• New CBO study shows bottom 40% paid -9.1% in income taxes
    30 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf"]The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010[/URL] A Congressional Budget Office study just came out about the 2010 taxes, and it shows that the bottom 40% actually got back more than it paid in taxes, while the top 40%, especially the top 20% of earners paid more than they got back in refunds. I thought this was interesting. It seems the rich are already paying for this country.
Let's just put this graph here: [IMG]http://www.ncpa.org/images/336.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43139017][URL="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf"]The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010[/URL] A Congressional Budget Office study just came out about the 2010 taxes, and it shows that the bottom 40% actually got back more than it paid in taxes, while the top 40%, especially the top 20% of earners paid more than they got back in refunds. I thought this was interesting. It seems the rich are already paying for this country.[/QUOTE] It's the companies that are not paying their taxes. Although many rich individuals are also doing "legal" tax evasion.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43139017][URL="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf"]The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010[/URL] A Congressional Budget Office study just came out about the 2010 taxes, and it shows that the bottom 40% actually got back more than it paid in taxes, while the top 40%, especially the top 20% of earners paid more than they got back in refunds. I thought this was interesting. It seems the rich are already paying for this country.[/QUOTE] it's a siphoning of money from the public to corporations. the rich aren't paying people enough, so the government has to step in and do it, if people were paid more, they'd not need the government to give them money
Yes, this is because the bottom 40% have virtually nothing in our society. You have to make money to pay taxes. This is not a problem of the poor not contributing, it is a problem of a massive, ongoing transfer of wealth into the pockets of the super-rich and away from everyone else.
So would the -9.1% mean that they get (their income)*0.091 in benefits? That's really not unreasonable, considering how little they make in the first place.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43139017] I thought this was interesting. It seems the rich are already paying for this country.[/QUOTE] Oh let's all thank the rich. Thank you Rich. Can I make a sandwich for you Rich? Oh, what's this; you want to choose my presidential candidates for me Rich? Well go ahead, you earned it. Thank god internet forums superstar "Silence I Kill You" has come to your defense or else I might not know to thank you properly Rich, lord knows you need the help.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43139470]Oh let's all thank the rich. Thank you Rich. Can I make a sandwich for you Rich? Oh, what's this; you want to choose my presidential candidates for me Rich? Well go ahead, you earned it. Thank god internet forums superstar "Silence I Kill You" has come to your defense or else I might not know to thank you properly Rich, lord knows you need the help.[/QUOTE] My neighbor is named Rich. I'll never look at him the same way again.
Jeff Dunham isn't funny.
Yeah this keeps coming up in some form every so many years- poor people don't pay income taxes! Yes, that's what a progressive tax system will do. At a certain point they'll pay negligible rates in income tax. However, these often forget that income taxes are the only tax- federal, state, and cities all assess various taxes that everyone pays into at some point. These include but are not limited to: -Social Security contributions -Payroll Taxes - these have recently come back into effect -Fuel Taxes -Property Taxes - if applicable -Sales Taxes -Utilities Taxes (including fees assessed on water and/or power systems, cell phone services etc) -State Income Tax - if applicable -and various additional taxes assessed for educational and transportation services on top of property tax revenue So yeah it's not surprising a progressive tax system, surprise, is heavier on upper brackets. That doesn't mean however the people on the other extreme aren't contributing anything to budgets though.
