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

[HisArpy]

It became apparent when his remarkable wit asserted itself. I've seen him post in other forums as well while I've been surfing the board - he is what i would classify as a playground warrior. No real intelligence and believes if he; 1 repeats the same argument over and over again and; 2 USES CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!! he wins
Oh and lets not forget the casual insults
We have a word for people like him in the UK

We call them cunts

He is not the only one although he follows the trend and has many different Lit accounts to troll from.

Most here are familiar with the term but I personally prefer to use the equally applicable regardless of gender or sex and internationally recognized label of asshole.

 

[HisArpy]

The reality is that if we want to discuss "fair", those who own 90% of the wealth should pay 90% of the taxes.

The premise of this thread and the rich businessmen think tank is beyond ludicrous.

And, of course, those who "own" nothing should pay no taxes?

Where's the equity in that? Or equal rights and due process under the law?

 

[IsobelDoc]

He is not the only one although he follows the trend and has many different Lit accounts to troll from.

Most here are familiar with the term but I personally prefer to use the equally applicable regardless of gender or sex and internationally recognized label of asshole.

That works too

 

[adrina]

And, of course, those who "own" nothing should pay no taxes?

Where's the equity in that? Or equal rights and due process under the law?

Currently those who own less than 3% of the wealth pay a much larger share of that in taxes - almost quadruple. While those who own 95% of the wealth pay less than 45% of the taxes. If one wants to talk fairness then one needs to take that into account.

What is good for the wealthy is not good for the average American and therefore not good for America.

 

[HisArpy]

Currently those who own less than 3% of the wealth pay a much larger share of that in taxes - almost quadruple. While those who own 95% of the wealth pay less than 45% of the taxes. If one wants to talk fairness then one needs to take that into account.

What is good for the wealthy is not good for the average American and therefore not good for America.

Complete bullshit. The stats posted in this thread disprove what you're spreading.


As for your idea, do you REALLY believe that someone can't figure out how to rent a swanky apartment and drive an expensive leased car? Income can be equally as divested from "ownership" too. There are many people whose income is derived solely from nontaxable sources such as treasury bonds.

Basically, what that points out is that your idea sucks, your understanding is limited, and you really don't know a thing about the subject matter other than how to repeat what you've been force fed by your preferred media sources.

 

[adrina]

Complete bullshit. The stats posted in this thread disprove what you're spreading.


As for your idea, do you REALLY believe that someone can't figure out how to rent a swanky apartment and drive an expensive leased car? Income can be equally as divested from "ownership" too. There are many people whose income is derived solely from nontaxable sources such as treasury bonds.

Basically, what that points out is that your idea sucks, your understanding is limited, and you really don't know a thing about the subject matter other than how to repeat what you've been force fed by your preferred media sources.

Again if one wants to talk about "fairness" it is not reasonable or fair to have people who own 3% of the wealth to contribute 12% of the tax revenue. Additionally it is inordinately favorable to those who own 95% of the wealth to only contribute 45% of the tax revenue.

You haven't addressed anything I've said, only dismissed it with a dose of condescension. In the meantime, perhaps you could try disproving the statement.

How is the above situation fair?

 

[ishtat]

So you believe that some shouldn't pay any taxes? Which specific group should that be, the ones in the favor of the current admin, the ones who were in favor before the admin changed, or the ones who will be favored the next time around?

Because, you see, if you get to pick and choose who pays and who doesn't, then so do I.

Or we could go with that equal under the law thingy that's in the Constitution and everyone pays taxes.

The main thing wrong with your argument is that it's selective. Show me where anyone has seriously considered that the poor shouldn't pay any taxes, most especially sales tax. Because if they can afford to pay 7-10% sales tax, they can afford to pay income taxes too.

Firstly my comment directly referenced income taxes. That was clear and your expansion to refer to other taxes only distracts . The specific group that would benefit are low income earners of all political persuasions. (The quoted phrase "2.3% of all income taxes" is the giveaway.")

The government already picks and chooses whether and the rate at which income/profits taxes are levied - neither you nor I enter the equation.

Everyone does not pay income tax and never has.

