Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Top 1% Pay 37% of the Taxes Paid

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 17, 2012, 7:18 a.m. EST by toonces (-117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Wouldn't that be considered "paying their fair share"?

What percent of tax receipts would you consider "fair"?

What percent of income should anyone or any corporation pay in tax?

If you raise tax on corporations, won't they just raise prices on their products and we will wind up paying more in taxes under the guise corporations raising prices?

Won't the 99% just be able to demonize corporations about raising prices when they are just really trying to cover the tax increase the 99% supported?

170 Comments

170 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 15 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

FALSE

The top 1% controls 42% of all wealth in the US, but pays only 22.3% of all federal taxes including capital gains, personal and corporate income, etc.).

The top 1% are taxed at about 1/2 the rate of everyone else. In fact this is the primary reason they have accumulated so much wealth: tax policy that vastly favors the rich.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

The 400 Highest-Income Americans (average gross income above $109 million) Paid an Effective Rate of 18.1% in 2008.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400may2011.pdf

280 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Shelter Half Their Profits from Taxes.

Among the highlights of Corporate Welfare:

GE had a -45.3% tax rate on $10.6 billion in profits (2008-2010); they got $4.8 billion in subsidies straight out of taxpayer's pockets.

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

[-] 11 points by UncomonSense (386) 12 years ago

The RushTards keep trotting out these completely indefensible turds as if they were gospel. Truly amazing how stupid people are, and how they believe some drug-addicted centimillionaire to the point of voting against their own self-interest.

You just can't make this shit up. If you did, no one would believe you.

[-] 8 points by Jehovah (113) 12 years ago

The gospel according to Limbaugh? Heresy, my son. Those with true Christian values should know better.

[+] -6 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

It is not in my self interest to support the government confiscation of property from others.

I am more interested in what is good for our country than what is good for my (your) pocketbook.

Perhaps your vote can be bought, I prefer to work for what I have.

[-] 7 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Civil infrastructure and public services are NOT in your self-interest?

LOL

[+] -8 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Civil infrastructure and public services are paid for by local taxes. It is a little easier to justify a fire department than it is to justify 99 weeks of unemployment.

[-] 6 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Unemployment insurance is paid by employers and their employees as a state (local) tax on wages.

You are incredibly ignorant.

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

The federal government is involved in it now too. Remember the billions to help bail out states, so the state governments could get off the hook without being held to account for their financial fuck ups. Extending unemployment benefits was part of the crookery.

[-] 5 points by UncomonSense (386) 12 years ago

Then if your house is on fire you would stop the fire department - funded by taxes - from putting it out because that would not be in your self-interest, right?

And you don't drive on public roads, have kids in public school, don't walk on public sidewalks, visit public parks, call the police if you're robbed, etc. because they are all funded by taxes and that would not be in your self-interest, right?

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 12 years ago

Another stupid all-or-nothing interpretation of a common sense idea, spewed forth unknowingly from a useful idiot of the left. How pathetic to see people desperately try to whittle every last thing down to a child-like binary of choice A (blatantly overreaching and intrusive govt) or B (zero govt), with no other options. So since you think "the other side" wants no fire protection or roads, would it be safe to assume you desire govt regulations on how to wipe your ass properly? Or do you just want a unionized govt employee to wipe your ass for you because you are clearly so helpless you need govt to make every last decision to protect you from yourself.

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

I have an Obama lusting brother who comes at me with these stupid ass all or nothing bullshit scenarios. If Obama wanted to tax per flush on the toilet, he'd go sit on the pot full time just to help out the messiah.

[+] -5 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Interesting. Stop the fire department? We are paying taxes for a fire department, why would we want to stop them? We support paying taxes. Many of us republicans support taxes for police and sidewalks and highways, and new schools and industrial parks and research and on and on. Where did you hear we dont like taxes? We have paid taxes,,, nearly all of our lives. What we dont like is people that HAVE NOT paid taxes or part of the 51% that have paid ZERO in income taxes yet receive all the benefits paid by those of us that have paid income taxes. And, those that pay taxes should have far more rights to decide what those taxes go toward than someone that is not paying taxes. Worst is someone not paying taxes and demanding that I pay MORE in taxes than I am already paying. So where you got that silly idea we dont like taxes makes you look like a 13 years that has no clue about income or property taxes. Own a home and you can then pay taxes and understand the MEANING of why you pay the taxes. CHILD.

