|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Dec 24, 2007 14:54
Maybe someone can explain this to me;
For years, people of wealth have used a combination
of tax loopholes and clever accountants
to reduce their Federal Tax burden to ZERO.
The AMT ( Alternative Minimum Tax ) was enacted
so everyone would pay "their fair share".
As I understand it, if you gross more than "X dollars",
your minimum tax burden will be a flat percentage,
regardless of what sort of deductions you have.
( sounds fair to me )
Congress is complaining that now, this affects
middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
and the numbers should be juggled.
????
What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
|
| |
|
| | 26 Comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Dec 24, 2007 15:09
wrote
> Maybe someone can explain this to me;
> For years, people of wealth have used a
> combination of tax loopholes and clever accountants
> to reduce their Federal Tax burden to ZERO.
Thats where you are going wrong, most dont manage to get it to zero.
> The AMT ( Alternative Minimum Tax ) was
> enacted so everyone would pay "their fair share".
Its more complicated than that too.
> As I understand it, if you gross more than "X dollars",
> your minimum tax burden will be a flat percentage,
> regardless of what sort of deductions you have.
> ( sounds fair to me )
> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or
> more, and the numbers should be juggled.
> ????
> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: imascotimascot Date: Dec 24, 2007 18:06
" " localnet.com> wrote in news:q3e0n31jqgibmjq8sf6k9skpi6fmnl41b7@4ax.com:
> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
> and the numbers should be juggled.
>
> ????
>
> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>
> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>
>
>
|
| Show full article (0.95Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JeffJeff Date: Dec 24, 2007 19:45
jdoe wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:06:18 GMT, imascot
> wrote:
>
>> " " localnet.com> wrote in news:q3e0n31jqgibmjq8sf6k9skpi6fmnl41b7@4ax.com:
>>>>> Congress is complaining that now, this affects
>>> middle class folks with incomes of $75,000 or more,
>>> and the numbers should be juggled.
>>>
>>> ????
>>>
>>> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>>>
>>> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>>> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Is $75,000 per year considered a double income where you are? Where I am, (east coast) $75,000 ...
|
| Show full article (2.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Dec 24, 2007 20:21
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:12:27 -0500, jdoe aol.com> wrote:>>What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>>
>>If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>>then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>>
>>
>obviously you are an ignoramus
>
> the AMT was implemented back in the 60s to nail the super rich who
>by various means avoided much of the taxes.
> back when the AMT was implemented the tax rate on these people was
>about 90%%, so who could blame them for seeking loopholes,
>anyway the AMT was never indexed for inflation and now that many
>families are earning over 6 figures they are getting caught up by the
>AMT which limits most deductions and causes these families to pay even
>higher taxes.
>
The AMT intent is;
"You pay a percentage of your income, ...
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Rod SpeedRod Speed Date: Dec 24, 2007 20:46
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:12:27 -0500, jdoe aol.com> wrote:>>> What s unfair about paying SOME taxes ?
>>>
>>> If it applys to the McDonalds employee,
>>> then why not to the double-income yuppie ?
>>>
>>>
>> obviously you are an ignoramus
>>
>> the AMT was implemented back in the 60s to nail the super rich who
>> by various means avoided much of the taxes.
>> back when the AMT was implemented the tax rate on these people was
>> about 90%%, so who could blame them for seeking loopholes,
>> anyway the AMT was never indexed for inflation and now that many
>> families are earning over 6 figures they are getting caught up by the
>> AMT which limits most deductions and causes these families to pay
>> even higher taxes.
|
| Show full article (1.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tony SivoriTony Sivori Date: Dec 24, 2007 22:14
jdoe wrote:
> I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
> 10%% of earners in the US pay about 95%% of the taxes.
--
Tony Sivori
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: clams_casinoclams_casino Date: Dec 25, 2007 04:32
jdoe wrote:
>
>I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
>10%% of earners in the US pay about 95%% of the taxes.
>
>
Care to provide ANY reference to support such a wild statement? Or is
that a Rush statistic?
In 2004, the top 10%% paid $567M of the $832B dollars of federal income
taxes collected in 2004 (68%%). Of course, that's only federal income
tax.
http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/pr.pdf shows the top 1%% pay about 7%% in
state and local taxes vs. about 10%% for average earners.
Furthermore, average earners pay about 7.7%% for FICA taxes vs. 0.8%% for
the top 1%% (taxed income is capped at about $90,000)
When you factor in all taxes, the percent taxes paid by the wealthy
tend to be quite similar to others. Bottom line, the wealthy pay more
taxes simply because they have more of the wealth / have higher incomes,
but the percentage tends to be relatively similar.
|
| Show full article (1.63Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: clams_casinoclams_casino Date: Dec 25, 2007 05:05
jdoe wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:32:00 -0500, clams_casino
> DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>jdoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't understand the losers like you who don't realize that the top
>>>10%%...
|
| Show full article (2.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clams_casinoclams_casino Date: Dec 25, 2007 05:50
jdoe wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:05:45 -0500, clams_casino
> DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>jdoe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:32:00 -0500, clams_casino
>>>
|
| Show full article (2.81Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
