Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The TRUTH AbOuT TaXeS. How the rich pay nothing and the poor pay everything

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 11, 2011, 11:22 p.m. EST by bill1102inf2 (357)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

1952 corporate tax as a % of GDP = 32.1%

2010 corporate tax as a % of GDP = 1.3%

(A 95% drop)

1952 Payroll taxes (Social security) as a % of total federal revenue = 9.7%

2010 Payroll taxes (Social security) as a % of total federal revenue = 40.0%

(A 400% increase in the burden on workers)

Our political leaders are so deeply in bed with large corporate America that they have not even considered a very small and temporary corporate tax increase to fill an important bucket. Instead, they want to pass the cost onto those who desire to own a home.

70 Comments

70 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

I am sick to my stomach. My CEO friend said with his new CPA he pays no taxes.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 7 years ago

Then quit your job and stop working for the ones who are robbing you

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

Dude, I don't HAVE a job.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 7 years ago

oop, my mistake... then what are you doing being friends with the enemy?

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

I'm not a very good friend (-;

[-] -1 points by turak (-812) 7 years ago

from the way you use the word 'friend' I assume you have no real friends. Maybe it's time you changed your acquaintances and stop consorting with the enemy.

[-] 3 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

Oh I tell him he's the enemy to his face every day. He IS making progress. He is able to pronounce Corporatocracy. Sometimes I catch him whispering "banks got bailed out, we got sold out..." Why do I need friends when I have so much fun with enemies?

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 7 years ago

we need people here who aren't liars Don't bother to answer I won't be reading any more of your lies

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

What is so funny, is it is the absolute truth.

[+] -4 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Too bad you aren't sharp enough to pull it off. Their game, their rules, very few "regular" people play it, everyone should. Too bad for the sheeples.

[-] 4 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 7 years ago

The poor are forced to pay 2500+++% more today in taxes than in 1952!

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 7 years ago

but they pay all other taxes including Social Security tax, Medicare tax, etc etc ad naseum , there are literally 1000's of taxes the poor pay

[-] 0 points by screwtheman (122) 7 years ago

ad naseum isn't a tax

[-] -3 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Everyone pays into Social Security/Medicare. Everyone pays sales tax. Many states have income tax but the poor don't pay into those.

The desire to own a home is righteous; so is the ability to pay. If you can't afford to buy then rent. That's life.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 7 years ago

You are full of shit. I make less than $16,000 a year and I pay state income tax. Everyone I know that is poor pays state income tax.

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Then improve a) your education b) your work skills c) your geographic location

Or, if you are young enough, enlist in one of the Armed Forces and learn a trade while being paid.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

You actually encourage people to join the army? Are you mad? Sorry, don't mean to offend you but geez. that's freaking sick.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Yeah. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard.

Of course, if you have no pride in that kind of work or for your country, the real men and women of America will do it for you so you can sit on your lazy ass and play games on your XBOX.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Do you really believe that EVERYBODY pays into Social Security?

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 7 years ago

Everyone with a SS number who works on the books.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

That simply isn't true. Not by a long shot. Even if it were, the fact that it stops after 100K and change makes it punitive all but the wealthy.

[-] 0 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 7 years ago

That why we get the Earned Income tax Credit.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Really? everyone filing on the amount less than the Social Security cut off gets an EIC? Really?

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Most working people split the costs of social security with their employers. The self-employed also pay social security tax. Many people recognize this tax as the “FICA” line on their pay stub. This stands for the “Federal Insurance Contributions Act” and the Social Security and Medicare taxes levied under it are used to fund the Social Security system.

Amount of Social Security Tax Americans Pay

If you work for someone else, 4.2% of your wages in 2011 is withheld from your paycheck. Your employer deposits the withheld amount, along with a 6.2% contribution to the Social Security program. In 2011, the employee tax and contribution to Social Security stopped after the first $106,800 of wages. That means, a worker with wages equal to or more than $106,800 contributes $4,485.60 to Social Security in 2011 while the employer puts in $6,621.60. Additionally, if you work for an employer, 1.45% of your wages is withheld and the employer makes a matching 1.45% contribution to the Medicare program, making the total withholdings 7.65%. There is no income ceiling for Medicare taxes.

