The Truth About Who Pays The Most Taxes - IRS Statistics....

[deportes]

Great topic. The facts as I see them are as follows: Used to fly around CEO's from big companies and they never paid for a thing.
The transportation was covered, the meal was covered, you get the idea.
My good friend's, business owners invite each other, call it a business lunch, write-off, no burger joint either, 300 in sushi bar. Their golf is a payback from last time he was treated by the other business owner friend. etc. etc. Their trip to the football game is a business deduction because they have season tickets and they treat other business owners to it. I see a pattern here.
My trip to the burger joint is paid with my aftertaxe'd income, after I work for the big multi national, as well as all my trips, sports events etc. etc. etc.
Rich and not so richbusiness owners in general get a lot of free rides, cars are owned by the business the gas @ 1.80 per gall is written off.
I'm glad they are making up the difference by paying higher taxes.

 

[homedog]

All I know is I pay waaaaay too much.

Know what you mean saint.

Nick, you are a complete idiot (not that it took this thread to figure that out ). :thefinger

 

[Chopsticks]

dawgball

dawgball

No offense taking man. And it just wasn't you that made me alittle go alittle fruit. This issue just makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Best of luck to you.


And as far the "flat tax" subject brought up earlier in this thread, that's by far the most illogical thing I've ever heard of. One doesn't have to be a great mathematician to figure out that it'll never work. Let's say for example:

1. A flat tax is brought upon everyone @ 10% across the board.

2. Taxpayer "A" makes 100,000 per year.

3. Taxpayer "B" makes 10,000 per year.

4. Taxpayer "A" pays 10,000 in taxes and is left with 90,000.

5. Taxpayer "B" pays 1000 in taxes and is left with 9,000.

Though taxpayer "A" spends alot more in taxes but still has 90K to work with. However, taxpayer "B" pays only 1 grand, but then again is only left with 9 grand. IMO, unless there are certain kickbacks allowed for taxpayer "B," it looks as if he bears the burden of a heavier tax according to his income.

 

[taoist]

Here's the link to the old tax thread from a while back for anyone interested...complete with taoist's tax history lesson.


Tax Thread Link

 

[dawgball]

Everyone likes to bring up Flat Tax which wouldn't work. It is the most Fair solution, but it would really cripple the middle class.

My question: Does anyone have the percentage that the flat tax would have to be to work? What does that % become if people making less than poverty ($18K, I think) are excluded?

I would say it's going to be in the upper 30s%. It might be 40%. Just a guess. Most of the shifted tax burden would land on the middle class, though, because the poor are excluded and the Upper Class are being lowered to reach a median with the Middle Class.

Let's just lower spending!

 

[ctownguy]

If any of you have followed the flat tax proposals in the past, the biggest flap against it was by the liberals (of course) for saying it was unfair to low income taxpayers and that the rich would not pay their fair share, how stupid.

All you need to do is make the first $25,000 of income completely free of tax.

I think the number being floated at the time was 15%-18% with no deductions except for prescriptions and home ownership. The home mortgage deduction was being debated to stay in.

With this type of tax the rich would actually pay more because all the big loopholes would be gone, but the liberals didn't like that either because then all the rich elitists and hollywood leftists would actually have to start paying taxes.

Compared to the current tax code this is an absolutely better system, but unfortunately the liberals couldn't control the flow of maoney and this system would be so much more fair and we all know the liberals are not about being fair :tongue

 

[Mjolnir]

if you think life is so unfair that we don't access to the accountants that help you keep most of the money you make then get off of your lazy phuk'n ass and make your life better.
police spend more time getting criminals that make less money. well guess what, most of the criminals make less money. when your stinkin rich you don't need to hold up a liquor store. when you are rich if you commit a crime it is all over the news so crybaby's can wring their hands with glee about that's one for the little guy.
STOP CRYING YOU LIBERAL SOCIALIST TITTY-BABYS.
use that energy to improve your financial staus.
:thefinger

 

[ctownguy]

Mjolnir, my man, certainly did not realize your passion on this topic. Couldn't have said it better:Yep: :clap: :shocked:

 

[Turfgrass]

As a starting point towards understanding the advantages of the FairTax over the income tax, we can contrast the complexities of our current system, with the simplicity of the Americans for Fair Taxation?s FairTax plan.

The simplicity of a tax system affects fairness in several respects. A fundamental notion of fairness is that citizens should be able to comprehend the laws that affect them. However, current tax law is beyond the comprehension of most taxpayers, including many of those who devote their entire professional lives to it. Today, we hold taxpayers accountable for knowing and complying with an intricate web of more than 7,000 individual Internal Revenue Code Sections, 10,000 pages of text, hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations and other pronouncements, and an equally weighty verbiage of court opinions interpreting the law. This complexity translates into frustration, unnecessary cost, and wasted time and needlessly lost productivity. The complexity of the tax code disproportionately affects smaller businesses that do not have the time or the resources to delve into its mysteries. When taxpayers fail to adhere to the complexities of the law ? often through innocent mistakes ? they are punished with penalties, interest, and a great deal of frustration.

