Who Pays Income Taxes?

[CaughtInThe]

 

[noonereal]

Huh?
40 percent of households paid no individual income tax

What did I say? Go back and read again.
Thanks

 

[SuperDS77]

More like the stupidest take of all time!

Can a monkey create more bananas with his "horde"? Another person's wealth does not make someone else poor. Secondly, "most" people, certainly in the United States, are not starving. Quite the opposite actually.

Humans and monkeys are NOT equal, save for some leftists.

 

[Isidore]

Another person's wealth does not make someone else poor.

It certainly can.

Atrocious Things That Happened Because of Bernie Madoff

In the aftermath of the Bernie Madoff scandal, it wasn't just a few rich people whose lives were shattered. Madoff's Ponzi scheme, where he took money from one set of investors to pay back another set, pocketing a ton of dough along the way, reduced tens of thousands of retirees to ruin. It...

www.ranker.com

 

[SuperDS77]

It certainly can.

Atrocious Things That Happened Because of Bernie Madoff

In the aftermath of the Bernie Madoff scandal, it wasn't just a few rich people whose lives were shattered. Madoff's Ponzi scheme, where he took money from one set of investors to pay back another set, pocketing a ton of dough along the way, reduced tens of thousands of retirees to ruin. It...

www.ranker.com

Yes, of course, if someone STEALS another's money. DUH!

We are not talking about theft, but you knew that....

 

[CaughtInThe]

More like the stupidest take of all time!

No, it's pretty spot on. Monkeys aren't dumb enough to let their fellow monkeys starve to death.

 

[stealthycat]

and don't mention how much rich people pay in property taxes since they own so much - the rich pay wayyy more than their "fair share"

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Visbek]

My main point was that the so-called "rich" are paying a great deal of taxes, rightfully so. Thus neutering the "the rich don't pay their 'fair share'" bovine scat.

Your main point is based on incomplete data, which hides the true income of the top earners -- as those top earners are doing all sorts of things to hide their true income from the IRS.

Personally, I would prefer a national sales tax (called the "Fair Tax") in conjunction with a repeal of the 16th amendment. It would be combined with what is referred to as a "pre-bate" to cover the tax on the first $xxx amount of spending.

Oh, for f****'s sake. Will that bullshit never die? A flat sales tax is going to be an incredibly regressive tax, simply because the more income people have, the less they spend on purchases.

It's also going to be a total disaster in any economic downturn, because tax revenues will drop at the exact moment when more spending is needed.

This would lead to nearly total compliance. If the "rich" purchase their yachts and mansions, they would be paying a great deal of taxes on that consumption.

Unless they buy those yachts outside the US.

Did anyone actually pay at the 91% rate?

They didn't. But they were still paying more taxes then than now.

And some of that tax evasion was a pain in the ass. E.g. numerous musicians infamously went into self-imposed tax exiles to avoid the UK's high marginal tax rates in the 70s -- but that meant they couldn't live in the UK for most of the year. Many nations where they fled have strict residency requirements. That may sound like juicy fun if you're a big fan of greediness or vindictiveness, but it also means you are (as the term "exile" states) kicked out of your own country.

I'd add that claims about high marginal tax rates incentivizing tax evasion are bullshit, as we're seeing just as much -- if not more -- tax evasion now than in the past.

Secondly, when half the industrialized world was still recovering from being blown to bits during WWII, the US had a built in advantage. The roaring economy was not due to the extraordinarily high marginal rates.

True... But it wasn't hurting the US, either. There's no correlation between GDP growth rates (or entrepreneurship, or productivity gains) and high marginal tax rates.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[The Hairy Fiddler]

and don't mention how much rich people pay in property taxes since they own so much - the rich pay wayyy more than their "fair share"

No they don't. They should pay a lot more...in particular the ultra rich. The ratio between what Ceo's made vs minimum wagers back in the 60's was about 12 to 1. Now the difference is 120 to 1. The uber wealthy should not be allowed to have starving people here in the US. Just sick and tired hearing the woe is me for people like Musk. Bezos and other multibillionnaires. It's really ****ing gross.

