Forum Post: The top 1% contribute 36.7% of Federal Income Taxes collected while the bottom 50% contribute 2.3% IRS data.
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 1:36 p.m. EST by figero
(661)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If one makes 90% of the money they should pay 90% of the taxes.
You really are nowhere near the top 1% or even the top 10% and probably have no idea how much money any income bracket group actually draws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Distribution.
There is nothing wrong with a progressive tax unless one is mindless.
Even when there was a communist fear there was also a fear of totalitarianism, and after wars - as with a war, it was necessary to enact temporary increases in taxation to pay for extreme expenses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Tax_rates_in_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_1.png
http://www.conservapedia.com/Fiscal_conservatism Fiscal conservatism may also support limited periods of higher taxes in order to lower the public debt. It can include any or all levels of government, federal, state and local. Fiscal conservatism is typically justified in terms of economic efficiency (it assumes the private sector is more efficient than the public sector), and in moral terms with high spending, budget deficits, and high debt seen as indicators of corruption.
Fiscal Conservatism was rhetorically promoted during the presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989). ....However, by the end of Reagan's second term the national debt held by the public rose from 26% of GDP in 1980 to 41% in 1989, the highest level since 1963. By 1988, the debt totaled $2.6 trillion. The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation as investors around the world rushed to send their money to the U.S.[8]
I agree they should pay 90% of the taxes if they make 90% of the money since they pay the politicians to create laws that work in their favor.
We mentioned a bunch of government services that the rich do in fact use, but we haven't even yet touched corporate welfare.
The top 18 defense contractors each have contracts with the government that provide them with over 1 billion dollars per year in revenue. The highest is Lockheed Martin with 10 billion.
The top 20 recipients of farm subsidies each received over 1 million dollars each in 2010.
The highest of those was 5 million dollars to the Lesueur County Abstract Co.
Blackwater/Xe, a privately held security company owned by Erik Prince, has recieved over 1 billion dollars in federal security contracts.
Shall I go on?
Know any food stamp recipients who've recieved over a million dollars in food stamps this year? No, me either.
I have shared this... well said!
Indeed, objections to special or selective endowment that is ultimately balanced with egalitarianism is the basis of the Public Private Trust as developed by myself - http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/monk-eye/178-empowering-americans-foundry-public-private-trust.html
The 1 percent helps salvage public education by sending their children to private/Catholic schools. Heck, many of the 99 decide private over public.
Yeah, Joyce, I guess you missed my other post:
"I don't know if the 1% use public schools or not but I do know that wealthy suburbs in Northereastern states (the upper portion of the 99% if not the 1%) PRIDE themselves on their wonderful public school systems and are grateful not to have to pay tuition for their kids education."
The more money people have in my neck of the woods, the better the public schools are in their towns and the more they want to send their children there. I don't include the mythical 1% in that group because I do know many if not most send their children to private prep schools.
But the upper class suburbs are known for having wonderful public schools and the upper class residents of those suburbs do send their children to those schools.
Public schools are typically funded, at least in part, by property taxes.
Yes, and they are a public service that wealthy people use.
The claim that wealthy people use no public services is what is being refuted.
I hear you...there's an ebb and flow tug in the Chicago burbs as well that mimics what you posted.
Well those companies prdouce things like planes, computer systems, and other defense related products. Food stamp recipients produce urine and excrement. It's Hardly corporate welfare when a fair price is paid for a product. Welfare recipients produce nothing of value and thefore should receive nothing of value. The proper functions of government are defense and keeping law and order, not robbing the productive to provide food, healthcare, college educations, homes, etc for the non-productive. If you want it, you gotta buy it, not take it at gunpoint from others. This is the height of immorality. OWSers advocate theft, robbery, coercion, envy and hatred of those who persist through this gauntlet and make it anyway.
We should just exterminate the useless eaters, then, is that what you're saying?
Also, I'd have to strongly disagree that the exorbitant contracts given to Blackwater/Xe and all those defense contractors are "necessary".
Sure, a defense is necessary but it shouldn't be the size that it is. Rich may create but it is the poor and lower middle class who are being killed over there in our wars. They sacrifice their bodies while people like Erik Prince and the stockholders of Lockheed Martin get rich from these wars.
No, all are left alone to prosper or wither depending upon their own abilities and interests.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be humanitarian organizations to take care of the truly needy, but this needs to be voluntary. There is no marality without a choice. I'd like to be able to afforded the choice to support humanitarian organizations of my choice, but this is robbed from me because of the exhorbitant federal income taxes I pay. i am taxed enough already and I and millions others want a flat tax now. We will work on a tireless basis to depose the Clown Obama, the Dunce Biden, and all standing in the way of economic freedom.
The people who want extermination of a class of individuals are the OWSers, who are seen carrying signs stating "Eat the Rich." That is the immoral philosophy undergirding the presence of the malodorous crowd in NYC: hatred, envy, and violence.
Promote freedom and equal opportunity for all.
You can only have equal opportunity if everyone starts at an equal state. If they do not, then one person will have an advantage over the other just by who their parents were.
Also, a study has shown that gene expression is effected by economic status AND that this gets passed down (i.e. it is a genetic influence caused by economic status). Again, if you are for equal opportunity, you must be for equalizing living standard across the board because otherwise a genetic stratification occurs.
For your reference: http://scienceblog.com/48584/your-dna-may-carry-a-%E2%80%98memory%E2%80%99-of-your-living-conditions-in-childhood/
I would also like to point out that OWS people do not envy. Envy implies the desire to be the 1%, OWSers are there for socio-economic justice. It was not until neo-liberal policies put in place by Reagan and fueled by the following administrations that the wealthy began ransacking the place. Previous data shows that pre-reagan, everyone grew at approximatly the same rate (the rich grew slower, but still grew)... now the only group that grows are the rich, and that kind of unequal growth is what leads to revolutions.
The entire movement is centered on the idea of being peaceful... I dont know where you get this idea they promote violence or hatred. If you have ever read A Modest Proposal, you will understand the absurdity of using the "Eat the Rich" slogan as an indicator for hatred or violence.
Flat taxes are regressive, they further unbalance an already unbalanced system. As any ecologist will tell you, once you unbalance a system, a negative feedback loop occurs, and then you got revolutionary problems. If you want a stable democratic society, you MUST be for equalizing growth among all percentiles of citizens.
"You can only have equal opportunity if everyone starts at an equal state"
"You can only have equal opportunity if everyone starts at an equal state."
A lie and an outright stupidity. I myself am in the top 2-3% of the income distribution, but grew up in unheated rooms, knew what it meant to have my parents without transpotation because their vehicle had It's a lie to say you can't move up. Whu continue such a lie?
Oh if anecdotal evidence was any evidence at all!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009-1.png
As you see, upward mobility in this country is comparable to MEXICO... I am glad you were able to move up, the fact of the matter is, the ability to move up has been decreasing, and is continuing on that trend.
"you gotta buy it, not take it at gunpoint from others." So, in your view the poor are thieves and vandals, isn"t that an accurate portrayal of your view? So it follows that they should be arrested and tried for these crimes and if convicted ( a foregone conclusion , since you own the so called Justice system) put in camps/ prisons/jails?
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. Thomas Jefferson
The political system that takes from the productive and successful -- at gunpoint -- the fruit of their own labor, to redistribute to others is theivery and immoral. What would be moral if for people to freely do what they wish with the product of their own labor and to treat all as equals. A flat tax is therefore moral, as all are treated as equals. The "progressive" tax discriminates against productive individuals and treats them as the milk cows of the parasitic, non-taxpaying and unproductive class, approximately 45% of the population. the Nation is waking up, and we will prevail with a flat tax in 2012.
What is parasitic is people who rise economically above their fellow country men and assume that puts them in a position outside the concerns of the rest of the system that allowed them the freedom to do that in the first place. If you did well and profited by it, tough, you have to pay your fair share like everyone else. And seeing as that we have a tremendous bit of capital to work with on a common federal level, there is no reason not to disperse basic humanitarian aid (food, shelter, etc) to those who are woefully below the ability to deal with that. As much as you are concerned about the people who use that welfare, so are the lower portions of the population worried about what the upper percent are using their labor, money, and civil presence for.
We will fight for economic equality for all! A Fair Tax! A Flat Tax! . By the way, the Federal Government is broke, if you havent noticed, Dogfight.
The government is broke because you voted for George W. Bush twice. Lucky guess.
Every human being has the right to enjoy his short time on this earth. Our system should allow this to happen. It does not. It is a system that rewards those most willing to do great harm to future generations.
What does that mean? Your reply is gibberish
The fact that you think so reveals you for what you are.
WTF????
Yea, the parasitic "non-productive" class that goes and fights your wars for you, the wars those wonderful, productive, successful defense contractors get rich off of.
Those make billions while I, a single self employed person send forty percent of my income in to the irs every year and get next to nothing back in return. Y'all even want to dismantle the social security I've paid in to for 12 years now or tell me I'll have to work til age 76 before I see any of it.
And my nephew and the children of my neighbors put their lives on the line in the Middle East for your rich idols
Some aren't lucky enough to come home, or they don't come home in one piece.
You know it brother.