My point is pragmatic and would save enormous amounts of money wasted by collecting small amounts of income taxes. That would allow tax collection resources to be reduced or more effectively used elsewhere. It would also allow poorer people slightly higher expenditure, some of which would increase sales tax returns.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Lol. Not even close. You are confusing marginal tax rates with actual taxes paid. In 1980, top 1% contributed about 19% of total tax receipts. Forty years later, their share more than doubled to 42.3%. Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump must have hated those rich fuckers.

I'm talking Eisenhower, and your using Reagan. GMAFB.

 

[Veroe]

If they do actually pay their fair share in taxes then the 1% need to hire a good pr firm because a majority of people believe they don't.

 

[IsobelDoc]

This entire thread is driven by jealousy. They have money - you dont - so you want to drag everyone down to your level. The joke is that I can guarantee that 90% of you keyboard warriors, no matter your income, If you were told that there was a way you could pay less tax, legally, you'd jump at it.

 

[adrina]

This entire thread is driven by jealousy. They have money - you dont - so you want to drag everyone down to your level. The joke is that I can guarantee that 90% of you keyboard warriors, no matter your income, If you were told that there was a way you could pay less tax, legally, you'd jump at it.

Jealousy? Seriously? We have people literally starving because they don't have enough to eat, living in vans because they can't afford houses and working multiple jobs because of beyond deplorable labor practices because of wage stagnation and corporate greed and you think they're jealous?

They're desperate.

Quit minimizing their reality.

JFC.

 

[IsobelDoc]

Jealousy? Seriously? We have people literally starving because they don't have enough to eat, living in vans because they can't afford houses and working multiple jobs because of beyond deplorable labor practices because of wage stagnation and corporate greed and you think they're jealous?

They're desperate.

Quit minimizing their reality.

JFC.

The people literally starving are not those posting here. - I said the posters not the poor.

As for you - if you have so much passion about it - go actually do something about it. Exactly how much are you adding to their cause by haranguing people on an erotic fiction website. It's hardly a cutting political forum.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I'm talking Eisenhower, and your using Reagan. GMAFB.

Yes, despite higher marginal tax rates under Eisenhower, the top 1% contributed a much lower percentage of total tax revenue collected by the Treasury and paid a much lower percentage of their income in taxes than they do today. Guess Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump felt it was important for the rich to pay more of their fair share in taxes.

 

[adrina]

The people literally starving are not those posting here. - I said the posters not the poor.

As for you - if you have so much passion about it - go actually do something about it. Exactly how much are you adding to their cause by haranguing people on an erotic fiction website. It's hardly a cutting political forum.

There are people starving in America. There are people living in cars and vans because homes are not available or affordable. There are people working three or more gig jobs in America because full time labor with reasonable benefits is more of a pipe dream than a reality for too many.

If you want to castigate those pointing it out that's on you. You're here bitching, so tend to yourself first.

Either address the reality that it's not jealousy or just GTFO. This isn't the kiddie pool.

 

[schism666]

No real intelligence and believes if he; 1 repeats the same argument over and over again and; 2 USES CAPS AND EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!! he wins
Oh and lets not forget the casual insults
We have a word for people like him in the UK
We call them cunts

you just described the person (hisarpy) you're replying to perfectly, right down to him screaming in caps when made to look stupider.
we also call him a cunt but it's usually proceeded by the word dumb.
the fact that he agreed with your assessment of him is hilarious.

 

[AlexBailey]

FWIW,

https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/table/

The distribution of wealth in the USA as of Q3 2022:

Top wealthiest 10% have $92.03 Trillion (68% of total wealth)

50% - 90% have $38.78 Trillion (28.66% of total wealth)

Below 50% have $4.52 Trillion (3.34% of total wealth)


A tax of 10% for the wealthiest 10% of Americans would bring in three times the revenue of taxing 100% of the wealth of the lower 50%.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, despite higher marginal tax rates under Eisenhower, the top 1% contributed a much lower percentage of total tax revenue collected by the Treasury and paid a much lower percentage of their income in taxes than they do today. Guess Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump felt it was important for the rich to pay more of their fair share in taxes.