[QUOTE=Samoht;43139509]Jeff Dunham isn't funny.[/QUOTE] what are you talking about puppetry is the hottest shit right now. My favorite characters of his are Achmo the dead Insurgent, Vinco the Italian, Tembo the Racist Lion Tamer, the talking pizza that says "Dick," the one character with the funny voice, and the episode where Ross gets married. i look at all this cool comedy and im glad that i live in the year 2009.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43139086]Let's just put this graph here: [IMG]http://www.ncpa.org/images/336.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Outdated graph that focuses solely on a specific sect of the population. AKA: completely irrelevant.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43139844]Outdated graph that focuses solely on a specific sect of the population. AKA: completely irrelevant.[/QUOTE] Okay, it was simply a quick google search. Fact is, it's not at all far from the real picture which is painted in this (admittedly tacky) youtube video: [video=youtube;rMhvYeQPOcE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhvYeQPOcE[/video]
I must be the only one who tries to get a $0 on my tax returns and im definitely in the bottom 40%
[QUOTE=Antlerp;43139134]it's a siphoning of money from the public to corporations. the rich aren't paying people enough, so the government has to step in and do it, if people were paid more, they'd not need the government to give them money[/QUOTE] adjusting wages are complicated economic policy, when you get down to it. yes, the notion of making it so that all workers are paid a living wage is nice, but the way to go about it is not to force wages to increase. it's true that many businesses could simply reduce their profit margins to offset the cost without increasing prices, but keep in mind that the stock market doesn't work that way. shareholders want to see increasing numbers with a neat green arrow next to it, and a shareholder can be practically anyone. reduce profits and investment decreases. decreasing investment will only make it harder to keep a living wage for those workers. it isn't as though Mr. E. E. Moneybags is sitting at a table and twirling his moustache fantasizing about stepping on poor children and stealing their shekels. executives have an obligation to put the interests of the shareholders first, or else risk failure. comprehensive re-assessment and simplification of our regulatory policy is the most holistic way to go about things - if we create a market where competition is encouraged by making regulations simple and incentivized rather than restrictive, then prices go down, the cost of living drops, and businesses both big and small can comply with regulations (and thus propagate said regulation's benefits) without being tied down by them. that is ultimately the best solution buy and large.
[QUOTE=joes33431;43140480]adjusting wages are complicated economic policy, when you get down to it. yes, the notion of making it so that all workers are paid a living wage is nice, but the way to go about it is not to force wages to increase. it's true that many businesses could simply reduce their profit margins to offset the cost without increasing prices, but keep in mind that the stock market doesn't work that way. shareholders want to see increasing numbers with a neat green arrow next to it, and a shareholder can be practically anyone. reduce profits and investment decreases. decreasing investment will only make it harder to keep a living wage for those workers. [/QUOTE] If that's the case, then our current economic system is completely unsustainable. What goes up must come down, they can sit there and watch that green arrow rise, but if it's at the cost of the lower half of society, a significant portion of the arrow's sustenance. When that community has no cash left, the cash stops flowing to the company, and the green arrow will red plunge.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43140632]If that's the case, then our current economic system is completely unsustainable. What goes up must come down, they can sit there and watch that green arrow rise, but if it's at the cost of the lower half of society, a significant portion of the arrow's sustenance. When that community has no cash left, the cash stops flowing to the company, and the green arrow will red plunge.[/QUOTE] Welcome to [del]America[/del] The World.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43140632]If that's the case, then our current economic system is completely unsustainable. What goes up must come down, they can sit there and watch that green arrow rise, but if it's at the cost of the lower half of society, a significant portion of the arrow's sustenance. When that community has no cash left, the cash stops flowing to the company, and the green arrow will red plunge.[/QUOTE] This. Also keep in mind the most of the world is economically connected to the US. Should it's economy tank dangerously, so would the rest of the world. With the road the US and other similar countries are on, the next global crisis is most likely going to be a total global economic collapse. Scary part is I might still be alive to witness it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43140632]If that's the case, then our current economic system is completely unsustainable. What goes up must come down, they can sit there and watch that green arrow rise, but if it's at the cost of the lower half of society, a significant portion of the arrow's sustenance. When that community has no cash left, the cash stops flowing to the company, and the green arrow will red plunge.