Arizona Fishing Forums on AZBZ banner

Income Distribution

4K views 60 replies 21 participants last post by  StickBass 
#1 ·
I was reading some financial data(and some potential new taxes on the way), and found a stat that said if your household income is more than 118,200 your in the top 10%. Doesn't that seem a little low for the top 10% of the United States?

Im only bringing this up because when folks talk about raising taxes on the top 10%, top 5%, I dont think people know what that means...at least those idiot wall street occuuppy dummys dont



 
#5 ·
Interesting how the media has been able to twist the facts, eh?

For example, see the post immediately following yours.

Now, the top 10% income likely averages way more, but yes, the "bottom" number of the "10%" is about what I've heard too...

That is my fear about the "tax the rich" issue. One, data shows it won't balance the budget, and two, its fine and dandy until the definition of "rich" keeps getting lower and lower and affecting more and more.
 
#6 ·
Sadly, statistically, that probably is the top 10%. Here is what the typical family looks like that would be in the top 10%:

Elementary School Teacher = $51,828*
Grocery Store Manager = $76,959*

Total Household income = $128,787

*Data taken from Salary.com

Is that what you think of when you think of the top 10% of household incomes? Yeah, let's tax them some more so we can give to the people who are less fortunate....GIVE ME A BREAK!
 
#10 ·
It starts with the top 1%, then goes to the top 5%, before you know it they are targetting the other "rich" folks...the top 10%.

Why should people who have made sound business decisions, taken risks, invested their money wisely, opened business which employ others have to pay more than anybody else?
 
#22 ·
So is 128k family income rich in New York or parts of California? Most likely not. And, other than Obama and his "fair share" talk, I've only heard of Reid and his 5% proposed tax on millionaires, which most realize is all talk and really wouldn't generate significant income.

What is not being discussed, is if congress doesn't do anything, a huge number of tax changes will happen by default, which from what I have read is going to hit the middle class really hard.

So what do you think the rich should pay? The top 10% already pay ~70% of all the federal income tax (that number may not be exactly right, haven't looked it up in a while).
 
#23 ·
So is 128k family income rich in New York or parts of California? Most likely not. And, other than Obama and his "fair share" talk, I've only heard of Reid and his 5% proposed tax on millionaires, which most realize is all talk and really wouldn't generate significant income.

That is why I ignored your first request... semantics with something as gray as "rich".

What is not being discussed, is if congress doesn't do anything, a huge number of tax changes will happen by default, which from what I have read is going to hit the middle class really hard. Source?

So what do you think the rich should pay? The top 10% already pay ~70% of all the federal income tax (that number may not be exactly right, haven't looked it up in a while).
Since you seem to be avoiding the recent report... I actually thought you were just screwing around.:hitsfan: sorry about the insult...




From the pages of the most liberal rag...

"Indeed, most of Obama’s tax proposals will apparently repeat those he has made before. For example, $800 billion would come from letting the Bush tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 expire at the end of 2012, meaning the top rate on ordinary income such as salary would rise from 35% to 39.6%. Last month, in a New York Times op-ed, Buffett called for two higher tax rates—one on income over $1 million and the other on income over $10 million. Published reports over the weekend variously suggested Obama would endorse a new millionaire’s rate or release some sort of proposal for a minimum tax on millionaires—say to replace the current convoluted alternative minimum tax. But Sunday night, the Administration official said the Buffett rule was simply a principle for tax reform."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetno...nts-1-5-trillion-in-tax-hikes-mostly-on-rich/


So it seems the current admin is still talking about the 250k mark, for how many years now???

In certain locales, on certain dates 250k might not be rich either.:eek:
 
#25 ·
You guys do know about the tax brackets don't you? A family (married filing joint) with 128K of taxable income is still only in the 25% bracket. If a family has taxable income of 128K, their gross income is likely quite a bit higher when you consider deductions etc. With the bracket system, the family's effective rate is lower than that 25%.

Flat tax is a bad idea. We'd end up just creating a new tax code. Cain's idea of a flat tax AND a fed sales tax is the worst idea yet.
 
