Ok after looking I see nothing on this issue, the shutdown.

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
But they don't, look at the comment to apple, who was at a trillion at one time (now like 700 bil cuz of their bad designs with iphone xr etc?) but it stated they do not pay taxes in ANY country. Now for the most part I disagree with bernie's tax ideas, they are too harsh but I do believe he had the basic idea, the top 1% of 1% do not pay their fare share though these loop holes and I do not see apple doing us favors.
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,234
Role
Private
I will use here in NZ as an example. If you earn $100, you pay $33 in income tax. Leaving you with $67. You spend that money to put gas in your car, 48% Fuel Tax = $32.16 + 6.70. From $100 I earned $71.86 goes to the government in tax.... tell me that is not ridiculous.
I've never met anyone who had to pay 72% of their income to the government in taxes. You're right, that sounds ridiculous and it must be awful to try to live that way unless the government supplies decent food, housing, transportation, and medical services at no additional charge.

I live in America and I just did my taxes. I paid a total of just under 3% for local and federal income taxes. Local sales taxes are 5.5% for non-food items. Fuel taxes are higher than sales taxes but, theoretically, they are used for building and maintaining highways which, in America, are pretty good overall. I have to question your math a little bit, though. You seem to be saying that for every $100 you earn you have to pay around $39 in fuel tax. Are you saying you fill your gas tank several times a day?

To be honest, I get deductions and exemptions that lower my income tax because I'm retired. But even when I was working and making 50% more than I am now I was only paying 11 to 12 percent in federal income tax. Add in local and social security taxes and the total would still be significantly less than 33%, and some of that funded the income I am enjoying right now so I can't complain. Maybe you should move to America. But wait to see if we survive Trump before you consider that. ;)
 
Last edited:

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
182
Role
Diaper Lover
But they don't, look at the comment to apple, who was at a trillion at one time (now like 700 bil cuz of their bad designs with iphone xr etc?) but it stated they do not pay taxes in ANY country....
Strictly speaking, they do pay taxes, just not corporate income tax. If you are employed by Apple in the United States they pay around 7% of your salary (below $130k) in FICA taxes. They pay property taxes on their properties, and sales taxes on items they purchase. When they pay their employees that causes the employees to pay taxes. Apple generates tons of sales taxes for states and cities based on all the iPhones and iPads they sell.

Corporations and people pay taxes even if they don't pay income tax.

the top 1% of 1% do not pay their fare share though these loop holes and I do not see apple doing us favors.
The top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 90%, which is as a progressive tax system should be. My issue with Apple and corporate tax isn't that Apple isn't paying income taxes. Instead it's that it is encouraged to keep the money abroad instead of spending it in the US.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
The top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 90%, which is as a progressive tax system should be. My issue with Apple and corporate tax isn't that Apple isn't paying income taxes. Instead it's that it is encouraged to keep the money abroad instead of spending it in the US.
closing loopholes to pay corporate income tax, as you put it, will help with the issue putting some of that money back in our economy.
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,234
Role
Private
The top 1% pay more taxes than the bottom 90%, which is as a progressive tax system should be.
Statements like this can be misleading. It's possible that, dollar for dollar, the top 1% are paying more federal income tax than the bottom 90%, but they can still be paying at a much lower rate than many of the wage earners in the lower 90%. I did find information on the web that supports your statement, but, when looking at similar comparisons on the same pages for the top 10 or 20 percent, there were some terms used that could lead to false conclusions if not carefully read. For example, sometimes it said "federal income tax" and other times it said "federal tax income". The two aren't the same. Federal tax income includes all sources of income from taxes the government receives, not just federal income tax.

Also, it wasn't always clear who this 90% referred to. Was it the population in general, or just those that earned a wage? If it was "wage earners" we maybe should consider whether all wage earners should be included, or just those above the poverty level. A significant portion of the population too poor to pay taxes would definitely skew the interpretation of the results.

