Our beloved Boxers should have their Tax burden lowered

[One_Tycoon]

So with that in mind: Do you think Mayweather would rather go back up to 90% because there were 'more loopholes and deductions' or keep it at the 35% of today [just to use your number]?

As for this part. Boxers are prone to getting taken advantage of...especially in the 1940-50's for a variety reasons...so this is a non- sequitur. But ignoring all the social "injustice" and govt targeting...yes he would be statistically better off in the early to mid 1900's as the IRS wasn't nearly as efficient at cracking down on tax cheats as they are today. And as already mentioned....there were thousands of more loopholes in the tax code than there are today, as they've been closing them gradually for years.

[just the facts]

Cayman islands are only good for hiding money if you're a investor and subject to a Dividend Tax. Not earned income. You can't hide income from a job with your job in the U.S. and your purse publicly posted for everyone to see. American's living outside of the States still have to pay income taxes depending on how much they make, unless they renounce their citizenship.

And then there is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97D17U20130814

outside the US, the first 81k is tax free

are you implying only working class people should pay taxes? If you are then **** you!

[Robbie Barrett]

For the big earners earning over a million a fight i disagree. They earn more than enough for what they do.

[just the facts]

On paper....there were more loopholes and deductions back when the tax rate was at 90%. That graph is nominal. The U.S. govt is receiving record numbers in revenue...that's the number you ought to pay attention to.

This is pure horsesiht! Record revenue? Yeah compared to the 1960s. The US revenue problem is directly tied to the uber rich not paying their fare share of tax all the while receiving tax break after tax break. It's rightfully called corporate well fair.

Giving large tax breaks to large corporation has NOT and will NOT create jobs.

[One_Tycoon]

This is pure horsesiht! Record revenue? Yeah compared to the 1960s. The US revenue problem is directly tied to the uber rich not paying their fare share of tax all the while receiving tax break after tax break. It's rightfully called corporate well fair.

Giving large tax breaks to large corporation has NOT and will NOT create jobs.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes. The remaining 90% pay just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

The US revenue problem

There is no U.S. revenue problem...there is a SPENDING problem. The govt spends too much.

You're being too hysterical which tells me that you're a leftist. I already told you that the Govt is collecting record numbers in revenue in the last 3 years.


Also "fair share" is a misnomer. There is no fair share and is entirely subjective. And LOL@ your name "just the facts". More like "just hysteria".

[Robbie Barrett]

The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes. The remaining 90% pay just under 30% of the tax burden. And 47% of all Americans pay hardly anything at all.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

"fair share" is a misnomer. There is no fair share and is entirely subjective.

How much do the top 10% earn compared to remaining 90%?

[One_Tycoon]

How much do the top 10% earn compared to remaining 90%?

This is irrelevant. You can thank the Govt's increasing regulations and barriers to entry for lack of growth and stagnant jobs. However trying to bring the rich down to everyone's level is not the solution, but the problem.

[Robbie Barrett]

This is irrelevant. You can thank the Govt's increasing regulations and barriers to entry for lack of growth and stagnant jobs. However trying to bring the rich down to everyone's level is not the solution, but the problem.

It is relevant if the are earning 70% of the total income they should pay at least 70% of the taxes should they not?

[One_Tycoon]

It is relevant if the are earning 70% of the total income they should pay at least 70% of the taxes should they not?

No...I'm leaning more towards them paying 0% taxes as in abolishing the income tax completely like it was before 1912. But that's just me. On a sidenote...here is a joke related to what you just said:





A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?

Imagine the following:

Ten good friends go out for dinner at a restaurant every night. The combined bill for the ten totals $200. Since they all make differing amounts of money they decide that they divide the payment as follows:

The four first - the poorest of the lot - don't pay at all.
The fifth pays $2.
The sixth pays $6.
The seventh pays $14.
The eigth pays $24.
The ninth pays $36.
The tenth and the richest pays $118.

They were all pretty content with this way of splitting the bill and they went out to eat together every day. One day, however, the restaurant's owner decided he'd give them a discount.

"Since you're such good customers", he said, "I'll give you a discount of $40." The ten's dinner would then cost $160. The group of friends decided they still wanted to keep splitting the check in the same fashion as previously. Therefore, the four first - whom paid nothing - were not affected and could keep eating for free. But how would the remaining six - those who were paying - divide the cost amongst them? How were they to split the value of the discount so that everyone got their fair share? The six realized that $40 divided by six equals $6.66. However, if they subtracted that amount from each person's share - the fifth and the sixth persons would get paid to go out and eat (by paying a negative amount).

The restaurant owner suggested that it'd be fair to reduce each person's share roughly proportionally and he crunched the numbers to calculate the amount each person was to pay. He came to the conclusion that the fifth person too could eat free - just like the 1st through 4th did originally -, the sixth was to pay $4, the seventh $10, the eigth $18, the ninth $24 and the tenth $104 in contrast to his previous $118.

As a result, ALL SIX paid a lower price than before and the four who paid nothing originally kept paying nothing.

But one night after finishing their dinner, they all started comparing what they had saved. "I only saved $2 of the discount's total value of $40", said the sixth person. Then he turned and pointed to the tenth person who still paid the lion's share and said "But he saved $14!". "That's right", concurred the fifth person and added "I too only saved $2! It's unfair he saved seven times the amount I did". "That's right!", the seventh person yelled. "Why should he save $14 when I only saved $4? The rich always get the unfair advantage!". Then the four first - who never payed a penny - cried "Wait a minute! We didn't save anything at all from the discount! This system exploits and takes advantage of the poor!".

The first nine persons then jumped the tenth and beat him up. The following night, he didn't show up for dinner - causing the other nine to sit down and eat without him. When the check arrived they realized a little something. They were $104 short to pay for dinner.

[Isaac Hunt]

are you implying only working class people should pay taxes? If you are then **** you!

No...I'm leaning more towards them paying 0% taxes as in abolishing the income tax completely like it was before 1912.