I kiss goodbye to 35% of +100K in family income to taxes and insurance, without expense accounts, perk write-offs, or banquet luncheons and cannot seem to get ahead. All too often it is nauseating to listen to the sheeple who bleat for the imaginary queen in the ivory tower as if slaving for a haven of self involved aristocratic brats is a virtue.
would you support a flat tax or the fair tax, no more Social Security Taxes, No more Medicare Taxes and maybe 9% like in Cain's plan?
Oh yea, that's what this is all about Old. Your not getting it are ya dude?
Here's some simple math, take two people, one who makes a million dollars and one who makes $100,000. At a 20% tax rate the millionaire would pay $200,00 and the thousandaire would pay $20,000, for a total of 220,000. The numbers figero posted are intentionally misleading, pretending as if a situation like I just described would be unfair because 200,000 is a much greater percentage of 220,000 than 20,000. Figero is either an idiot incapable of critical thinking and duped by propaganda or a liar spreading misleading propaganda. Which is it, fuckero?
Good call. The top 1% earns 17% of all income. They pay 37% of all income taxes. Bottom 50% earns 14 % of all income. They pay 2.3% of all income taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1 * What now?
You are more worried about how much taxes a person who makes $18,000/year pays than a person who makes $18,000,000. That is insane. Keep on bending over for the gluttons and money hoarders, they love fucking your stupid ass.
$18.000.000?!?!? The top 1% starts at $500K. Why do you think that I'm worried about the guy making $18K? I'm not the one complaining. I simply quoted statistics that disprove a point. The top 1% are paying the lion's share of taxes. Now I'm under attack for stating facts. I even left a link to my source. Too many uninformed out there that make statements that are no where near true.
It's a meaningless fact that makes no point.
The point was made and is extremely valid to the arguments coming from OWS. If you are too blind or stubborn to recognize the significance of these statistics, there is not much hope for you. Get a job.
Sounds like the top 1% should be getting a tax cut.
Nice try. However, the top 1% actually pay about twice as much as their percentage of income would dictate. I would also point out that the poor and middle class are paying less as a percentage of their income, as well as a percentage of total revenue than they did 30 years ago.
Firstly, if one considers total tax relative to total wealth, the US tax system is flat.
Secondly, at the lower income levels, the ratio of income tax to discretionary income is higher than that at higher income levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_income
Discretionary income is money you have after you've paid off all of your bills. Discretionary income is income after subtracting taxes and normal expenses (such as rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation, property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, &c.) to maintain a certain standard of living.[5] It is the amount of an individual's income available for spending after the essentials (such as food, clothing, and shelter) have been taken care of:
We rule you, we fool you, we shoot at you, we eat for you, we work for all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png
I do not have an issue with progressive taxation.
We don't pay taxes based upon discretionary income or wealth. You pay taxes based upon your income. The poor and lower middle class have virtually no income tax liability. In fact, most get back more than they put in. You are including the payroll tax, which includes money for social security, medicare, unemployment insurance etc. . . If these are items are truly insurance (as they were sold to be when instituted), you shouldn't have to pay more for them because you are rich.
I do not have an issue with progressive taxation and that is based somewhat upon discretionary income.
I do not know what you mean by the poor and lower middle class have virtually no income tax liability because the wealthy deploy tax write-offs to subsidize perks that cover a good bit of their personal expenses such as transportation, insurance, expense accounts, etc.
Look at the figures. The poor pay NO income tax. NONE. They get money back. THe lower middle income pay virtually nothing.
Check this out: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456
The lowest forty percent of earners have an effective tax in the negative. Meaning they actually get back more than they put in.
As for the rich having all the loopholes; their effective tax rate is still 19%, i.e. the percentage of income they pay after all the deductions.
The poor pay NO income tax and the top 1% earns more income (17%) than the entire bottom 50% (13%). Considering discretionary income, of course the wealthy pay more.
I do not like paying taxes but at some point you are going to want your fast food and toilet cleaned; I doubt you are going to do it yourself.
I agree there are uber rich in this country. But do they hurt the rest of us? Are we better or worse off b/c Steve Jobs was a billionaire? He became insanely wealthy. Why? B/c he provided products that made all of our lives better. Not to mention, countless people were employed by Apple, and many others employed by businesses that feed of Apple; retail, accessories, etc. . .
My campaign has not been against successful business.
I do take issue with off shoring and a failure of corporations to provision US industry while accumulating exceptional wealth through greed for profits by exploiting foreign labor markets at the expense of the US social system.
My campaign is against the financial institutions that are objectively based upon illegal activity - http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-objective-1-fractional-reserve-lending-is-a-cr
http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-jobs-make-up-only-14-of-the-top-1-of-earne/
Nobody is for illegal activity. If there is truly illegal activity, they should be prosecuted.
As for off shoring labor, our society does benefit from some off shore labor in the form of much lower prices. If we had Americans making all of our clothes and plastic toys, they would cost ten times as much. And, those people in third world nations aren't being exploited. They are choosing to work for these corporations because their alternatives are far worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism Its policy recommendations sometimes echo the mercantilism of the early modern period. These are generally protectionist measures in the form of high tariffs and other import restrictions to protect domestic industries combined with government intervention to promote industrial growth, especially manufacturing. At its simplest level, it proposes that economic independence and self-sufficiency are legitimate objectives for a nation to pursue, and systems of protection are justified to allow the nation to develop its industrial and commercial infrastructure to the point where it can compete on equal terms in international trade. In macro-economic terms, it emphasizes a fixed currency and autonomy over monetary policy over capital mobility.
Neomercantilism is a term used to describe a policy regime which encourages exports, discourages imports, controls capital movement and centralizes currency decisions in the hands of a central government. The objective of neo-mercantilist policies is to increase the level of foreign reserves held by the government, allowing more effective monetary policy and fiscal policy.
China, Japan and Singapore are described as neo-mercantilist.
Are you proposing that the US wages and standard of living drop to that of second and third world countries so that US can be competitive?
Rewarding and encouraging offshoring through tax credits is not satisfactory.
When I refer to illegal activity the specific meaning with respect to fractional lending is counterfeit - fraud - theft.
There are limits to everything and failing to assure sufficient opportunity and availability of domestic industry so that the US citizens can remain productive and useful is not an acceptable condition.
If one is not a producer to accrue savings then one will become a consumer with diminishing savings.
Who is supposed to provide domestic industry? YOu can't force companies to hire American workers. YOu have to create conditions whereby companies are encouraged to employ Americans. We live in a global economy, we can't just pretend China and India don't exist. For years, we were the ones who provided the cheap labor. What do you think those in Europe were saying during in the 1700's when they were trying to compete with American labor that was less expensive?
You can't stop competing. We have to make the US the best place to do business. Tariffs and protectionist trade practices only end up hurting the consumer.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jmadison/28292/the-47-myth-just-who-pays-income-tax-anyway
I don't really see how the article disputes the central point. Most lower income and middle income Americans don't pay income taxes, or pay very little.
Check out the effective tax rates for individuals: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456 The bottom 20% have a -6.8% effective income tax. In other words, they take home 6.8% more than they paid in. The next quintile: 20%-40% income range has an effective tax rate of -0.4%.
You keep worrying about squeezing pennies from the poor and working class while gluttons are wiping their ass with your children's future. It's ludicrous.
You are a fucking idiot. Do you know how little the people you are talking about make? They are being exploited by the very people you keep letting fuck your dumb ass. You defend gluttons and money hoarders and vilify hard working people who can barely pay their bills. It's an insane position and I can't imagine how you rationalize it.
Instead of name calling, take a look at the facts. The poor and middle class pay virtually no taxes. You can continue to stick your head in the sand if you wish. The facts are there for all to see.
They pay virtually no taxes because they make virtually no money. You seriously are more concerned about the taxes a person who makes 20,000 a year makes, and the glutton that siphons 20 million per year from the economy is somehow a victim? I stand by my statement--you are a fucking idiot.
I don't know why I am trying to explain this to you since you are clearly a moron. Notwithstanding, maybe someone else of higher intelligence will read my comment.
I am not saying we should raise taxes on the poor and middle class. I am simply pointing out the obvious. Many people complain about the rich getting all the benefit from tax cuts over the past 30 yrs. My point is that the poor and middle class have benefited greatly from these tax cuts. In 1979, they were paying significant income taxes; not because they made any more. They were poor back then too.
It seems people want to go back to the tax rates of the 70's for the wealthy, but keep the tax rates the same for everyone else. I can assure you that nobody in the middle class would be happy with a return to the 70's tax rates.
I'm not concerned about tax rates for the wealthy, I am concerned about the wealthy hoarding all the wealth. The poor and working class should be paid more for the jobs they do, then they would pay more taxes and the wealthy would pay less taxes, because the wealth would be more evenly distributed. I am not against people being rich, I am against people being THAT rich and getting rich in THAT way.
@FreeRadical:
You said:
"If one makes 90% of the money they should pay 90% of the taxes."
Good point. Actually, I'd say those who make 90% of the money should pay 99% of the taxes...AND THEY DO:
The top 1% earn 17% of all income, and pay 37% of all income taxes.
The top 10% earn 43% of all income, and pay 70% of all income taxes.
The top 25% earn 67% of all income, and pay 87% of all income taxes.
The top 50% earn earn 87% of all income, and pay 98% of all income taxes.
So...I'd estimate 90% of the money is made by about 60% of workers, and they pay 99% of all income taxes.
