Who Pays Almost All Federal Income Tax?

[Purge_WTF]

<MELTDOWN>

I just finished my taxes for 2007.

I OWE $6222 (FVCK YOU very much AMT). If I didn't switch companies last year and pay more to social security (which I'll never ever fvcking get back) I'd owe around $10,000 (another MIDDLE CLASS family I know owes $20,000).

I claim married ZERO on my W-4 as does my wife. I've maxed out my 401k contributions. There is only so much you can (legally) do to make your taxable income smaller.

I am, by no fvcking means, a rich man. Even though my taxable income (between my wife and I) almost hits 300k a year I am like every other middle class schmuck that gets up early and goes to work every day to support his family and try to give his children a better life than the one he had a kid.

I'm so fvcking mad I could punch a kitten. 

So help me God it's going to take every ounce of self control to not punch the next fvcking liberal in the neck that tells me because I make "too much" I can afford to pay more fvcking taxes.

This is why I will NEVER vote for ANY politician that thinks it's okay to fuck us by raising our taxes. I don't care if your poor, middle class, or rich. If you work for it and earn it it's YOURS.

I'm so goddamn sick and tired of the government pissing away our tax dollars on stupid fucking bullshit. What the fvck are we paying for?

</MELTDOWN>

  Gee, W8--why don't you tell us how you really feel?

[drkaje]

Beach,

Your article explains precisely why lower income people are willing to believe healthcare will be free.

[Straw Man]

Sounds like around 47% of the people in this country can completely ignore the hysterical right wing pundits who are screaming that Obama is going to raise their taxes.     Shit, given that these people pay no taxes at all you'd think the pundits would actually be in favor of raising their taxes rather than falsing warning about it

Does anyone know the % of corporations that pay no federal income tax?

[drkaje]

Sounds like around 47% of the people in this country can completely ignore the hysterical right wing pundits who are screaming that Obama is going to raise their taxes.     Shit, given that these people pay no taxes at all you'd think the pundits would actually be in favor of raising their taxes rather than falsing warning about it

Does anyone know the % of corporations that pay no federal income tax?

Isn't there a minimum tax "around 47% of the people in this country" would end up paying for their health care under the new plan? Someone will probably argue it's unfair and offset it with a tax cut... err, I mean credit or ECI modification.

[Skip8282]

Sounds like around 47% of the people in this country can completely ignore the hysterical right wing pundits who are screaming that Obama is going to raise their taxes.     Shit, given that these people pay no taxes at all you'd think the pundits would actually be in favor of raising their taxes rather than falsing warning about it

Does anyone know the % of corporations that pay no federal income tax?

Why should they?  Who do you think really pays that tax?

[Straw Man]

Isn't there a minimum tax "around 47% of the people in this country" would end up paying for their health care under the new plan? Someone will probably argue it's unfair and offset it with a tax cut... err, I mean credit or ECI modification.

I don't know the answer to your question

btw - that 47% still pays FICA and a few other taxes (spme will pay state taxes too)

still, it seems that more individuals (as a percentage of the total) pay federal income tax than do corporations

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

[Dos Equis]

Beach,

Your article explains precisely why lower income people are willing to believe healthcare will be free.

It will essentially be free because a small percentage of the population will shoulder an even greater tax burden. 

[drkaje]

I don't know the answer to your question

btw - that 47% still pays FICA and a few other taxes (spme will pay state taxes too)

still, it seems that more individuals (as a percentage of the total) pay federal income tax than do corporations

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812

Maybe that will change since the Supreme Court has decided corporations may be treated as individuals for the purposes of political donations.

[Dos Equis]

Three years later, Pelosi et al. are still playing class warfare. 

I'm going to bump another article I posted a while back about who shoulders the income tax burden in this country. 

[Kazan]

Three years later, Pelosi et al. are still playing class warfare. 

I'm going to bump another article I posted a while back about who shoulders the income tax burden in this country. 

But they are rich

[Dos Equis]

Decker will love this.   

