I am not part of the top 1%, but I am embarrassed at the heat they are taking. According to the IRS, the top 1% of all income earners pay 40% of taxes. The top 10% of earners pay 90% of taxes. They are carrying a lot of water for the rest of us. You don’t want to hear it. But it is a fact. Continue to hammer these folks and they have the ability to make changes to avoid having more and more money confiscated by the government. You can only push people so far. Be careful what you ask for, it might come true.

————-

kwsventures: Pull out your handy dandy tax code book (or look it up on line) and you’ll see you are mistaken.
HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD:
Over $357,700 – the tax rate is 35% less $25,591 = taxable amount.

And you’ll get tons of deductions in addition to that.

It’s like saying we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world – also not true. Look it on Google. And, again, that’s before all the allowable tax deductions and loopholes.

The last time there was a 90% tax rate was during WWII when everyone making over $200,000 paid that rate.

Don’t believe the right wing talking points, they’re just more lies they spew to make people side with them…like “trickle down economics.” Just more of their BS.

But a better name for this tax might be the Paris Hilton lifestyle protection act. Can’t let those poor rich kids suffer.

It is a pity that Blanche Lincoln, who claims to be a democrat, is joining in this madness to rip off the rest of us to further line the pockets of a few, who I must say, are doing just fine without any of these. I hope the voters are paying attention to all these and will make their voices heard at the ballot boxes.

You may continue to call those of us who believe in personal responsibility “heartless” and “scrooge” all you want.

But we know that telling someone to take action to improve their lives, whether its going back to school, looking for ways to secure a better job, working longer hours to pay the bills, etc. is GOOD advice, much better advice than continuing to blame the world for your problems.

I don’t accept your attempt to shame those of us who actually work hard, sacrifice, and do pay the lions share of our county’s bills anymore!

You’ve missed my point. Paying more as a percentage of your income, and actually PAYING MORE, are two very different things.

The rich PAY MORE into all systems, SSI, income taxes, etc. You cannot torture logic to make it not so. They may pay a smaller percentage of their income into SSI than you do, but when all is said and done, they are still contributing more than you.

And yes, I am aware that those dollars are not actually set aside in some separate trust account as was promised. Our Congress has seen to that. The money is treated as just another tax, to be spent who knows where. To label something as a social security tax, and then treat it as another income tax, is a transparent attempt to soak the rich even more. Not falling for it.

You’ve become too used to a world that depends on producers to support takers, and yet feels justified in demonizing those very producers, because they still have some money left at the end of the day.

If you are such a heartless, ignorant, Ebenezer Scrooge worshipping moron that your post really shows you attitude then normal humans dont really care WHAT you think

HAMMERING THEM? They have gotten the lions share of the tax cuts since 1980 and no one is even talking about them going back to PRE Reagan rates, just giving SOME of those cuts back. The Estate tax is a COMPLETELY different argument. Only 2% of all estates even GET taxed. IF we did away with the estate tax there is some income that would NEVER be taxed. Since capital gains are only paid when the stocks are sold. Once negated by doing away with the estate tax all the gains made by those stocks during his lifetime will just be TAX FREE INCOME

But when SSI is added into the calculation of total taxes paid as a percentage of yearly income, the upper 5% of earners don’t pay the majority of all taxes. That is a lie peddled by right-wing think-tanks, and their synchophants.

Oh, please.

We both know it goes right into the general fund, and the system is issued an IOU for the future benefits, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. All of my contributions go to the general fund, as does the money of folks who make more than the cap — so your argument seems to be, allowing billionaires to contribute 100,000 a year to the system, and not pay on all the rest is “paying their fair share,” even though it is an infinitesmal amount of what they earn in a given year, while I must pay on evey dollar I earn.

It’s just silly to assert they are paying as much as those making less than the cap – and there are exponentially more of the latter, so it’s a benefit most taxpayers don’t enjoy.

Strawman, much?

Did I say I was entitled to another’s SSI benefits?

Where?

I said they should pay on every dollar they earn, in a given year, not limited to the first $100,000, or whatever the cap currently is.

They can also collect on their contributions, and pass their benefits along to their survivors, so the estate tax would be unnecessary.

Did I say that?

No, I said each collects commensurate with their contributions. If one pays in more, because they make more, they are entitled to get a refund based upon what they put in. I also said, to offset this, go ahead and eliminate the estate tax, as it effects so few families anyway.

Your argument that because of SSI, the rich don’t pay more than “the rest of us”, doesn’t make sense. If the rich are defined as those who earn up to and beyond the income cap, then logic tells us they pay more into SSI than someone who is paying on a lesser income.

But not on every dollar earned. If someone makes 500,000, and his neighbor makes $100,000, he is receiving a tax break on the 400,000 that his neigbor doesn’t enjoy. That is preferential treatment, no matter how you slice it. He should have to pay a percentage of every dollar earned, and then be allowed to collect benefits equal to his contribution. The SSI administration already issues statements telling taxpayers what they can expect to collect, based upon their contributions, so I don’t see what your problem is understanding the point.

Your argument that because of SSI, the rich don’t pay more than “the rest of us”, doesn’t make sense. If the rich are defined as those who earn up to and beyond the income cap, then logic tells us they pay more into SSI than someone who is paying on a lesser income. You just don’t like that they don’t pay SSI on ALL of their income. Again, this is supposed to be money entrusted to the government for the benefit of the individual who contributed it, not for all to share.

So no, you are not entitled to someone else’s SSI benefits.

Your idea of fair share seems to mean that the more you make, the more you should pay in SSI.

I have to pay into the system on every dollar I earn. Those who make an income that exceeds the cap should also pay on every dollar they earn. You seem to think they are deserving of a lower tax rate than I, who doesn’t make enough to beat the cap. But since you haven’t attempted to debunk my rebuttal (that the rich don’t pay more in taxes, when SSI is factored in) I guess you now agree that they don’t pay more than the rest of us.

This is supposed to be money that the government collects from the employed, for their own benefit when they retire.

And the rich should be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money, than I, because they are more deserving? If that was an attempt at rebuttal, perhaps you should look the word up in a dictionary, and try again.

You can’t always justify taking more than you contribute.

Hey, let them get SSI retirement payments commensurate with what they contributed, after the cap is eliminated. But make them pay on every dollar earned, just like I have to. The SSI cap was originally enacted, to keep the rich from moving their assets offshore, and to spur business investment in the US. Since we’re now on the verge of a socialist takeover of the economy, because the government’s scheme (including the cap on SSI to spur investment), has failed horribly, it’s apparent the cap has done little to make the economy grow, so we should scrap it, and have everyone pay in on every dollar earned. That would make the wealthy more invested in making sure SSI funds aren’t wasted.

But I guess that’s a bad thing to most conservatives, who have always wanted SSI to fail.

This is supposed to be money that the government collects from the employed, for their own benefit when they retire.

You can’t always justify taking more than you contribute.

When they start paying their fair share of SSI then you’ll have something to criticize. Why do right-wingers alway tell only half the story — usually the self-serving half?

Wrong. When SSI payroll deductions are factored in, they don’t pay more that any one else, and the super rich pay even less, whe SSI is added to the mix.

That was a really weak attempt.