Sounds like you're advocating a tax break for the 60% of workers who make the most money?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/17/top-400-taxpayers-in-the-u-s-pay-a-17-percent-tax-rate/
I support a progressive tax system.
90% earnings to 90% taxes is intended to be a straight forward example for those who make outlandish assertions about their pathetic conditions who fail to rationalize that the bottom 50% pay very little because they earn very little. Thus, you forgot to state that the bottom 50% earn 13% and pay 2% taxes. Also, social security is not included in the data, which causes the percentages to change a bit, but I am getting a headache looking for it at this time.
Advocating a tax break for the 60% workers who make the most money does not make sense because the assertion does not provide a perspective for the quantity of taxes relative to personal income.
I do not like taxes and would prefer to avoid them when possible.
My concern would be how to get the bottom 50% into a higher tax bracket.
Absolutely! I agree 100%
That is a ridiculous notion! The bottom 99% are the ones using the social safety nets not the 1%.
Yeah but the 1% use our public education system, public roads, the court, municipal water, more than the bottom 99%. So I think they need to start paying!
No they do not. We use them just as much to argue that product distribution is not beneficial to the whole is absurd! The 1% do not send there children to public edu! Im poor as dirt and Im not going to send my son to public ed, these propaganda camps.
They might not send their children to public schools, but 100% of their employees are from public education. I never said their children goes to public schools...
Yeah, that too. Public education was in fact invented by capitalists as a way to externalize the costs of training employees.
Now that they've moved so many jobs overseas, they want to rip it down.
God forbid they should allow "their" precious children should have to mix with the ants.
Those are their employees... whats the point? You want to tax the rich for letting there employees use pub ed?
Well the rich used to be our employers but they bought themselves a congress and made it possible to employ chinas, tywans, japans, indias, mexicos, columbias, and canadas workforce and left us cold in the dirt with our hands out, well that open hands turning into a fist.
Americans do not own those jobs! Do you want cheaper products? Then Businesses have to seek out the cheapest means of producing those products! You can think the GOV for over burdening the Corps for this. Matter of fact Corps want you to raise taxes teh ythen do 3 things. !) pass the cost onto the consumer or there employees 2) it squashes competition! 3) it sends jobs out of the country. All of which increase profits.
what type of cheap are you talking about? The slave labor cheap, the lead based paint for toys cheap, or the child sweatshop cheap? That line may have worked 30 years ago, but today we have the internet... anyone who can use a mouse knows your full crap!
P.s. taxes don't effect the cost of products! What the market will bear is what sets the cost jackass!
Oh, not not full of crap. You dont understand economics! We can both have high wages and cheep products! Its a matter of over regulation and over taxation. We need proper regulation, not more.
Wow your still drinking the coolaid... regan economics trickledown only works for the top 1 percent, why do you people keep arguing for lawless economics? It alows you to steel from the 99 percent sounds like a leech to me. Your in great need of a good fashioned tar and feathering...
Youre an idiot! Regan was an idiot!
Sure I do! If it weren't for public edu how productive would business be? Not that good... so they depend on it more than us... so they should have to pay for the workforce they need right? or do you think they should let you pay the tab, well they do, that is if your still lucky enough to own your own home and pay property taxes...
Look w/o businesses you dont get your cloths, you dont get your food, you dont get your bicycle, car, etc, etc, Businesses benefit the whole. They offer services at low cost, that you could not produce yourself.
Primarily education is on the job training. To argue that when you get out of school you are ready to do any job is absurd! Matter of fact because our economy is largely based on service your pub edu is almost worthless!
Sure they would. During the industrial revolution, although pub ed was of higher quality, not many people made it past the 8th grade. We produced the cheapest goods and had higher wages than any other country in the world.
Yeah well with out labor you don't have capital, or demand, but you get crime, riots, and protests!
Agreed. However the issue is our interest rates are too low! We cant save and therefore we donot have capitol, hence no new businesses to compete. You can thank the FED for this.
Why are you defending the rich? What will this gain you? What has it ever gained you?
Im not defending the rich. Im defending freedom. I think if the rich, poor, and all between do harm to anyone they should pay.
it sound like you are defending freedom to exploit. Let's deregulate the civil code as well as we have deregulated the economy. Who needs cops when ghettos are self regulating. Eventually through violence and coercion one side would become supreme and all the senseless violence would sees to exist. if your market forces rhetoric does not make sense in other aspects of life it is nothing more than sophistry.
Have you ever considered the possibility that all of these feelings of "freedom" you're having just might be the result of propaganda that the wealthy have paid vast sums of money to make you hear and believe? If the wealthy have a big vanguard of folks like you out there, working as hard as you can to protect them and their interests, they don't have to do the dirty work themselves.
What you think business would up and leave if it had to pay its fair share? Let them! I say too hell with them. If a business doesn't want to act in a way that benifits its country well then they should not have the right to be a business here in the usa!
Businesses have been leaving. You have complained about that in previous posts. Shipping jobs to China, Mexico... We need legislation that allows business to succeed using domestic labor. Government is the problem, but too many depend on government assistance. Those that depend on assistance will not vote down those that want to continue to provide it.
Businesses have to by its nature ensure the market is lively in order to make money. However, GOV subsidies have shifted from concern with the people, because the gov floats the tab, to screwing the people, because the gov floats the tab.
No, I would argue that the rich use the court system more than we do.
Corporations are in court all the time, businesses sue each other, the whole copyright protection and enforcement govt infrastructure that keeps get bigger & bigger - they now have Homeland Security doing trademark enforcement on the internet.
The TSA - protects airline interests and people who fly - people with higher incomes fly more often than those with lower incomes.
I don't know if the 1% use public schools or not but I do know that wealthy suburbs in Northereastern states (the upper portion of the 99% if not the 1%) PRIDE themselves on their wonderful public school systems and are grateful not to have to pay tuition for their kids education.
I could go on and on .... don't factories use water? Large office buildings? The water & sewer systems? Poor people are not benefitting from that.
This notion that wealthy people just float around and don't use any public services is LUDICROUS.
And its driven by capitalism, NOT GOVERNMENT
No its not dick... its driven by labor! No labor no customers!
Your first argument is unsubstantiated. My uncle is a lawyer. I would argue per capita this is impossible!
The TSA protects everyone. If we are going to get products to consumers we need to be able to conduct business. To marginalize the "rich" and say that none of them are befitting the population is absurd. If business cannot conduct business then they cannot benefit the whole.
Yes the people benefit from it! Do you need a car? Do you need a phone? Do you need a place where you have the available resources to produce goods and services? Then a company can facilitate these.
No, Im not arguing that they dont use them. Im arguing they use them less.
Well, we obviously disagree, and we can agree to disagree, but your uncle's a lawyer?
My brother is a lawyer too, a lawyer who worked for two of the top corporate law firms in NYC before going into private practice. He only represents the rich now and those two law firms he worked for only represent rich people, they are quite busy representing rich people and their attorneys are the highest paid on the planet, which shows you how often they are in court, representing the rich.
Of course, some of things the wealthy businesspeople do in their businesses benefit all of society, but shouldn't they be paying taxes that cover their "share" of the benefits THEY are getting?
Yes my uncle is 60 and a lawyer, specialized in several "types" of law. Medical malpractice, section 1983, criminal law, etc, etc.... He is now semi retired, but about to go into legal malpractice.
How do we determine there share? The rich are already paying outlandish taxes! some up to 45% not including sales tax, property tax etc, etc...
The average income of the top 1/10 of 1% is 27,000,000.00. Capital gains taxes aside, I think they can afford to pay 45%. Their use of this society is what made them rich in the first place. They can afford to contribute more to keep it running. You don't become rich by living in a vacuum. Your money comes from the economy of which you are a part. Economics is a zero-sum game.
If they are paying 45% they cant expand, cant create more jobs... etc, etc...
Taxes on the top 1% are the lowest they've been in 40 fucking years! We had several booms during the intervening years. During Eisenhower's administration, taxes on the top 1/10 of 1% were 90%! Lots of people got rich during that period! Having high taxes on the extremely wealthy doesn't prevent them from getting wealthy, it only slows it down. Also the notion that someone making income from the investment account that they inherited somehow promotes them to "create jobs" is ridiculous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RABhWYYT6Hg
You conveniently leave out the fact that the wealthy pay FAR more for air travel than we do, which allows the airlines to pay fees and taxes to support the TSA. You and I scour the internet for deals weeks in advance to save money on coach flights. The wealthy don't care when they book flights for business, and they pay 4-5 times more per ticket than we do for coach and 20 times more for first class. It's a built in protection.
You conveniently leave out corporations that don't pay taxes... exon mobile, koch bros, coca cola, etc... and waren buffet admits/complains his taxes are lower than his sectratary... there are also tax free zones in michigan, but are still going under. Why is that? Tax cuts don't help businesses they hurt them.
Warrne Buffet is a clown! He wants you to raise taxes to squash competition!
Right, but paying higher fares helps fund the airlines, that doesn't fund TSA.
The Homeland Security tax that funds TSA is a flat fee per ticket.
Howabout the 1% using our massive military to secure "their" massive Int'l Corps.?
you really are retarded. You think they use more water than us? You think they use public roads more than us? You think they send their kids to public school? The only thing they use more is the court system.
Yes they do use the road more than us. I worked as a delivery driver. I drove more in 1 day than most did in a month...... your full of it dude....
