quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
You and some others on this thread remind me of the Russian Mentality. "I have one cow but my neighbor has two. What do I do? Find out a way to get another cow myself? No, I kill one of his cows. Now we're equal."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OK Einstein. You show me how a starving artist would pay more taxes now starting out than a few decades back.
I'll wait here. Forgive me if I multi-task while I wait.

Not my assertion to prove, MM. You claimed people are paying less now than before. I showed that they are paying more now than before. You brought in your personal observation and made claims of where you were and where you are now. Your story doesn't line up with the graph at all, which means, you probably aren't the "average" case in either quintile. But, even if you were right (which is yours to prove, not mine to disprove), your personal observation doesn't mean it's the case for everyone, or even for the average person in the same quintiles you were/are in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
I think you are making a rather stupid and misleading point.
If you have 100 units of wealth and 100 people --- and the top 5 of those people own 61 units of wealth and top 20 people own 84 units of wealth -- yes those top 20 will pay the highest amount of taxes. Why? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING OWN EVERYTHING.
You try to make it seem that poor people are freeloading off the super wealthy. THAT'S FUCKED UP. As in the scenario above, 5 people own 61 units of wealth.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhvYeQPOcE
What's interesting is that the super wealthy 1% pay a lower marginal tax rate then regular workers because most of their income is derived from capital gains. I think Mitt Romney confessed to paying taxes at a rate of 14.1%. As a percentage of his income he pays next to nothing in payroll taxes.

Fewer people have any Federal Income tax liability than they did in 2000. Fewer people in 2008 had Federal Income Tax liability than in 2000.

Your analysis of what I'm saying is flawed, as usual. I'm saying that taxpayers are paying more now than they did before, and that those in the higher income quintiles are paying a larger share of it. For all the blather about "the rich" not paying their "fair share," how do we define a "fair share?" Unless you have some set objective point at which you define a "fair share" that will apply to everyone, you're whining is nothing more than sour grapes.

Fact: The rich are paying an increasing share of Federal Income taxes.
Fact: The percentage of taxpayers with no Federal Income tax liability is rising.

You claim the top 20 people own 84% of the wealth. The graph shows they are shouldering 94% of the Federal Income tax burden. Wouldn't it be fair to reduce that burden down to 84%?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OK Einstein. You show me how a starving artist would pay more taxes now starting out than a few decades back.
I'll wait here. Forgive me if I multi-task while I wait.

Not my assertion to prove, MM. You claimed people are paying less now than before. I showed that they are paying more now than before. You brought in your personal observation and made claims of where you were and where you are now. Your story doesn't line up with the graph at all, which means, you probably aren't the "average" case in either quintile. But, even if you were right (which is yours to prove, not mine to disprove), your personal observation doesn't mean it's the case for everyone, or even for the average person in the same quintiles you were/are in.

You need to learn to read. You inserted yourself into a conversation about not total revenue, but about the feasibility of investing even from the bottom quintile. It's entirely irrelevant, and in the context of the discussion you chose to butt into, incorrect, as I've shown.
My "story" has nothing to do with your graph, which is on a different subject. And I've proven mine already. You, inadvertently, have disproved the objection another poster raised, so thanks, even though you're too blind to see it, because you didn't bother to actually read the argument you were joining.
So you remain arrogantly clueless. Good for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You're one of the most arrogant people on here, MM. I quoted exactly what I was responding to. That you can't follow along isn't my fault. You can claim any fucking stupid line of reasoning you want, but my posts addressed a specific comment you made, and absolutely blew your argument out of the water.

You can't deal with it. I get it. Arrogant fucks, generally, can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
A statement you completely removed from the context of the discussion it was in to pretend it was about a completely different matter.
You want to make-believe otherwise, fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

The hypothetical is that it is me as an example. It is anything but hypothetical for 1000's of real investors or investors in paper or things, taking real advantage of an immoral tax code.

Your beef is that an "investor class" is unfairly benefiting. My point is that being in "the investor class" is doable.

If it's only hypothetical for you, then you've planned poorly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

and to those making minimum wages and paying half their income in rent just to have a roof over their heads.. even for the poor back in your starving musician days it was easier to make & save money (people pay probably around 10% more now of their income in tax than back then).. [8|]

Exactly the other way around. People pay less tax now.

FY1993 Personal Income Tax (Federal) revenues: $509.68B (FY1993 dollars)[Source]
FY2013 Personal Income Tax (Federal) revenues: $1306.405B (FY2013 dollars) [Source]
FY1993 Personal Income Tax (Federal) revenues: $752.16B (FY2013 dollars) [Calculator Source]

Apparently, people pay more taxes now...

And, the Top 1% continue to shoulder a large burden of those taxes (which means they are paying that much more than before!).

[image]http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/tqpit_725_small.png[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Income tax is not capital gains tax...two different taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
A statement you completely removed from the context of the discussion it was in to pretend it was about a completely different matter.
You want to make-believe otherwise, fine.

You claimed that people aren't paying as much in taxes now as they used to. I totally debunked the fuck out of that. Now, you're saying it was taken out of context.

The thing is, MM, damn near everyone else would identify this as reality. You should join it some time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Income tax is not capital gains tax...two different taxes.

For individuals, capital gains aren't considered income, and capital gains taxes aren't part of income taxes for individuals?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

and to those making minimum wages and paying half their income in rent just to have a roof over their heads.. even for the poor back in your starving musician days it was easier to make & save money (people pay probably around 10% more now of their income in tax than back then).. [8|]

Exactly the other way around. People pay less tax now.

FY1993 Personal Income Tax (Federal) revenues: $509.68B (FY1993 dollars)[Source]
FY2013 Personal Income Tax (Federal) revenues: $1306.405B (FY2013 dollars) [Source]
FY1993 Personal Income Tax (Federal) revenues: $752.16B (FY2013 dollars) [Calculator Source]

Apparently, people pay more taxes now...

And, the Top 1% continue to shoulder a large burden of those taxes (which means they are paying that much more than before!).

[image]http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/tqpit_725_small.png[/image]

Income tax is not capital gains tax...two different taxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.

The hypothetical is that it is me as an example. It is anything but hypothetical for 1000's of real investors or investors in paper or things, taking real advantage of an immoral tax code.

Your beef is that an "investor class" is unfairly benefiting. My point is that being in "the investor class" is doable.

If it's only hypothetical for you, then you've planned poorly.

Well the numbers show that 80% of all long term capital gains tax is enjoyed by the top 10% of earners. I am in a very large club with what little I have enjoyed.

Most capitals gains tax advantage in dollar terms is in buying and selling real estate and large investmenst in stocks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
A statement you completely removed from the context of the discussion it was in to pretend it was about a completely different matter.
You want to make-believe otherwise, fine.

You claimed that people aren't paying as much in taxes now as they used to. I totally debunked the fuck out of that. Now, you're saying it was taken out of context.
The thing is, MM, damn near everyone else would identify this as reality. You should join it some time.

Fine, let's ignore the discussion you forced yourself into and have your discussion instead.
You are cherry picking how you define "people paying taxes." You're looking at total revenue. My point in the previous discussion that to rise to what some were calling "the investor class," taxes were not a barrier now vs a few decades back, because we're paying fewer taxes person to person, vs. as a group.
That's reality, O Paragon of Humility.
And nothing either of us said defies that. Happy? Feel like you've "won" yet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
But that's the difference. It's hypothetical to you.


and to those making minimum wages and paying half their income in rent just to have a roof over their heads.. even for the poor back in your starving musician days it was easier to make & save money (people pay probably around 10% more now of their income in tax than back then).. [8|]


Exactly the other way around. People pay less tax now.