Poker Hand Folded by Raid

[Charade You Are]

From the IRS (not Fox News)

​

​

Taxpayers filed 142.5 million returns for Tax Year 2008. Of those, 90.7 million (or 63.6 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents the lowest percentage in more than 23 years. A taxable return is a return that has total income tax greater than $0.​

With a population of 220 million over 21, thats 78 million that filed no tax return at all. Of the tax returns filed, 51.8 million paid no tax and 23 million of those actually got $ back that was more than the medicare and social security tax that they paid. So in essence 23 million received welfare payments from the IRS.​

In 1986, 81% of tax returns paid some tax now it's 63%. 47% of filers are paying no fed income tax. To me that's a bothersome figure. (As is the fact that GE paid no federal taxes.) About time we had some meaningful tax reform.​

And I am NOT a Republican.​

 

[BelgoSuisse]

From the IRS (not Fox News)

​

​

Taxpayers filed 142.5 million returns for Tax Year 2008. Of those, 90.7 million (or 63.6 percent) were classified as taxable returns. This represents the lowest percentage in more than 23 years. A taxable return is a return that has total income tax greater than $0.​

With a population of 220 million over 21, thats 78 million that filed no tax return at all. Of the tax returns filed, 51.8 million paid no tax and 23 million of those actually got $ back that was more than the medicare and social security tax that they paid. So in essence 23 million received welfare payments from the IRS.​

In 1986, 81% of tax returns paid some tax now it's 63%. 47% of filers are paying no fed income tax. To me that's a bothersome figure. (As is the fact that GE paid no federal taxes.) About time we had some meaningful tax reform.​

And I am NOT a Republican.​

I don't think this discussion is really going anywhere so this will be my last comment.

Considering that most other taxes are typically either flat or regressive, I don't understand why you find it problematic that the income tax is just sufficiently progressive to ensure the poorest in your country don't end up paying a higher percentage of their income as taxes than the richest. And yes, that requires negative income tax rates for the poorest Americans, but i don't understand why this is a problem per se. Why should we isolate this particular tax and make a fuss about it while what really matters is the overall tax burden?

Now you can keep quoting more and more numbers about the income tax, and I can keep quoting more and more about the overall tax burden, but it won't really move us any closer to an agreement.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Some 'e-penis' swingin' goin' on this thread. (what was this thread about again?).
I bet ya they don't try to bust Junior Soprano's home game.

 

[Rldetheflop]

I don't think this discussion is really going anywhere so this will be my last comment.

Considering that most other taxes are typically either flat or regressive, I don't understand why you find it problematic that the income tax is just sufficiently progressive to ensure the poorest in your country don't end up paying a higher percentage of their income as taxes than the richest. And yes, that requires negative income tax rates for the poorest Americans, but i don't understand why this is a problem per se. Why should we isolate this particular tax and make a fuss about it while what really matters is the overall tax burden?

Now you can keep quoting more and more numbers about the income tax, and I can keep quoting more and more about the overall tax burden, but it won't really move us any closer to an agreement.

I think its because the person who makes 30k a year will miss his/her 3k much more than someone making 200m a year will miss his 70m.

besides I dont think the issue is taxes from specific rich people who actually claim a salary in which to tax. Its the CEO's of major companies who pay themselves 1 dollar a year but have access to the business funds to live high on life with while the "business" gets tax breaks.