For those workers who are self-employed, things work a bit differently. You pay 13.3% of your taxable income into the social security and Medicare programs, up to the first $106,800 of income. You continue to pay 2.9% on the rest of your earnings above $106,800. Although the impact on you is greater because you pay twice the rate of employees, you get a break at tax time. You can deduct half of your federal self-employment taxes from your income when it comes time to pay your federal income tax. For self-employed workers, the Social Security tax rate will drop from 12.4 percent to 10.4 percent next year, due to provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

source: law.freeadvice.com

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 7 years ago

"For those workers who are self-employed, things work a bit differently. You pay 13.3% of your taxable income into the social security and Medicare programs, up to the first $106,800 of income."-----------This is how our government encourages us to start new businesses. Add being responsible for accounting, collecting and banking employee's taxes and sales taxes, and it's a wonder anyone that's not rich can succeed in small business. So you have a bad year and profit $10,000. You better have $1300 to pay SS or you're a criminal.

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton

A true American, and a success story no matter how you look at it. When people see promise in you they WILL help you gain success.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 7 years ago

The present economy needs jobs, and self-employment and sales tax laws don't help you gain success. Don't try selling milk to neighbors like young Sam Walton did. Even if you buy it from Walmart.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Go out and get yours jomojomojo. I got mine. You can come work for me in Vermont selling pies.

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Yet people do it all the time. That's what makes America strong. Do you think Sam Walton's first job was the creation of a Super Wal-Mart?

You must take risks and work hard to achieve your goals, or, over time, accept that you have gone about as far as you can and be happy with that.

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Every U.S. Citizen or legal immigrant who works and earns income outside of pension income. Yes, unless they are being paid under the table, an illegal act.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

I was also going to ask you in what exact point in time did it drop from 15.6% and how it happened, but, I dismissed you for bizarre antics.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Is collecting rental income an "illegal act"? Do you not think there exist other ways?

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Rental income is income reported on your schedule C, and the accounting of that taken care of through the self-employment tax.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

SimpleSimon. Its not that simple.

The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.

Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.

Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.

The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.

For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.

Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

It is precisly that simple. You have attempted to deflect the truth about social security taxes and it has failed miserably. Your argument is non-sequitir.

No matter how you slice it, dice it, cook it or eat it, people pay taxes. If you don't work then you don't pay taxes, you instead take taxpayer money from people who do work.

You cannot stop revenue, profit, profit margins, the amassing of wealth. You also cannot stop losses.

You can, however, stop laziness and get a job. Of the $26K number that those Americans made, they paid into social security and medicare. The people making $200K paid more into social security, and also paid medicare tax on 100% of their earnings.

Good for the rich people! They pay more taxes than the poor. That is what you have just proven.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

I thought you would say something like that. It still isn't that simple.

Don't believe this outrageous crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes in America and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.

Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group, it's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the lowest quintile in America (20%) actually pays about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the top quintile. The difference is within 5 percent.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay a MUCH higher rate simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.

Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 1/2 of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it.

The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth.

In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 24 percent of all private income and hold over 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.

Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. They never have. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, the 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top percentile.

If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. After all, this obscene concentration of wealth actually CAUSES economic instability. It CAUSES poverty. It will CAUSE the next Great Depression.

No more excuses.

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

[-] -2 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

You have again thrown out a non-sequitir argument to the argument regarding social security and medicare. The rich pay more than the poor. The poor don't pay income tax. The rich do.

If you want to raise taxes on the rich, which is your argument, then run for office, gain consensus, and write it into law that the President will sign.

In the absence of that, your argument is shit.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

Its clear now that you will dance your way around every point I make. You just don't have the guts to admit that its not anywhere near as simple as you claim.