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes
By Stephen Moore
From the November/December 2007 Issue

Yes, income in America is skewed toward the rich. But taxes are skewed far, far more. The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes. STEPHEN MOORE has the numbers.
1. Are income taxes fair?

That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, com­pared with 37 percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?

The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.

But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare the taxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimed taxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?

No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 per­cent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.

5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?

They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.

6. What is the economic logic behind these lower tax rates?

As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.

7. Are lower tax rates responsi­ble for the big budget deficits of recent decades?

There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts.

8. Do the rich pay more taxes because they are earning more of the income in America?

Yes. There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.

What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.

9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?

No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.

10. Does the tax distribu­tion look a lot different if we factor in other federal taxes, such as the payroll tax?

It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

11. How do tax rates in the United States compare with tax rates abroad?

Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the United States than they are in most other industrial nations. This gives America a competitive edge in world markets. But America’s lead in low tax rates is shrinking. For example, the United States now has the second-highest corporate income tax in the developed world, after Japan. Our personal income tax rate is still low by historical standards. But in recent years many European and Pacific Rim nations have been slashing income taxes—there are now ten Eastern European nations with flat-tax rates between 12 percent and 25 percent—while the political pressure in Washington, D.C., is to raise them.

12. Do tax cuts on investment income, such as George W. Bush’s reductions in tax rates on capital gains and dividends, pri­marily benefit wealthy stockowners?

The New York Times reported that America’s millionaires raked in 43 percent of the investment tax cut benefits in 2003. It’s true that lower tax rates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut.

The same phenomenon occurred with the capital gains tax, which is essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply holding onto their stock, home, or business. This “lock-in” effect, as it is called, can be economically inefficient, since owners have a tax incentive to keep poor investments, rather than drawing out the cash and putting it into assets that are more productive. When the capital gains tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other enterprises.

The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.

This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between 2003 and 2005. Capital gains tax receipts also far outpaced the revenues that the government’s static models predicted. Between 2003 and 2007, actual tax receipts exceeded expectations by $207 billion.

Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a contrib­utor to CNBC TV. He was the founder of the Club for Growth and has served as a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. His latest book is “Bullish on Bush: How George Bush’s Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger” (Madison Books).
 
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Bump.

[Dos Equis]

But they are rich

The "rich" don't deserve to keep more of their own money. 

[tonymctones]

cue straw man to say that they dont pay enough

[Dos Equis]

Article from a year ago.  Just to put the corporate tax issue in context.  The government collects billions in corporate taxes from the ten largest U.S. companies.  If we were to look at all Fortune 500 companies, we'd see the same thing.  We'd also see the same thing from small businesses.  This notion that corporations are not paying taxes is a liberal canard.   


What the Top U.S. Companies Pay in Taxes
by Christopher Helman
Friday, April 2, 2010

As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do -- that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric (NYSE: GE - News). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

How did this happen? It's complicated. GE's tax return is the largest the IRS deals with each year -- some 24,000 pages if printed out. Its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission weighs in at more than 700 pages.

Inside you'll find that GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else -- maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like -- would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company.

It's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. The timing of big deductions for depreciation in GE Capital's equipment leasing business also provides a tax benefit, as will loan losses left over from the credit crunch.

But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%.

Corporations are getting smarter, not just about doing more business in low-tax countries, but in moving their more valuable assets there as well. That means setting up overseas subsidiaries, then transferring to them ownership of long-lived, often intangible but highly profitable assets, like patents and software.

As a result, figures tax economist Martin Sullivan, companies are keeping some $28 billion a year out of the clutches of the U.S. Treasury by engaging in so-called transfer pricing arrangements, where, say, Microsoft's (NYSE: MSFT - News) overseas subsidiaries license software to its U.S. parent company in return for handsome royalties (that get taxed at those lower overseas rates).

"Corporations are paying lower amounts of their profits in taxes now than in the past," says Douglas Schackelford, who teaches tax law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Other countries have been lowering their rates, but not the U.S."