The complexity of current tax law disproportionately rewards those who can afford to aggressively pursue tax planning. The well-advised often view tax planning as a game that they can afford to play, using sophisticated tax planning devices, the cost of which is justified by the resulting tax savings. Skillful manipulation of the tax code can lead to huge gains in competitiveness, or to substantial increases in individual wealth. The ongoing manipulation of the tax code for financial gain can be seen in estate planning, in trust planning for children?s education, in pension coverage and in many other facets of taxplanning. In contrast, the FairTax is a highly visible tax system that cannot be avoided by sophisticated devices. Under the FairTax only one question is typically relevant: how much did the consumer spend on the purchase of a final good or service?

The complexity of the current system adds to unfairness in at least one more respect. By necessity under the current system, different industries, different sizes of firms, and different taxpayers will be treated differently, adding unfair distortions to the economy.

In summary, the complexities that exist in the form of thousands of critical distinctions under the current income tax system place an unfair, costly burden on most taxpayers and create unfair, cost-saving advantages for those taxpayers who can afford to aggressively exploit the system to their advantage.

 

[djv]

As I said before screw the IRS. Throw another 100000 out of work. All we need is a fed 5% sales tax. Been proven over and over it will work. Those who dont want it just want it kept complicated so we can be kept in the dark. In fact it will raise more then what we taken it now. All we would need is some way to leep the congress from spending the extra. Good Luck with that part.

 

[taoist]

...copied from the old tax thread. Dawgball, I completely agree with you.

But let me say this about the flat tax, because that really is kind of where we were in this discussion before I decided to give everyone a free history lesson in federal tax.... When you?re talking about this base broadening business, the first issue is do you tax EVERYONE (a true flat tax) or do you exempt people on the low end? The answer is yes, obviously you have to exempt people below the poverty line.... You can?t tax somebody who is supporting a family of four on minimum wage at the same rate you tax Steve Forbes and say that that is equitable or fair because they?re both paying the same rate. So you?re going to exempt people at the low end of the scale and as soon as you do that, it isn?t really a flat tax because you can?t start here and say if you make $12,000 you pay zero tax, if you make $13,000, then you have to pay 10% on everything. Because what happens the guy who makes $12,000 pays none and the guy who makes $13,000 pays $1300. And the guy who pays $1300 ends up worse off than the guy who only makes $12,000. So, if you exempt the first whatever of income, you?ve already got a graduated tax structure and not a "flat tax."

So you can?t have a true flat rate!!! So you say we?ll exempt everybody below $30,000 ? everybody gets a standard deduction at $30,000 and then we charge a flat rate above that.... Yeah, that?ll work.... The problem is remember how much the people who report an income over $100,000 paid in taxes? Remember that 7.5% of the population (only folks declaring over $100,000) pays 62% of the tax.... If you have a flat rate you will not get 62% of the revenue from those people.... It simply can?t happen!!! So what happens with the flat rate is, if you?re going to keep the revenue the same, somebody has to pay a lot more than they are currently paying and it?s not going to be the people down here at the bottom because we?ve exempted them...and it?s not going to be the people up here who are paying at a current marginal effective rate of somewhere between 30-40%, right? Why? Because our flat rate is going to be lower than the highest marginal rate and higher than the lowest marginal rate...a "flat tax" squeezes the middle class of wage earners. If the tax rate is say...17-25%, then the folks in the middle class are going to pay a hell of a lot more tax than they do now!!! THAT I will guarantee you...but it?s a flat tax!!! I'm sure that you could get a lot of people to vote for it.... I suspect it would sort of be like 1981-82 where we voted for it and then we said "Holy Shit!!! This isn?t exactly the way we planned for it to come out...." (Not to mention all of the current credits and deductions that they would lose in the process....) Like I said earlier...a flat tax will never work unless you're willing to let the middle class in this country carry an even heavier burden than they currently do.

