No problemo!. .. A billionaire is in a 35% tax bracket, the average person is in a tax bracket of 15%. No problemo! A billionaire is in a 35% tax bracket the average person of 15%
Upload
Login or register
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (283)
[ 283 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
98 comments displayed.
#21 - oceanmist
Reply +81
(05/13/2013) [-]
A billionaire is in a 35% tax bracket, the average person is in a tax bracket of 15%.
#32 to #21 - icheatjews
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Sauce?
#34 to #32 - oceanmist
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx
Gonna be even higher next year.
#38 to #34 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
So why doesn't the gov't just make them pay more? I shouldn't hurt their pocket book that badly
#170 to #38 - xxpredatorxx
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Because it's immoral. At least, that's why I'm against it.
#48 to #38 - sophieshorts
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Raising taxes on the wealthy would make them spend less which means they are contributing less towards the economy.
#50 to #48 - icheatjews
Reply +11
(05/13/2013) [-]
That is a farce. That's just something they say through the media to discourage the idea.

If they don't pick up the demand in the US someone else from another country would be MORE than happy to pick it up for them..

Simple economics m8
#99 to #50 - sophieshorts
Reply +2
(05/13/2013) [-]
Just for the sake of learning something new, aren't our exports unattractive to other countries? (Considering the fact that U.S. net exports are negative). And doesn't domestic consumption have more of an impact on the economy?
#123 to #99 - icheatjews
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
Just for the sake of opening up your mind, isn't any first world country sought after when I comes to supply and demand? It doesn't make a shred of difference i our exports are low. We are backed by the Feds and will always consume more than produce (outside of war time)

Murrica, know the difference.
#56 to #50 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Really? I'm no economics expert, but...

If I have to pay more for something, I'm less likely to buy it.

I don't quite understand how it would be different for the rich.
#74 to #56 - icheatjews
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
Because Exporting job and Importing goods is a fraction of the cost.
#51 to #50 - davidavidson [OP]
-3
Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#53 to #51 - sophieshorts
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
lol, guess I should revisit simple supply and demand instead of being on this website.

Who's gonna get a 1 on their AP Macro exam??? MEE :3
#54 to #53 - davidavidson [OP]
-1
Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#120 to #48 - thereoncewasaman
Reply +2
(05/13/2013) [-]
The problem with that is that there are much much less rich people out there than there are poor and middle class. So the poor and middle class are really the ones contributing the bulk to the economy. Also tax rates for earned income on the wealthy are high yes, but tax rates on capital gains (which is when your money makes you money) are low, and that is often where a large amount of a wealthy persons money is made.
#35 to #34 - obligatoryusername
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
I think he was referring to the picture.
#111 to #21 - infiniteduress
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
The problem though is sales tax, the rich can bank most of their income but the average family has to spend theirs in order to live.

look at say gas. Even if a billionaire uses 5-10 times more gas than average he is still only spending a tiny percentage of his wealth on gas, meanwhile the average family spends 4-8% of their income on gas.
This is exactly how sales tax works. While the billionaire may spend more, he is still being taxed a smaller percentage of his overall income thanks to how much he can invest/save.
#251 to #21 - tomoon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
I am 19 years old and I have 36% tax. (From Norway though)
#143 to #21 - rhetoricalfunny
Reply +4
(05/13/2013) [-]
A Copypasta - Not mine

It isn't about taking it and giving it to the poor. Its about simple economics. The strongest economy this nation has EVER enjoyed was during the 50's and 60's. During this time period the rich ate a 91% tax on income, with a slightly lower tax of 50-60% on invested income (stocks). This lead the rich to invest the majority of their wealth (unlike today where the rich keep the vast majority of their wealth in cash). This meant two things; first, the money constantly flowed through the economy, allowing for rapid job growth and keeping the vast majority of Americans not only employed, but making a reasonable amount for their time and effort. Second, this meant that with the large tax income generated mostly by the rich, the government was able to build the interstates and national highways, which further kept people employed by hiring workers locally and thus injecting cash into local markets.