 

[stealthycat]

No they don't. They should pay a lot more...in particular the ultra rich. The ratio between what Ceo's made vs minimum wagers back in the 60's was about 12 to 1. Now the difference is 120 to 1. The uber wealthy should not be allowed to have starving people here in the US. Just sick and tired hearing the woe is me for people like Musk. Bezos and other multibillionnaires. It's really ****ing gross.

the rich pay the majority of everything - and you know it, the facts have been presented over and over

rich people also pay for almost all donations in the USA

so lets count it ... Rich people pay majority of income taxes, property taxes, donations ................ and Democrat say they don't pay their fair share ?

thank a rich person, they pay for much of what we have in the USA




Mayor Bass wants wealthy Angelenos to pay for homeless housing. Los Angeles voters were asked to back a “mansion tax” to raise money for homeless housing after passing a $1.2 billion bond measure to build the same. Now Mayor Karen Bass wants rich residents and businesses to pitch in more money.16 hours ago

LA’s Mayor Bass Asks the Wealthy to Pay for Homeless Housing

LA4LA initiative urges private sector donations to fund conversion of hotels and apartment buildings into affordable projects.

therealdeal.com

 

[longview]

Any time I see discussions about who pays their fair share for Government, I think of government like a service.
in 2023 the US federal Government cost $6.1 trillion, the US population in 2023 was 339,996,563.
So our government as a service costs $17,941.36 per person in 2023.
If you are a household of 4, that is $71,765 per year, if you did not pay that, you are not paying your fair share!
I sure am not, and I pay quite a bit of taxes.
What this means is that our Government cost too much!

 

[ttwtt78640]

No they don't. They should pay a lot more...in particular the ultra rich. The ratio between what Ceo's made vs minimum wagers back in the 60's was about 12 to 1. Now the difference is 120 to 1. The uber wealthy should not be allowed to have starving people here in the US. Just sick and tired hearing the woe is me for people like Musk. Bezos and other multibillionnaires. It's really ****ing gross.

That (bolded above) assertion is highly doubtful, thus likely pure BS. The full-time (gross annual) income of a MW worker in 1965 (making $1.25/hour) was about $2.6K, meaning that a ‘typical’ CEO (making 12 times that amount) would only make about $31.2K/year.

It pays to be CEO. Even in 1965, chief executive officers were pulling in $843,000 a year, and their compensation has only skyrocketed since.

CEOs made an average of $843,000 in 1965—here's how much they earn today

Even the top 0.1 percent of earners have nothing on CEOs, income-wise.

www.cnbc.com

Using a bit of math indicates that (1965) CEO pay of $843K/year was about 324 times as much as (1965) MW worker pay of $2.6K/year.

 

[Visbek]

More like the stupidest take of all time!

Can a monkey create more bananas with his "horde"? Another person's wealth does not make someone else poor. Secondly, "most" people, certainly in the United States, are not starving. Quite the opposite actually.

Humans and monkeys are NOT equal, save for some leftists.

So... You never learned about metaphors in high school?

Anyway... Yes, there definitely are situations where one person's wealth is directly connected to another person's poverty. The obvious example is exploiting labor. Consider the Walton family. Sam Walton's heirs own 50% of the company; they and top executives rake in enormous income from the company. Rank-and-file employees are paid a pittance, in some cases so little that 10,000 of Walmart's employees are on Medicaid and receive AFDC. From what I can tell, this was much worse before minimum wage hikes were implemented.

(We should note that many of those fabulous wealthy Walton family members did not work their way up from nothing. Some, such as Jim Walton, did work at the company and helped build its success; others married into the family, or were merely born into it, and inherited millions or even billions of dollars.)

Exploitative financial services clearly target the poor, to make their owners wealthy. Even if we stick to legal practices, that includes payday loans, check-cashing loans, high interest rates on credit cards, junk fees...

This is just scratching the surface. There are all sorts of legal ways that people get rich by taking advantage of the poor -- including abusing monopoly power and economic rents.

By the way, around 13% of households in the US face food insecurity; that's 17 million Americans.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So... You never learned about metaphors in high school?

Anyway... Yes, there definitely are situations where one person's wealth is directly connected to another person's poverty. The obvious example is exploiting labor. Consider the Walton family. Sam Walton's heirs own 50% of the company; they and top executives rake in enormous income from the company. Rank-and-file employees are paid a pittance, in some cases so little that 10,000 of Walmart's employees are on Medicaid and receive AFDC. From what I can tell, this was much worse before minimum wage hikes were implemented.