[-] 5 points by UncomonSense (386) 12 years ago

"It is not in my self interest to support the government confiscation of property from others." Taxes are confiscation of property.

[+] -5 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

Taxes are EXACTLY confiscation of property....

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 12 years ago

Then if your house is on fire you would stop the fire department - funded by taxes - from putting it out because that would not be in your self-interest, right?

And you don't drive on public roads, have kids in public school, don't walk on public sidewalks, visit public parks, call the police if you're robbed, etc. because they are all funded by taxes and that would not be in your self-interest, right?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

knock off the hyperbole of police and fire, roads and schools........the social welfare redistribution that maintains americans in their poverty and destitution is 60% of the yearly budget, and consumes all the collected revenue in a given year.....the operating budget of the government for the services that benefit ALL citizens is NOT the problem......the problem is the government confiscating income from one group to pay off another for their support at the ballot box.....

THAT is in NO ONES self interest, except the politicians who perpetuate it.......

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 12 years ago

Right on. All or nothing retards here like Slizzo said.

[+] -6 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Hell, the government OWNS your property,, you dont.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

... or at least that is the way the OWS mob believe.

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

The government DOES own your property. Fail to pay property taxes and they will take your property away. You dont really own it.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Well, the states do hold your property as collateral to insure you pay your taxes. One could question whether or not they actually "own" your property.

[+] -7 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Fire departments are paid for by local taxes. It is a little easier to justify a fire department than it is to justify 99 weeks of unemployment.

[+] -8 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Here is your problem, as I see it. set aside everything else for a moment. For the last 50 years, poor liberals have been voting for rich liberals in congress. The rich liberals keep getting richer. The poor liberals keep getting poorer. The rich republicans get richer and those poorer republicans are getting richer. If I was a young baseball or football player I would hope to be drafted by the better team, not the 0-30. For 50 years the liberals have supported and pushed a failed liberal policy. Rich democrats, NEED poor democrats to stay in office and get elected. Why anyone wants on the 0-30 team for 50 years is beyond my imagination. If you are poor today, you will be poorer tomorrow and you have no body to blame but yourself. You get EXACTLY,,, yes EXACTLY,, what you voted for. I would hope I could buy Rush's jet rather than live in your loving slums. I feel sorry for you, pal,, but I bet you are happy in the gutter.

[-] 8 points by UncomonSense (386) 12 years ago

The poor Republicans are getting richer? LOL The poor are not getting richer. The middle class is not getting richer. The upper class is not getting richer. The top 0.4% is increasing their wealth are a pace unmatched in history.

It has nothing to do with political affiliation. You are a partisan fool. There is no difference between democrats and republicans, they both serve their corporate masters. It is a two way street that does bypasses ordinary citizens.

[+] -6 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

If you are correct, one MUST assume that the streets would be FILLED,,,, over flowing with OWS poor republican protestors. Not seen it. Every republican I know has increased their level of wealth. Every democrat,,, poor democrat,,, gets poorer,, and they even claim they are getting poorer. I read it every day. Dont you?

[-] 3 points by Nordic (390) 12 years ago

You either know only wealthy Repubs, or none at all.

Seriously, you "read this every day?" Where? LOL!!!

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Ah, more factually challenged mythology from the right. Not a single fact to back up anything but plenty of hyperbole based on error.

Well, at least they're consistent.

The FACT is that, until this recession, the economy has always fared better (for everyone) under Democratic administrations than under republitard ones. Maybe because they spent less money on the lie factories the right wing has going 24/7. I would link to the studies, but I know it will simply fall on deaf ears (and really, really dumb minds).

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Apparently you DONT recall when the republicans took over the house at the beginning of Clintons second year,,, do you? The economy was terrible and one of the biggest "toss out party" of democrats took place. You forgot that. After the republicans took it back and Clinton went way back to the middle,,, actually over to the conservative side,,, did the economy come back. Clinton got credit after he leaned back to the conservative side. REMEMBER?????? dumb mind?