In addition to this it enabled the government to fund NASA, which pushed technology, as well as refitting the military like never before (which further pushed technology and kept money flowing through the economy) with out forcing the government to spend itself into debt. This meant that not only was the economy flourishing due to cash constantly flowing (instead of sitting static as it does now) but the government was able to provide schools, fire departments, police, emts, the works, with out building a deficit.

This is not the case now. With a tax rate of 15% on invested income, and only slightly over the average for middle and low income workers (20%) leading to an average of just over 16% tax rate on the rich, as well as the majority of their wealth simply moving from bank account to bank account (this does not even begin to touch on the vast sums of money the rich hide from the government to avoid paying taxes) which combined with the stagnating wages of the middle and lower class have lead to an economy that isn't working.
#24 - themonkeychunker
Reply +38
(05/13/2013) [-]
this is where your wrong
#66 to #24 - WtfStrawberries
Reply -2
(05/13/2013) [-]
My ex got 25 percent off his check and he works at mcdonalds...
#87 to #24 - cooljason
Reply -2
(05/13/2013) [-]
Bull ****. I made 500 roughly a check and they take like roughly 100 out each time last time I checked that's 20% and I don't remember my math being that bad.
Bull ****. I made 500 roughly a check and they take like roughly 100 out each time last time I checked that's 20% and I don't remember my math being that bad.
#96 to #87 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
yea but you get that **** back if you do tax returns
#27 to #24 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Tax loopholes. That is how people like Mitt "Mittens" Romney only pay like 17%. Any half decent tax lawyer will people able to get the rate that low.
#46 to #27 - JAKEPONSNOBS
Reply +2
(05/13/2013) [-]
Mitt Romney gets a lower tax rate because most of his income is made from investments. Investment income is taxed at a lower rate.
#39 to #27 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
This is true.
#187 to #24 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
You're
#247 to #24 - gespony
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
oh jebus, i have to pay the same amount of taxes here then an american would with 175 000$ income (mine is around 28000€ on which i pay 31% taxes, tax refund allready included)
#257 to #247 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
What ******* "regular" job gives you freakin 28000euro a month? o.O
#261 to #257 - gespony
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
oh srry, i thought the salary on the picture is what you make on a yearly basis, not a monthly basis
#260 to #257 - gespony
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Studied civil engineering and now almost in my 2nd year of working, also in belgium the low paying jobs still get around 20000€ a year, Keep in mind that's my salary without the taxes, so netto it's around 19500€
#129 - I Am Monkey
Reply +25
(05/13/2013) [-]
These are the single filing federal tax rates in the US. As you can see, they increase as your income does. Kids these days live in a fantasy world where the poor are paying for the taxes while the rich pay nothing. In reality the top 10% of earners pay the overwhelming majority of income tax. In fact, the bottom 50% of the country pays for less than 5% of it all. inb4 "Huehue Romney pays 14%". That's capital gains tax *******. That's money that already has been taxed when it was earned and is now being taxed again at a lower rate.

I understand it's fun to get outraged, and pulling numbers out of your ass will get a lot more thumbs than reality, but for the love of ****; Really? This again?
#159 to #129 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Urm and how many of those bottom 50% of you people are able to gain via capital? If you gain 60% of you income via capital you pay on average less than those who can't because they don't have the ressources... btw nice numbers-out-of-your-butt pulling yourself
#167 to #129 - dorklordrises
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
I accept all your points but as a note that is a somewhat unhelpful summary of what capital gains tax is
Capital gains is tax on the increased value of capital (like houses or factories or equipment for example) when it is sold.
Saying it is something that is taxed twice is not exactly true or fair although I won't be so bold as to try and say capital gains tax is either fair or unfair.

