Why we NEED to cut taxes on the top 1%!!!!

Yeah, but then their money trickles down and everyone else pays income tax on those earnings and there's a rainbow and the unicorns come out to frolick in a sea made of sidecars. Everybody's a winner!

You are a parasite sucking the lifeblood out of the good, hardworking Ayn Ranians!

spelling...

So the bottom line is they played by the rules and legitimately paid no taxes.

What was your problem again?

That they write the rules? To everyone else's detriment?

The two examples of how this comes about don't seem like subtle loopholes at all. Either they invested their money in common tax free vehicles (that the government made tax free out of its own interest, not because anyone in particular wanted them too), or they suffered significant real losses in the past that they've carried forward.

But it's interesting data to note next time someone whines about the fact that there's people making $50K not paying any taxes and therefore we shouldn't possibly tax rich people more.

Did you read the article? Or can you just not see through the red in your eyes?

This is how MACROeconomics works.

As the reporter explained, a common reason for the "no tax" filing is a result of having invested in tax-exempt bonds (those bonds, incidentally, that CREATE JOBS by putting money directly into the hands of local governments and municipalities). Another common reason is they GIVE MUCH OF THEIR WEALTH AWAY. What could warm the heart of a socialist like yourself more readily than hearing about how rich people are directly sharing the wealth? That's what you want, is it not?

No, that's just John D. Rockefeller tossing dimes from his limousine to watch poor children scramble and scrap for his amusement.

From each according to his means to each according to his needs.

Sign the petition!

Dimes were worth a hell of a lot back then.

Back then, 10 cents could buy you a nice hot lunch and a coffee.

You admit your $.10 blowjobs doesn't even buy you coffee.

Rich people are giving away *so much* money that their share of wealth is increasing even faster than their share of income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MeanNetWorth2007.png

Oh, well if WIKIPEDIA says it, it must be so.

matt recalls "back then" quite well.

Matt: That's some retort, all right. In fact, Wikipedia is reasonably accurate:
- http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
- http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars

That last one may explain why you don't seem to like it--apparently experts think it's more accurate than lay people.

Moreover, Wikipedia happens to have an easy graph that visualizes what any view of the data actually says. For example:
- http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/tsp/2007-07_Trends_in_Household_Wealth.pdf

4,000 U.S. millionaires will pay no income tax for 2010

-------------
This is dumb. The reason is not tax rates but deductions. A flat tax would solve this. DONE!

A flat tax on millionaires, at a rate higher than ordinary income tax, yes.

"So the bottom line is they played by the rules and legitimately paid no taxes."

They played by the rules that THEIR lobbyists wrote!

And what rules are YOUR lobbyists writing for YOU?

Rich people can and do afford more and better lobbyists, full stop.

Yes, tax breaks do affect high earners. But fill out the flow chart - high earners are subject to higher taxes including higher percentages of taxes, tax breaks affect taxes and therefore higher tax breaks work on higher taxes.

" The one thing most of the richest Americans who pay no taxes have in common is that they use tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, experts said. "

Yet they as a group pay a larger share of their incomes than anyone else.

OF COURSE tax breaks will affect the richest most, because they pay the most taxes... BY FAR!