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/pyramidofcapitalism.jpg
Firstly, 14% of the top 1% are thieves ... http://occupywallst.org/forum/wall-st-jobs-make-up-only-14-of-the-top-1-of-earne/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-objective-1-fractional-reserve-lending-is-a-cr/
Since you are inclined to defend the top 1%, here is some information to help you understand how deregulation has helped them at your expense - http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans
Here is the shortest explanation of political philosophy worth knowing - it is attributable to myself.
Prior to the formation of state, mammon lives by Natural Freedoms of Nature's moral relativism and is accountable only to the fates. To more greatly improve one's chances of survival, mammon may exchange their Natural Freedoms for citizenship according to wrights in a constitution.
Given the extremes of (I) individualism and (C) collectivism, there are natural means (i) and (c) according to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio.
Libertarianism forwards a deontology of negative wrights, which are prohibitions on government - it establishes individualism; the extremes of libertarianism allow the absolute condition of individualism (I), synonymous with single individuals such as monopoly or totalitarianism, or synonymous with many individuals and anarchy - condition before the state. Authoritarianism is the antithesis of libertarianism that establishes collectivism and the extremes of authoritarianism allow an absolute condition of collectivism (C) that may be synonymous with totalitarianism - stagnation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros for this condition.
Verily, the optimal liberty of the individual exists at the extreme (I) of individualism however the optimal liberty of the individual within a collective exists within (*i).
So, as a cautionary warning, be sure you know the exact conditions you are seeking and assure that it is balanced with tempered reason.
And know this well, wrights only exist because there is an entity - a state that is capable of reprising a violation of their conditions.
I agree with you. However, it is not because we have too little regulation, actually quite the opposite. Its that we dont have proper regulation.
I agree, those who state that there is too much regulation or too little regulation would establish a greater objective by emphasizing proper regulation.
So - why should I work hard to make 90% of the money to only have to fork it over to the govt? Why was the debt so high ? increased govt spending. Revenue went up & spending went up even more.
The real question is why should the 99% make their paltry amounts to buy over priced goods that feed your 1%. If we stop this activity then we are all equal at poverty.
dont you love your job ?
Sorry I am 57 with over the top tech skills and a degree. In other words, too much experience, too much age, to be employed. Since 2008. I am at the poverty level now.
you want to eat dont you ? look - if you dont like to work for anyone - start your own business. No one owes you a living
Yes, I want to eat. Who doesn't like to work? No one i know. Start a business? I have 4 patent applications filed at the US Patent office. That's like 5 years now. No Patent no business capital, no business. No one has ever, ever given me a living. I have to daughters (science majors) in college, an underwater mortgage, and I have paid every bill with money I have earned. My point is simple. I am not stupid. If this is the economic structure that will be basis of America, then I think a small cabin, off the grid is sounding a lot better. No TV of course because I don’t want to watch the carnage in the future.
so - blame the got about the patent delays.
Try to stay in context. Paying 90% of the taxes while earning 90% of the money does not state the level of taxation.
Reagan cut taxes (reduced revenue) by raising the national debt with a presumption that businesses would invest and grow the economy thereby making it possible to cover the reduced revenue, but none bothered to pay off the national debt and the interest is growing rapidly.
Keynesian investments work on a similar principle of raising the national debt except that the government makes investments in the economy in order to make up for the increased national debt but none has bothered to pay off the debt and the interest is growing rapidly.
Sometimes Keynesian investments are based upon raising taxation that the government uses to make investments to grow the economy or to offset the lack of 100% employment, usually with a balanced budget.
Reagan did not have a balanced budget amendment and did not cut spending.
youve got it backwards. cite your source please.
Which is backwards? It is phrased for simplicity through my own assessment.
Keynesian economics is equated with direct government infusion of cash into the economy to offset unemployment and sometimes to grow the economy.
The timely investments in research and technology by the US government has given the US a magnanimous advantage over the technology sectors.
The US is a mixed economy - a combination of state direction and free enterprise. Tax credits, tax debits, grants, and subsidies are used by the government to reward or dissuade certain industries. The term for it is state capitalism - aka state socialism.
State capitalism is a basis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neomercantilism, whereby the state applies technocracy, or indicative planning, to optimize its economy for global competition, while also assuring that its people are provided with the best industries, employment opportunities, towards to improve its standards of living.
Free market capitalists object to the excesses of Keynesian economics because such actions by the government can and do skew supply and demand, do not respond well to market indicators, and crowd out opportunity by harboring and limiting alternative uses of capital.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/monk-eye/178-empowering-americans-foundry-public-private-trust.html
If you made 90% of all the money I think you should know people will be hunting you down with touches and pitch forks...
In this case the top 50% make the top 87% of the money and pay 90% of the taxes. If a distribution of wealth becomes exceedingly skewed/unbalanced many might decide take up arms (self destructive) as the opportunity to escape the conditions diminishes.
"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[13] According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1] A PBS report by Solman on Aug. 16, 2011 now found that financial gains over the last decade in the United States have been mostly made at the "tippy-top" of the economic food chain as more people fall out of the middle class. The top 20 percent of Americans now holds 84 percent of U.S. wealth.[2], the 2nd 20 % holds 11%, the third 20 % 4 %. The following figure shows the actual distribution of wealth in the US. The 4th 20% (0.2%) and the Bottom 20% (0.1%) are not visible"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
Any questions?
Here is a nice graphic of your excellent points:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/income-distribution-in-2008_n_1030201.html
And - the bottom 50% pays 2.3% of the Federal Income Tax. and the bottom 50% can qualify for lots of welfare programs in effect raising their incomes to upwards of $50,000.00 .
"Lots of welfare programs" is utter fiction. People have to be very poor to get welfare, and they stay poor with it. I worked with people with mental retardation, and after they got all the help that is available, they were painfully poor. They were eligible for everything that still exists as welfare, and it wasn't much.
Wait, are you telling me all those stories about welfare mommas driving caddies, eating lobster getting butter all over their diamond rings are all lies??? (sarcasm off) ;)
Hate to tell you, but the "welfare momma in a caddie" was based on a woman in Chicago who scammed about $3500 out of the system - and got caught and punished.
I started out as a conservative, and then I ended up in a job where I actually worked with welfare mothers. I learned that yes, I'd bought into lies.
I was being sarcastic. Sorry if I did not make that clear. I thought the dripping butter part would of put it over top enough for people see.
Expanding on my previous post - I had some one not long ago telling me in all seriousness that the Clintons got away with murder. Their friend did not kill himself in the park. They had him killed.
This is someone I have to deal with from time to time. Life is....interesting.
Sorry, I've dealt with some real characters, who raise paranoia beyond my comprehension. I've heard things that far out said in all seriousness.
No problem at all, I've heard those fairy tales also. I'm glad you defend those who are less fortunate, not many people do these days.
Actually, that's not true. A few years ago, as a single mom with two kids, a college student, and with part-time employment I applied for Medicaid for my kids and foodstamps. There are defintely folks who dress down and bring in 5 kids but leave in very nice cars. There's a huge underground market for selling foodstamps and WIC vouchers for cash.
While you may have worked with welfare mothers, it's different to be one and know some who will play it up for their review and renewal appointments, then turn around and get cash for what the state gives them - and still live pretty well.
Not everyone is this way, but I saw and knew my fair share.
I know that there are creeps in every system. However, some groups get described as if they were all bad.
There are bad mothers, but most mothers deserve respect. There are bad small business owners, but most are hard working and constructive. The mothers and small business people don't usually get described as if they're all abusive crooks.
So I try to push back against the "welfare mother" stereotype. I certainly hope you've been able to stabilize your life and will be an example of why we should sometimes help people through rough patches.
If you knew, did you take any action to out them?
At the time, yes, I did mention it to my case worker at my next appointment, at least when I knew enough information about the person to be able to give enough identifying information.
And I did stabilize things, and donate regularly to charity and volunteer at my local Family Abuse Shelter. Because of how disorganized that system seems to be at the state level, my renewal apps got lost countless times, even when I had copies that I had submitted them signed by the clerk out front. I had my benefits inadvertantly cancelled twice, and finally just gave up and tightened the belt enough to make it by.
Well, good for you all around. I never was in quite as deep a hole as you had to dig out of, but had tough times when my daughter was young, so I appreciate what you did.
lots of welfare for the people on top - corporate welfare is the foundation of the system
You got that right!
thank you - an intelligent reply! why are there so many dumb capitalists on this site? i should emphasize the dumb part since i am a capitalist - don't really believe it is the best system but i do run my own business - gotta pay the rent!
Our problem is corporatists, capitalists, as someone else posted. That distinction makes sense.
I have a hobby business myself, with small profits for many years, and am currently helping my daughter get a new business off the ground, via the First Bank of Mom.
grassroots capitalism can be a good thing - so can mom's
hm - no family support either I imagine.
These were adults, and some had families who were in touch, but most had out-lived their parents. Many of the families were poor to start with or the parents were now elderly and scraping by.
Food stamps can provide as little as $4 a week, but there are people for whom that makes an important difference.