[/QUOTE] regardless, forcing companies to up their wages is the entirely wrong way to prevent something like that from happening. the income distribution in a nation matters little, so long as everyone has enough to support themselves and contribute to the economy. lowering the cost of living is, as far as i can tell, the least painful way to get that to happen. the high cost of living is what makes it hard for people to get by despite being relatively rich in comparison to people living in moderately-developed and developing countries. one also has to look at things realistically. with corporate interest so deeply ingrained in american politics, especially on the federal level, it can't expected that legislation demanding a raise in wages will be passed. business interest is a part of politics and a part of life, there is no practical way to change the expectations imposed upon said businesses by the greater economic system of the world, and they are not going to go away. so instead of trying to fight it, we need to work around it.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43139470]Oh let's all thank the rich. Thank you Rich. Can I make a sandwich for you Rich? Oh, what's this; you want to choose my presidential candidates for me Rich? Well go ahead, you earned it. Thank god internet forums superstar "Silence I Kill You" has come to your defense or else I might not know to thank you properly Rich, lord knows you need the help.[/QUOTE] I simply stated a fact. No need to get butthurt. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43140632]If that's the case, then our current economic system is completely unsustainable. What goes up must come down, they can sit there and watch that green arrow rise, but if it's at the cost of the lower half of society, a significant portion of the arrow's sustenance. When that community has no cash left, the cash stops flowing to the company, and the green arrow will red plunge.[/QUOTE] That's what people don't understand, is that this WILL happen. It's not a matter of if, but when. The only thing keeping the markets from crashing right now is that the feds keep pumping money into them to keep them up. If that weren't happening, the markets would be MUCH lower than they are now, if not crashed. People aren't spending the money the markets would have you think. My grandpa always told me to watch what the rich are doing. They didn't get rich from being stupid. If they are spending money, it's safe to spend as well. When they start to build their wealth and hold it (aka what's happening now), it means that something is going to happen soon and they are preparing financially so they don't have to feel it.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43141394]I simply stated a fact. No need to get butthurt. That's what people don't understand, is that this WILL happen. It's not a matter of if, but when. The only thing keeping the markets from crashing right now is that the feds keep pumping money into them to keep them up. If that weren't happening, the markets would be MUCH lower than they are now, if not crashed. People aren't spending the money the markets would have you think. My grandpa always told me to watch what the rich are doing. They didn't get rich from being stupid. If they are spending money, it's safe to spend as well. When they start to build their wealth and hold it (aka what's happening now), it means that something is going to happen soon and they are preparing financially so they don't have to feel it.[/QUOTE] Ever heard of Keynes? I think you should listen to him rather than your grandpa.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;43141694]Ever heard of Keynes? I think you should listen to him rather than your grandpa.[/QUOTE] So you're saying the rich stay rich by being completely dumb and oblivious about what's going on? They have more to lose than I do. They are going to want to protect their lifestyles more than me. That means they will be more attentive to the markets and what's going on than I need to be.
[QUOTE=joes33431;43141327]regardless, forcing companies to up their wages is the entirely wrong way to prevent something like that from happening. the income distribution in a nation matters little, so long as everyone has enough to support themselves and contribute to the economy. lowering the cost of living is, as far as i can tell, the least painful way to get that to happen. the high cost of living is what makes it hard for people to get by despite being relatively rich in comparison to people living in moderately-developed and developing countries. one also has to look at things realistically. with corporate interest so deeply ingrained in american politics, especially on the federal level, it can't expected that legislation demanding a raise in wages will be passed. business interest is a part of politics and a part of life, there is no practical way to change the expectations imposed upon said businesses by the greater economic system of the world, and they are not going to go away. so instead of trying to fight it, we need to work around it.[/QUOTE] Companies were already forced to up their wages when minimum wage was invented, why shouldn't they be forced to pay a living wage? Income distribution does matter when there are a lot of people who can't support themselves.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43141797]So you're saying the rich stay rich by being completely dumb and oblivious about what's going on? They have more to lose than I do. They are going to want to protect their lifestyles more than me. That means they will be more attentive to the markets and what's going on than I need to be.[/QUOTE] The rich ARE "what's going on". Our entire economy is a feedback loop. If people don't follow Keynesian economic theory, what happens is that the rich will all be watching what each other are doing and any potential market problems with explode because the rich will hold their money, which will make the market worse, which will make the rich hold their money more, which causes a chain reaction and makes the market collapse. That's the whole reason the people in power are supposed to spend more during a recession.
