Do you think you'll make it into the top 1%?

Kind of like the poor paying an effective -2% income tax rate? That means they get more money back than they paid in.

　And when the top 5% stop paying more in tax burden than they recieve in payments, I will believe that they put money away there.

Wow, not that is a straight up brainwashed liberal lie. Just let me know if you need to be refered to the place where the study shows the opposite. And I really hope you aren't talking about people like Buffet who deals with hedge funds, cause that is a totally different story, and actually one that anyone saving for retirement takes advantage of.

As far as income vs income, the rich still pay a much higher effective rate of the tax burden than anyone else in the country.

 

most of the middle class will never make it to the 1 percent simply because not everyone can be CEO's, they will remain workers their entire lives.

 

Where did you get the idea that you have to be a CEO or that CEO can't be in just the top 25%

Most want because they will not do what it takes to be a CEO. Start your own business and you to can be a CEO. If successful you will make a lot of money. Not enough to put you in the top 1% but what is wrong with the top 10% or top 25%?

 

WildJoker;

　
　
Your dishonest claim is they pay zero taxes, when in fact income taxes are not the only taxes paid in or taken. Even if they rent, they are the one's paying the property taxes, and their income is being depleted for the wealth of the land owner, so remind me again who is being the dishonest one??
　
　

　
　
So you are jealous and hate the poor when you point out facts pertaining to them? Interesting, but I have never said I hated or am jealous of anyone, that is your straw man. Such stupid logic too, if I point out that the roof leaks, according to your asinine logic, I must be jealous of the roof and hate it. See how stupid that sounds? Please get a new routine that one is getting old and doesn't make any sense.
　
　
　

　
　
　
If you would like to start a thread on earned income credits, you will be surprised to learn I am against it.
　
　
Wildjoker the rest of your comments are simply more intellectual dishonesty as well, nothing more than repetitive talking points. We are talking about the richest of the rich, the upper elites, the top 1%. I see no distinction whether they make a salary/wage, or make a living from capitol gains and dividends, they are citizens and therefore contributing tax payers, or should be anyway.
　
　
Of course when discussing capital gains and dividends most of the uber rich get a better % on their earnings this way. To deny it is total ignorance, but we can talk wages and salaries if you are willing to be honest about it.
　
　
The problem is the mixing of percentages and real numbers that makes it so confusing, and what helps make all this intellectual dishonesty you keep offering possible. The IRS claimed that in 2009 that households who made $50,000 to $75,000 “income” from wages, paid 15% in federal income taxes (not all the taxes they paid either by the way just to be honest). They also make the claim that in 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, once again according to the Internal Revenue Service figures. Then according to the IRS tax code anyone who makes over $379,150 has an obligation to pay 35%, but they also seem to assert the claim that of all of the almost 273,000 households that “claimed” to make more than a million dollars, “on average” paid less than 24.4% in federal income taxes. So with all these mixed figures and equations, that can only be made or verified by the IRS (the best government corporate money can buy) itself, more than 25% of the richest households will pay “federal income” taxes less than the median income household will pay, and those who make their living off of capital gains and dividends if added to the number will surely pay less.
　
　
Now obviously that clearly shows that mechanisms are in place for upper elites to benefit from a lower tax burden than the average income earning household, and why shouldn’t they, after all it is their tax code in place. So if there are upper elites that are paying a higher rate than the average household they are idiots, are not utilizing the tax code in place for their direct benefit, and they need to get a new accountant. How can you not agree with this simple fact?
　
　
The fact is the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, options and they may benefit some people at every income level, but at the current rate they are much more beneficial and even lucrative to those at the highest and lowest end of the scale. So if you make very little or nothing and pay very little or nothing, what other conclusion can be drawn? But if you are actually earning or the income you claim (not necessarily the actual true income you may be making) is higher than the other 99.5% of the population, there is something ethically wrong, and morally reprehensible with a tax code that would allow someone of such status to pay little and/or nothing. If the average household pays 15% of their entire income then the richest of the richest had better be paying at least a bare minimum of 15%, of their entire income as well. That is the only fair, reasonable, and acceptable rate that should be allowed, in a tax code based on percentages.
　
And please spare me the liberal BS, my own ideas are the entire tax code needs to be completely eliminated, the federal government needs to be reduced to a realistic constitutional level of power, and the states need to get their power back according to the constitution. If there is an income tax in place, it should be at 16% based on a persons income/earnings, no loopholes or other idiocies, to be paid in full either monthly or quarterly, no exceptions. 10% should go to the state of residency (and no you cannot live in one state and claim another as residency. You live in Illinois in the summer and Arizona in the winter you pay taxes to the state you are living in at the time), and 6% should go to the federal government. If the government cannot operate or function according to the constitutional requirements they are bound too, then obviously the wrong people are in charge and need to be removed, audited, criminally investigated, and charged/convicted/sentenced to the maximum the law will allow for any criminal activities they have been involved with.
　
Now would you like to skip the name calling and all the intellectual dishonesty? If not then we are done.
　