I am the bottom 50% and I have never qualified for any government services. I have always made enough to not qualify for aid, but too little to really be considered middle class. I am going to be alright though. I served in the Air Force and am a few months away from my Electrical Engineering degree. But having grown up in a poor neighborhood, I have to tell you, very few poor people are collecting handouts and abusing the system. While I certainly have seen a few people take advantage of government services, most people who get aid don't own a damn thing and don't go out and buy fancy things. They use that money for food, clothing and to provide some resemblence of a life for their children. I personally agree that welfare programs need to be streamlined to reduce waste, but you need to realize that the majority of people really need these services to survive. Are you comfortable with people starving and living on the streets in America? How can we possibly say we are the greatest nation in the world when we can't even keep our citizens above poverty? If we cut these programs, America will resemble a third-world nation overnight.
thank you for your service by the way. congrats on your electrical engineering degree. your going to get a great job with that I am sure of it. just keep at it. all the best !
Incarceration of non-violent offenders, largely in support for the idiocy of drug interdiction, costs $50,000 per year, per inmate, less prosecution.
There is not any statistical justification for prohibition.
The costs to those persons caught up in the system is far greater than the costs to those same persons if they had been allowed to pursue personal volition to rectify the excesses of their own proclivities.
Cops stop people day in and day out at speed traps where there has not been an accident in years, just to hijack their private property and search their vehicle to disrupt their lives.
The statistics to support prohibition are not substantiated by the amount of drugs incoming to the US; the intoxicated, dysfunctional, and deluded people are the ones who assert that the world should be coming to an end because of the drug volume.
the prohibition on drugs is one thing...but why do they keep illegal the growing of the Industrial Hemp. this crop could be the basis of an entirely new toxic free economy...and it would help to ameliorate the damage done by man, by giving those resources a much needed reprieve from the onslaught of exploitation for mans greed.
An emphasis on the non aggression principle is absent in civics while it is largely the basis of the US constitution.
Disagreement with something does not make that something aggressive, actual statistics for an event are required and that data must be correlated with the statistics of other events, that may or may not have accepted risks.
Who said i was refuting your source? I am just showing you that you do not understand the problem. You are using politicians talking points. Who are in the business of talking circles to keep the masses confused and sheepish.
Stop parroting politicians talking points and use your brain and google.
what are you talking about ? I gave you a figure from the IRS on who pays what taxes. It's clear you want to believe whatever you want to believe. good luck.
The topic is a political talking point. That is all it is. It is a " this is why we should NOT raise taxes on the rich". Its a really dumb talking point.
It is just a way to convince people that do not understand anything about what is really going on that we shouldnt raise taxes on the rich because they already pay "so much" But when you look at the whys, it all starts to come together.
so one half of the people make less than 50k and thats ok with you?.. you do know you are talking about teachers, coaches, store managers, firemen, small business owners. its ok with you these people lose thier homes, thier lifestyle? you want teachers to apply for welfare?
teacher make more than most people I know ! Please - they are the most protected group out there lol! tenure, union, you must be on crack lol!
teachers make approximately 50k a yr depending on the state they work in. its public information. you can look up the salary of every teacher in your state to verify if you like.
Actually, it depends on the district - and the amount of property tax your district generates, plus state funding, etc. My sister makes 50k+, and that's after her TRS (Teacher Retirement System) contributions...since, you know, teachers don't contribute to Social Security, they fund a separate retirement fund.
dont forget that's for 9 months of the tear too
I know that my sister, both my aunts, my dad (before he passed away), and my great aunt and uncle (all teachers) chose to have their pay distributed for 12 months. Most teachers I know, including my family members, take on summer jobs (for most of them, usually a summer gig at Sylvan) and earn some additional income that way. My sister works in a decent district (property tax wise) but because the whole district (with about 50 schools total) is considered at-risk she had her loans forgiven and started out at 2nd year teacher's pay her first year, about 35K+.
You just arent smart enough to get it are you?
"50% can qualify for lots of welfare programs in effect raising their incomes to upwards of $50,000.00 ." - You either never been poor and/or knew poor people or you are just really gullible.
Lets worry about the rich people paying their taxes since, unlike poor people, they have money to burn.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php
AND they do pay their taxes - 36% of the federal revenue is from 1% of the taxpayers. How about a flat 10% for everybody. Thats the most fair thing actually. We'll' even exempt everyone below $30,000.00
"Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. "
"In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates." - Wow looks like the corple( corporate people) are raking in the tax refunds. despite making billions in profits.
"How about a flat 10% for everybody. Thats the most fair thing actually. We'll' even exempt everyone below $30,000.00" - A flat tax is not fair. People who make more benefit more from the US and everything it offers and has more to lose if it fails. What is fair is a progressive tax that taxes you more as you go up. Even if you tax the rich at 90% they will still end up with all the wealth. It just taxes longer. At a flat tax it will happen quickly. This country would not last two decades with a flat tax.
Wealth must be redistributed at some point and its looking like that point is soon to approach.
A flat tax will stop much of the corporate corruption.
No it wont. It will give all corps a tax break. Most pay around 10-15% in taxes now on average.
Wealth must be redistributed at some point and its looking like that point is soon to approach
and your situation will only get worse not better. Say good bye to your job as it goes to Inda
Yeah we are putting a stop to outsourcing of jobs.
then the companies will close their US facilities, relocate to India and export their goods to the USA. We buy produce and goods every day that have been imported from companies abroad or are you saying that we will no longer be able to buy imported goods either?
How could you possible think redistribution would be helpful to our society? Why would anyone think that allocating our capital and resources away from those who have proven that they can use those productively and giving those resources and capital to those who have proved that the do not know how to effectively use them can be beneficial? Taxes should be fair and loopholes closed, I agree. But be careful what you ask for. If you had a huge sum of money and wanted it used to find a cure for cancer, would you give it to a successful scientist who is rich because he has sold several patents or to the next door neighbor without an education and can't hold a job?
Bankers practice within an institution of counterfeit-theft and the supposed genius decisions of investment bank fund managers who earn outlandish fees can be replaced by a computer algorithm and a standard loan officer - http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-objective-1-fractional-reserve-lending-is-a-cr.
Anarchocapitalism does not have national allegiances. Offshoring of US industry removes all domestic tiers of progressive development from support, to home grown innovation, to the tax base upon which local communities fund their education systems.
Wealth is being centralized in part because the means to bypass domestic investment is available; the earnings of the higher echelon would be lower for domestic development, however the overall wealth and distribution of wealth in the US social system would be more balanced. Much is engineered in the US and then it is manufactured abroad. Some say that the purpose of offshoring is to foster economies that eventually create trade partners. Others see the actions as betrayal and abandonment to satisfy greed that ultimately and permanently diminishes the US economy.
The impetus of some to pursue redistribution of wealth by Keynesian actions of the government is a failure of corporations to attend to the depleting opportunities that are afforded by domestic industry.
Some US politicians focus on oil, or natural gas, while other foreign countries are headlong towards domestic production of alternative energy industries against which it is projected that the US will not be able to compete.
For example, Texas was to deploy 275 wind turbines that were manufactured in china, by a company that required 80% of all resources to be from china. The US was to gain 300 temporary jobs and 30 full time positions and the beneficiary of revenue from the wind turbines remained undisclosed. How many more positions and what other advantages would be created if the 275 wind turbines were created in the US?
Even our own military (air force planes) and local governments (bridges in california) are offshoring purchases by pointing to the bottom price however they ignore the spending multiplier of investments in their total calculations.
"How could you possible think redistribution would be helpful to our society?" - You really do not understand how an economy works do you?
"Why would anyone think that allocating our capital and resources away from those who have proven that they can use those productively and giving those resources and capital to those who have proved that the do not know how to effectively use them can be beneficial?" - You are really delusional.
"But be careful what you ask for. If you had a huge sum of money and wanted it used to find a cure for cancer, would you give it to a successful scientist who is rich because he has sold several patents or to the next door neighbor without an education and can't hold a job?" - All of your arguments are out of ignorance.
You have yet to ever give a good argument on anything. All i have ever seen in any of your post is a lot of 1% teet sucking.
At least they are asking questions and giving suggestions unlike your 'replies' which are just insults with no real responses. Look at history, think your philosophies through and apply them to the real world, then you may be able to give happybanker a good argument.
happybanker is a troll and so is figero.
Didnt think you would answer. LOL
Flat Tax? here we go again, read this from 1996 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1996/01/01/207690/index.htm
if you are paynig less than 10% your taxes should go up. if your paying more then 10% yopur taxes should go down.
No exemptions, No exceptions, No deductions.
Our current tax code became corrupt because of the tinkering, pandering, and influence peddling.
That's gonna hurt a lot of the bottom 99% who get earned income credits, child tax credits, and dependent deductions.
Not really, the reduction in the cost of goods and services will far out way the change in taxation.
Not unless you are proposing a flat tax consumption rate that is below the current sales tax rate. Even then, it's been shown that flat taxes tend to be much more of an impediment to lower-income taxpayers than those with higher incomes.
With a something like the Fair Tax or Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, the cost of goods and services will go down from anywhere from 15% to 30%, in the end the poor will have more money in their pocket. How is a tax an impediment?
Current sales tax is 8.25%. Even in a state where there is no state tax, this raises the current consumption (sales) tax rate across the board. So, for instance, here in TX, all consumers would experience an immediate increase in the tax rate on required goods.
There is no guarantee that the decrease in the cost of goods and services would reduce the cost proportionate to the increase in tax, because you cannot guarantee that a business will then pass all of the savings on to the consumer via price.
