AP: Rich pay WAY HIGHER % in taxes than middle class

[greenforest32]

When you factor in ALL taxes (income, payroll, sales) people with a lower income pay a proportionally higher % of their total income in taxes than a rich person who makes more (especially when you consider they make such a large amount of their money in capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate) but even then, if the rich contribute a proportionately higher share then working/middle class people, so what?

The OP doesn't seem to have a problem with the extremely regressive tax system (no income tax and a high sales tax) in his state of Texas where the poor contribute a proportionately higher share:

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/tx_whopays_factsheet.pdf

[greenforest32]

When you factor in ALL taxes (income, payroll, sales) people with a lower income pay a proportionally higher % of their total income in taxes than a rich person who makes more (especially when you consider they make such a large amount of their money in capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate) but even then, if the rich contribute a proportionately higher share then working/middle class people, so what?

The OP doesn't seem to have a problem with the extremely regressive tax system (no income tax and a high sales tax) in his state of Texas where the poor contribute a proportionately higher share:

http://www.itepnet.org/wp2009/tx_whopays_factsheet.pdf

OK, let’s go to the chalk board.  It’s chalk board time.  Chalk board time for greenforest32…

Texan making over million year:  3% state taxes + 24.4% Federal Taxes = 27.4%

Texan making 20-30k year       :   12.2% state taxes + 5.7% Federal Taxes = 17.9%

Now, where I come from 27.4% > 17.9%...So, I don’t know what car wash you work that hired you with those kind of math skills, but it wasn’t owned by me.  In fact, I don’t even own a car wash.

I'm trying to find the numbers you cite and compare them but your article is really unclear when it says federal taxes if it includes income, payroll, and others. So this is the first comparison:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is income, payroll, and other taxes for all three groups (high, middle, and lower) or income/payroll/other for the first and just income for the second two (middle and lower)?

And why do you pull the 24.4% number from the second comparison that only includes income taxes?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[greenforest32]

OK, let’s go to the chalk board.  It’s chalk board time.  Chalk board time for greenforest32…

Texan making over million year:  3% state taxes + 24.4% Federal Taxes = 27.4%

Texan making 20-30k year       :   12.2% state taxes + 5.7% Federal Taxes = 17.9%

Now, where I come from 27.4% > 17.9%...So, I don’t know what car wash you work that hired you with those kind of math skills, but it wasn’t owned by me.  In fact, I don’t even own a car wash.

I'm trying to find the numbers you cite and compare them but your article is really unclear when it says federal taxes if it includes income, payroll, and others. So this is the first comparison:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So this is income, payroll, and other taxes for all three groups (high, middle, and lower) or income/payroll/other for the first and just income for the second two (middle and lower)?

No wonder you flunked math, you can’t even read the math problems on the test.

I asked a simple question: does the first comparison include income and payroll taxes for all three groups or not? It's ambiguous in the article and people making 10-30k paying only 5.7% seems very inaccurate when you consider the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes add up to 7.65% on their own (6.2% + 1.45%) on the employee side.

And I don't have a problem with richer people paying a higher % of their total income if that's what you're concerned about.

[greenforest32]

---

I asked a simple question: does the first comparison include income and payroll taxes for all three groups or not? It's ambiguous in the article and people making 10-30k paying only 5.7% seems very inaccurate when you consider the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes add up to 7.65% on their own (6.2% + 1.45%) on the employee side.

6.2% + 1.45% + earned income credit for making wrong choices and flunking basic reading and math = 5.7%

The earned income tax credit does not apply to payroll taxes, only to income taxes (which make up none of that 7.65% btw)

I have a problem with Obama using lies to tax them more when they're already paying more than their "fair share"

So it's a lie that hedgefund managers use the carried interest technicality to pay a 15% income tax rate instead of 35%? Warren Buffett is a billionaire, not a millionaire. There's a big difference between the two. He pays a lower effective tax rate than his middle income employees and I imagine that's what the supposed 'Buffett' rule is going to address although we don't have the specifics as the details haven't been released on it yet.

[greenforest32]

6.2% + 1.45% + earned income credit for making wrong choices and flunking basic reading and math = 5.7%

The earned income tax credit does not apply to payroll taxes, only to income taxes (which make up none of that 7.65% btw)

so you really do have a problem with math - it's still a negative income tax rate

so...

6.2% +1.45% + x = 5.7%
x = 5.7% -6.25% -1.45%

x = -1.95% effective federal income tax rate

in some cases, it's a -45% (negative forty-five percent), so that would be 6.2% + 1.45% - 45% =

-37.35%

…that’s a NEGATIVE THIRTY-SEVEN POINT ONE FIVE PERCENT!!!   And that is BEFORE government handouts like welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

Why didn't you just write it like that in the beginning? It's more much clear.

I have a problem with Obama using lies to tax them more when they're already paying more than their "fair share"

So it's a lie that hedgefund managers use the carried interest technicality to pay a 15% income tax rate instead of 35%? Warren Buffett is a billionaire, not a millionaire. There's a big difference between the two. He pays a lower effective tax rate than his middle income employees and I imagine that's what the supposed 'Buffett' rule is going to address although we don't have the specifics as the details haven't been released on it yet.

It’s a lie to use than <1% of those making over $1M/year as an example to justify taxing the other 99%.

Obama is out of ideas and out of quarters, and he’ll soon be out of office….all he has left is lies.

Hasn't he been calling for the end of the Bush tax cuts for the upper brackets (i.e., bump the top rate from 35% back up to 39%)? I don't see how the 'Buffett rule' is inconsistent with taxing the wealthier.