That's pretty funny, since the link I provide shows the exact opposite, but since you refuse to look, I'll leave you to your imaginative posting, since obviously you have a problem with reality.

 

[HisArpy]

Firstly my comment directly referenced income taxes. That was clear and your expansion to refer to other taxes only distracts . The specific group that would benefit are low income earners of all political persuasions. (The quoted phrase "2.3% of all income taxes" is the giveaway.")

The government already picks and chooses whether and the rate at which income/profits taxes are levied - neither you nor I enter the equation.

Everyone does not pay income tax and never has.

My point is pragmatic and would save enormous amounts of money wasted by collecting small amounts of income taxes. That would allow tax collection resources to be reduced or more effectively used elsewhere. It would also allow poorer people slightly higher expenditure, some of which would increase sales tax returns.

1. Your point was short sighted because if you believe that such a program would only apply to FICA you're a blithering idiot who should never be let out of his padded cell again.

2. Government scales the tax tables based on income. Not skin color, racial makeup, location of residence, or any of the other fake criteria your idea would engender in its quest to discriminate. Thus it is equally applied across the nation to all groups. Unlike what you propose.

3. (A)If you want real tax change then what we need is a flat tax based on net income. Net income would be defined as wages before tax or net profits from business operations or taxable capital gains. The tax would be a percentage of that without ANY deductions or credits. I believe 4-5% ought to be sufficient to fund the entire government and give a bit left over to reduce the national debt.

(B)The second step to prevent future legislation based on greed should be to make it a Constitutional amendment. This permanently enshrines the flat tax and tax rate and would require a second amendment to change either. The amendment should also negate any other tax idea such as a VAT or National Sales tax.

4. If you're going to be making Constitutional Amendments, then go whole hog. Something along the order of; "Except in a time of declared war or national emergency, the Federal Governmental budget shall be balanced equally between expenditures and revenues received and the Federal Government shall not borrow against future revenues to enable such budget balancing." The amendment should also prioritize Federal spending to fully fund all US budgetary items before any expenditures or transfers of assets to foreign nations or entities can be made.

 

[HisArpy]

There are people starving in America. There are people living in cars and vans because homes are not available or affordable. There are people working three or more gig jobs in America because full time labor with reasonable benefits is more of a pipe dream than a reality for too many.

If you want to castigate those pointing it out that's on you. You're here bitching, so tend to yourself first.

Either address the reality that it's not jealousy or just GTFO. This isn't the kiddie pool.

This is the result of their choices in life. It is not fair to those who made better choices to also be required to pay for the bad choices of others.

 

[HisArpy]

If they do actually pay their fair share in taxes then the 1% need to hire a good pr firm because a majority of people believe they don't.

Belief is irrelevant to truth. Those who know the truth don't have to "believe" in falsehoods they're told by people who have an agenda which can only be realized if those who are ignorant help them achieve it.

 

[AlexBailey]

This is the result of their choices in life. It is not fair to those who made better choices to also be required to pay for the bad choices of others.

A big part of the homeless problem has been exacerbated by wealthy individuals buying housing for short term rentals, second homes, and by increasing the cost of housing as they compete to invest in rental properties.

As wealthy individuals make ‘good investment choices’ they raise the cost of living across the board.

Also for California the recent loss of ~15k residential units in recent wildfires has not been negligible.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

That's pretty funny, since the link I provide shows the exact opposite, but since you refuse to look, I'll leave you to your imaginative posting, since obviously you have a problem with reality.

No. The link you provided from the Tax Foundation shows “Historical U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates & Brackets, 1862-2021.”

It does not show the percentage of federal tax revenue actually collected from each income bracket, nor does it show taxes paid as a proportion of income for each bracket. You are failing to understand the difference between marginal tax RATES and taxes actually PAID.

