$14.5 B Tax Refunds Issued By "error"

You said 40%, I only see 5.5% in the negative on that graph you provided.

I read it as Expended the first time around.

As for tax rate, of the 60/70s, that is with out those deductions. I said nothing of deductions just the rate, limit yourself on adding in words and you will avoid confusing yourself.




The top 1% derive Less than 40% of their income via wage (compensation), That is not equal in any way. The point still stands that The largests source of their income is taxed not at income wage tax but at the lesser amount of capital gains.



I never once, said they do not pay taxes on ordinary income, However I did say not at the same rate. There are tax brackets and the more you earn the lower the bracket curve.

Tax brackets
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FOR SIMPLICTY SAKE
Earning $100 would be taxed for eavery bracket of their income
First 20 taxed at 20%= $4
Next 20 taxed at 18%= $3.60
Next 20 taxed at 16%= $3.20
Next 20 taxed at 20%= $4
Next 20 taxed at 35%= $7

What this means
A guy earning $60 pays $10.80 tax
A guy earning $80 pays $14.80 tax
A guy earning $100 pays $21.80 tax

Well what if there is a guy who earns $1000? anythign over the $100 is taxed at 35%

Man who earns $1000 would pay $336.80 in tax. 33.68% of their total wages

Man who ears $60 would pay $10.80 in tax. 18% of their total wages.

Hmm seems like the rich are getting the short end, but the middle class guy is left with less than $50 the rich guy is left with over $600.

Then there is the other shoe, the rich guy has investments and other sources which net him another $1200 a year THAT is taxed at a flat 20% rate.

Capital gains $1200 would pay max $240 in taxes.

Hmm so the bulk of the money being made is only netting a 2% tax difference than a guy earning less by magnitudes.... wow.

Capital gains

1.) they doing everything they can to hide such things from people (it would destroy the image of a wealthy country), that makes it hard to determine how many people actually starved (2 or 3 cases went public)

2.) not necessarly. I live in Hamburg, in 2013 there were more than 1029 homeless people (average: >1,3homeless/km²)and i didn't saw any. Did it occur to you that they might be concentrating in an area where you never are?

3.) you aren't confused, you figured it out that i've been talking about the EU..... also, do you know everyone in your country? can you be absolutely postive that no one is searching the trash for food? your confidence is based on what grounds?

4.)
a.) long-term solutions don't fix anything at short-term, because it takes time for the long-term solutions to have an effect. gradually as you said already. so if people need a 100% fix within a year, what have you achived if you're just at 5% in the first year? exactly, nothing.
b.) they need to wait 15 years for your fix to work, by then, they lost 15 years of their life.....can you give them back those 15 years of lifetime? (this is a critical issue)
c.) many things can happen within 15 years, it is even possible that the environment changed after 3-5 years and from then on, your 15 years plan does more dmg than good, have you ever considered this?

5.) what gives you the idea that i'm a radical ideologist? that i don't share your oppinion? then you are a fascist.

For one thing, you never said negative 5.5%, so how was anyone supposed to connect the two together? Another thing, what in the heck are you talking about?

You obviously have no clue as to historical tax laws. When the top tax rate was between 70-90%, there were multiple deductions that would lower that amount to an actual ~28-32%. Those deductions are disallowed under current law, but the top tax rate under current law is 43.4%. If you want to bring back the tax rates under old law you also have to bring back deductions under old law at the same time.

The results will be nearly the same.


Your own graph not only disproves your argument, but also proves my point, even though it is an incorrect graph (as to your argument that is).

Lets go over some facts: I stated that a significant amount of income that the top 1% have is Capital Gains, I have attributed an equal amount of income from ordinary income, some passive, some active. What you have shown us is that what I said is true. From the 1% line, 39% of the income is derived from compensation, while 29% is derived from investment. Another thing to note, investment income is considered the following: interest (ordinary), dividends (ordinary & capital), and stock/bond sales (capital). So, that 29% investment income is actually a mixed bag. But compensation income is always ordinary, and so is business income.

