Yes, the rich really do pay their “fair share” of income taxes

If we are going down that road - and you dont like the fact that the rich are not paying enough tax... then move somewhere else and make your own country where they pay more - and stop bitching about the status quo
*chuckles* I am not the one complaining here, and blaming my tax rate on those who are on welfare, now am I? I am not the one complaining about working 60hrs and paying 50% on taxes, am I?

I am the one pointing out the top 1% used to pay a much higher rate.
 
This thread is not about businessmen or stagnant wages. It provides IRS data that illustrates that the highest earners pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than middle class and low income taxpayers, and that they contribute a higher proportion of total tax receipts. That probably surprises a lot of people, especially President Biden who recently said the rich should pay their “fair share.”
Actually the list I linked earlier also agrees, the rich used to pay an even higher portion of the taxes. It was Reagan who started letting them off the "tax" hook. That was 40 years ago,no wonder you don't wish to look back more than 20 years.
 
If you are going to discuss tax rates, then why limit it to 20 years? Oh right...
Because it’s 2023 and because the data released by the IRS and analyzed by the Tax Foundation compared 2020 to 2021. If you’re up for tracing the history of tax receipts by income bracket and tax payments as a percentage of taxable income further back, that would be awesome. Especially if you can go all the way back to the passage of the 16th amendment last century.
 
*chuckles* I am not the one complaining here, and blaming my tax rate on those who are on welfare, now am I? I am not the one complaining about working 60hrs and paying 50% on taxes, am I?

I am the one pointing out the top 1% used to pay a much higher rate.
my point is - that you are complaining that there is inequities in the system. Its no less of a complaint then mine - if your - or anyones answer is if you dont like it go make your own country -(which is a completely nonsensical and inane answer in and of itself) then the same answer should apply to all complaints in the thread.
 
Because it’s 2023 and because the data released by the IRS and analyzed by the Tax Foundation compared 2020 to 2021. If you’re up for tracing the history of tax receipts by income bracket and tax payments as a percentage of taxable income further back, that would be awesome. Especially if you can go all the way back to the passage of the 16th amendment last century.
Did you look at my link, no I thought not....*chuckles*
 
my point is - that you are complaining that there is inequities in the system. Its no less of a complaint then mine - if your - or anyones answer is if you dont like it go make your own country -(which is a completely nonsensical and inane answer in and of itself) then the same answer should apply to all complaints in the thread.
I am not complaining, you are.

I am pointing out the tax history in the US.

You are the one who claims if you raise taxes on the rich, they will leave, not me.

All I said is for people like you and HisArpy, if you don't like what your taxes pay for in your own country, move. But you will need to make your own country up, if you wish to find a place with no taxation....
 
I am not complaining, you are.

I am pointing out the tax history in the US.

You are the one who claims if you raise taxes on the rich, they will leave, not me.

All I said is for people like you and HisArpy, if you don't like what your taxes pay for in your own country, move. But you will need to make your own country up, if you wish to find a place with no taxation....
also not true - there are several countries in the world that have no tax.
The caymen islands, the bahamas, bahrain.... Im not going to list them all - but they exist.
You, like many others on these forums throw around these - if you dont like it leave statements firslty like its a possiblity and secondly like its a winning argument.
In fact it's a playground tactic employed to shout people down rather than debate.
 
Social Security and Medicare were both in effect before the Reagan administration. From 1946 to the last full year of Jimmy Carter's presidency in 1980 the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product declined from 119% to 32%. During this time the top tax rate was never below 70%, and was occasionally as high as 92%. It was only when Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28% that the national debt became a problem. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by the end of 2020 the national debt as a percentage of GDP will be 136%.

George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich, so did Donald Trump. That is the reason for the increase in the national debt.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Social Security and Medicate have broad, popular support among Democrats and Republicans.

https://socialsecurityworks.org/2019/03/26/social-security-polling/

There is also popular support for a more progressive tax system.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...hUKEwjKyt2RlKbsAhWAj3IEHXjGCI8Q4dUDCAg&uact=5

It is easy to understand why. Since 1980 the rich have paid lower taxes on more money, while real after tax income for most Americans has stagnated or declined.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...4a316826d5d4285b87a578985dd2c703c19c515d5.jpg
 
also not true - there are several countries in the world that have no tax.
Income tax, yes.
The caymen islands, the bahamas, bahrain.... Im not going to list them all - but they exist.
I never said they didn't. What I said was "taxation".
You, like many others on these forums throw around these - if you dont like it leave statements firslty like its a possiblity and secondly like its a winning argument.
Beats your" I hate paying taxes, and I hate supporting those who don't work who are on welfare" even if you can't list the percentage"
In fact it's a playground tactic employed to shout people down rather than debate.
I'm not shooting down the debate, you are the one who mentioned the rich would leave first. I am just following your lead.
 