Also, if you then set, for instance, a 9% tax rate with no credits, deductions, etc, you are effectively raising the tax rate on the lower scale to a much more damaging degree than the raise for those on the higher end. When I made approx $10m a year (single mom with two kids going to school full time and working part time), I paid about $400 in federal withholding (so about a 4% tax rate). With earned income credit, child tax credit, and dependent credit I got back a refund multiple years of over $5000. If you remove the credits and dependent write-offs across the board, and raise the tax across the board to 9%, you are not only increasing consumption tax but increasing the effective tax rate paid by some at the very low end of the scale.
Not that anectdotal evidence is the be-all end-all, but just from my personal experience, it would have hurt me a lot more to actually have more withheld, get less back, and then pay increased sales tax at the grocery store.
A Gallon of gasoline is taxed at $. 38.4 in Texas. Do you agree it is a hidden tax? All product have hidden taxes or costs passed on by the manufacturer and others through the supply chain. In the end the consumer pays for all of the hidden taxes. If the tax on a gallon of gasoline is repealed will the price stay the same or go up or down?
You assume that nobody is aware of taxes or costs passsed down the "supply chain". You also assume that repealing the tax will automatically cause a decrease in the price of gas. You've got variables all the way down the supply chain that can tack on additional costs for all sorts of reasons, and call it something other than a "tax". Unless this press is for the government to institute price controls here, you can't count on the fact that repealing the tax alone will stop a merchant from marking up goods on his own.
how does that refute my source? this talks about who owns what. Not tax revenue sources. Stop worrying about what other people have and you will be a lot better off. This is just like children behave. Looking at the toy someone else has instread of being grateful for what they themselves have.
The top 1 percent contribute 36.7 percent of the Federal Income tax but own close to 50 percent of the nation's taxable wealth, while the bottom 50 percent own less than three percent. So really, the top still is winning on this one!
winning? I dont really look at it in those terms. I'm not concerned with what other people have. class envy is a bore
You may not look it in those terms, but I asure you the top earners do. Koch brothers much? They will stop at nothing to push their aganda that only benefits themselves and the people theymost resemble.
You dont care about class envy...fine, but this goes well beyond class envy. Do you care about the current state of affairs in our economy? Our politics? Because if you dont think they are connected, then I would say you are mistaken...I'm sure you agree, but I can only assume that you dont by your comments. Hope to hear from you...
yea - their goal in life is to hurt you - get real
Their goal in life isnt to hurt me - its to profit off of me...
yes - is that a crime? and you are looing to profit every time you go to work or make an investment etc.
Yes - it is a crime to manipulate the misgivings of the population so the smallest of percentage can profit off of it. If you were to open your eyes and do some soul searching you would see that too. What do you gain from their greed? I am in education, my profit is educating people based on the arguements...not sensationalism!
good luck
Thank you. I hope you are sincere in your comment. We need to re-focus our prioritites in society to advance our civilization collectively, rather than individually.
Good luck to you too. I dont think it is a crime to want to make money and create a comfortable life for you and yours - we should and can do this without exploiting others in the process!
Cheers
Jefferson to Madison
Thomas Jefferson October 28, 1785
"The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=967
so how much is enough? we already have a progressive tax system
The 1% makes their money on capital gains. They don't work like we do and pay income tax as we do. They pay 15% tax on their capital gains. That is what Buffet was speaking of when he said his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did.
so how much is enough?
The same tax rate that was paid 1940-1963 http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
ok then so you are for massive tax hikes and that will make your life better. great ! Go lobby your congressman
just like to get back to the "good old days"
Oh, ok, thanks for this great info. I am so pleased to finally learn ALL is fine and that there is NO need for change or improvement in our economy or society! Actually, I feel bad that I and other rather educated, patriotic, sane, hard-working yet struggling citizens don't contribute ENOUGH and should really pitch in more and give the highly fortunate more of a break and stop taxing them so heavily. Hey, I now see the light! let's stop this movement and instead see how we can get off our lazy butt's and do better! (this is sarcasm in case it is not clear to anyone)
Seriously, figero, do you really think things are ok, acceptable? Whether you are in the so-called 99% or the 1%, I am certain you have good productive ideas, intentions and energy for improvements and needed reforms--things conservatives, liberals, "socialists" or capitalists can ALL agree on. Let's all go in THAT direction. That's my reasonable plea. Otherwise, I know there are many who are in much more desperate straights than me who will demand and rebel for change more forcefully. Hopefully it is peacefully because more desperate means would be very hurtful to all.
Yup. The bottom 50% have low incomes.
That's because they don't pay 50% of the workers any money for an income to tax.
Federal taxes are not the only taxes in the country. We all pay sales tax, which amounts to a much higher % of a low income persons wages. We all pay property taxes, even renters which is included in their rent. State income taxes, FICA, gasoline taxes, need I go on? We should tax wealth accumulation not consumption since wealth accumulation is the result of the advantage that this country has to offer: stable government, defended borders, low tax rates.
How Robin Hoods men really treated the poor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=167IhlXnN2Y
If the bottom 50% made decent wages, they would also pay more in taxes. makes sense doesn't it?
we'd all pay more for goods & services also consuming less of them. Better for the bottom 50% to work their way up with a better set of skills. The more rare your skills the more income you yield. There is no getting around it unless you want to destroy insentive and destroy the economy in the process.
My god you are a fucking idiot. Here's some simple math, take two people, one who makes a million dollars and one who makes $100,000. At a 20% tax rate the millionaire would pay $200,00 and the thousandaire would pay $20,000, for a total of 220,000. By your logic this is unfair because 200,000 is a much greater percentage of 220,000 than 20,000. You fucking idiot.
so you are for a flat tax then ?
Of course not, I just used this example to completely discredit your bullshit post, ADMIT IT.
Oh - so you are not for equality then?
If you want to know just how objective the original post is, go to the home page of taxfoundation.org. The headline article is:
"House Speaker John Boehner, Honeywell CEO David Cote to Receive Tax Foundation Award"
OK, that's 40% of the total. What are you leaving out?
If only you guys knew. Who cares about taxes. We are the most advanced civilization that's ever lived. We don't need a tax system or to be taxed. We don't need no freak-en banks. They need us. We don't have to work 40 to 80 hours a week. We don't have to have 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, we don't have to have unemployment, etc... I use to be stuck on stupid until I lost my chains (my slave mentality). Today, we have choice. We don't have to live like we did in the past. I know its a bit much for a newbie, but you better get up to speed because we have to much to gain and everything to lose.
We have to step up the revolution and get organized. We have to bring our A game and our A team.
Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )
FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
You can thank me later -
We've had a somewhat Progressive tax code for the last 90+ yrs. Of course that seriously pisses off the 1% and their endless shills that come in here. Tough shit its not likely going to change any time soon. Keep dreaming / pushing your flat tax crap and you'll all find yourself in a serious Civil War with the rest of us , not just a protest movement.
Where are so many people against people making money. I guess Bill Gates is a terrible human being for inventing windows. Steve Jobs was horrible for setting up apple. I bet many the 99% own iphones and ipads. This is how these guys make there money. Should there intellect not be rewarded. They both went out on a limb to start small software companies that grew beyond anything anyone could have imagined. Should they pay more taxes because of this. Absolutely not. We should all pay the same tax. We should all have the same burden. They should not have to pay more because they were successful. They employee many many people. Bill Gates created a charitable foundation to give away the vast majority of his net worth. If he had been taxed to death would he be able to contribute so much to so many? No he would have given his money to our government that would disperse it any way they see fit and likely would result in a larger deficit because our government has no clue how to manage money.
it isn't about percentages it's about the welfare of the massive majority of the population and the planet come a distant second to the greed of a small few, and they are the ones who get to make laws that are against the law in order to maintain this inequity.
The top 1% shrinks in horror at a top tax bracket of just 39% yet I remember when the top tax bracket was 90%, lol.
And the bottom 50% includes people who literally make no money at all. I would point out also that this is strictly about income taxes. If you want to get serious look at the rate relative to total income and total tax load. Consider the points made here: http://www.alternet.org/economy/125536/unspinning_the_right:_the_rich_don%27t_really_bear_most_of_the_tax_burden/
And the gap looks a lot less attractive.
@figero That's because our tax system does not as of yet, expect people who are f*cking broke to pay for, and who are the victims of, the stupidity of the decisions made by the 1%. I know you Fascists are working on "fixing" this little problem also....
victims again with the victims. how do so many people manage to rise out of povery - I dont know
less and less each day...
What about indirect taxes, that is paid by every one.
HAHAHA. If they are making their fortune on the expense of others, of the expense of the planet, paying taxes doesn't mean that they can continue doing that. Paying taxes doesn't mean that those fortunes are clean and they are good citizen.
it doesnt mean they are all crooks either
Of course not. I always have been inspired by rich people who earned their money with hard work, brilliant ideas, ethics and responsibility.
Their is no doubt. They are vital for a healthy society.
Where does the other 61% come from?
Where does the other 61% come from?
The bottom 50% have no money. You can't get blood out of a stone. If the government wasn't so busy shoveling taxpayer money at corporations, everyone could pay less.
i agree - stop all subsidies.
See. Reasonable people can discuss things and see where the real problem is. The problem is not the free market. The problem is a massive, bloated government that only exists to maximize the profits of well connected corporations.
absolutely
I love this statement- it perfectly shows how THEY tell the truth to convince the lemmings - without telling the WHOLE TRUTH.