I will have one very serious question for you after your next reply. Keep in mind everything I've stated so far and let me know if you have the guts to answer one serious question. In the meantime, dance your way around this:

The most profitable industries in the world (energy, healthcare, finance) have been given billions in government handouts and tax breaks. Meanwhile, they keep raising charges causing hardship for millions. With all those massive handouts, tax breaks, and obscene charges, profits rise to record high levels. Millions in bonuses are paid to the executives. With record high profits, record high dividends are paid. 1/2 of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. The bottom 95 percent of Americans share about 3 percent (that's three percent) of all dividends. The rest are paid to the top 5 percent and foreign investors. All of this causes a gradual concentration of wealth and income. This results in a net loss for the lower majority who find it more and more difficult to cover the record high cost of living, which again, is directly proportional to record high profits for the rich. As more and more people struggle to make ends meet, more and more financial aid becomes necessary. Most of which goes right back to the health care industry through Medicare, Medicaid, and a very expensive prescription drug plan. This increases government spending. This has been happening for 30 years now. During the same time, tax rates have been lowered drastically for the richest one percent. Especially those who profit from investments. These people pay only 15 percent on capital gains income. As even more wealth concentrates, the lower majority find it more difficult to sustain there share of the consumer driven economy. Demand drops as more and more people go broke. Layoffs results. Unemployment rises. This results in less revenue and more government debt.

Massive subsidies and tax breaks for Wall Street, massive tax breaks for the super rich, heavy concentration of wealth, record high charges along with record high profits and record high cost of living, more hardship for the lower majority, more government spending in the form of financial aid to compensate, more concentration of wealth, less demand, layoffs and unemployment. All of this results in slower economy and less tax revenue. At the same time more and more financial aid becomes necessary. It's a horrible downward cycle which gradually pushes the national debt higher and higher.

The other big factors are the wars in the Middle East.

This post is not intended to excuse those who sit on the couch collecting welfare, make no attempt to find work, or squease out kids they can't provide for.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

----There was a partial redistribution of wealth following the Great Depression. Most of the growth in income was realized by the lower majority. The lowest quintile saw the greatest increase as a percentage. The highest saw the lowest. Thats the way it had to be. Otherwise, there would have been no recovery.

Unfortunately, all that relative equality has been reversed in the last 35 years.

No redistribution. No recovery. ----

We have no "New Deal" in the 21st century. Our President and our legislators have been spending unabated. You think it's bad now? Wait until the full implemention of Obamacare. We have essentially removed market algorithms from health care with that piece of legislation. Health care will NEVER go down as long as government pays.

Our philosophies are different. There is no need to protest about corporate greed. There IS a need to vote people into government that can control spending and allow market forces to prevail.

That's my opinion.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

There is no dance. I have given you my position. You have asked no serious question for which I should respond.

The situation you describe is precisely why government should get out of business and let markets do their thing.

I don't really care how much money the rich have. They earned it.

So bring me your question.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

Since the 'reply' links are running out, I will respond to your answers here as well as on my previous post.

I'm also against bailouts. We can agree on that much. However I was asking about subsidies in general. Not just TARP.

There is a link. Albert Einstein and Mariner Eccles both went on record attributing the first Great Depression to a heavy concentration of income and/or wealth.

Albert Einstein refered to "instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital". He attributed this to the profit motive and wealth being held in "fewer and fewer hands".

Mariner Eccles (Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR) compared the Great Depression to a game of Poker. Stating that the winning players had too many of the chips. When the others ran out, the "game stopped".

In addition, Allen Greenspan said the following to Congress in the spring of '05':

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually destabilize democratic capitalism itself". Remember: SPRING OF '05'.

Richard Wolff and Robert Reich have gone on record with similar views.

If none of this is good enough, ask any professor of economics.

If their answer isn't good enough, play a game of Monopoly.

and don't feed me that 'static wealth' or 'zero sum' crap. I've never implied such a thing.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

Again, the links to reply are drying up. So I will post my reply here.

There was a partial redistribution of wealth following the Great Depression. Most of the growth in income was realized by the lower majority. The lowest quintile saw the greatest increase as a percentage. The highest saw the lowest. Thats the way it had to be. Otherwise, there would have been no recovery.

Unfortunately, all that relative equality has been reversed in the last 35 years.