Off topic, not off topic; but why the fuck was this thread even started???

Was it started to distract from THE FOX “NEWS” SCANDAL???

So weird that BabyBoobs hasn’t started a thread about THE FOX “NEWS” SCANDAL.

👉 BabyBoobs 🤣

🇺🇸
 
I'm not shooting down the debate, you are the one who mentioned the rich would leave first. I am just following your lead.
What i said - if you read my post is that the rich have options. They can leave - and have done.

The main reason that makes Monaco such a popular residence for sportsmen and celebrities is mainly a particularly favourable tax regime. Monaco is in fact famous for not to expect personal income taxes, with the only exception of French citizens: residents are not subject to any tax on income, surplus value or capital.

https://rtrsports.com/en/blog/why-the-drivers-of-formula-1-live-in-monaco/

So tell me - how much tax are these people paying in their country of origin?
 
What i said - if you read my post is that the rich have options. They can leave - and have done.
So you can say the rich have left, but I am not allowed to say you can leave? Really, what fantasy land do you live in?

I'm not talking about those who CANT survive without assistance, i'm talking of those who CHOOSE not to work and live off the state. I am fully in support of assisting anyone who NEEDS it, just not giving a free ride to freeloaders who could work but choose not to because they get paid anyway.
Let us not forget how we got to this point, it is due to those lines in bold, above!
I dont move, because I can't afford to. its as simple as that.
You, with your 54 ways of paying less tax, may have plenty of money and have that luxury - but i'm stuck where i am, barely making ends meet and having the government steal a percentage of what I break my back to earn each month. Then they give it to some lowlife who hasnt worked a day in their lives - even though they are perfectly healthy and able to, just because they don't want to.
More of your bitching about paying too much tax above. Yet you argue against raising the tax on the top 1%. Why, because they might move to Monaco? If they are Uber rich, trust me, they already have a place there.
 
So you can say the rich have left, but I am not allowed to say you can leave? Really, what fantasy land do you live in?
I dont live in a fantasy land - apparently you do - I'm not rich - I can't afford to move to monaco.
Then go make your own country and you can make your own tax laws.
You say I'm living in a fantasy land after telling me to go and make my own country?

Nor at any point have i argued AGAINST raising the tax on the top 1%. My point was then, and is now, that it is not just a simple as telling them they have to pay more tax. Because they are rich - they have options which includes leaving. which will leave the country worse off without what taxes they were actually paying. If the tax burden becomes too much, they will move on. How much is too much? I have no idea.

I fail to see your point here.
Let us not forget how we got to this point, it is due to those lines in bold, above!

I stand by my remarks that you highlighted in bold - I do resent my tax being given to those who could contribute but choose not to, for no other reason than they can't be bothered to work.
I work for my money, why shouldnt they? Again I'm not talking about those who can't for whatever reason work, but those who simply dont want to.
 
Because they are rich - they have options which includes leaving.
You keep circling back to the above. It's not true. But you keep believing it, I'd have better luck getting a tree to understand than you.
I fail to see your point here.
Yes, that is painfully obvious.
I stand by my remarks that you highlighted in bold - I do resent my tax being given to those who could contribute but choose not to, for no other reason than they can't be bothered to work.
Yet you can't back it up with evidence. Just your feelings.
I work for my money, why shouldnt they? Again I'm not talking about those who can't for whatever reason work, but those who simply dont want to.
More of the "I know there are bunch of people who choose not to work" yet when asked for the proof, you can't even show any evidence. Just your feelings.
 
So 5 out of 1.5 million. Scamming 240,000.00 pounds out of 3.4% of GDP. That is your complaint??? Wow that is going to break the bank!!
Those were examples, or did you expect me to show you every single person scamming the system in the UK?

My point has always been that I resent paying for those whould could - but wouldnt work - if your read the article in thismoney, at the end are just 3 cases - but they are replicated throughout the country - where people COULD work, but chose not to because they can claim benefits. Theres nothing actually wrong with them.

I have two problems with this - the first is i feel that it's grossly unfair on everyone who does work for their living and second is that the backlash against those kinds of people will make it harder for genuine claiments to get what is due to them as more rigorous checks are done.

