CBO: Top 40% paid 106% of income taxes...

sturg33

sturg33

I
CBO:Top 40% Paid 106.2% of Income Taxes; Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers'

Oooh... this one looks ugly.

Taxpayers in the top 40 percent of households were able to pay more than 100 percent of net federal income taxes in 2010 because Americans in the bottom 40 percent actually paid negative income taxes, according to the CBO study entitled, “The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010.”

“When refundable tax credits, such as the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, exceed the other federal tax liabilities of the households in an income group, those households are said to have a negative average tax rate,” said the CBO study.

“In its analysis, CBO measured individual income taxes net of refundable credits,” it said.
Click to expand...

This one is worth the read... And it's from the CBO - so I think it's safe to assume the numbers are distorted to make them look less bad than they are.

But hey, the RICH SHOULD PAY MORE!!!!
 
How do these figures, absent any context, make your case? I'm certain that we're all shocked to learn that relatively wealthier people pay more taxes.

Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers'

I'd be willing to bet that 2/3 of those transfers are Medicare (not Medicaid) and Social Security. Are you really going to gripe about that? If so, you are in a tiny minority, both in America and the world.

So, two years after the financial meltdown, a lot of people were receiving unemployment benefits. Old people were getting social insurance. Neither group has much taxable income. Where's the shocker there?
 
Julio3000 said:
How do these figures, absent any context, make your case? I'm certain that we're all shocked to learn that relatively wealthier people pay more taxes.

Bottom 40% Paid -9.1%, Got Average of $18,950 in 'Transfers'

I'd be willing to bet that 2/3 of those transfers are Medicare (not Medicaid) and Social Security. Are you really going to gripe about that? If so, you are in a tiny minority, both in America and the world.

So, two years after the financial meltdown, a lot of people were receiving unemployment benefits. Old people were getting social insurance. Neither group has much taxable income. Where's the shocker there?
Click to expand...

The burden of the rich for paying taxes is so steep, that we might as well put chains on them and call them slaves to society. We're hindering their ability to pursue happiness.

At least that's what I'm thinking sturg is thinking.
 
KeithLockhart said:
The burden of the rich for paying taxes is so steep, that we might as well put chains on them and call them slaves to society. We're hindering their ability to pursue happiness.

At least that's what I'm thinking sturg is thinking.
Click to expand...

And it's all based on merit. Especially for those whose hardest job in life was being born.
 
sturg33 said:
Can someone explain to me how taxing rich people higher than non-rich people is NOT discrimination?
Click to expand...

Why is a discriminating tax-scale that asks more of those who have (vastly) more a bad thing?

Discrimination based on superfluous traits (say, race) is bad, but "discrimination" is not an inherently bad thing.
 
LOL wow.

So punishing one group of people more than another is fine, as long as the one group of people can afford it.

We should tax Jews more than African Americans I guess
 
sturg33 said:
LOL wow.

So punishing one group of people more than another is fine, as long as the one group of people can afford it.

We should tax Jews more than African Americans I guess
Click to expand...

Participating in the monumentally stupid game you propose would be giving sanction to the idea that taxes are punishment.
 
I think everyone should pay the same percentage. If someone making $60,000 can survive giving up lets say 25% of their income, why can't someone making $6,000,000 survive on $4,500,000 a year? Maybe they can't buy that summer cottage on the beach they always wanted this year, but I think they can survive comfortably on just $4,500,000.
 
The problem isn't the top 40% its the top like 0.1% and its not all of them just a handful. Classic republican strategy is to make people in the middle and upper middle class feel like they're getting squeezed.
 
gtcway said:
I think everyone should pay the same percentage. If someone making $60,000 can survive giving up lets say 25% of their income, why can't someone making $6,000,000 survive on $4,500,000 a year? Maybe they can't buy that summer cottage on the beach they always wanted this year, but I think they can survive comfortably on just $4,500,000.
Click to expand...

Are you keeping the same set of deductions/credits in your proposal? It may be counter-intuitive to some, but the framework of credits and deductions currently in place favor the middle and upper-middle classes. Where the rich make out like bandits is on the capital gains side of the equation, where capital gains are given a healthy preference over ordinary income. It's not quite that simple, but those at the higher end of the income scale are the ones reaping the largest capital gains both in real terms and relative to income.
 
Julio3000 said:
Participating in the monumentally stupid game you propose would be giving sanction to the idea that taxes are punishment.
Click to expand...

I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.
 
sturg33 said:
I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.
Click to expand...

What the...?
Why would you even use that ridiculous comparison? You don't sound rational.
 
sturg33 said:
I think MLB should force the Angels to trade us Mike Trout for BJ Upton, because they can afford it and we need the financial help.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top