individual has to pay income taxes

PERIOD

 

[DrWho]

How would cutting taxes for the rich and raising for the poor stimulate the economy? This should be good.

The rich pay more taxes because they have more money and can afford it.

Everybody should pay the same percentage of their income taxes. I suggest 10%. NO breaks for anyone.

Once a person has paid their fair share, taking more because they have more left over is just wrong.

 

[top gun]

Source: NY Times - Only the Rich Pay Taxes: Top 20% Pay 80% of Taxes


"The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes."

"Here's the final number. The bottom four-fifths, 80% - the bottom 80% of income earners pay just 20%, 22% of the federal income tax burden. The bottom 80% pay only 20% of the burden."

And we want to give more tax breaks to the poor? How about raising taxes for the poor and lowering taxes for the rich to stimulate the economy![/QUOTE]


That was once called "trickle down" economics and it doesn't work. The Big companies still up and left for the cheaper labor overseas.

As far as your numbers they are seriously misleading. It's not the dollar amount that you pay that is the comparison number. It's the percentage of your earnings that you pay that is the comparison number.

And once you reach down to POVERTY LEVEL of course you should not be paying income taxes you're in POVERTY trying to survive... and you're still paying a lot of other taxes.

This isn't a class warfare thing. No one at the top paying taxes will be suffering if their extra special Bush tax cuts expire I assure you.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Everybody should pay the same percentage of their income taxes. I suggest 10%. NO breaks for anyone.

Once a person has paid their fair share, taking more because they have more left over is just wrong.

If everyone paid 10 percent, then that means a HUGE tax cut for the rich and a devestating loss in federal income tax revenue (see post directly above).

How would we replace the lost revenue?

 

[jpn of Seattle]

There is NO LAW

that states the individual has to pay income taxes

PERIOD

You may want to browse the following link: The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Do a bit of research HighBVoltage. You will find that most of the people who find themselves in tax court, beat whatever charges that are levied against them, or they end up owing only a small fraction of the amount they were originally said to owe. The tax agencies are terribly flawed and as a result, they make a very large number of mistakes. The conviction rate of tax courts is evidence of this.


The more one makes, the greater the chance one has of getting tangled up in the convoluted tax law. Your suggestion that the rich are more often in tax court because they are more likely to cheat is where your dishonesty lies. The facts, don't support your suggestion.

Wow. Sound like a High Voltage conversation.
Here is the conviction rate for taxpayers facing federal criminal investigation: 91.5%.
source

Tax court, of course, deals with non-criminal tax disputes, and after a bit of desultory searching, I'm not able to find a source regarding the outcome, probably because they are often not as cut-and-dried as "guilty" or "not guilty." I believe they often involve compromises of some degree or another. I also admit that I haven't read all the posts on this topic. So, Palerider, do you have data on tax court outcomes?

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Absolutely correct. The tax laws are so convoluted, in fact, that those who enforce them don't universally understand them.

It's a real problem. Ironically, much of the complexity is the result of successful lobbying by corporate and business interests to get special provisions enacted so they can evade taxes.

 

[numinus]

He might have been kidding, but lowering taxes for the rich certainly would stimulate the economy. They have more money to invest and buy goods, they can use this money to start businesses and creates jobs, etc.

I don't think so.

You need to raise the purchasing power of the general majority before any 'stimulation' of the productive forces can occur.

Okay, fine. But why should they have to pay a higher percent? They worked hard, they earned it, why should they be forced to distribute their income to those who weren't capable of being sucessful.

It is called progressive taxation. People who make the most income from the social order should necessarily pay more for its upkeep.

 

[WileE]

The Old Tail Wagging the Dog Argument

I don't think so.

You need to raise the purchasing power of the general majority before any 'stimulation' of the productive forces can occur.

Wouldn't do any good if there's nothing to purchase, or the prices are out of sight due to unfair, predatory taxation of the suppliers. Tail wagging the dog.

It is called progressive taxation. People who make the most income from the social order should necessarily pay more for its upkeep.

People who make the most income will always pay more taxes than those who make the least, even when taxed at a uniform rate. Progressive taxation is predatory, and doesn't benefit the social order at all. Again: Tail wagging the dog.

 

[numinus]

Wouldn't do any good if there's nothing to purchase, or the prices are out of sight due to unfair, predatory taxation of the suppliers. Tail wagging the dog.

Demand precedes supply, does it not?

Production of goods and services will proceed regardless of taxes - but NEVER without a demand for it.

People who make the most income will always pay more taxes than those who make the least, even when taxed at a uniform rate. Progressive taxation is predatory, and doesn't benefit the social order at all. Again: Tail wagging the dog.

What nonsense.

I do not see the benefit of taxing people living below the poverty threshold the same rate as those living in obscene wealth, regardless of the relative amounts the taxes add up to.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

What nonsense.

What's nonsense is claiming that taxation is anything other than theft.

 

[numinus]

What's nonsense is claiming that taxation is anything other than theft.

Apparently, you know nothing, WHATSOEVER, of jurisprudence.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Apparently, you know nothing, WHATSOEVER, of jurisprudence.

Apparently, you know nothing WHATSOEVER of logic. Where the law is not logical or rational, it should be abolished or changed.

 

[numinus]

Apparently, you know nothing WHATSOEVER of logic. Where the law is not logical or rational, it should be abolished or changed.

You have been thoroughly humiliated in the taxation is robbery thread. What makes you think you have a better chance in this?