(We should note that many of those fabulous wealthy Walton family members did not work their way up from nothing. Some, such as Jim Walton, did work at the company and helped build its success; others married into the family, or were merely born into it, and inherited millions or even billions of dollars.)

Exploitative financial services clearly target the poor, to make their owners wealthy. Even if we stick to legal practices, that includes payday loans, check-cashing loans, high interest rates on credit cards, junk fees...

This is just scratching the surface. There are all sorts of legal ways that people get rich by taking advantage of the poor -- including abusing monopoly power and economic rents.

By the way, around 13% of households in the US face food insecurity; that's 17 million Americans.

If Walmart’s CEO pay was cut by $18M/year then each Walmart employee could be paid $9/year more.

 

[it's just me]

I still don't understand the Republican base working class's love affair with the rich.. They worship the rich, defend them, but in the long run the are cutting their, and their childrens financial throats..

They sit there, watch and listen to millionaires on RW TV and radio tell them, us rich people are picked on, so cut our taxes.. And the Republican base believes them..

Huh?

 

[SuperDS77]

Your main point is based on incomplete data, which hides the true income of the top earners

How you know what the "true income" is?

-- as those top earners are doing all sorts of things to hide their true income from the IRS.

Legally? Using legal means to avoid paying taxes is not wrong. A national sales tax would rid us of all of these legal "loopholes", thus increasing compliance.

Oh, for f****'s sake. Will that bullshit never die? A flat sales tax is going to be an incredibly regressive tax, simply because the more income people have, the less they spend on purchases.

What you are ignoring is that any such system would not tax the first defined amount of spending.

It's also going to be a total disaster in any economic downturn, because tax revenues will drop at the exact moment when more spending is needed.

So if there are massive layoffs during an economic downturn, doesn't that mean less income, medicaid and FICA tax revenue to the government?

Unless they buy those yachts outside the US.

They would still be taxed.

They didn't. But they were still paying more taxes then than now.

And some of that tax evasion was a pain in the ass. E.g. numerous musicians infamously went into self-imposed tax exiles to avoid the UK's high marginal tax rates in the 70s -- but that meant they couldn't live in the UK for most of the year. Many nations where they fled have strict residency requirements. That may sound like juicy fun if you're a big fan of greediness or vindictiveness, but it also means you are (as the term "exile" states) kicked out of your own country.

I'd add that claims about high marginal tax rates incentivizing tax evasion are bullshit, as we're seeing just as much -- if not more -- tax evasion now than in the past.

So you say.

True... But it wasn't hurting the US, either. There's no correlation between GDP growth rates (or entrepreneurship, or productivity gains) and high marginal tax rates.

Agreed.

 

[SuperDS77]

So... You never learned about metaphors in high school?

Yes. Problem with the referenced metaphor is that is both inapt and inept.

Anyway... Yes, there definitely are situations where one person's wealth is directly connected to another person's poverty. The obvious example is exploiting labor. Consider the Walton family. Sam Walton's heirs own 50% of the company; they and top executives rake in enormous income from the company. Rank-and-file employees are paid a pittance, in some cases so little that 10,000 of Walmart's employees are on Medicaid and receive AFDC. From what I can tell, this was much worse before minimum wage hikes were implemented.

So employing people makes them "poor"? How does that work again?

(We should note that many of those fabulous wealthy Walton family members did not work their way up from nothing. Some, such as Jim Walton, did work at the company and helped build its success; others married into the family, or were merely born into it, and inherited millions or even billions of dollars.)

So what? Jealous much?

Exploitative financial services clearly target the poor, to make their owners wealthy. Even if we stick to legal practices, that includes payday loans, check-cashing loans, high interest rates on credit cards, junk fees...

Choice.

This is just scratching the surface. There are all sorts of legal ways that people get rich by taking advantage of the poor -- including abusing monopoly power and economic rents.

By the way, around 13% of households in the US face food insecurity; that's 17 million Americans.

Perhaps. Starvation as claimed? Not so much.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Huh?

Read this thread.. It's very clear..

 

[it's just me]

Read this thread.. It's very clear..

Clearly misinformed.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Clearly misinformed.

Yeah.. You are..

 

[Real blank]

I don’t know how the one percent puts up with us. I guess we should just be grateful they let us stay

 

[it's just me]

Yeah.. You are..

"I know you are but what am I?" Pee Wee.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

"I know you are but what am I?" Pee Wee.

Are u, or have you, Pee Wee?