Have an unrelated pic
#41 - sophieshorts
Reply +23
(05/13/2013) [-]
#160 to #41 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
you usfags are so funny crying bout feminazis declairing everything they don't agree with sexism but you yourself are labeling everything beyond your dimwitted everything-to-the-rich-nothing-to-the-poor mentality as liberal thinking
#163 to #41 - finni
Reply +5
(05/13/2013) [-]
That's not a liberal. American Liberals aren't real liberals anymore. True liberals support low taxation of both the rich and poor. American so called liberals have much more in common with European social democrats than they have with liberalism.
#126 - allamericandude
Reply +16
(05/13/2013) [-]
This guy willingly believes verifiable ********, and yet we're the "sheep".
#6 - therealpokemon
Reply +4
(05/12/2013) [-]
Ah. You're one of THOSE. Yes, let's let the government steal from the wealthy (and everyone else) instead of, oh I don't know...

GETTING THEM TO STOP SPENDING **** TONS OF MONEY THEY DON'T HAVE! YOU PEOPLE CALLING FOR BILLIONAIRES TO 'PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE' ARE NOTHING BUT ENABLING LITTLE ***** WHO THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABLE TO STEAL WITH THREAT OF INCARCERATION.

People like you are why we can't have nice things, cuz then the government regulates and taxes it. Go die in a pit.
#40 to #6 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
>making billionaires pay money the just don't have
#45 to #40 - therealpokemon
Reply +5
(05/13/2013) [-]
The government is spending money they don't have.
#47 to #45 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply -3
(05/13/2013) [-]
>they

WE
#12 to #6 - jakatackka
Reply +1
(05/12/2013) [-]
Oh, it's you again
#18 to #12 - therealpokemon
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
Yep, that annoying dude who won't stop pointing out flaws in Statist logic :)
#22 to #6 - mysticninja
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
Or how about this: Everyone pays their fair share AND the government cuts spending. Win win.
#44 to #22 - sophieshorts
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
Cut government spending? Say goodbye to student loans, NASA, decent infrastructure, education expenditures, police, firemen, and a hell of a lot more.
#55 to #44 - jedawg
Reply +4
(05/13/2013) [-]
What if it was cut from military spendings? Not cut it all just a fraction
#274 to #44 - mysticninja
Reply 0
(05/14/2013) [-]
Not completely. Only where the fat needs to be trimmed. Like the politicians paychecks, and the amount each city pays to maintain sports teams, things of that nature.
#25 to #22 - therealpokemon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
'Pay their fair share' is just another way of saying "they have more than me, so the government should steal more of their money" or "they have more money than me and should be responsible for supporting me." Don't forget that taxes are literally armed robbery.
#33 to #25 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Armed robbery in return for building the infrastructure that supports you and your business, prevents people from simply walking in with their supporters and taking everything you've built, etc. etc. So yes exactly like armed robbery and not like paying for a service provided for you.

The fact of the matter (which the Romans recognized) is that the rich have more stake in preserving, building up, and protecting the society than poor people do.
#26 to #25 - mysticninja
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
So you are saying that no one should have taxes?
#28 to #26 - therealpokemon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Nope. The tax system needs to be totally redone. Right now, if you refuse to pay the government, you are taken into custody and imprisoned. If I were to do such a thing, or try it, I'd be arrested and prosecuted. Why is it ok for the government to do it but not me? Same with Social Security (aka 'ponzi scheme'). Forcing taxes on people without their consent is theft no matter how you spin it.
#29 to #28 - mysticninja
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
At the same time though, taxes pay for things that are needed, like roads, fire departments, police, etc. I'm not saying the government isn't corrupt (because it is, at least in the States), but wouldn't not paying towards public services and still using them be unfair? Other than homesteaders, I can't think of anyone who dosn't use a public utility in one way or another.
#13 to #6 - charredenay
Reply +14
(05/12/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, but even if you had a good point, it was drowned out by the capslock.
#17 to #13 - therealpokemon
Reply -1
(05/13/2013) [-]
K
#184 - blamie
Reply -10
(05/13/2013) [-]
Billionaires also pay a majority of peoples salaries so you can go hump a cactus, because, with your math, they are paying a few percent shy of 43% of the taxes AND are paying your lazy ass to do a job a robot could do twice as efficiently and for half the cost.
#188 to #184 - mizigoth
Reply -6
(05/13/2013) [-]
Who even thumbs this down has no idea how the world works thumbs up for you good sir
#210 to #184 - toensix ONLINE
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
I have a lazy ass job as helper in a store. I have to do about 50 different chores a day. A robot that would be able to do all that AND have a chat with the customers would cost millions upon millions.
#215 to #184 - Maroon ONLINE
Reply +4
(05/13/2013) [-]
They pay taxes on their profits numbnuts. No one tells them "gimme half yo monies for taxes and pay your employees with what's left."
also, the corporation pays the employee which the rich CEO is technically one of. So really, you are making no sense.
#192 to #184 - joshiboy
+5
has deleted their comment [-]
#211 to #184 - vedgetable
Reply +5
(05/13/2013) [-]
do you even economy?