 

Nothing at all, but the system in place caters more to the people in the top 1%. If your personal goal is to be on top, there can be no other options.

 

Again, lots of "workers" make it into the top 1%, at least the skilled ones in higher paying industries, especially if they have a working spouse and have been saving up and investing their money. Doctors, lawyers, and the high end of engineers and the like.

That's a matter of perspective. According to the libertarians the top 1% are getting screwed hard.


Personally I don't have a problem with people being successful, but heiresses and the like becoming nobility would be disasterous, hence why the estate tax is important beyond just generating revenue, but I guess that's off topic.

 

It caters to anyone who wants to better themselves and are willing to do what it takes to do so. That is who it should cater to and not to those who prefer to have government take from the successful productive citizens and give it to those who aren't.

 

No I don't remember reading that any where in the constitution. Your babbling nonsense and hatred. The government is to assure fairness and justice for "ALL", it is not supposed to show favoritism or give it to a small minority. That is what is wrong with the two party rule and it's agenda as well as the government's departure from their constitutional powers in general today and how it is not working in the best interest for the good of the nation as a whole.

 

That perception is based on ignorance and discrimination for the actual majority of the nation.

And a much larger percentage of the nation would be except for the deliberate meddling and manipulation perpetrated by the best government corporate money can buy.

 

Thanks for the honesty!

 

No one specifically wants to be in the top percentile. Very rich people are driven by some sort of personal ego and satisfaction to achieve, unless they inherit from their parents.

It all boils down to your personal values and satisfaction. Im in my 20s, still a long road ahead. I would be happy that If I can earn enough for a stable and decent future- enough to save, invest and plan for retirement and do some charity and personal hobbies, have a good looking but not time-costly wife. Most importantly I want to do better than my highschool classmates who got into Ivy League!!! The race isn't over!!!

 

I'm amazed 17 of the 37 people who replied think they will either definitely be in the top 1% or have a good chance at doing so. Even assuming everyone in this forum is in the top half of the income brackets, the statistical probability of all those 17 being correct is much worse than me winning a big lottery and making the 1% category. Mathematically, even making positive assumptions the number is 4 people, plus or minus almost 1 person. That means 13 people on this forum (I'm assuming conservatives) are seriously deluding themselves).

 

Yah we are temporaly embarrassed millionaires.

 

I agree with you whole heartedly - this passion to be rich is destroying our country. Money and what it can buy is not what makes a person content - I have been incredibly blessed and I too don't envy or make becoming one of the 1% my goal.

 

For a millionaire, I woud think you could afford a spell checker on your computer.

 

That is where the embarrassment came.

 

Not neccessarily. One could easily imagine a hypothetical system where everybody gets to be in the top 1% at some point.

Actually, with the scope of some union/government jobs where there is a set payscale and it goes up with time spent, everybody does get to be in the top 1% of earners in that job just before retirement.