When you consider that the population of the uk is about 67 million, and 1.5 million of those who could have worked, have NEVER had a job. That's not good.
 
Did you look at my link, no I thought not....*chuckles*
No I haven’t sifted through it. If you care to dig into it and provide an apples to apples comparison to the 2020 numbers that would be interesting. In other words, what % of tax revenue did the top 1% pay in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and how does it compare to the 42.3% the top 1% paid in 2020. Along those same lines, what % of their income did the top 1% pay as a group back in the last century?
 
No I haven’t sifted through it. If you care to dig into it and provide an apples to apples comparison to the 2020 numbers that would be interesting. In other words, what % of tax revenue did the top 1% pay in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and how does it compare to the 42.3% the top 1% paid in 2020. Along those same lines, what % of their income did the top 1% pay as a group back in the last century?
You should shift through it, since it shows the tax rates broken down by bracket. The proof is, prior to Reagan the rich did pay their fair share, and maybe more!
 
Those were examples, or did you expect me to show you every single person scamming the system in the UK?
Yes, that is exactly what I expect. The percentage of fraud in the system. That is a fact, and if you think the Government doesn't have an idea, you are even more poorly informed than I suspect. Otherwise it is just your feelings that you are presenting as "fact".

Note: I have never claimed there was not fraud in your's or any country's social assistance, just that the level of fraud is so low, it has no real effect on an individuals income tax.
 
Social Security and Medicare were both in effect before the Reagan administration. From 1946 to the last full year of Jimmy Carter's presidency in 1980 the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product declined from 119% to 32%. During this time the top tax rate was never below 70%, and was occasionally as high as 92%. It was only when Ronald Reagan cut the top tax rate to 28% that the national debt became a problem. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by the end of 2020 the national debt as a percentage of GDP will be 136%.

George W. Bush cut taxes for the rich, so did Donald Trump. That is the reason for the increase in the national debt.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Social Security and Medicate have broad, popular support among Democrats and Republicans.

https://socialsecurityworks.org/2019/03/26/social-security-polling/

There is also popular support for a more progressive tax system.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk02VZguLlzkr9HoEyeKhwF-mY0lbNw:1602200006051&source=hp&ei=xaF_X4rUPICfytMP-Iyj-Ag&iflsig=AINFCbYAAAAAX3-v1jTnqt8Q8ztMeYuElRMYx61TQap5&q=poll+++taxes+++rich&oq=poll+++taxes+++rich&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoHCCMQ6gIQJzoECCMQJzoLCAAQsQMQgwEQkQI6BQgAEJECOgIILjoFCAAQsQM6CAguELEDEIMBOggIABCxAxCDAToECAAQQzoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoKCC4QxwEQrwEQQzoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6BwgAEMkDEEM6BwgAELEDEEM6CQgAEMkDEA0QHjoGCAAQDRAeOgYIABAWEB46CAgAEBYQChAeOgkIABDJAxAWEB5Qq1ZY_oMBYPuGAWgAcAB4AIAB-QGIAfoVkgEGMC4xOC4ymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABCg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjKyt2RlKbsAhWAj3IEHXjGCI8Q4dUDCAg&uact=5

It is easy to understand why. Since 1980 the rich have paid lower taxes on more money, while real after tax income for most Americans has stagnated or declined.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...4a316826d5d4285b87a578985dd2c703c19c515d5.jpg
If the marginal tax rate is 90% but nobody in that bracket actually pays that rate it means nothing. What matters most is how much tax revenue high income earners actually pay.
 
If you're talking about taxes....then the percentage should be based on your income.
Sliding scale? That would work
Flat tax on the 1%? That would work as well. The one thing Warren was spot on about.
Getting either through?
Good luck.
 
If the marginal tax rate is 90% but nobody in that bracket actually pays that rate it means nothing. What matters most is how much tax revenue high income earners actually pay.
The marginal rates are listed in my link, why not just go look, and educate yourself.
 
Yes, that is exactly what I expect. The percentage of fraud in the system. That is a fact, and if you think the Government doesn't have an idea, you are even more poorly informed than I suspect. Otherwise it is just your feelings that you are presenting as "fact".

Note: I have never claimed there was not fraud in your's or anyone social assistance, just that the level of fraud is so low, it has no real effect on an individuals income tax.
Nor did I ever EVER claim that it did - I simply said i resented that my tax pounds were going to fraudsters.
 
Back
Top