In 2007 the top 1% in the U.S. had 34.6% of the total private wealth. The top 20% had 85.1% of the total private wealth. They are taxed more because that's where all the money is! They probably want it that way, too. Can you imagine if that family of four making $50,000 was taxed at the same rate? They wouldn't have any money to buy the products the 1% sells.
to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make the middle class wealthier again, there is nothing wrong with wanting the poor to be less so, but there is something wrong with doing it on the backs of people who have been successful. It is a disagreement in philosophy man, you aren't going to convince me that someone shouldn't reap the benefits of working hard. My point with the 95% thing was to show you that the rich are paying their fair share...they are paying a shitload of money into the government every year. I just think you need to stop and look at who the "rich" actually are. Bill gates is one of them, Warren himself is one of them, they do a ton of good with their money...UNFORCED. No one said Bill you need to set up schools and immunization programs in Africa...if the government had taken more of his money, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Personally I would like everyone to be taxed less, but if I say that again you might have a heart attack and hunt me down...
And I keep pointing out to you that:
1. they are NOT paying their fair share.
2. they paid a LOT more in taxes before Reagan became President and we were much better off as a nation economically
3. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have said that the rich don't pay enough.
And please, you give yourself way too much credit if you think I would have a heart attack and hunt you down.
Now answer one of mine,
how on earth do you still believe that Exxon Mobile didn't pay any taxes when I showed you an answer from Exxon Mobile about the amount of taxes they paid? I realize I didn't show you the receipt but come one man, Exxon replied to the tax statement more than one time, if you don't want to take my link for example than google one of your own. Again, do you think this business just learned how to not pay taxes in one year? no, the story was a gross overstatement of what actually happened and Exxon Mobile answered it. Either way, they made a lot of money and then paid a lot of money, seems fair to me.
Because I don't trust Exxon-Mobil, and here is why:
Jeffers explains that what ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and "do not represent our tax bill," which has not yet been filed, let alone settled. The financial results listed in the 10-k "is an accurate reflection of what it is, but not what you thought it was," says Jeffers.
What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.
My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil "recorded" no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of "paid." All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.
And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn't paying taxes in the U.S., don't worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it's worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas.
There's a lingering issue here. If Exxon's income tax line items don't mean what they say, then what does that imply about other important stuff? Are "earnings after income taxes," really $19.28 billion? Are earnings per share really $3.99? Does it all wash out? We've asked Exxon to explain and will let you know what they say.
So it should have been "recorded" and not "paid". Obviously the article was a bit off, but he does raise some very important red flags over Exxon-Mobil's accounting.
Besides, even if Exxon-Mobil proves its point, it doesn't explain this little gem from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
- Buffett points out that he has been such a success in part because of the public institutions paid for by taxes.
- A recent poll has shown that "nearly two-thirds of those with household incomes of more than $250,000 a year support raising their own taxes".
The bottom line is the public is on our side," said Brian Miller, executive director of United for a Fair Economy, which is organizing the anti-anti-tax rebellion. As evidence, he pointed to a Quinnipiac University poll from March that found 60 percent of Americans favored raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000. This is not surprising: Americans generally favor raising taxes on the rich, as long as they are not defined as rich themselves.
But Miller also pointed to a surprising finding in the poll: Among families earning more than $250,000, fully 64 percent favor raising taxes on themselves. This part was surprising -- but possibly suspect. Only 65 of the 1,907 people polled were in that income group, too small a sample for solid conclusions.
to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make the middle class wealthier again, there is nothing wrong with wanting the poor to be less so, but there is something wrong with doing it on the backs of people who have been successful. It is a disagreement in philosophy man, you aren't going to convince me that someone shouldn't reap the benefits of working hard. My point with the 95% thing was to show you that the rich are paying their fair share...they are paying a shitload of money into the government every year. I just think you need to stop and look at who the "rich" actually are. Bill gates is one of them, Warren himself is one of them, they do a ton of good with their money...UNFORCED. No one said Bill you need to set up schools and immunization programs in Africa...if the government had taken more of his money, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Personally I would like everyone to be taxed less, but if I say that again you might have a heart attack and hunt me down...