Mind you, not all global megacorps enjoy such low tax rates. Try to muster some pity for Big Oil. ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM - News) paid more income taxes than any other U.S. company last year, some $15 billion, or 47% of pretax earnings. Exxon's peers Chevron (NYSE: CVX - News) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP - News) likewise paid out more than half their earnings in income taxes. The oil companies are oddities among the multinationals because many of the oil-rich countries where they do business levy even higher taxes than the U.S.

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

Likewise, GE has $84 billion in overseas income parked indefinitely outside the U.S.

Naturally the Obama administration wants to put an end to this. It has proposed doing away with tax deferrals on overseas income. If the plan passes, a U.S. company that pays a 25% tax on profits in China would have to pay an additional 10% income tax to Uncle Sam to bring it up to the 35% corporate rate. "Eliminating deferrals would put U.S. companies on an unlevel playing field," says the Tax Foundation's Hodge, "especially if competing with the likes of Germany, which only taxes companies on domestic operations."

Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ - News) and others among the top 25 state in their annual reports that if Obama's tax measures pass it would mean a certain tax hike, probably amounting to billions of dollars.

Would no more tax holiday for GE really end up helping Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer? Doubtful. "The average Joe should be in favor of lower corporate taxes," says Hodge, "because ultimately they are paying the corporate income tax. Either as workers, getting lower wages and fewer jobs, or as consumers, paying higher prices, or as retirees, getting lower dividends and earnings on their investments."

In the same vein, JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM - News) Chief Executive Jamie Dimon has spoken out against an Obama proposal to levy a special tax on banks to recoup bailout costs. "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea," said Dimon. "All businesses tend to pass costs on to customers."

No. 1: Wal-Mart Stores

Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images
Sales: $401 billion
Pretax income: $20.9 billion
Income taxes: $7.1 billion
Tax rate: 34.2%

$1.2 billion of Wal-Mart Stores' taxes are international.

No. 2: ExxonMobil

Eric Thayer/Getty Images
Sales: $311 billion
Pretax income: $35 billion
Income taxes: $15 billion
Tax rate: 47%

None of ExxonMobil's income taxes were paid in the U.S. In 2008 the company's income tax bill was $36 billion.

No. 3: Chevron

David McNew/Getty Images
Sales: $172 billion
Pretax income: $18.5 billion
Income taxes: $8 billion
Tax rate: 43%

Chevron paid $19 billion income tax in 2008. Of this year's taxes, just $200 million were paid in the U.S.

No. 4: General Electric

AP Photo/Paul Sakuma
Sales: $157 billion
Pretax income: $10.3 billion
Income taxes: (-$1.1 billion)
Tax rate: N/A

How Can It Be That You Pay More to the IRS Than General Electric?

GE's financial services unit, GE Capital, keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. and make lots of money overseas, where tax rates are lower.

No. 5: ConocoPhillips


AP Photo/David Zalubowski
Sales: $152 billion
Pretax income: $10 billion
Income taxes: $5 billion
Tax rate: 51%

ConocoPhillips paid $13 billion in taxes in 2008.

No. 6: AT&T

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sales: $123 billion
Pretax income: $19 billion
Income taxes: $6.2 billion
Tax rate: 32.4%

AT&T's executive officers are eligible to bill the company $14,000 a year for their own income tax preparations.

No. 7: Bank of America

David McNew/Getty Images
Sales: $120 billion
Pretax income: $4.4 billion
Income taxes: (-$1.9 billion)
Tax rate: N/A

How did Bank of America not pay any taxes on $4.4 billion in income? Because of deductions like $860 million in tax-exempt income, $670 million in low-income housing credits and a $600 million loss on shares of foreign subsidiaries. With a provision for credit losses of $49 billion, Bank of America probably won't be paying taxes for a long time.