Like Mao, George, Rush, Carl, Adolph -
words thrown skillfully at the lemmings are eaten like flies on s__t .
this does not include payroll taxes - look at the income for the bottom 50% and what they have taken out and then make some comment on how you might live on what is left - oh no, you again!
Because the top 1% have all the money! Maybe if we get rid of Reagan's earned income tax credit, we can get the poor to pay more taxes.
I agree - flat tax for all
I disagree.
You blithering idiot. You support gluttony and greed, all of your opinions derive from your own self-interest, you have zero principles beyond your own enrichment. Selfishness, greed, and gluttony have never been considered good things to be. I love how right wingers are proud to be dumb. Aren't you the one who bragged about graduating at the bottom of your class?
I would think everybody contributing the same amount is fair no? No need to start name calling lol.
You call the disparity of wealth in this country fair? Those who benefit more from living in this country have to give back more than the ones they take advantage of and exploit, and yes, that sounds fair to me. And anyone who types "lol" is a fucking moron.
That's because they make a lot more money, idiot, i.e. they siphon far more from the economy, they plunder and hoard and make their money off the backs of the underpaid. These numbers are relative and you are dumb.
you are a genius
Tell me where I'm wrong.
no your right. you are a genius. especially when you resort to name calling
It's "you're right," imbecile. That's basic grammar. Third grade. And you cannot tell me where I'm wrong because you have no argument.
your right I am agreeing with you
You clearly have no argument. So the question is are you dumb or a liar?
I really would like to see how many people in the bottom 50% get back more then what they pay in.
Wow, at this rate the top 1% must be going broke and the bottom 50% must be living on easy street.
Wait a minute, that ain't the way it is at all. How could it be?
God damn it. You die hard winner take all bloodthirsty capitalists and filthy rich pigs absolutely refuse to understand the following: First, that record high charges in health care, energy, and finance also mean record high profits and record high dividends. 1/2 of which are paid to the richest one percent. This causes more hardship and more concentration of wealth. At the same time, more financial aid in the form of welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid becomes necessary. Especially with those record high charges and profits. As even more wealth is concentrated, the lower majority go into debt and lose their relative buying power. This results in less demand, layoffs, and higher unemployment. This results in even more legitimate need for financial aid, a slower economy, less revenue, and higher national debt. It's a downward cycle tied directly to the relentless concentration of wealth.
I'm not making excuses for those who sit on the couch, make no attempt to find work, and sponge off the government. I'm not calling for a welfare state. But God damn it. You die hard conservatives and filthy rich pigs need to stop being such cowards, open your god damn eyes, and finally admit that there is a downside as more and more wealth becomes concentrated.
The richest one percent now own well over 40 percent of all United States wealth. The lower 90 percent now own less than 10 percent of all United States wealth. This is true even after you account for all taxes, charity, and financial aid. This equation becomes more obscene when you account for nearly two trillion in consumer debt which is owed primarily by the lower 90 percent. Mark my words: this equation will get worse.
THERE IS A DOWNSIDE AS YOU GET RICHER AND RICHER!
A word for my critics: I'm no expert but I'm no fool. I predicted this socio-economic crisis in writing 6 years ago. I'm aware of all the conservative and liberal talking points. Of course, I hate politicians. But I don't hate liberals or conservatives. I agree with both on some issues. For example: I agree that we need an adequate safety net for those in need. Not for those who sit on the couch and watch TV.I agree with tax cuts for small business. But not for Wall Street and not for those making $500,000 and up. A heavy concentration of wealth is what got us here. A gradual and partial redistribution of wealth is vital.
I don't want socialism, communism, or marxism. I want modest capitalism. A reasonable scale of income opportunity for all those willing and able to work. An adequate safety net for those in need.
A word for the rich: I have received quite a bit of negative feedback from you one percent club pigs. I must be doing something right. After all, you took time away from your money bath just for me. You might want to check your ass crack for soggy bills. In the meantime, let me just say this for the record:
You can't intimidate me. You can't embarrass me. You can't make me feel uneducated, unintelligent, or otherwise insignificant. You can't confuse me. You can't divert my attention. You can't exhaust me and you sure as hell can't break my will. I know I'm getting to you because you're here with another lame psychological trick. You're here in an attempt to shut me up. It won't work. I've had it with all of you.
I won't break any laws. I would never discredit the cause with a criminal act. But I'm telling you right now that I'm virtually impossible to stop. It's a big world and I have a lot to say. If you want to break my will, you're going to have to break my neck first.
If you pull a stunt like that, a lot of people will know what happened to me and why.
Now get out of my face. I have work to do.
hahahaha!
You never have any arguments, figero. Tell this guy where he's wrong.
well to start with bloodthirsty. What does that mean?
It means they will kill people to make money. Now you'll say they don't kill people. Look at the ingredients on the food at the grocery store. Breathe the air. Suck on a child's toy painted with lead. Greed is a brutally destructive force. Gluttony is a deplorable human failing. You support evil, and call it...what?
The boys and girls with the most toys in the sandbox...we all know how that happens
Doesn't include PAYROLL TAXES!! I made over 90K last year and not only paid no "FEDERAL INCOME TAXES", but I got a return.
Why??
Because unpatriotic scum like you are unwilling to pay their fair share all year round and whine like babies that they have to pay in the end.
Seriously, keep spreading the lies.
The PEOPLE know that you're just a disgusting crony of organizations that spread misleading trash like this.
scum - nice - mature - intellectual - backed up by factual evidence - good going
Where's your evidence, bank teller?
If you didn't get paid less than you produced your employer will not survive its competitions. This much is clear. So, in a successful business the margin between your pay and your input is the gains for the 1%. The gains and taxes on them were thus created by the 99%. In this peculiar time, the initial capital to make it all happen also came from the coffers of the 99% through the bailout.
From the society's point of view, unlimited private property doesn't really make sense. It's in our human nature/instincts to maximize our own wealth (gathering more food and belongings have meant greater chance of survival for a 100,000 years). A society/economic system need to reward creativity and hard work, otherwise people will simply not put in their best effort (failed pure communist systems may be seen as a proof of this). BUT, there should be limits on how much a single person should be allowed to accrue or earn in a year --- from the society's point of view: how much more value is created by giving a CEO 10 million dollar a year instead of 1 million? What logic is there in allowing a few people/families to literally own huge areas of land, property and infrastructure over generations? These are monarchies in disguise.
I think everyone should have the right to some private property, to a limit.. people that work hard, are capable should be rewarded, to a limit.. it's not in the interest of a democratic society to allow immense wealth and power to be concentrated in a few hands/families over long time...
It is not in our human nature to maximize our own wealth. Most people believe in fairness and remember that thing called sharing your parents taught you? There is a difference between earning a living and sheer gluttony. Hoarding wealth you will never spend just to win some game in your head is not human nature, it is despicable greed and gluttony.
The tax percentages show the improportionately large share of income the 1% receives. In fact they received all the increase in income in the past 30 years.
never mind what they receive - they pay 36%
Idiot, it is all about what they receive. You should have paid more attention in school.
why?
Because critical thinking is an important skill you lack.
Nearly 22% of children live in poverty; about the same percentage of seniors do as well. That is why they don't pay much in income tax.
and they get welfare benefits to make up for it. no one is starving here unless they want to be. Do you want a safety net or a cradle to grave welfare state ? must be nast down @ Zuccotti no ?
I suspect that you have an inflated idea of what welfare provides. There are many children who have too little food and/or little access to healthy food.
Seniors can be in poverty if they worked at low income jobs, and not eligible for anything but part of Medicare. If they can't pay the premiums (now about $100 a month) they don't get some kinds of care. They may frequently not eat if that means they can't pay for heat.
So the govt should provide everything for the elderly? Children going hungry ? where are the parents? Please - there are plenty of support mechanisms in place. Stop this madness. you have no backup
I've seen the support mechanisms, and worked with people who were relying on them, which may be why I'm less impressed with them than you are.
I would prefer to see work valued and paid better, rather than wages being stagnant and even falling compared to inflation. Productivity has risen strongly, but wages have not. The value has gone to the top only. If wages paralleled productivity, then poverty would fall.
you need better skills to get higher wages. it's that simple. skills in short supply = higher pay. that's it.
That's the theory. However, average people in average jobs still deserve to have their pay go up as productivity goes up, not have it benefit only the 1%. It's not only fair, but it also makes the country stronger.
It's not a theory it's reality. what you think people "deserve" is theory everyones definition of "fair" is different. The market determines fairness.
The "market" is what people in power can get away with.
get some skills - you'll make a living
Since you permalinked your last snark, I'll go up one post.
Power has become too concentrated and as a result, work is less valued. It is not healthy for the economy, the stability of the country, or for the majority of hard working individuals. OWS is the first hopeful sign that constructive change may occur.
I agree. so stop the subsidies by electing reps who are free market libertarians. your aim is off. you are not going to ever stop people from offering reps money. You can control those who accept or reject lobbyist money.
I already did and am now enjoying semi-retirement. You make accusations to cover the fact that you really have no substantive rejoinder.
ok - -so what's the problem?
That just proves one thing, that the wage disparity between the top and bottom 50% is pitiful. Just reason it out... oh greedy one. 50% of our population is contributing only 2.3% to federal income taxes, think about it.......what does that tell you?