Of course in the country as a whole not everybody is going to make it into the top 1% at any point. But maybe, say, 10% of the country does. I'd be very interested to know what that number actually is.

I guess I leave that debate for any libertarians that wander in and read your quote.

[/quote]
And a much larger percentage of the nation would be except for the deliberate meddling and manipulation perpetrated by the best government corporate money can buy.[/QUOTE]

Oh, that's simply not true at all. Without government intervention we would be in a libertarian situation which grants those at the top vastly more wealth and power.

The issue is that perhaps the government could and should have helped the little guy out more, or better.

I don't think anybody makes it their goal. They just want to be a doctor, own a small business, manage a larger one, or otherwise be successful and the result is they wind up there.

I'd have to agree that money can't buy happiness.

But I find it hard to believe that having a work ethic is bad for our country. Errors in how the government regulated and interacted with the financial and housing sectors might be, but that's a different issue

 

I only have 9% to go so shouldn't be too hard

 

Combine with my fiancé's salary we will be very close, but not on mine alone. I am making my career as an officer in the Air Force. I would not even sniff the top 1% after my 20 years. I am in the top 25% right now though, so I am not struggling.

 

OH the Constitution promotes dependence on government? Do you know anything about our founding and how commerece and being able to profit from your own labor and endeavors played in our founding and in the Constitution?

OH shove you phony emotional bormides. If that is the best you got go play in the sandbox. The fact is a want more and better for the those at the bottom than you do.

In the endeavor not in the outcome.

And freedom of opportunity and the right to your earnings, your property, that others cannot unjustly take it away simply because they want it.

Or course not but to claim it is not suppose to support business and markets and economic endeavors and try to create the best business environment in the world is folly.

And promoting and supporting business and the economy is the best way to do that to get the best results for the most people.

 

The passion to live off other people through taxation and entitlement is what is destroying this country. It is the non-productive who believe it is their right to live of the wealth and property of others that is destroying this country.

 

Whoa whoa. After you guys "retire" in your 40s don't you bring in a pretty significant chunk of your old salary, and then you can make whatever you can in some other job, which probably will pay pretty well if you're an officer?

 

Well lets see: we are told that the 1% are the job creators, which means the other 99% are living off of them whether they work or not. The 1%, however, do not create jobs out of benevolence, rather ,they create jobs out of necessity, and always seek to get the most work done for the least amount of cost, which inevitably leads to seeking the poorest labor possible with fewest environmental, safety, and labor laws, which leads them inevitably to: CHINA!

And the solution the rightwing gives: Lets lower all our standards to those of CHINA! (which are virtually none relative to EPA etc.)

Now this may be quite possible in 2012, since whether it is Obama or someone else, they will continue the torturing of people in those "enhanced" interrogation locations, which is just a slight skip and hop away from "Reeducation through Labor" facilities.

 

20 years= around 50% of your base pay (it can get confusing with REDUX etc.). It also doesn't include the housing/food allowance that you get on active duty or any other pay typical in the military (combat, seperation,flight,sea etc.). An average officer retiring at 20 years today would probably only get somewhere in the neighborhood of 35k a year. Not exactly rich.

 

Actually China goes well beyond Republicans, and even Libertarians as China's government subjugates the workers even beyond what the 1% could. What I mean is that they have laws dictating what companies educated individuals have to work for thus allowing those companies to pay less, since they aren't competing, and have various laws preventing people from moving or getting empoyment elsewhere, then preventing job creation in those locations. This ensures a constant state of internal "illegals" working in far below free market conditions.

The irony of this being done by the communist party is not lost on me.

Except it's quite sad.

Hmmm. A guy I know said he was pulling in six figures for his retirement. Though he was Navy, I think he stayed in a little longer than 20 years, he captained a nuclear submarine, and might have gotten promoted after that. So that might not be average. What is an average rank for a 20 year officer?