Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Surprise! The 1% Are Paying Their Fair Share

Posted 10 years ago on April 23, 2012, 4:32 p.m. EST by chatman (-478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement


President Obama says, "If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30% in taxes." Data on the top 1% show that the "fairness" rule already applies.



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by shadz66 (19985) 10 years ago

Recently poster 'epa1nter' quoted from Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" (1776) and it singularly bears repeating here :

  • ""The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

fiat lux et fiat iustitia ...

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

they already pay the lions share of taxes. So the above doesn't apply does it. Define "fair" how much do the bottom 50% contribute? the poor find it difficult to get food - that is why we have food stamps. which by the way is up 70% under BHO - the food stamp president.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 10 years ago

http://news.yahoo.com/us-defend-afghanistan-decade-drawdown-112505244.html you would rather food stamps go to other countries? while you still pay?

The agreement also says the U.S. will help support Afghan economic development, health care programs, education and social initiatives, and stresses that the U.S. remains committed to defending human rights and the right of free speech.

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

yea - all that foreign junk needs to end.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

He he

Barrons. The magazine of the 1% says the 1% are paying their "fair" share.

If they have it so rough?

Why do they still have enough left over to buy our government?

Jeez.....Talk about an elephant in the room.


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Not true.

OWS has lots of respect for unions that pay a decent wage.

They just want the rest to have that opportunity.

It's you who doesn't

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

define fair

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Why are you asking me?

This is what you should be asking Barrons. It is after all, their article.

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

I ask you because OWS is fixated on fairness . seems like an appropriate question for you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

The way I look at it, is like this.

If they are making enough money to buy our government, they are making too much money.

Since you started this thread, why don't you tell us what you think is unfair?

[-] -3 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

you can only buy the govt if the govt is willing to take your money. What happened to the campaign pledge Obama made to agree to public financing of the presidential campaign? Then as soon as he got the nomination that went out the window. He doesnt want a level playing field any more than anyone else. Then he has the audacity to scold the Supreme Court at the state of the union. Absolutely classless.

Fair is a flat tax. everyone pays 10% on everything. The way it is now - it is unfair 50% of the population have no skin in the game when it comes to federal income tax. That is unfair.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Those very same people have used their money to fund Stuff like ALEC.

These use that to make it ever easier to buy government.

If they have enough money to do that, they are making too much money.

It's not that difficult a concept.


[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

I am all for ALEC .

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

That's because you are a sick, anti-democratic person.

In your weird world, all governments should be sold to the highest bidder.

Why bother wasting money on a middleman like ALEC?

Just hold an open auction. All bidders welcome.

At least that would be honest.


[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

fair is a property tax on non primary residence land

[-] 0 points by chell10 (4) 10 years ago

define top 1%.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

the 1% are taxpayers who's net income is above $367,000.00 . Your turn - define fair

[+] -4 points by MikeInOhio (13) 10 years ago

Another brilliant post, shooz.

How many times have you used "1%" in your posts over the past 6 months? I'm surprised your "1" key hasn't worn out yet.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

It's so typical of your education level to launch a personal attack, rather than respond to the statement.

The 1% thing is in response to the thread title. That's how Barrons put it.

I guess that OccupyWallstreet thing really is starting to have an effect.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 10 years ago

funny how the drones of the fascists never address the issue, and always attack the man,. . it would be a little funny, if it was not so pathetic.

[-] 2 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 10 years ago

From the article: "According to CBO estimates, if you add the share paid by the top 1% of the federal government's payroll, excise, and corporate income taxes, the effective burden on the top 1% comes to 30.4% in 2006-07, down from 35.8% in 1979-80."

But for a fair comparison, ask: what is the poor man's tax rate when you include the other 6% FICA tax that comes out of his paycheck? When you count the excise taxes on his alcohol and tobacco? What about the corporate taxes that increase the price of what you buy at the market, just as surely as they affect what the CEO takes home in pay? For that matter, why does the first hidden 6% of the FICA tax that the article counted - the part "paid by the employer" - count for the wealthy owner rather than the worker, when you know full well that this cost still affects what the worker is paid? Apply these more fairly, and perhaps the rich are paying 24%, perhaps less, and the poor are probably paying more than that. That's not even getting into state taxes, which are far more biased against the poor in the hope that they might move somewhere else.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

the poor man get's his 6% fica back when he retires or becomes disabled. It is not used to run the federal govt. although the govt has raided SS fund depleting it and spending the money on their friends. So much for Govt trust fund.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 10 years ago

Well, that's provided that the $2.6 trillion borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund is actually repaid, and still has significant real value when it is.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

yup - another reason to get rid of govt run retirement plan - they steal from it & spend the money on their friends. No different than Madoff - & look at him now.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

I would prefer I just keep mine.

[-] -1 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

thats ok - as long as it is a choice. Freedom is about freedom to choose.

[-] -2 points by Fleaparty4 (-12) 10 years ago

But Fica isn't like a real tax, it funds a future entitlement claim. Real taxes don't come with a annual letter telling how much more you'll get later. No such letters come after paying income, capital gains, or excise taxes. Try again.

[-] 2 points by ClearTarget (216) 10 years ago

If anything, that article proves the >>majority<< of the wealthy are not paying their fair share.


The 1% paying their fair share? Nice joke.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 10 years ago

The 1% should pay more and it should go to the families of fallen and maimed soldiers who payed the ultimate price for the freedom of the 1% to drone on endlessly about how they earned their 1% all by themselves.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

But you are relying on the 1% to rewrite the laws for hte 1%.

That doesnt make sense.

All this demanding change, with absolutely no thought onto how to get there.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 10 years ago

My statement was more rhetorical than strategic.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

We need more strategic.

[-] 0 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

fallen soldiers fought for everyone's freedom not just the 1%

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

So Mitt Romney's paying 13.9% is what the data show is at least 30%?

Something's clearly wrong with that data.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

I don't think we know what Mitt Romeney's real net worth is, or will every really know. There's a lot of money in off-shore accounts that is effectively hidden from scrutiny.

I'm not saying I know that to be true, it's simply a logical conclusion, for him and all the ultra-wealthy.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

No, we don't know what he's making. The OP states that the wealthy are paying over 30% of their income now. We know that, at best, Romney paid only 13.9%. We also know from the IRS records that the wealthy pay less than 30%. The OP is lying. What a surprise.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

the long term cap gains tax is 15% - then he has some tax deductions lowering his income - big deal - SO you want toraise the cap gains rate? everybody pays capital gains when they realize a gain. If you want to add a disincentive to investment & risk taking go ahead - raise the rate.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 10 years ago

are you saying that Mitt Romney is paying 30%? I am fairly sure he pays a 15% effective rate

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

if he is taking long term cap gains - the rate is 15% you are correct.


[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 10 years ago

Im not for corporations paying zero taxes. Im also not for ANYONE having to take more than a third of their money and give it to these criminals to misspend.

[-] -2 points by chatman (-478) 10 years ago

then great - it sound like you are for the Ryan plan !