It's funny you should mention Warren Buffett, because he believes he doesn't pay enough in taxes and says rich people pay more than poorer people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
He also said in his annual letter to shareholders that rich people reap more benefits than their hard work has earned: "At 86 and 79, Charlie and I remain lucky beyond our dreams. We were born in America; had terrific parents who saw that we got good educations; have enjoyed wonderful families and great health; and came equipped with a “business” gene that allows us to prosper in a manner hugely disproportionate to that experienced by many people who contribute as much or more to our society’s well-being."
pretty easy thing to say when you are a billionaire...but notice, he doesn't give the government anything extra...no one is stopping him, he could pay as much in taxes as he wants, and talks about how his are too low, but then doesn't give any more...wonder why that is?
I am not attacking Buffett, I like him personally, I think he is, for one of the wealthiest men on the planet, a prime example of how to do good with your money.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with wanting to make the middle class wealthier again, there is nothing wrong with wanting the poor to be less so, but there is something wrong with doing it on the backs of people who have been successful. It is a disagreement in philosophy man, you aren't going to convince me that someone shouldn't reap the benefits of working hard. My point with the 95% thing was to show you that the rich are paying their fair share...they are paying a shitload of money into the government every year. I just think you need to stop and look at who the "rich" actually are. Bill gates is one of them, Warren himself is one of them, they do a ton of good with their money...UNFORCED. No one said Bill you need to set up schools and immunization programs in Africa...if the government had taken more of his money, maybe that wouldn't have happened. Personally I would like everyone to be taxed less, but if I say that again you might have a heart attack and hunt me down...
And I keep pointing out to you that:
1. they are NOT paying their fair share.
This is where we disagree the most I think. It is with the definition of the word FAIR. I feel that paying 25 % of your income to the government is more than fair, no matter what income level you fall into. You feel it is FAIR for them to pay more than people who make less money...I would say most of America probably agrees with you, I just happen to disagree with that being FAIR.
2. they paid a LOT more in taxes before Reagan became President and we were much better off as a nation economically... Don't have much to say about this, What is a measurement of better off? Do you think simply it is tax breaks that have put us in our current economic climate? I am sure you don't, but I don't think that you can say that During Both Ford's presidency and Carters that economically we were heading in the right direction...
3. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have said that the rich don't pay enough. And yet they don't volunteer to pay more to the government
And please, you give yourself way too much credit if you think I would have a heart attack and hunt you down.
Now answer one of mine,
how on earth do you still believe that Exxon Mobile didn't pay any taxes when I showed you an answer from Exxon Mobile about the amount of taxes they paid? I realize I didn't show you the receipt but come one man, Exxon replied to the tax statement more than one time, if you don't want to take my link for example than google one of your own. Again, do you think this business just learned how to not pay taxes in one year? no, the story was a gross overstatement of what actually happened and Exxon Mobile answered it. Either way, they made a lot of money and then paid a lot of money, seems fair to me.
Because I don't trust Exxon-Mobil, and here is why:
Jeffers explains that what ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and "do not represent our tax bill," which has not yet been filed, let alone settled. The financial results listed in the 10-k "is an accurate reflection of what it is, but not what you thought it was," says Jeffers.
What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.
My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil "recorded" no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of "paid." All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.
And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn't paying taxes in the U.S., don't worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it's worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas.
There's a lingering issue here. If Exxon's income tax line items don't mean what they say, then what does that imply about other important stuff? Are "earnings after income taxes," really $19.28 billion? Are earnings per share really $3.99? Does it all wash out? We've asked Exxon to explain and will let you know what they say.
So it should have been "recorded" and not "paid". Obviously the article was a bit off, but he does raise some very important red flags over Exxon-Mobil's accounting.
Besides, even if Exxon-Mobil proves its point, it doesn't explain this little gem from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office.