So, thank you for proving that the super wealthy pays more in ordinary taxes than they do in capital gains taxes.

First off, that is not how progressive tax rates go. You have the general concept, but your reasoning is incorrect. Only the corporate tax rate actually goes down in graduated rates, but since we are talking about individual tax rates, might as well use the actual tax rates themselves.

But let's go over your example. A person who earns $1k would pay in nearly the 35% tax bracket while a person earning $60 would pay into the 16% tax bracket (or actually 18%, since your example doesn't make sense). That also means that the next dollar the person who makes $1k only keeps $.65, while the next dollar the guy who makes $60 gets to keep $.80.

Now, that means that the richer guy pays more than his fair share in your hypothetical, right? Let's continue with your example:


But you already established that the guy made $1k from non-capital sources. He already paid $336.80 in taxes. Now he has to pay an additional $240 on top of that $336.80, which is $576.80, or 26.21%

Just because he has capital gains income doesn't mean he only pays capital gains on all income, just the income that comes from capital gains. You already proven that the 1% income is 71% ordinary (everything but investment) and 29% of a mixture of ordinary and capital. So, at a minimum 71% of all of the income is automatically taxed at the top rates (because they would have long passed the other brackets) and a maximum 29% capital (of 23.8% capital gains tax, and let's see if you want to try to disprove me on that figure).

Let's also not forget a simple concept called Alternative Minimum Tax, which forces the tax bill to be an automatic 28% on all income and limits most deductions to zero. So, in reality, that income is taxed at a minimum of 28%.

Or are you going to refute the code? If you would like, I can cite you the code sections for AMT, tax rates, and income classifications for you.

Got any more conspiracy theories for us tonight?

Yeah, in a shelter. Where they get food and possibly training to get them out of the situation they are. But I'm sure that you go to these shelters on a regular basis and help them out any way you can.

You mentioned Europe several times in previous posts. Any sane person would figure that you wanted to continue to talk about the EU, even though it is pretty obvious that I'm from the US (I mean, I did cite the US tax code often in my arguments).

You don't fix long-term problems with short-term solutions, or replace long-term solutions with short-term solutions. The law was not broken until 2009 when it was amended to create a refundable credit that served no additional benefit for people who previously took it, but limited the benefit to those who create the actual problem in the first place. That's like rewarding the arsonist for starting the fire.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime"? What you want is to stop teaching him how to fish and just give him fish because "you feel sorry for him"

If that happens, that's when you alter the plan to get back on track on the main goal. See, that's why long-term plans help short-term problems along with long-term plans, because there are checkpoints to determine how effective the plan is and where the critical decision is needed to be taken to get back on track of the plan. Short-term solutions cannot offer these checkpoints because of their short lifecycles, and generally do nothing to solve the problem in the first place!

I don't care if you don't share my opinion, but when you defend obviously bad decisions and state that they are working, or defend bad decisions based on your feelings and not for their effectiveness or ability to create a solution/prevent a bigger problem, that's when you become a radical ideologist.

But thanks for calling me a fascist, it's not like I don't get called that here all the time anyway for requesting solutions to problems instead of acting on my feelings alone.

1) You should not speak about laws. The Tax rate can be set higher or lower, regardless of exemptions. It would not be a requirement to reinstitute exemptions from 1960 in order to raise the tax rates to the level they were in 1960. Can't explain it more simply than that, especially since I have previously stated this a few post prior.

2) earned wages on that chart are less than 40%, 40 is not equal to 60, another simple explanation, which was already clearly made in prior post.

3) I caps and bolded, it was a simple example, once again can't make it simpler, once again explained in a prior post.

4) No, you cant combine earned wages and capital gains as one they are seperate.