If it wasn't for the rich all of you middle-classers would be struggling to keep the heat on and pay for your medical expenses instead of rolling around in your caviar baths like you are now
[QUOTE=Valnar;43142122]Companies were already forced to up their wages when minimum wage was invented, why shouldn't they be forced to pay a living wage?[/quote] [QUOTE=joes33431]adjusting wages are complicated economic policy, when you get down to it. yes, the notion of making it so that all workers are paid a living wage is nice, but the way to go about it is not to force wages to increase. it's true that many businesses could simply reduce their profit margins to offset the cost without increasing prices, but keep in mind that the stock market doesn't work that way. shareholders want to see increasing numbers with a neat green arrow next to it, and a shareholder can be practically anyone. reduce profits and investment decreases. decreasing investment will only make it harder to keep a living wage for those workers.[/QUOTE] [quote=Valnar;43142122]Income distribution does matter when there are a lot of people who can't support themselves.[/QUOTE] people can't support themselves because the cost of living in the united states is ridiculous. lowering the cost of living has the benefit of making the lives of the lower and middle classes easier without squeezing companies into tougher economic spots. better regulatory policy also allows businesses, whether small or big, to form and compete more efficiently. the results of more competition and more entrepreneurship are innovation (which drives scientific advancement) and lower prices. keep in mind that some regulations are barriers to entry that sustain monopolies/mega-corporations, and thus ultimately make things worse for everyone in the long-run. this is basic economics, mang.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;43139017][URL="http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf"]The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2010[/URL] A Congressional Budget Office study just came out about the 2010 taxes, and it shows that the bottom 40% actually got back more than it paid in taxes, while the top 40%, especially the top 20% of earners paid more than they got back in refunds. I thought this was interesting. It seems the rich are already paying for this country.[/QUOTE] because that's what taxes do...? obviously? [editline]10th December 2013[/editline] BREAKING NEWS: TAXES EXIST
[QUOTE=Zeke129;43142249]If it wasn't for the rich all of you middle-classers would be struggling to keep the heat on and pay for your medical expenses instead of rolling around in your caviar baths like you are now[/QUOTE] But I'm running out dom perignon to shower in
this entire thread makes me want to die I guess since I'm poor that would make me a dead terrorist too!
[QUOTE=joes33431;43142473]people can't support themselves because the cost of living in the united states is ridiculous. lowering the cost of living has the benefit of making the lives of the lower and middle classes easier without squeezing companies into tougher economic spots. better regulatory policy also allows businesses, whether small or big, to form and compete more efficiently. the results of more competition and more entrepreneurship are innovation (which drives scientific advancement) and lower prices. keep in mind that some regulations are barriers to entry that sustain monopolies/mega-corporations, and thus ultimately make things worse for everyone in the long-run. this is basic economics, mang.[/QUOTE] that is even harder than adjusting wages, no the problem is there is a lot of corporate and personal tax-evasion that goes on at the top, on wages though, many companies have CEOs that want to increase wages, but shareholders who don't really give a damn about the employees of the company as long as the company is a money machine, this is why whenever apple posts a lower than expected number or meets sales goals, their stock tanks because people don't really care, they jsut want to get money out of stocks, which isnt unreasonable but the stock price do often dictate company conditions. i know a particular chain of low-cost store has their stores down to the cheapest possible, even slacking on security and eating the theft, making the stores a dangerous place to work in because they want to keep their stock price high
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.