#27 ·
Do you support Cain's plan? His 999 - or 909 for the poor - directly targets the middle class. With his proposed sales tax, the middle class will pay a higher percentage of tax than any other group. Rich people will pay less tax; poor people will still pay little to no tax; and the middle class will pay more tax. The reason the middle class will pay a higher percentage is that they spend everything they make. That means they'd pay the flat income tax on all their income and then they'd spend all the excess on living expenses, thus paying the sales tax on all their income. Rich people don't need to spend all their income to survive - they will pay the sales tax on a lower percentage of their income. It will also hit those with currently tax exempt income hard. Instead of not paying income tax on Roth IRA distributions or other tax exempt income, people will definitely have to pay the new sales tax on money they spend, and they may have to pay the flat tax. Income that shouldn't have been taxed, will now be taxed with Cain's plan. So if you've already paid your tax on your Roth IRA contributions expecting tax free distributions, you'll now have to pay an additional 9% sales tax on money that's already been taxed.

Cain's plan is a bad idea.
 
#29 ·
One man's rich is another man's poor...

I still fail to see the shortcomings of a flat tax for ALL US citizens, "poor" or "rich". Yeah it will take some time to get used to but so what?? The brackets are a joke, they push people to strategically move their career goals to avoid the step functions, some people even get a legal divorce but remain married by vows to cheat the system.

It just seems if the government's tax income was linear over wage it would be a step towards equality. Or maybe that would just bankrupt the government??

On the subject of $140k/family being rich... I pulled the 2009 census family income data, looks like the $50k-$75k class is reducing in size (by ~5%), but the $100k-$149k class is increasing since 1963 (up ~10%). >$150k has been increasing but only by ~4% since 1963. I think a lot of these trends are related to 2 main factors, inflation and baby boomers moving up in their careers. We have been stagnant for median wage increases since ~1999, which is a strain considering inflation alone.

To be honest it looks like a pretty well balanced distribution of wealth if you ask me. I think humans just tend to pick on people who have more than they do for some reason, without thinking about/considering that they have earned their spot in the income distribution. I'm not downplaying the current economic status of the USA, we're still in the gutter especially with respect to exports/manufacturing/jobs/national debt.
 

Attachments

#34 ·
If you have to get up every morning and go to work. If someone writes you a check every two weeks. If you don't make 1 mil a year. Then you aren't rich. If you r "job" is going to clubs and being photographed drunk falling out of a limo that your Grand dad paid for then you need to pay one hell of a lot more in taxes. You didn't do a damn thing to earn that money. Pay up.50% per year. Don't like it Get a job and earn your own money.
 
#35 ·
Sounds good but lets hear how you are going to enforce it?

We gonna have a "Drunk Limo" tax?
or
Are we gonna have a "Unemployment" tax?

**Not saying I agree or disagree with anything said... I just think this was a dumb post.
 
#56 ·
If you have a job at all, your considered rich.Let's take a look at some more Obummers tax hikes. http://marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433. The workforce of the Internal Revenue Service currently consists of over 93,000 employees to collect and process tax returns and enforce tax laws. While this number is daunting in and of itself, the IRS recently released its new budget which calls for an additional 1,056 new IRS employees citing specifically the new demands placed on the agency due to the new health care law.
 
#57 ·
the problem is the earners

that earn a decent amount find a way to shelter it from taxes. the only real way to tax everyone is create a flat tax on everyone including businesses pre tax income because most business owners should find someone to lower thier tax liability to lower costs. I think if you checked on what the top gross income was it would be alot different that 118k or whatever the number was.
 
#59 ·
Most people don't understand how taxes work... Heck, most tax people don't understand how taxes work. Flat tax would not be as easy as everyone thinks. We would basically end up with a similar tax code with just one rate. Likely, most people would end up paying more tax - the only ones that would really benefit are the truly wealthy - those that make a lot more than 118K.

The IRS would grow if a new flat tax was imposed. If Herman Cain got his way, and we ended up with 999, my guess is the IRS would double. A national Fed sales tax would be a huge burden for companies and the IRS to track.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top