No redistribution. No recovery. I

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

Keep in mind everything that I've stated about subsidies, capital gains, dividends, ect. Then answer these two questions:

Do you think that our leaders forced hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies against the wishes of the richest one percent who own just over 1/2 of the entire market or were these hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies lobbied for?

Are you willing to acknowledge any link between a heavy concentration of income, wealth, and/or capital and economic instability? If so, be specific about which and under what circumstances.

Careful. Keep recent events in mind. Don't let those die-hard capitalist ideals interfere with any ability you may have to think rationally.

As you can see, I waited nearly an hour to post these two questions. Now answer.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

In what way is wealth disparity a positive thing for the American public?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

and this:

Here is a list of the top ten companies that not only paid little or no taxes but got huge corporate welfare from we the people.

1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

So far, you have shown yourself to be a one sided partisan and/or big business/capitalist puppet. You havn't had the guts to acknowledge a single valid point or shred of economic injustice.

Tell you what: I'm going to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself by answering two simple questions. Are you ready for them?

Since the 'reply' links are running out, I will respond to your answers here on my previous post.

I'm also against bailouts. We can agree on that much. However I was asking about subsidies in general. Not just TARP.

There is a link. Albert Einstein and Mariner Eccles both went on record attributing the first Great Depression to a heavy concentration of income and/or wealth.

Albert Einstein refered to "instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital". He attributed this to the profit motive and wealth being held in "fewer and fewer hands".

Mariner Eccles (Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR) compared the Great Depression to a game of Poker. Stating that the winning players had too many of the chips. When the others ran out, the "game stopped".

In addition, Allen Greenspan said the following to Congress in the spring of '05':

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually destabilize democratic capitalism itself". Remember: SPRING OF '05'.

Richard Wolff and Robert Reich have gone on record with similar views.

If none of this is good enough, ask any professor of economics.

If their answer isn't good enough, play a game of Monopoly.

and don't feed me that 'static wealth' or 'zero sum' crap. I've never implied such a thing.

Again, the links to reply are drying up. So I will post my reply here.

There was a partial redistribution of wealth following the Great Depression. Most of the growth in income was realized by the lower majority. The lowest quintile saw the greatest increase as a percentage. The highest saw the lowest. Thats the way it had to be. Otherwise, there would have been no recovery.

Unfortunately, all that relative equality has been reversed in the last 35 years.

No redistribution. No recovery. I

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

You wrote:

I'm also against bailouts. We can agree on that much. However I was asking about subsidies in general. Not just TARP.

There is a link. Albert Einstein and Mariner Eccles both went on record attributing the first Great Depression to a heavy concentration of income and/or wealth.

Albert Einstein refered to "instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital". He attributed this to the profit motive and wealth being held in "fewer and fewer hands".

Mariner Eccles (Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR) compared the Great Depression to a game of Poker. Stating that the winning players had too many of the chips. When the others ran out, the "game stopped".

In addition, Allen Greenspan said the following to Congress in the spring of '05':

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually destabilize democratic capitalism itself". Remember: SPRING OF '05'.

Richard Wolff and Robert Reich have gone on record with similar views.

If none of this is good enough, ask any professor of economics.

If their answer isn't good enough, play a game of Monopoly.

and don't feed me that 'static wealth' or 'zero sum' crap. I've never implied such a thing.

I can agree with all of the quotes you have provided but I will provide a different premise. No, I am not dancing around the issue. I am being truthful; I really don't care who holds all the chips. I don't have their chips. I have never needed their chips, and I have no desire to hold them all for myself.

We can listen to the prophecy of virtually any expert in any field and take truth from it. I don't question the education or believability of any of those you quoted.

History has shown, despite these quotes by Einstein, Eccles, that the country survived the great depression. Americans worked themselves out of their economic crisis, partially driven by war. Our economy post world war II generated huge amounts of wealth based upon the lessons of thrift learned by the people of that generation.

In the case of Greenspan and the beginning of our current economic meltdown, which predates 2005 in the form of market manipulation by federal legislation, I believed their statements were true, and Americans flourished on a false sense of wealth. Taxi drivers thought they could be millionaires in three years by flipping houses.