you have no idea how retarded you sound.
#212 to #184 - vedgetable
Reply +5
(05/13/2013) [-]
cause, who the **** cares for there fellow human beeing right?
privilaged with money, blind for other peoples needs.
taxes is what makes a nation
your redarded ************* is whats tearing the western word.
#189 to #184 - ruinsage
Reply +12
(05/13/2013) [-]
This image has expired
spotted the Republican
#58 - djequalizee
Reply +10
(05/13/2013) [-]
I would more willingly pay taxes if i could choose what branch of the government it would go to.

NASA
#59 to #58 - davidavidson [OP]
-2
Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#60 to #59 - djequalizee
Reply +4
(05/13/2013) [-]
Explain.
#61 to #60 - davidavidson [OP]
0
Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#64 to #61 - djequalizee
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
You do realize that we're pretty much ****** if any NEO around 2km in diameter impacts right? NASA gets barely enough money to even keep NEO program going, and that shows with incidents like the impact with Russia that happened recently. Space travel and colonization will eventually be the only way for future generations to keep on going. after we are gone. NASA is eventually going to be the USA's greatest asset in one way or another.
#71 to #64 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
I just don't get why many people explain that NASA is the only key to future generations and the US government needs to face that.
Leave the US government be, there are plenty other governments which do a good job funding research & development of key components om space exploration.
Just because one program isn't doing it, doesn't mean all hope is lost.
I'm pretty sure even if the US government didn't fund NASA ever and decided on short notice that it was time to make a quick investment into space exploration for whatever reason, they'd just buy the service off of a different program.
#72 to #71 - djequalizee
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
I understand that as well, and i understand there are privately owned companies as well. In this particular conversation i was just saying how space travel in general is the only way to keep advancing. If the US suddenly disbanded NASA it would probably hurt us more than you think. NASA has produced a multitude of different inventions as well.

The US could take a few billion from our already strong military and put it towards NASA. Maybe just double it. Even just doubling their budget would increase their program exponentially.
#67 to #64 - davidavidson [OP]
-1
Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#68 to #67 - djequalizee
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
Hahohawheee

Anyways, i'm not trying to pound this information into you, because people don't listen to what they don't want to hear

I just want you to consider the fact that space travel and observation are crucial to the survival of humanity. NASA has also brought us TONS of invetions that we use in medicinal fields and in day to day life.
#69 to #68 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
I just went ahead and gave all of your comments a thumb up. davidavidson shall not have his way.
#70 to #69 - djequalizee
Reply +2
(05/13/2013) [-]
Thanks anon.

I'm not really trying to put anyone down. It just irks me when people assume that space has nothing to offer.
#82 to #70 - ilcecchino ONLINE
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
Ever since i was a kid i wanted to be an astronomer and work at nasa.... it killed me inside when they cut funding and all that... i would love to have a job at nasa even with the cut funding but i doubt they're hiring
#85 to #82 - djequalizee
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
I know it sounds cliche, but if you work hard enough you can do almost anything you set your mind to.

