Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

1409 vs 70 million

Reply

Old 10-15-2018, 06:04 AM
  #1  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,716
Default 1409 vs 70 million

Pay more in taxes

  • Richest 1,409 taxpayers pay more income tax than bottom 70Mln
  • Individual income tax to bring in about $1.7 trillion in FY18
​​​​​​
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 03:40 PM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
Lunkerdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,932
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
Pay more in taxes

  • Richest 1,409 taxpayers pay more income tax than bottom 70Mln
  • Individual income tax to bring in about $1.7 trillion in FY18
​​​​​​
So... I'm certainly no mathematician, but do know that stats can be deceiving... One thing yer link doesn't show is the wealth disparity between the groups being portrayed... In the interest of my own possible education, I'll play "The Devils Advocate" and take a shot at that stat... Tho my link doesn't reflect the direct correlation between the 1,409, and the 70ML... It does reflect the gist of my point, which is that I'm not really feeling too bad for the 1,409...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.12c59731374e

Last edited by Lunkerdog; 10-15-2018 at 04:03 PM.
Lunkerdog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 04:40 PM
  #3  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,716
Default

Originally Posted by Lunkerdog View Post
So... I'm certainly no mathematician, but do know that stats can be deceiving... One thing yer link doesn't show is the wealth disparity between the groups being portrayed... In the interest of my own possible education, I'll play "The Devils Advocate" and take a shot at that stat... Tho my link doesn't reflect the direct correlation between the 1,409, and the 70ML... It does reflect the gist of my point, which is that I'm not really feeling too bad for the 1,409...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.12c59731374e
so you feel you have a right to their money as long as enough friends of yours agree with your position?

fact is, the rich are paying way more than their fair share. When it takes 70 million tax payers at the bottom of the tax paying world in order to pay the same amount that 1409 tax payers are paying, something is very wrong. On top of that, we have almost 50% paying no taxes with a good portion of them making a profit from the tax code its called legal plunder. Plunder is wrong no matter how many of your friends tell you it's ok
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 05:25 PM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
Lunkerdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 1,932
Default

Originally Posted by Fieldmouse View Post
so you feel you have a right to their money as long as enough friends of yours agree with your position? Nope... Not what I'm saying at all... What I'm saying is that #'s can be deceiving... Tho my link didn't make the direct correlation of % of wealth between the 1,409, and the 70ML, it does show a truth... If the 1409, and the 70ML as individual groups own about the same % of wealth, I have no problem with each group paying around the same % of taxes as a whole... That doesn't mean that I feel that it's a "right", just trying to reckon all the #'s, not just a cherry picked few...

fact is, the rich are paying way more than their fair share.Fair share based on what #'s When it takes 70 million tax payers at the bottom of the tax paying world in order to pay the same amount that 1409 tax payers are paying, something is very wrong.Yer playing a #'s game with a cherry picked set of #'s On top of that, we have almost 50% If I remember right, after the crash the # was closer to 52%paying no taxes with a good portion of them making a profit from the tax code its called legal plunder. Plunder is wrong no matter how many of your friends tell you it's ok Don't have many friends, and don't rely on the few I have to tell me what I think is okay...
Can't argue much about the "plunder" part... No one should ever get more back in taxes than the amount that they paid in...

Last edited by Lunkerdog; 10-15-2018 at 05:39 PM.
Lunkerdog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 06:36 PM
  #5  
Dominant Buck
Thread Starter
 
Fieldmouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 35,716
Default

It's about having skin in the game. What a person is able to achieve shouldn't play a role in what they pay in taxes. Moving to a flat tax system where everyone pays same 10% of their income and slashing all the transfer of wealth programs would go a long way towards your goal of equal outcomes.
Fieldmouse is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2018, 06:56 AM
  #6  
Giant Nontypical
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default

Originally Posted by Lunkerdog View Post
Can't argue much about the "plunder" part... No one should ever get more back in taxes than the amount that they paid in...
Oh but they do!!!!!!!!! Yes you heard right they DO!! Many of the lower income folks, people who have not paid one red cent into the system, are eligible for 7500.00 per child due to the Child Income Credit! Great, you say! Bully for the children, you say! But not so fast, the children have no say as to how that 7500.00 per child is spent! These deadbeat parents would probably put their kids up for adoption if it weren't for the deduction at tax time!

The real world solution, (which will never be allowed to happen,) is a flat tax! No deductions, no forms, no favoritism, no IRS!
10% would probably be a good starting point. But whatever the number turns out to be, it is FAIR for all! 10% of millions down to 10% of zero! Can't be much fairer than that, and the best part.......the IRS leaches would be gone!
JagMagMan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2018, 08:32 AM
  #7  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 16,314
Default

Can't say as I disagree with any of this. I've heard that 10% might not be enough for a flat tax to net the current level of income tax. But if we're not giving people $7500 in a refund for having a kid and some of the other wealth transfer programs, maybe it would.
CalHunter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2018, 09:30 AM
  #8  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 664
Default

Originally Posted by Lunkerdog View Post
So... I'm certainly no mathematician, but do know that stats can be deceiving... One thing yer link doesn't show is the wealth disparity between the groups being portrayed... In the interest of my own possible education, I'll play "The Devils Advocate" and take a shot at that stat... Tho my link doesn't reflect the direct correlation between the 1,409, and the 70ML... It does reflect the gist of my point, which is that I'm not really feeling too bad for the 1,409...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.12c59731374e
Wouldn't such a disparity be self evident, as in that's the reason why they're paying more taxes in the first place? I mean, don't all of us in the middle class pretty much know (sometime through painful experience) that as our income increases, we run out of or sometimes lose certain write-offs and our ETR (Effective tax Rate) increases? It's not necessarily a bad problem to have as increased income run through the strainer of increased taxation reaches a point where that additional income is essentially disposable income. To keep this a level playing field, I am commenting solely on earned income and not on Capital Gains which is taxed differently.
elkman30 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2018, 07:19 AM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
RobertSubnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,675
Default

Can't say as I disagree with any of this. I've heard that 10% might not be enough for a flat tax to net the current level of income tax. But if we're not giving people $7500 in a refund for having a kid and some of the other wealth transfer programs, maybe it would.
I have long felt that we should move to a flat tax system - for the reasons stated above. If everyone had "skin in the game" they would be shocked at just how expensive our government really is. And who knows maybe they would begin to demand some actual fiscal restraint.
RobertSubnet is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2018, 03:38 PM
  #10  
Giant Nontypical
 
JagMagMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
Default

Ever heard of "tax independence day?" The hypothetical day that the average American, if they paid every cent they EARNED towards taxes, fed, state and local. This hypothetical day would be the day you paid all of your taxes off. The last time I heard it was some time in mid to late May! That's almost half of the year and half of your income! 10-20% flat tax would be much cheaper, AND no IRS!
JagMagMan is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service