Fair enough...I agree that income taxes on business are definitely an area of concern for me, but they all pay taxes somewhere, and if income taxes were higher on businesses that provide goods and services, the only thing that would do would be to raise prices to pass on those costs to the consumer. You and I would be paying them anyway . . .
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It's funny you should mention Warren Buffett, because he believes he doesn't pay enough in taxes and says rich people pay more than poorer people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu5B-2LoC4s
He also said in his annual letter to shareholders that rich people reap more benefits than their hard work has earned: "At 86 and 79, Charlie and I remain lucky beyond our dreams. We were born in America; had terrific parents who saw that we got good educations; have enjoyed wonderful families and great health; and came equipped with a “business” gene that allows us to prosper in a manner hugely disproportionate to that experienced by many people who contribute as much or more to our society’s well-being."
pretty easy thing to say when you are a billionaire...but notice, he doesn't give the government anything extra...no one is stopping him, he could pay as much in taxes as he wants, and talks about how his are too low, but then doesn't give any more...wonder why that is?
I am not attacking Buffett, I like him personally, I think he is, for one of the wealthiest men on the planet, a prime example of how to do good with your money.
I don't think what he says should be discounted just because he's a billionaire. In fact, I think because he's an honest billionaire his words should have extra weight. Obviously the man knows about money.
Maybe he does give extra; we don't know. (Actually, I might make the argument that he really does give the government extra on various levels.) I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to pay more than he is taxed, though, just because he believes it would be fair for him to be taxed more. Do you blame him?
pretty easy thing to say when you are a billionaire...but notice, he doesn't give the government anything extra...no one is stopping him, he could pay as much in taxes as he wants, and talks about how his are too low, but then doesn't give any more...wonder why that is?
I am not attacking Buffett, I like him personally, I think he is, for one of the wealthiest men on the planet, a prime example of how to do good with your money.
that is just stupid
you think that if he just mailed in a few extra thousand with his bill
the IRS worker wouldn't scratch their head in confusing
just without questioning just deposit into the treasury?
you can not just send money into the IRS and tell them to keep the change
Tax Day rhetoric aside, Americans' bills are lower
Americans paying less taxes this year despite Tax Day rhetoric, increases by struggling states
ap
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer, On Wednesday April 14, 2010, 11:36 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets. Don't expect it to last.
Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states.
In the next few years, however, many can expect to pay more. Some future increases were enacted as part of Obama's health care overhaul. And former President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire in January. Obama and the Democrats want to renew only some of them, thus raising taxes for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.
As this year's April 15 federal deadline passes, the debate about future tax increases has Republicans in Congress and conservatives across the country portraying Democrats as tax-and-spend liberals even before any new levies are approved. The discussion also is helping frame the congressional elections this fall.
"The fact is in the past year we have had more tax cuts than almost anytime in our nation's history," said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. "It's something that people don't realize because of the false rhetoric that is spread throughout this Congress."
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said conservatives didn't see any need to wait before protesting.
"I thought that we were going to have to wait until the tax increases started to see popular unhappiness," Norquist said at a Capitol Hill forum Wednesday. "Last year, people started reacting, the tea parties started organizing, in reaction to spending too much. They didn't wait for the tax increases to come."
The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.
The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.
There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars.
"From investing in small business to buying a home or making it energy efficient, to sending your children to college to buying a car, these tax cuts are helping families and businesses across the country," said Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.
At the same time, many states raised taxes last year because they are required by state constitutions to balance their budgets, even during a recession. In all, states increased personal income taxes by $11.4 billion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They increased sales taxes by $7.2 billion and business taxes by $2 billion.
States also increased a number of other taxes, including levies on alcohol, motor vehicles and tobacco, for an additional $8 billion.
The biggest tax increase in the health care overhaul is limited to individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000, though other increases would hit lower income taxpayers.
For the first time, the Medicare payroll tax would be applied to investment income, beginning in 2013. A new 3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.
The bill also would increase the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage point to 2.35 percent on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.