The problems with such a statement are several because while more-or-less true it is misleading.
First, it misleadingly uses "Federal Income Tax" but there is FICA tax (social security and medicaid adding up to 15.3%, part of that tax being hidden on the employer side): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax
There are also lots of other taxes and fees (property tax, sales tax, use tax, fees for service).
Then there is the fact that the national debt is incurred on the behalf of all citizens, so how is that apportioned as effectively a tax?
There are all sorts of externalities like pollution or risk of industrial accident that are pushed on to poor people as a sort of "tax".
Government policies, like allowing a monopoly on the licensing of doctors and lawyers, also push up prices as a sort of tax that everyone pays. Copyrights and patents (now enforced by the police with recent law changes) are another form of "tax".
Meanwhile, historically, the affluent are generally able to get many more goods and services from the government in various ways from corporate welfare to college loans.
Also, the fact the bottom pay so little is itself an example of the problem, that for the last thirty years almost all the increase in wealth has gone to the top 1%. If it had not, and the wealth distribution was more equitable, the bottom might be paying a lot more. http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/
But, in any case, the reason for progressive tax is in part to keep the economy working. A capitalistic society can't work with too much concentration of wealth because there is no money in the hands of most people to buy goods and service, so the system goes into a death spiral. See: http://www.businessinsider.com/do-low-tax-rates-on-rich-people-ruin-the-economy-2011-7 "But it is certainly interesting that the two biggest busts and eras of income inequality in US history in the past century have come right after periods with super-low marginal income tax rates--and that the economy boomed and the middle-class prospered in periods with super-high tax rates."
There are probably more ways that factoid is misleading, but those are at least some to start with.
FICA tax isn't "hidden" on the employer side. Your employer is required to match what is withheld from your check. So, if you have $150 withheld from your check for FICA alone, your employer must send $300 dollars to the IRS.
income should be taxed proportionally and sales tax as well the bigger the transaction the bigger the tax
Did you know that 86.4% of all statistics are made up in the spur of the moment, also speaking percentages is always a good way to mislead people
You can't measure the contribution to society of the bottom 50% (of those employed) by the taxes they pay. Rather, you have to look at their contributions to GDP per capita. With the benefits of computerization and robotization, GDP per capita has been shooting up while wages have been stagnating. So the benefits of the improvements in technological efficiency this past 20-30 years have been reaped more by capital invested than by the sweat and brains of the actual innovators.
If returns on capital invested are reaping a disproportionate share of the income, then of course they should pay a commensurate proportion of the tax take. But that still doesn't address the underlying problem: that the technological efficiency gains in the economy are not being shared equitably.
Why is this so and how can this sharing be done without resorting to communistic redistribution schemes?
Based on bogus numbers, they don't count payrole tax, state tax, sales tax!
Maybe because not every state has a state tax. For an apples to apples comparison, you have to back that out. And why keep calling it a "payroll tax"? It's federal withholding and FICA.
Call it what you will they still take money... so our money isn't as good as your for some reason?
Why do you say that? Money is money. My point was that when you have disparity between the taxes collected from state to state, you have to compare common denominators. I wanted to clarify what 'payroll tax' for the earner was, as compared to what employers pay.
yea - the 1% pay those too lol!
You mean like waren buffet? Who says his taxes are less than his secritary... or exon mobil whom paid none? Who are you referring too?
I am referring to the data reported by the IRS in the above link
What does the data mean, explain what it means! Because all it means is that people who make more money pay a larger percent of the taxes! That's called math. You idiot.
the data means that the 1% already pay the lions share of taxes. the bottom 50% pay's next to nothing while consuming the lions share of government benefits.
Great Data but the top 1% are getting richer and the other 99%, I guess thats all they could gleen from us is 2.3%. I'm just sayin :o)
I'll just leave this here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/17/top-400-taxpayers-in-the-u-s-pay-a-17-percent-tax-rate/
Thank you for citing sources!
my apologies. Here's a source:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/08/How-Poor-Are-Americas-Poor-Examining-the-Plague-of-Poverty-in-America
I considered your citation of "IRS data" sufficient. It seems like people arbitrarily make up statistics that support their belief (and granted stats are easily manipulated too) so it's nice to see posting with sources. Thanks for the link in addition.
If you look closely the source is actually the IRS. . It's obvious you've made up your mind. If the facts dont fit your agenda just dismiss them as iligitimate lol! Go to the IRS to see if they have different figure. I'd be happy to take a look at it.
I know a thing or three about statistics. I also know that I don't have time to fact check every single claim anyone makes...however, if you can at least cite a specific source it lends credibility. You wanna check it, go right ahead, I might not but I still appreciate the citation.
Your stupidity is entertaining.
now that's backing up your position.
Income tax and Payroll taxes are two different things. Capital gains is a clever euphemism created to allow people who don't actually work for a living to pay a much lower tax rate than people who actually have to get up in the morning and go produce something...
capital gains are reward for investment risk. The higher you tax it the less risk & investment will occur. GWB cut the cap gains tax & revenue doubled so what the objective -to punish risk takers or raise revenue to the govt?
Risk is just another euphemism for the wealthy, what are you actually risking? Someone who has so much money that they can play with it knows nothing of real risk. Risk is knowing you're job sucks but you don't get paid enough to save any money, so you start looking for new job knowing that you'll get fired if your current boss finds out. Risk is protesting non-violently in the streets knowing you may be beaten or ticketed just for exercising your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Actually, it's not just the wealthy. Lots of "not-rich" people have 401ks, IRAs, SEPs, etc. Those are generally invested, yes? Those people don't have so much money that they can play around. Please keep in mind that there are lots of folks who count on that as the bulk of their retirement income, since SS benefits can very so greatly depending on your work history.
because the corps take the poor's money and labor and own the resources
Next they'll want our women, rollerball.... sad to say it seems things are going that way. A lot of money is paid to people to bumrush the movement so they can have it that way...
how do they take it exactly?
They take it by not paying fair wages or providing benefits to their employees, it's pretty simple.
lets start over. how much money do you want to earn?
It's not about me, idiot. You cannot possibly think in terms that don't relate to yourself, and that's the problem. I actually care about other people and am willing to fight for the rights of OTHER people. You come here to defend greed and gluttony.
really?
land sales from governments
oh - so it's the government that's the problem. That's what I've been saying. Glad we agree. Thanks for clearing that up!
Let me show you how but I dare you to see it.
Here is how. Separate the bottom 50% from the top 1%. The bottom 50% will have there own government. The 1% will have its own government.
Do you dare to see?
sure - and the top 1% are fine with that.
The fact that so many pay so little in taxes is only an indicator of inequity. Continuing that serves only to disenfranchise the entire working class. The numbers you provide do not account for deductions. Most of the large corporations pay little to nothing while small biz foots the majority of the tax bill in this country. A really good way for big biz to kill the ma and pa stores. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558 that link is indicative of our real tax policy.
they get deductions for investment in equipment etc. or - if your friends with Obama like Jeffery Imelt of General Electric.
thats right. you understand what a deduction is. why should I pay to prop up their corporation. I have my own business to pay for.
it encourages investment. This also stimulates the economy. If I buy a new tractor instead of keeping the old one running etc.
You statement is based on supply side economics. TARP and the stimulus was spent inline with this thinking and the money was given to the banks and investment companies to "stimulate the economy". we now have record debt and 9.+% unemployment.
supply side is what works. Tarp was actually the government guarantee of mortgages.
supply side economics was introduced in it's current form by Regan. We have staid that course since then. now we are here. Would you say this is working? is this the desired state of economics? because this is the result of Reganomics.
worked for 30 years. the govt repealed glass steagall & told the banks to lower their lending standards. you cant do both. Barney Frank "I want to roll the dice on this one"
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp#axzz1cIbxsFDp the evil of supply side even with protective policy is inflation. the only remedy for this is to eliminate the floating currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_exchange_rate but doing so would cause even more problems.
absolutely - we need a balanced budget amendment & stop printing money
I can agree with that 100%
This BIG LIE is really put out here to justify the elites ownership of the political system, isn't it?
Your numbers are correct, but you do not understand that this is symbolic of how bad things have become. You do not add in payroll, state, local, and sales taxes which are much more regressive. However, if you consider that your statistic means that---after deducting for dependents and mortgage interest---the bottom 50% have nothing left to tax, then you begin to realize how bad things have become.
What you did not report is that the top 1% have a net worth....the true gauge of accumulated wealth....that is equal to that of the bottom 90%, then it becomes clear that we are seeing the arrival of an aristocracy.
We have replaced the meritocracy envisioned by progressives going back to Teddy Roosevelt, and replacing it with a hardened economic caste according to Ms. Ayn Rand,
yea - the 1% pay those other taxes as well. please - ok you win - lets try your way. oh - I forgot - the Soviet Union tried that and look how that turned out lol!
What about America in the 1950's and 1960's? Were we socialists then?
The post comments make it look like the IRS and income taxes are lawful. We should also Occupy IRS!!!
The federal government rests its authority to collect income tax on the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the federal income tax amendment—which was allegedly ratified in 1913.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." —The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
After an extensive year-long nationwide research project, William J. Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states and that nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox had fraudulently declared ratification.
It was a shocking revelation; it reached deep to the core of our American system of government.
for more info: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/
Shocking