99% of americans are paying income tax rate on 60% of their earnings. 1% of americans are paying income tax on 40%. The opposite being true for capital gains.

We are talkin proportional, not actual. Yes 100 is more than 1, but 100% of 100 is less than 1% of 1000000000000.

5) using more words to say less, or the same thing a different way does not make one right.

So, you want to not talk about laws when you talk about laws? Seriously?

Let me give you a hint: If you force people to pay 60-70% of their income as federal taxes, they will leave this country. And since you want to go back to the tax rates of 1960s, where the top tax rate starts at $400,000, and people start paying into the 70% bracket at $88,000, nearly all of the working class (except those who choose not to achieve in life) will leave the country.

Do you really want this country to lose all of their businesses because of this? Think that is a smart idea?

I didn't say "wages," but instead "ordinary income." Income from a trade or business is taxed at the exact same rate as wages, payroll taxes and all.

Care to try to disprove that?

Your example is flawed just on the sole fact that it nowhere near represents reality, among other things.

So, are you saying that people file two different tax returns in regards to ordinary rates and capital rates?

Bolded for pointing out your idiotic reasoning.

Let's start by seeing what you think capital gains are. Please tell us all what income are capital gains.

No, I was trying to show your the flaws of your argument. Why not just start from there?

Holy *** at the backtracking and use of semantics to argue against the implied meaning of words, and use of dependent clauses.

I just will never understand people opposing the idea that "those who can pay more, should."

Because we already pay more than enough, just to watch it being squandered over nothing.

How would you like to be forced to have more than 1/3 of your paycheck taken away from you, and then watch the person who took it away pretty much burn it right in front of you?

Because that's how it looks to me.

I get that the government is a necessary evil, but all this wasteful spending needs to stop.

They're two seperate issues to me. Wasteful spending needs to stop, yes, but proper spending needs to commence.

The problem is we're a country full of selfish *** that think anything that doesn't directly benefit us personally is "wasteful spending".

Not a pie chart argument invalid.

Obligatory levity.

"going to paste a link about corporate welfare. just to show you how much big everything gets then the people of our nation

http://gbgm-umc.org/response/articles/corporate_welfare.html

as far as accessing others tax credentials i cant do that.

as for providing evidence to fund basic state needs i already told you by implementing state banks modeled after north Dakota they self fund everything and are not part of the rest of the 49 states who signed on to the federal reserve in 1913.

We could pay off our 17 trillion and counting debt with just 5% of Alaska's oil. That's a drop in the bucket we just do not have anyone currently representing us willing to have that discussion. All of this leads to rebuilding A Better America. It would revamp our industrial engines not in a few states but all 50 states creating real jobs and i mean American jobs staying in the United States of America not being shipped over seas."

Brought this over from the doomsday thread.

Moral of the story is the us tax code does not make everyone equal and that is fact. The IRS is quoted by Donald Trump as not even understanding the tax code they wrote, and he would know being bankrupted multiple times and climbing back to being a millionaire. There is ( i am sorry for labeling billionaires and millionaires) 1% to 10%er's who completely avoid paying taxes all together. I am not saying "all" there is some Honest folks who do, but everyone else who is not as fortunate pays. That is a not a fair tax system code. The same could be argued about small and big businesses who sell similar things. Where huge corporations and big banks simply do not pay taxes where smaller ones pay through the nose creating huge wealth gaps.

The only way to change this problem is by repealing the 16th amendment which would remove the federal reserve, the irs, and the federal income tax act and implementing a simple tax code that makes EVERYONE equal.

I don't know. EITC will never benefit me personally, and yet, having $14,500,000,000 of it given out to people who is not eligible for it is wasteful. I understand that mistakes happen, but internal controls are there to prevent a vast majority of the mistakes.

Paying $700 per toilet in the Pentagon is wasteful spending.

Spending $387,000 to study the effects of Sweedish Massages on rabbits is wasteful

Spending $200k+ on research as if Wikipedia is sexist is wasteful spending.