"We know the tax man cometh, and over the next few years, boy, will he be coming with a vengeance," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
pretty easy thing to say when you are a billionaire...but notice, he doesn't give the government anything extra...no one is stopping him, he could pay as much in taxes as he wants, and talks about how his are too low, but then doesn't give any more...wonder why that is?
I am not attacking Buffett, I like him personally, I think he is, for one of the wealthiest men on the planet, a prime example of how to do good with your money.
that is just stupid
you think that if he just mailed in a few extra thousand with his bill
the IRS worker wouldn't scratch their head in confusing
just without questioning just deposit into the treasury?
you can not just send money into the IRS and tell them to keep the change
pretty easy thing to say when you are a billionaire...but notice, he doesn't give the government anything extra...no one is stopping him, he could pay as much in taxes as he wants, and talks about how his are too low, but then doesn't give any more...wonder why that is?
I am not attacking Buffett, I like him personally, I think he is, for one of the wealthiest men on the planet, a prime example of how to do good with your money.
that is just stupid
you think that if he just mailed in a few extra thousand with his bill
the IRS worker wouldn't scratch their head in confusing
just without questioning just deposit into the treasury?
you can not just send money into the IRS and tell them to keep the change
Comments
great post... :!:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125918497&sc=17&f=1001
A couple of parts I found interesting:
- Buffett points out that he has been such a success in part because of the public institutions paid for by taxes.
- A recent poll has shown that "nearly two-thirds of those with household incomes of more than $250,000 a year support raising their own taxes".
And I keep pointing out to you that:
1. they are NOT paying their fair share.
2. they paid a LOT more in taxes before Reagan became President and we were much better off as a nation economically
3. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have said that the rich don't pay enough.
And please, you give yourself way too much credit if you think I would have a heart attack and hunt you down.
Because I don't trust Exxon-Mobil, and here is why:
Jeffers explains that what ExxonMobil reports in its annual consolidated financial statements is just accounting, that the numbers reflect expenses or credits recorded throughout the year and "do not represent our tax bill," which has not yet been filed, let alone settled. The financial results listed in the 10-k "is an accurate reflection of what it is, but not what you thought it was," says Jeffers.
What the financial statement says is that ExxonMobil, in 2009, after a handful of deferrals, recorded a total U.S. income tax benefit (i.e., a refund) of $46 million. Next to this, it shows total non-U.S. income taxes of $15.165 billion.
My mistake was in thinking that these figures somehow reflected actual tax benefits and liabilities. So what we should have written was that ExxonMobil "recorded" no U.S. income taxes for 2009 instead of "paid." All you re-bloggers out there, please note the clarification. Mea culpa.
And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn't paying taxes in the U.S., don't worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it's worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes) and more than $50 billion of other taxes and duties paid (I mean recorded) overseas.
There's a lingering issue here. If Exxon's income tax line items don't mean what they say, then what does that imply about other important stuff? Are "earnings after income taxes," really $19.28 billion? Are earnings per share really $3.99? Does it all wash out? We've asked Exxon to explain and will let you know what they say.
So it should have been "recorded" and not "paid". Obviously the article was a bit off, but he does raise some very important red flags over Exxon-Mobil's accounting.
Besides, even if Exxon-Mobil proves its point, it doesn't explain this little gem from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office.
The bottom line is the public is on our side," said Brian Miller, executive director of United for a Fair Economy, which is organizing the anti-anti-tax rebellion. As evidence, he pointed to a Quinnipiac University poll from March that found 60 percent of Americans favored raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000. This is not surprising: Americans generally favor raising taxes on the rich, as long as they are not defined as rich themselves.
But Miller also pointed to a surprising finding in the poll: Among families earning more than $250,000, fully 64 percent favor raising taxes on themselves. This part was surprising -- but possibly suspect. Only 65 of the 1,907 people polled were in that income group, too small a sample for solid conclusions.
Also:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26185.html
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
pretty easy thing to say when you are a billionaire...but notice, he doesn't give the government anything extra...no one is stopping him, he could pay as much in taxes as he wants, and talks about how his are too low, but then doesn't give any more...wonder why that is?
