Tipping for Drinks?
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1940
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:42 pm
Re: Tipping for Drinks?
 the top 10% of usa income earners had incomes of $116k, made 45% of all income and paid 68% of all federal income tax. the bottom 50% of income earners paid 3% of total federal taxes. how much more do you want the top 10% income earners to pay?
That explains where I hear the fact that half of the people do not pay tax.
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:18 am
[QUOTE=notes1]
the top 10% of usa income earners had incomes of $116k, made 45% of all income and paid 68% of all federal income tax. the bottom 50% of income earners paid 3% of total federal taxes. how much more do you want the top 10% income earners to pay?
That explains where I hear the fact that half of the people do not pay tax.[/QUOTE]
glad i could clear that up for you. before someone else accuses me of providing misleading info, my info was about federal income taxes. all income earners do pay SS taxes. but, even when collecting SS income, those who paid a smaller amount, collect a higher percentage of payout, over those who earned more income and paid more taxes. the lower 40% of income earners not only contribute zero to the federal tax base, but they get monies back, over and above what they paid in. they contribute a net negative to federal taxes. i will ask DB again, how much more do you want the top 10% of income earners to pay?
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 6229
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:28 am
I don't know how we got on this subject, but here goes.Everyone pays taxes because they are built into every product and service we buy or use. Businesses and Corporations do not because they pass the cost of the taxes onto the consumer. When you raise taxes on businesses, you pay their taxes because it makes their product or service cost more.Unless you work for a government that prints money, you are directly or indirectly employed by or make your living selling stuff to a so called "Rich Person". When you put more taxes on the rich, they make changes and you get less employment and less stuff made in our country. What we need is a national sales tax so that everyone knows what the government's share is and everyone pays into the system. Then we can all complain about taxes equally.
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:18 am
the subject veered toward taxes, because DB stated the top 10% were not paying enough. i just stated the taxes they already pay. you are talking about a 'consumption' tax. the left will never go along, because it is not progressive enough. many on the left, want income taxes raised on the rich to 60-70-80, even 90%. some would even suggest taking all the wealth of the country, putting into one pot and splitting it up evenly, that would be fair. we have all read plenty of stories of lottery winners or pro athletes, who receive enormous sums of money, but within a few years declare bankruptcy. i was surprised how often this happened. so, just giving people a bunch of money offers little assurance those same folks will end up better off. for all those who advocate tipping more and more as away to help the lower paid employees, i wonder if they would be in favor of an even greater reduction in casino payouts, to raise employee incomes. many casinos are doing less business than in earlier years. the reduction is payouts is at least in part attributable to needing a greater share of each gaming dollar to pay employee wages/benefits/healthcare and other fixed costs.
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 4535
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:11 pm
i will ask DB again, how much more do you want the top 10% of income earners to pay? First off, asking someone where they get their info or figures is NOT accusing them of providing misleading info......want to make sure that is understood.Your point about who pays what percentage of the total federal taxes is only PARTIALLY relevant, because it is simply expressing percentage of a total amount that is NOT related to the actual total INCOME of the people in the first place.......what I mean is, you say the top 10% pay 68% of the the total federal income taxes that the US Government collected (I assume in 2014)......but WHAT percentage of the top 10%'s INCOME does that 68% actually represent? This is the problem and what people (so called "conservatives" on the right) keep insisting is proof that the government unfairly burdens the rich with a higher portion of tax responsibility. Well, um, sorry but that is what being rich entails! Also, the assumption that the 68% of federal taxes that the richest 10% are paying represents the "RIGHT amount of total federal income tax" the country needs to be collecting is a incorrect assumption: the fact that the government still sinks deeper and deeper into debt with no balance in sight indicates that the government is NOT collecting enough TOTAL taxes......this is due to the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001, which accelerated the debt the country accumulated MORE than any other factor over the last 14 years, when they took a Balanced (even SURPLUS) US Government fiscal situation three years running (1998, 1999, 2000) and totally wrecked it by enacting tax cuts in 2001 that greatly favored the wealthiest Americans while giving Americans who earned between 20,000 and 60,000 (single or joint filers) per year NO benefit! Here are the numbers http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilde ... -rates/HOw much more would I have the 10% pay? Well, I'd definitely have the top 1% PAY (anyone earning above $500,000 a year) a significant amount more than they currently are paying (right now, the so called SUPER rich pay FAR LESS total tax, 33% - 35% BEFORE deductions and writeoffs, historically, than they ever have since Income tax was first established......IN TERMS of actual PERCENTAGE OF INCOME.) I would be less severe with the top 2% thru 5%.......I would keep 6-10% where they are at for now.