We know there is no fast rise to wealth. Our economy isn't like playing the lottery. Our congressional leaders made serious mistakes and they still do with every piece of bailout legislation or legislation that creates more spending than revenue.

We will hit bottom again but I believe that there is no reason to protest it. The damage has been done, and we must, as history shows, learn lessons of thrift as our ancestors did during and after the great depression.

The protesting is a symptom of everyone spending like drunken sailors. We will regain control of our economy when markets are allowed to fail or rise without government intervention. Politicians are not economists and they have no business choosing winners or losers.

But, until that time of the great correction, I invest where I believe market trends will go. I don't sit around waiting for the inevitable. I take action to exploit the new opportunities that will arise from that.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

There is no reply button on the two question post you made above, so I will do it here:

Keep in mind everything that I've stated about subsidies, capital gains, dividends, ect. Then answer these two questions:

Do you think that our leaders forced hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies against the wishes of the richest one percent who own just over 1/2 of the entire market or were these hundreds of billions in corporate subsidies lobbied for?

Are you willing to acknowledge any link between a heavy concentration of income, wealth, and/or capital and economic instability? If so, be specific about which and under what circumstances.

Careful. Keep recent events in mind. Don't let those die-hard capitalist ideals interfere with any ability you may have to think rationally.

As you can see, I waited nearly an hour to post these two questions. Now answer.

  1. I believe neither. I believe the government should not have intervened with TARP money or any other subsidy; instead, those under water should have been allowed to fail, a la Lehman Brothers.

  2. No.

[-] 1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago
  1. Every human being at Exxon paid income taxes. Every human being at Exxon paid social security and medicare taxes. Exxon, the corporation, paid their matching share of social security and medicare taxes.

The answer is the same for corporations 2 through 10.

I'll answer you in about an hour.

[-] 0 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 7 years ago

Actually the rich pay cap gains.

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

A simple, "I don't know", or, "I'm not going to say", would suit me better.

[-] -1 points by simplesimon (121) 7 years ago

Of course it would. Having your head in the sand is a remarkable trait held by not only OWSers, but many, many ignorant people in this country.

I could forgive your ignorance but you wouldn't understand why.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Really? Even if forced Social Security with no assurance one is ever entitled to it, much less cash out when one decides to, wasn't a tax on the poor, the first bracket starts at 8000 bucks. That's less than poor and certainly 3 times that will not provide one with the necessities of life.

Flipside, poor people who do not file a schedule c are ignorantly choosing to be bent over.

[-] 2 points by Fedup15 (30) 7 years ago

Now why has this happened? globalization is why. If a corporation makes profits overseas and permanently reinvest those profits oversea, they do not pay USA taxes. Today due to free markets, and very few political barriers, companies are multinational and no longer USA only concers. Our tax policies are created by congress and they have not changes for a very long time. Yet the rate of change has been enormous with new global markets expanding everyday. Corporations follow the tax code as created by congress.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 7 years ago

Good post.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 7 years ago

Taxes? Helping give poverty a meaning.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

the corps already control the lion's share of the wealth

[-] 0 points by armchairecon1 (169) 7 years ago

why are you mixing statistics.. you are comparing corporate tax as a % GDP then you are comparing SS taxes to % of federal revenue.

why not just compare apples to apples, unless you are purposely trying to give the ignorant masses talking points that dont make any sense

[-] 2 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 7 years ago

Corp in 1952: % of Federal revenue (34%) Corp in 2010: % of Federal revenue(12.5%) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=203&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21

Because it wouldn't look so dramatic?

Corp % of Fed revenue is a poor measure when you take into account of C & S corp, LLC evolvement thru the 80's & 90's, it becomes a more vague measure when you account for globalism, outsourcing and offshoring.

Even if we compare 1980 to 2010,

Corp 1980: % of fed revenue (16%) corp in 2010: % of fed revenue (12.5%)

It still represents the largest % difference in pie share.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 7 years ago

Im not mixing statistics, corp tax to GDP and SS to fed spending are TWO different statistics. The difference is the years. should be pretty obvious. What I SHOULD post is TRUE % of total income the POOR pay in taxes in 1952-2011 - THAT would be MIND boggling!