Here is the Tax Foundation statistics that show the percentage of income and its share of taxes paid for each year from 1980 (pre-Reagan tax cuts) and 2011. As you can see, the percentage paid by the top 1% in 1980 was 19%. The Tax Foundation’s latest analysis for 2020 shows the top 1% PAID 42% of taxes collected. In other words, the contribution from the top 1% has more than doubled despite reductions in tax RATES. The policies enacted under Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump have resulted in the top 1% paying more of their fair share than they did in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent | Tax Foundation

 

[HisArpy]

A big part of the homeless problem has been exacerbated by wealthy individuals buying housing for short term rentals, second homes, and by increasing the cost of housing as they compete to invest in rental properties.

As wealthy individuals make ‘good investment choices’ they raise the cost of living across the board.

Also for California the recent loss of ~15k residential units in recent wildfires has not been negligible.

This is bullshit.

First, if you can't afford to live where you're living, MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE! There's no shame in admitting that you can't afford to live somewhere. OTOH, blaming other people for you staying where you can't afford to live only proves why you can't afford to live there. Holding out your hand and blaming everyone else for your problems while also demanding they give you money is worse. Suck it up and deal.

Secondly, there are laws in California (and I believe other States too) which require that "affordable housing" be built as part of other housing projects. There are also programs which deal exclusively with "affordable housing" projects which require that the owners of the properties actually reside there after purchase. So there is affordable housing out there that isn't and can't become income property.

Third, have you EVER looked at the cars parked in the parking areas of "low income housing"? I wonder why those people think that buying a $100k pickup on a 10 year loan entitles them to any kind of a break on the price of a home. The only answer I can think of is because dipshits like you don't have a clue about why "the poor" are poor in the first place. Hint: It's because they make BAD money decisions, not because they don't have any money in the first place.

 

[AlexBailey]

This is bullshit.

First, if you can't afford to live where you're living, MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE! There's no shame in admitting that you can't afford to live somewhere. OTOH, blaming other people for you staying where you can't afford to live only proves why you can't afford to live there. Holding out your hand and blaming everyone else for your problems while also demanding they give you money is worse. Suck it up and deal.

Secondly, there are laws in California (and I believe other States too) which require that "affordable housing" be built as part of other housing projects. There are also programs which deal exclusively with "affordable housing" projects which require that the owners of the properties actually reside there after purchase. So there is affordable housing out there that isn't and can't become income property.

Third, have you EVER looked at the cars parked in the parking areas of "low income housing"? I wonder why those people think that buying a $100k pickup on a 10 year loan entitles them to any kind of a break on the price of a home. The only answer I can think of is because dipshits like you don't have a clue about why "the poor" are poor in the first place. Hint: It's because they make BAD money decisions, not because they don't have any money in the first place.

Arpy,

I’m really trying to be more civil in discussions with everyone here, hoping for some higher quality of discussions. I’d appreciate any efforts you could afford to do the same.

It’s interesting that you only mention the large trucks in low income parking lots, many of those are company trucks owned by employers.

Many of the low income units you mention exist but there are many more needed.

One of the big reasons affluent communities support low income housing is because they ‘need’ people to fill the lower paid jobs. Take Marin County CA for instance; jobs are available, housing is not. When you move out to areas of lower cost housing there are fewer jobs available.

One result is having large extended families or many individuals sharing small apartments.

Does your life and your choices expose you to many different demographics? As I’ve explained to you before, mine does. Just this week I was working with a retired Disney exec, for an upper Microsoft exec, a retired lesbian couple on fixed income, and with blue collar low income workers.

More and more low income people are commuting to places where better paying jobs are available, further reducing their disposable income and time spent with their families and raising their children. One of the biggest conservative concerns is lack of parental involvement in education and upbringing, no?

Individuals can make choices for themselves but societal trends happen on the large scale.

Do you try to understand the big picture or do you only see what is possible for those who share your perspective?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

A big part of the homeless problem has been exacerbated by wealthy individuals buying housing for short term rentals, second homes, and by increasing the cost of housing as they compete to invest in rental properties.

As wealthy individuals make ‘good investment choices’ they raise the cost of living across the board.

Also for California the recent loss of ~15k residential units in recent wildfires has not been negligible.

California has about 15 million dwelling units so the loss of about 15,000 units from the wildfires didn’t have a significant impact. Housing in CA will never be affordable by national standards because supply will never catch up with rising demand.