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:18 am
the top 1% (one percent of income earners) start at $360k/year. the top tax rate on income is 39.3%. this does not count state tax, SS tax or the additional obamacare tax. and, for those earning the highest incomes, many deductions have been reduced or eliminated. i ask again, how much more do you want them to pay? maybe just sign their check over to the government? according to JUST FACTS, total federal, state and local taxes collected in 2014, were $4,700,000,000,000. if i got that right, that's $4.7 trillion dollars. want to get really sick, that is an average of $38,317 for every household in america. how much more do they need? as a much wiser person has said, it is not an income problem, it is a spending problem. as far the few years there was a surplus, clinton gutted military spending, which resulted in enormous amounts having to be spent after 9-11. and, we had a phony dot com bubble that produced large tax revenues and crashed, as he left office. just like we had a phony housing boom, which also resulted in large tax revenues and then a crash.
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 6229
- Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:28 am
[quote=notes1]as far the few years there was a surplus, clinton gutted military
spending, which resulted in enormous amounts having to be spent after
9-11. and, we had a phony dot com bubble that produced large tax
revenues and crashed, as he left office. just like we had a phony
housing boom, which also resulted in large tax revenues and then a
crash.[/quote]Then Bush doubled down by starting two unfunded wars, congress loosened mortgage credit regulations so a dog could finance a house and the banks were given a free pass to rip off little old ladies and pension funds by selling them the garbage paper. There is enough blame to go around....
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3143
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:18 am
[quote=notes1]as far the few years there was a surplus, clinton gutted military
spending, which resulted in enormous amounts having to be spent after
9-11. and, we had a phony dot com bubble that produced large tax
revenues and crashed, as he left office. just like we had a phony
housing boom, which also resulted in large tax revenues and then a
crash.Then Bush doubled down by starting two unfunded wars, congress loosened mortgage credit regulations so a dog could finance a house and the banks were given a free pass to rip off little old ladies and pension funds by selling them the garbage paper. There is enough blame to go around....
[/QUOTE]
i failed to mention the bush unfunded wars, which i corrected on another thread, before reading your post. I STAND CORRECTED, MISTAKE TO OMIT. i screwed up. it unnerves me, when i hear/read those who want to blame the entire credit crisis (that is what started the whole mess), on a single administration. overspending, overborrowing and not saving enough, started back 30 years ago. it was going to come to a head, at somepoint. i/m/o, one of the biggest reasons we have not had a stronger recovery, is because few have pointed out, that in large measure,the american people brought this situation upon themselves. instead, some have used the crisis, as a wedge and given folks excuses or someone else to blame, for their own mistakes. not earning what you want, blame the rich folks. not enough jobs, blame the mexicans, even though most would never do the jobs they do. instead of facing what they did to themselves, they wanted the government to make everything all better. that will not work, we need to do it ourselves.
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1844
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:02 pm
There is enough blame to go around. On both parties. As I remember, around 2006-2007, Nancy Pelosi agreed to fund the wars, but in return got huge increases in social programs from GWB. So the taxpayers got screwed.
-
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 3298
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:49 am
the top 1% (one percent of income earners) start at $360k/year. the top tax rate on income is 39.3%. this does not count state tax, SS tax or the additional obamacare tax. and, for those earning the highest incomes, many deductions have been reduced or eliminated. i ask again, how much more do you want them to pay? maybe just sign their check over to the government?
In the 40s and 50s, that's basically what they expected the ultra-rich to do. The marginal federal tax rate got up to 94% with FDR. And stayed up to 91% until LBJ. They also expected EVERYONE to pay roughly a 20% marginal rate.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfound ... justed.pdf
Now even DaBurglar would disagree with that much for the rich. But having inflation-adjusted $500k or more earners pay a marginal tax rate of 50%+ or more was commonplace until Reagan came along. Our debt began to really spike with Reagan as well thanks to the Cold War and less taxes to pay for it...