| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
#1402 - joemand (05/23/2012) [-]
I have actually posted this about 3 times now, but due to the pure ignorance I'm forced to do it again. I thought it would be best to share a fun fact with everyone.

Despite what Liberals say, the top 1% not only pay their fair share, but they go well beyond it. the top 1% of Americans (people who make over $389,000) pay 40% of ALL federal income taxes. The top 10% in income, that's income above $108,904, paid 71% of all income taxes. Finally, your top 50% is paying 97.1% of all income taxes. All the while your bottom 50% of Americans are paying a record low of 2.9%. Now why might this be? Could it be the plethora of failed welfare services which have thus led to the overall lack of motivation? Well I could go on for days about the issues which are causing this overall problem, but I think my point must reside around one focused topic. And this is the fact that your top wage earners in America are now leaving. In fact the rate at which they are leaving has increased by seven times since the election of Obama.

Did you also know that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003. Now you might ask what happened in 2003? Well the answer is simple - we rolled back the Clinton taxes. No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts

Oh no, I'll stop here as I'm getting carried away lol

P.S. This is all IRS data
#1566 to #1402 - N. Korean citizen (06/14/2012) [-]
I feel like your logic is flawed. Of course the rich should pay most of the taxes. It wouldn't make much sense for the poor to pay more than the rich, does it? They're the top 1% because they're rich. Therefore, they should pay a majority of the taxes.
User avatar #1437 to #1402 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
I just looked at the graphs on the Irs site and it indicates that taxes payed by top earners or the wealthy haven't been at their current low since 1924. which mean they are keeping much more money and they are outsourcing jobs to keep even more money. The problem isn't the poor ("bottom 50 %) it is greed pure and simple .


Ps. not sure why your mad at Obama he hasn't done anything to the taxes.
User avatar #1453 to #1437 - ledvogs (05/23/2012) [-]
SO which one of you is lying?
User avatar #1458 to #1453 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
maybe both ? maybe neither ?
User avatar #1463 to #1458 - ledvogs (05/23/2012) [-]
no, thats such crap, what are you politicians or sketchy people on the internet? give clear cut facts or get out ya troll, dont spread half truths.
User avatar #1465 to #1463 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
i told only truth as i see it but what i was pointing out is truth is objective.
User avatar #1470 to #1465 - ledvogs (05/23/2012) [-]
nah nah man, the guy up top had actual numbers, that shit is more objective then saying "i looked at a graph". if you want to sell people, give numbers, that gives you a better base to stand on.
User avatar #1472 to #1470 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
ok

Tax 1924 40%
Tax 1960 70 %
Tax 2012 40%
User avatar #1477 to #1472 - ledvogs (05/23/2012) [-]
Holy fuck thats alot for the 60's, im curious how much did the other 50% of the country pay. and how much did the Upper earners pay through the 70's
User avatar #1489 to #1477 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
always between 18% and at the lowest income 3%
User avatar #1482 to #1477 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
71-81 top Tax remained at 70% but tax exemptions doubled
71-81 mid earners Tax 18%
User avatar #1480 to #1477 - ledvogs (05/23/2012) [-]
also i think the situation in the US was vaguely different, with Vietnam going on and LBJ in office
User avatar #1485 to #1480 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
1982-1985 top tax reduced to 50 %
User avatar #1487 to #1485 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
1985-2012 top tax reduced to 40 %
mid tax still 18 %
User avatar #1492 to #1487 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
also tax exemptions for the top earners increased 8x
User avatar #1483 to #1480 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
1940-1960 top tax remained 70 %
User avatar #1486 to #1483 - ledvogs (05/23/2012) [-]
shit, thats alot. so what did the other 50% pay in the 70% scenarios?
User avatar #1434 to #1402 - jiggyjohns (05/23/2012) [-]
this video might relax you a bit

http://www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=lofCrIdny_c&feature=related
take out parenthases

i love this show
#1420 to #1402 - N. Korean citizen (05/23/2012) [-]
but they could pay more, user name is laxbeast im just too lazy to log in
User avatar #1471 to #1420 - timmywankenobi (05/23/2012) [-]
Hi Laxbeast,

This is indeed true, they can pay more than 40%. However, so can you. The fact is that they are willing to pay their version of a "fair share", which is a little as they can, but when you cost more to employ than a Malaysian than you have an all new problem.

As I said, the amount of top income earners leaving the U.S.A is increasing at an incredible pace. Therefore, if your top earners leave to do business elsewhere where it is cheaper, then who will do business here?

For example, an greedy Oil company moves into a city and is given subsidies by the government. Sure everyone says "how dare those greedy companies get off without paying", well think about the growth that one plant would bring. Not only will you have massive temporary EMPLOYMENT, but you will have more people coming in due to the increasing growth of that city. When this happens, that city will obviously have the ability to earn more tax revenue. So letting that Oil company go without paying 10 million will now earn you 0 times that amount due to all of the new temporary growth because that company will eventually outsource and layoff workers to make more money and your town will become a ghost town.
User avatar #1443 to #1420 - joemand (05/23/2012) [-]
Hi Laxbeast,

This is indeed true, they can pay every last dollar they earn. However, so can you. The fact is that they are willing to pay their "fair share", which they have obviously gone above and beyond, but when you attack their source of income than you have an all new problem.

As I said, the amount of top income earners leaving the U.S.A is increasing at an incredible pace. Therefore, if your top earners leave to do business elsewhere, then who will do business here?

For example, an Oil company moves into a city and is given subsidies by the government. Sure everyone says "how dare those greedy companies get off without paying", well think about the growth that one plant would bring. Not only will you have massive EMPLOYMENT, but you will have more people coming in due to the increasing growth of that city. When this happens, that city will obviously have the ability to earn more tax revenue. So letting that Oil company go without paying 10 million will now earn you 10 times that amount due to all of the new growth.
User avatar #1413 to #1402 - Skrufymunky (05/23/2012) [-]
A good read. The wealthy pay more than their fair share.
 Friends (0)