To be honest, i would work for NASA for less money than an average salary. I would hate having a job that i knew i didn't want to do for the rest of my life. I'm hopefully going to be going into theoretical physics, which would be awesome. Although it doesn't beat traveling through space.
#93 to #85 - ilcecchino ONLINE
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
If i could afford a house. a car to get to work. and enough money to not have to WORRY about bills. and work at nasa. i'd probably take that over 100k a year
#94 to #93 - djequalizee
Reply +1
(05/13/2013) [-]
Yeah, that's what i'm getting at.

I just don't like how money kind of rules what we do with our lives. But i guess that's not really going to change any time soon.
#62 to #60 - davidavidson [OP]
-2
Comment deleted by davidavidson [-]
#65 to #62 - djequalizee
Reply +3
(05/13/2013) [-]
Look down. I'm sorry but this assumption is rather ignorant.
#231 to #58 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
What's stopping you from writing NASA a check exactly?
#264 to #231 - djequalizee
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
I don't think they are allowed to take donations
#272 to #264 - fuckyosixtyminutes
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
It would be idiotic if they were able to accept money taken by force but not voluntary donations. Not saying you're wrong, just if you're right then that's retarded.
#273 to #272 - djequalizee
Reply 0
(05/14/2013) [-]
If i could donate to NASA i would be donating at least 100 dollars a year
#7 - cousin
Reply +10
(05/12/2013) [-]
Mr. Davidavidson, you have a habit of deleting comments on your content. Therefore, I assume you are a cock.
#8 to #7 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply -6
(05/12/2013) [-]
Mr. Cousin. I delete anon comments because they are most often people like you tell me I am a cock :)
#9 to #8 - cousin
Reply +3
(05/12/2013) [-]
I have seen content where you have deleted many comments, from registered users alike, where you have deleted their comments. I know that you are eh, controversial, which I like. But you shouldn't delete comments at all. Unless they're comments which contains spoilers, with no warning. My point? I can't remember. Something like, don't delete comments or something. Ask me in the morning.
#10 to #9 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply -6
(05/12/2013) [-]
Sounds good. Good night
#78 to #10 - simianglitch
Reply +2
(05/13/2013) [-]
Your a colassal ******** who needs to grow the **** up and learn to accept that people might have differing opinions. Just because you don't like what people have to say dosen't give you the right to be the thought police
#83 to #78 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply -4
(05/13/2013) [-]
Sounds good Orwell
#86 to #83 - simianglitch
Reply +2
(05/13/2013) [-]
I hope you get 3rd degree burns onver 90% of your body.
#89 to #86 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply -4
(05/13/2013) [-]
cool :)
#30 to #10 - icheatjews
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
Why is he so butt frustrated?   
   
I think your content is awesome, lol.
Why is he so butt frustrated?

I think your content is awesome, lol.
#31 to #30 - davidavidson [OP]
Reply -5
(05/13/2013) [-]
I think he was upset at me blocking an banning disrespectful anons.
#1 - milmarwoot
Reply +10
(05/12/2013) [-]
Billionaires can **** off to another country if tax is too high lets see you do that
#141 to #1 - anon
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
What a GREAT IDEA!!!! Lets get rid of all the people that BUY **** IN OUR COUNTRY and INVEST IN NEW COMPANIES.
#185 to #1 - douthit
Reply 0
(05/13/2013) [-]
I guess you can morally do anything bad, as long as you can justify it by saying that the other person can run away, right? Rape? If you don't like it, leave.
#5 to #1 - GmCity ONLINE
Reply +4
(05/12/2013) [-]
the sad thing is they will just move all their money and then the govement cant tax any of it, 15% of a million is better than 20% of nothing, where as all us poor ***** can't afford offshore bank accounts, and they can screw us as much as they like.