In the 1% vs 90% example it specified "wage earners" and "federal income tax", and the conclusion was that the upper 1% were paying federal income taxes at a higher rate. I'll assume this is true, so this would seem to prove your point. But - it didn't specify if it was referring to all the money an individual received for the year, or if it was just the money reported as income. Many of the people in the 90% group are hourly workers, which means their income is reported to the federal government before they even see their checks. Most of the upper 1% have the luxury of reporting their own income, and they aren't required to report all money they receive as "income". Much of it can be reported as capital gains and may not have been included in the calculations the example is based on. The upper 1% are also more likely to claim more business deductions, and the legal distinction between "business trip" and "vacation" can be blurred. These and other things the upper 1% can do, some legal, some not, will reduce their reported income and skew the figures to show them paying a higher tax rate.
 
Last edited:

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
182
Role
Diaper Lover
Also, it wasn't always clear who this 90% referred to. Was it the population in general, or just those that earned a wage? If it was "wage earners" we maybe should consider whether all wage earners should be included, or just those above the poverty level. A significant portion of the population too poor to pay taxes would definitely skew the interpretation of the results.
If I understand correctly, it was everyone who had income and filed a tax return.

Many of the people in the 90% group are hourly workers, which means their income is reported to the federal government before they even see their checks. Most of the upper 1% have the luxury of reporting their own income, and they aren't required to report all money they receive as "income". Much of it can be reported as capital gains and may not have been included in the calculations the example is based on.
I don't think you understand correctly. Capital gains, dividends are considered "unearned income" and can be taxed at different rates, but they are most certainly income and they are very rarely "self-reported". My brokerage provides a 1099-B each year to summarize my capital gains/losses, and I get 1099-DIV and 1099-INT forms for my dividends and interest.

I don't disagree with you that people could be paying a lower rate if their income is structured differently, but it's certainly counted for the purposes of the statistics.
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,234
Role
Private
If I understand correctly, it was everyone who had income and filed a tax return.

I don't think you understand correctly. Capital gains, dividends are considered "unearned income" and can be taxed at different rates, but they are most certainly income and they are very rarely "self-reported". My brokerage provides a 1099-B each year to summarize my capital gains/losses, and I get 1099-DIV and 1099-INT forms for my dividends and interest.

I don't disagree with you that people could be paying a lower rate if their income is structured differently, but it's certainly counted for the purposes of the statistics.
I found a 2017 report titled "Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update" that was based on 2014 tax data. It used "Share of Adjusted Gross Income" which, to me, implies, reported income on tax returns. The data in the report was similar to statistics I'd seen for 2015.

It shows the top 1% paying nearly 40% of the total federal income tax. This certainly makes it look like the super rich are paying their fair share in our progressive tax system. But "fair" is a political or moral opinion, not a fact. There are other ways to view this particular statistic, which is why I say it can be misleading.

Another way to look at this is to say (from the same report) the upper 1%, alone, reported nearly double the amount of the total income reported by the lower 50%, yet they pay only 40% of the taxes. The remaining 49% make close to 70% of total income yet pay less than 60% of the federal income tax. Now the question of fairness isn't so obvious.
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
182
Role
Diaper Lover
I found a 2017 report titled "Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2016 Update" that was based on 2014 tax data. It used "Share of Adjusted Gross Income" which, to me, implies, reported income on tax returns. The data in the report was similar to statistics I'd seen for 2015.
Got a link? I'd love to read it and then we'll be discussing the same numbers.
 

Drifter

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,234
Role
Private
Got a link? I'd love to read it and then we'll be discussing the same numbers.
https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

A bar chart part way down under the heading "Half of Taxpayers Pay 97.3 Percent of All Income Taxes" is what I was looking at for the figures I used.

Just under that is the heading "High-Income Taxpayers Pay the Highest Average Tax Rates".

My point is: assuming these statements and figures are true, and disregarding questionable deductions, reporting methods, and recent tax law changes, the question still remains: are the wealthy paying too much, too little, or the right amount in income taxes?
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
This thread seems to be getting off topic.
It is, but I am just overall frustrated with trump in general, and this shutdown really broke it for me

At this point I do not even understand why people back this fool, with all the nonsense tweets he makes, showing this shutdown is a lost cause and is he going to pull it again Friday?
 

ZetaSonic

Est. Contributor
Messages
159
Role
Diaper Lover
Worth remembering which recent president called the founder of the Democratic party his favourite president and had his portrait installed in the most prominent area of the Oval Office. Hint: it wasn’t Obama, Clinton, Carter, LBJ or JFK.
So the Switch thesis only kicks in when you're placed in a bad light? Okay.
 
Top