No. 8: Ford Motor

Scott Olson/Getty Images
Sales: $118 billion
Pretax income: $3 billion
Income taxes: $69 million
Tax rate: 2.3%

Ford's tax rate is so low because of past years' losses from U.S. operations.


No. 9: Hewlett-Packard

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sales: $115 billion
Pretax income: $9.4 billion
Income taxes: $1.75 billion
Tax rate: 18.6%

HP's low tax rate is due to lower tax rates in foreign countries. The company says in its annual report that President Obama's proposals to end tax deferrals on international operations would mean a big tax hike.

No. 10: Berkshire Hathaway


Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Sales: $112 billion
Pretax income: $11.5 billion
Income taxes: $3.5 billion
Tax rate: 30%


http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/109244/what-the-top-us-companies-pay-in-taxes

[tonymctones]

NOT ENOUGH...WE WANT IT ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dos Equis]

NOT ENOUGH...WE WANT IT ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me about it. 

[Dos Equis]

Zogby: Majority Wants Cuts Rather Than New Taxes
Monday, 11 Jul 2011

UTICA, NY - Nine in 10 voters say it is important for Congress and President Barack Obama to reduce the nation's long-term debt, and a majority prefer spending cuts over increased revenues as the means of accomplishing that goal, a new IBOPE Zogby Interactive poll finds.

The July 8-11 survey finds two-thirds favor means testing for Medicare based on a person's wealth, but similar percentages oppose reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security and reducing provider payments in Medicare and Medicaid.

There is strong agreement to reduce defense spending (60 percent), end some tax loopholes and preferences (85 percent) and to reduce discretionary spending outside of entitlements and defense (62 percent).

Two-thirds oppose ending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, yet voters are closely split on ending the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 annually and on lowering corporate tax rates.

The IBOPE Zogby interactive poll of 2,132 likely voters has a margin of error of +/-2.2%.

A sampling of IBOPE Zogby International's online panel, which is representative of the adult population of the U.S., was invited to participate. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, gender and education to more accurately reflect the population.

IBOPE Zogby International is a non-partisan, premier global public opinion polling and market research firm that offers timely, accurate results and in-depth analysis and insights. IBOPE Zogby International works with issue experts in a vast array of fields including healthcare, technology, finance, insurance, energy, agriculture, public affairs, and media who offer insightful data analysis and exceptional service to clients in countries throughout the world.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/zogby-majority-want-debt/2011/07/11/id/403233

[whork25]

Must rich people are born that way they out of touch with the average american and just wants to get richer.
Think Wall Street their ass is full of money but in their greed they need more and fucks up the economy and as always the poor pays. But yeah it so sad that somebody wants to raise their taxes  buh-fucking-huu:

[tonymctones]

Must rich people are born that way they out of touch with the average american and just wants to get richer.
Think Wall Street their ass is full of money but in their greed they need more and fucks up the economy and as always the poor pays. But yeah it so sad that somebody wants to raise their taxes  buh-fucking-huu:

you have stats to back up your claims?

what do you consider rich?

[Soul Crusher]

Blacken is so full of it.

[Freeborn126]

It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings.  The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%.  If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.   

[Soul Crusher]

It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings.  The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%.  If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.   

END OF THREAD.   

[Mr. Magoo]

It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings.  The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%.  If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.   

the U.S. gov steal the fruits of our labor and punish hardworking americans and what have they ever given us in return

[Dos Equis]

It should be a crime to take 31% of anyone's earnings.  The highest income tax rate should be no more than 10%.  If the government lived within its means that is all they would need for national defense and essential services.   

   I agree with the gimmick. 

[whork25]

The carpenter doesn't work any harder than the "millionaire."  The person with a net worth of a million in all likelihood worked extremely hard to make their money and increase assets/eliminate debt.  There are millionaire carpenters too. 

Most millionaires arent self-made. You have a "romantic" wiev on this shit. All the shit Wall Street does, politicians etc. They are dirtbags and because they have had an easy life they dont have a personallity and is totally dis-connected from the real world.