Spending more than $371k on research if mothers love their dogs more than their children is wasteful

Spending $865k on teaching mountain lions to walk on treadmills is wasteful.

Over $100 million on an unused airport and government buildings with no plans of ever using it is wasteful.

Over $100 million to pay off personal expenses for the Department of Agriculture is wasteful. And fraudulent.

Over $2 million to hire one intern is wasteful.

These are just a few examples of wasteful spending.

Notice that none of these items would benefit me personally at any way, nor (after the fact, outside of the blatant spending) hurt me either.

So, I ask you, what does any of this spending help us as a nation at all?

Why can't I be like Joel???

One thing: Link is broken and/or removed.

Another thing, Donald Trump is correct and an idiot at the same time. His "1%-10%er's who completely avoid paying taxes all together" is incorrect, as those people are the one's who have no income to pay taxes with.

See, the thing is, your wealth amount isn't what is being taxed, at least not until you die and/or gift it. Your income is what is being taxed. If somebody who's net worth is $100 billion dollars, but had no income for the year, he isn't dodging income taxes, he just didn't have any income for the year to pay income taxes with.

I'm...what? I just said I'm against wasteful spending. I agree with you, these are wasteful examples of spending.

Also, I'll just leave this here.

My point was, I don't consider seeing to people's health and well being, education, housing, and safety as "wasteful spending".

Could it all be approached in a much better fashion?

Undoubtedly. Without question.

Donald Trump is an excellent example of a good many of the things wrong with this country.

What a guy invests in real estate and becomes rich that is what is wrong with this country ?

That's an internal controls issue, which is the crux of my argument. The government requires businesses to have not only adequate internal controls, but also provide them (the government) the controls and prove that they are being used. A single business does not have the economic power the federal government has, so why is the federal government exempt from it's own standards?

It is another example of the federal government "do as I say, not as I do" situation.

I will never argue against the need for healthcare spending, education, housing, and safety/security/defense spending.

Many people do. =(

Being "selfish" gets a bad rap. There is nothing wrong with looking out for your own self interests before you look out for others. I don't have to pay for others' meal at Olive Garden, I pay for my own and doing so does not make me a ***.

If the motto is those that can pay more should, when is it enough? Wheres the limit? When does it become morally wrong to take a higher percentage from one to another? 70%? 80%? 90%? The problem is that whatever the government likely dies with that money, it does so at greater exposure to waste and in the lowest levels of efficiency. Not only is it more efficient to let individuals direct the money, but it's also more fair.

I mean talk about discrimination, if we said gays have to pay 90% of their income and strait people only have to pay 10%, how many people would have an issue with that? Why's it ok to discriminate against people who earn more?

As I said. The way taxpayer money is spent -- and above that, the way the people who authorize its spending operate, though now we're crossing threads -- needs to be overhauled.

Whatever you say, Gordon Gekko.

Well look how poorly the money is spent. How much money does the department of education and education receive in general and were surrounded by people who lack the critical thinking skills to see past #handsupdontshoot. Is anyone really going to argue that if we all received the money set aside for our kids, we would be better capable of teachng our kids what they need to know?

Healthcare housing too, these are things we can do for ourselves outside of government doing hem for us.

Probably some time significantly later than when it became morally wrong to make all your money on the backs of your workers and not look after them as such.

capitalism is the operating system..... everything that costs money but doesn't bring profit has to be removed...... maybe you should be thinking about changing the OS ;)

Again, you too are focusing on how the money is spent. It's a seperate issue. The way money is spent needs overhauled, and I'm agreeing with that.

I'm pretty sure I've been saying that. I've been trying to avoid using terms like "capitalism" and "socialism" though, because some people heard the word "socialist" and they flip the *** out because the Cold War mentality of "better dead than red" is still drilled into some unfortunate children, who have grown into today's unfortunate adults.