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 7 years ago

no..what you should post is:

The top 20% (quintile)...those earning over $71,200...pay:

69% of ALL federal taxes

86% of federal Income taxes

87% of federal corporate taxes

44% of SS/MedC taxes (before you comment, this IS 20% of taxpayers)

and they earn 52% of after tax income / 55% pre-tax

While......

The Bottom THREE quintiles 60% of taxpayers pay:

14% of ALL federal taxes

.08% (yes, less than a single percent) of federal income taxes

31% of SS/MedC taxes (this is 60% of taxpayers)

5.2% of Corporate taxes

and earn 28.5% of total after tax income...25.5% of pretax income...(yes..AFTER taxes their income share goes UP)

So, while you try to lie and manipulate the figures to show the poor paying an inequitably larger share......the truth is much different than you claim.

Source: CBO tax collection summary 2009

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 7 years ago

I have already caught slammersworld in 3 or 4 mistakes on another page. Now, I have caught him in the same half-wit attempt to mislead the reader. I challenge slammersworld or any other die-hard conservative half-wit to dispute the following:

Don't believe this outrageous crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes in America and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.

Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group, it's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.

When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay a MUCH higher rate simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.

Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 40% of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it. 

The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth. 

In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 21 percent of all private income and hold 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.

Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. They never have. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, the 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top percentile. 

If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. After all, this obscene concentration of wealth actually CAUSES economic instability. It CAUSES poverty. It will CAUSE the next Great Depression.

No more excuses.  

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 7 years ago

A hedge fund trader who makes 300,000,000.00 per year pays $14,500.00 in SS TAX. He pays .0048% of his income to SS TAX. Everyone else pays 15.3% of their income TO SS TAX.

I do not care that this person is 'suppose to' pay 35% of his income in Federal Income tax. (they NEVER do)

Apply the SAME MATH to things like - gasoline, electricity, healthcare, communication, clothing, food, and housing - ALL NECESSITIES! and you will see that the more rich one is the lower % (in the .00x%) they pay. THIS is preposterous!

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 7 years ago

capital gains is not "income"...income, like wages, and other direct compensation, are not subject to loss

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 7 years ago

Employees who are hedge fund traders are W2 employees and do not pay 'capital gains tax' on their pay, commission, or bonus.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 7 years ago

If they are paid on capital gains, they are not paid wages...and their pay is subject to loss....and is appropriately taxed as gains at that rate

If they are paid wages, commissions, and bonuses...those are NOT subject to loss, and are appropriately taxed as wages, at that rate

would you raise capital gains and punish seniors who saved and invested for their retirement? Just to exact your "punishment" on those hedge-fund managers who are successful at determining market trends and saving there clients billions and billions in market losses?

whatever any "Hedge Fund" associate is compensated...it's because they created, or saved, many times more for their their clients accounts....Those on salary, or paid on commission have not necessarily saved or created ANYTHING for their account holders, as commissions are not dependent on gains, as are those who are paid only ON the gains of the funds themselves....

I wouldn't expect you to see the difference....the Nazi's hated the Jews, Gypsy's, and Gay's blindly too....and the Jew's were called Zionist Bankers under their "peaceful" collectivist tyranny too....

[-] 1 points by armchairecon1 (169) 7 years ago

uh.. in case I'm not clear, i will be more explicit:

percentages dont mean anything (ie: they cannot be compared) if the denominators are different. (denominators are the numbers on the bottom of the division, from which you derived the percentage)

so it is meaning less for you to compare the contribution by corporations vs. by workers... if you want to make a point, compare either corp tax to GDP and SS to GDP

or

corp tax to fed spending and SS to fed spending

does that make more sense?

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 7 years ago

Yes

[-] 0 points by Bambi (359) 7 years ago

How can the poor pay taxes? Aren't they too poor to do so?

[-] -2 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 7 years ago

OMG! that means the workers have way more money than the rich! If payroll taxes are 40% of revenue that would be 1.6 trillion! That's more cash than every billionaire plus the next 400 richest multi millionaires together possess, never mind their taxable income.

This is wonderful news!