The simply solution is to cut spending, but once again, that's not the point.... That argument doesn't hold water if you're arguing for a flat tax because all of us can agree that we need to reduce the size of the whole pie.... (i.e. we need to reduce spending)So let's say that we've got a smaller pie, the question now becomes how do we divide it up? Who's going to pay what? Hey, I got an idea...let's make the middle class carry most of the tax burden in this country!!! Yeah, that sounds like a great idea!!! A flat tax simply doesn't work guys, but hey, what do I know? :shrug:

 

[IntenseOperator]

I don't think I've seen this anywhere previous in this thread. Income taxes are just the start of taxation on anyone. Most of one's spending is taxed as well. The "rich" spend much more (now I'm making assumptions) than those in the lower brackets and are paying much higher amounts in taxes on everything from their house/cars to their dinners/gifts. They should be re-embursed for all the additional taxes paid on many of the same items. Lefty's will admit the evil "rich" most likely consume more as well. Not only to they pay more for better of the same goods and services, but they may also have a greater appetite for the same such items. Taxed more and more for the better item and for the greater volume. Overall, it may be true that they are taxed far greater overall than the deadbeats that are too scared or dis-interested in taking a chance and actually improving this country's productivity. The stress given to me from owning my own business and having to hire out-of-work 45 year olds that have no skills/drive/or education leads me to drink at times. I'll carry this burden because it's better than a Lefty's burden of guilt for not being born disadvantaged. I NEED to drink St Pauli Girl beer or fire down some Crown Royal whiskey at times instead of Old Milwaukee and a half-pint of Maddog. And trust you-me I can fire through the Crown pretty good. In this way I am consuming higher end products at a faster rate than some little person:tongue who hasn't had the tastes or ability to drink what I do or at the same rate. I'm paying much more for the same experience and at a larger volume than most of those at lower levels of the economic scale. Were do I go to get back the additional taxes I have to pay?

 

[ocelot]

Nick,

You are 100% ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! People who are well off in this country should be thankful that they live in a country that allows them to accumulate wealth. Many ARE thankful and DO NOT support the tax cuts that have been put in place. (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates for 2 prominent examples).

And if you consider yourself a "patriot", how in hell do you think we can maintain our mighty military prowess? Are Armored Divisions cheap to run? Wake up and smell the coffee! The maintenance of this society ain't cheap! (Unless we contract out our defense industry to China too)

For all those who believe there are all these freeloaders out there, would you change places with any of them? What about the tens of thousands that work hard for employers that don't pay them a living wage? The working poor are the problem, NOT the non-working poor.

 

[djv]

Ocelot Your going to catch some chit now. You see your to close to the truth. Many many dont want to here that. Our industry for many products that support our defence of America. Well there already outsourced. Thank Goodness per the Wall Street were only talking 15/20%. You just have to hope that %% is not the wrong part of puzzel.
As for employiers that will take advantgae of there workers. Well there have been many many in the past. Im sure we have not ran out of them today or in the future. Some folks say why did unions get started. Easy these kind of folks that think they own you and are your masters. Some are Same dudes that want the Prez to let as many Mexicans in this country to work for 3 bucks a hour as possiable.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"You are 100% ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! People who are well off in this country should be thankful that they live in a country that allows them to accumulate wealth"

Spoken like a true liberal.

Did it ever occur to you that the people who busted there ass made this country what it is NOT visa versa.

You and others seemimg think the gov allows them to prosper so they can distribute the proceeds to those that don't and the gov. Take a close look at communist blocks to see how successful that avenue is.

Fact is
EVERYONE is "allowed" to accumulate wealth.
Everyone has equally 24 hours in a day.
How they choose to spend those hours will determine their success.
If they choose to lay back and do nothing--believe it or not it IS their fault.

If you don't think the opportunity exists,consider this.

You have a segmant of the population that has been here for 100+ years that continue to make excuses and collect by FAR the largest amount of entitlements per capita then any and you have the Asian that comes here,at HUGE disadvantage,many not even being able to speak language and they collect the fewest per capita..
Now why do you think that is? ---I can tell you in one word--

 

[djv]

DTB there is the other side of that. There are folks been here 100 of years that walked over others to get wealth and never wanted to share it. They put folks down for years and will at ever chance still do it. They call it putting you in your place. youhave so many that want it all an dont want you to have just to much. And some will stand in your way of getting there. It's like for woman they still dont get same pay in this country for the same job in many cases. For sure in the higher ranks of companies. Remember us men just desided they could vote in the early 1900's. No it's has not always been a even playing field.

 

[ocelot]

Hell, we just let black baseball players in the majors AFTER WW2! Think about that. AFTER WW2. Is that unbelievable?

 

[djv]

Well anyone who feals sorry for those folks with the big o bucks. Don't. There doing ok. Just ask any of them if there not doing a lot better then they were 2 years ago. I mean not a 1000 or two a few million extra. Chit they ran out of things to spend it on.
Baseball players after WWII. Hell they could not use same bathrooms in the south or southeast cost in 1961. Signs were very easy to read. Blacks next door over. This was all done for the safty of our country because the blacks were terroist.