I am not attacking Buffett, I like him personally, I think he is, for one of the wealthiest men on the planet, a prime example of how to do good with your money.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Fair enough...I agree that income taxes on business are definitely an area of concern for me, but they all pay taxes somewhere, and if income taxes were higher on businesses that provide goods and services, the only thing that would do would be to raise prices to pass on those costs to the consumer. You and I would be paying them anyway . . .
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't think what he says should be discounted just because he's a billionaire. In fact, I think because he's an honest billionaire his words should have extra weight. Obviously the man knows about money.
Maybe he does give extra; we don't know. (Actually, I might make the argument that he really does give the government extra on various levels.) I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to pay more than he is taxed, though, just because he believes it would be fair for him to be taxed more. Do you blame him?
that is just stupid
you think that if he just mailed in a few extra thousand with his bill
the IRS worker wouldn't scratch their head in confusing
just without questioning just deposit into the treasury?
you can not just send money into the IRS and tell them to keep the change
Tax Day rhetoric aside, Americans' bills are lower
Americans paying less taxes this year despite Tax Day rhetoric, increases by struggling states
ap
Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer, On Wednesday April 14, 2010, 11:36 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) -- You wouldn't know it by the Tax Day rhetoric, but Americans are paying lower taxes this year, even with increases passed by many states to balance their budgets. Don't expect it to last.
Congress cut individuals' federal taxes for this year by about $173 billion shortly after President Barack Obama took office, dwarfing the $28.6 billion in increases by states.
In the next few years, however, many can expect to pay more. Some future increases were enacted as part of Obama's health care overhaul. And former President George W. Bush's tax cuts expire in January. Obama and the Democrats want to renew only some of them, thus raising taxes for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.
As this year's April 15 federal deadline passes, the debate about future tax increases has Republicans in Congress and conservatives across the country portraying Democrats as tax-and-spend liberals even before any new levies are approved. The discussion also is helping frame the congressional elections this fall.
"The fact is in the past year we have had more tax cuts than almost anytime in our nation's history," said Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn. "It's something that people don't realize because of the false rhetoric that is spread throughout this Congress."
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said conservatives didn't see any need to wait before protesting.
"I thought that we were going to have to wait until the tax increases started to see popular unhappiness," Norquist said at a Capitol Hill forum Wednesday. "Last year, people started reacting, the tea parties started organizing, in reaction to spending too much. They didn't wait for the tax increases to come."
The massive economic recovery package enacted last year included about $300 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. About $232 billion was in cuts for individuals, nearly all in the first two years.
The most generous was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which gives individuals up to $400 and couples up to $800 for 2009 and 2010. The $1,000 child tax credit was expanded to more families, and the working poor can qualify for as much as $5,657 from the Earned Income Tax Credit.
There were also credits for qualified families who buy new homes or make energy improvements to existing ones, as well as tax breaks to help pay college tuition or buy new cars.
"From investing in small business to buying a home or making it energy efficient, to sending your children to college to buying a car, these tax cuts are helping families and businesses across the country," said Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo.
At the same time, many states raised taxes last year because they are required by state constitutions to balance their budgets, even during a recession. In all, states increased personal income taxes by $11.4 billion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They increased sales taxes by $7.2 billion and business taxes by $2 billion.
States also increased a number of other taxes, including levies on alcohol, motor vehicles and tobacco, for an additional $8 billion.
The biggest tax increase in the health care overhaul is limited to individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000, though other increases would hit lower income taxpayers.
For the first time, the Medicare payroll tax would be applied to investment income, beginning in 2013. A new 3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.
The bill also would increase the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage point to 2.35 percent on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.
"We know the tax man cometh, and over the next few years, boy, will he be coming with a vengeance," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
If interested donate away:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formIn ... d=23779454
SHOW COUNT: (164) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=108, US=118, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=4, Australia=5
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
I did not know that existed
but the comment in the above post is still stupid, he assumes to know what Buffett gives and keeps for himself