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

I guess I need to read up on that. I could swear that Newt and company were elected during Clintons second term and took over Congress due to the economy. Maybe it was Bush's fault.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

I'm citing 100 years, not one administration. And even the stock market does better with democratic congress.

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Really? The stock market was better two years ago while democrats controlled all of congress and the president???? Really. I had no idea.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Do you idiots ever actually read before you spout? Did I not write "until this recession"? I am not like CATO. I don't cherry pick the data.

[-] -3 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

[-]1 points by epa1nter (889) from Rutherford, NJ 52 minutes ago I'm citing 100 years, not one administration. And even the stock market does better with democratic congress.

What did this say? "until this recession"

[+] -5 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

RIght....and your links to news stories prove that...right?...hahaha

How about the control of congress by Republicans from Jan 95-Jan07, under both Clinton and Bush43......I think you might want check the trajectory of the economy during those years before you make such an asinine statement......and also the effect of Reagan teamed up with a Republican senate in 81-87 try not to assign blame or credit where it doesn't belong because of shallow analysis....

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

As usual. Regurgitate unfounded myths, deny evidence. Par for the Republitard course.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

I'm sorry.....are you refuting the evidence? or sticking by your parroted links as credible sources?

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

Those links contain real hard facts from a variety of sources, including the IRS and census data spanning nearly a century. I purposefully linked to a variety of sources from liberal to centrist to fairly conservative. Your refusal to recognize facts is your failing, not the failing of the facts.

Keep your delusions. But just don't try to sell them here.

[-] 4 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

You'll never get through to scammersworld. If a jumbo jet loaded with radioactive waste crashed in his back yard, he would not believe it or know what to do until the 'official data' was released.

Meanwhile, the rest of us would have learned from a variety of sources to get the hell out of town.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

He would not look at the official data. He would wait until CATO cherry picked it and die from radiation poisoning, all the while believing the glowing yellow gunk was gold.

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

hahaha....you are certainly allowed your own opinion...but not your own facts....

Democrats spend double the amount that Republicans do, and when Republicans recover the economy the Democrats set out once more to deliberately wreck it.....and succeed everytime......

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

SHOW me the data to support that. You are very good at making wholly unsupported declarations and nothing more.

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

you can corroborate the figures here:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

That site lists "actual" debt, including all appropriations and spending...NOT just "budget" debt.....

We have an interesting set of statistics to draw from.....two presidents, One Republican, One Democrat, both with split congressional control during their administrations.....that's a pretty good comparative selection for consideration...

From FY93-94 and FY08-09 we have Democrats in control of the congress, under both Democrat and Republican Presidents:

(The House of Representatives is the body that determines government spending levels...any doubt on that..check the constitution... (Article 1, Section 7))

From FY95-FY07 we have Republican control of Congress, also under both Democrat and Republican Presidents...

So....Democrats:

From FY94-FY95 there was 562 Billion Dollars in debt added Under a Democrat President, in two years = 281 Billion per year(avg)

From FY08-FY09 there was 2.902 Trillion in debt added (2902 Billion) Under a Republican President in two years = 1.451 Trillion per year (avg)

Now, Republicans:

From FY96-FY01 there was 831 Billion added to the debt, under a Democrat President, in six years = 138.5 Billion per year (avg)

From FY02-FY07 There was 3.196 Trillion (3196 Billion) added to the debt under a Republican President, in six years = 532.6 Billion per year (avg)....

So...


Republican Congress / Democrat President = 138 Billion/Year avg

Democrat Congress / Democrat President = 281Billion/Year avg


Republican Congress / Republican President = 532.6 Billion/Year avg

Democrat Congress / Republican President = 1.451 Trillion/Year avg


Double under Clinton, Almost triple under Bush43 when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the spending.......

Under Obama:

FY10-FY11 there was 2.88 Trillion added to the debt with a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President, in two years = 1.44 Trillion/Year avg (and that doesn't include the 2009 stimulus which was passed in FY09 under Obama/Democrats which would increase Obama/Democrat debt, and lower Bush43/Democrat debt)........

So far under Obama/Republican House/Democrat Senate there has been 446 Billion added to the debt (FY12) in five months...projected out at current levels (89.2 Billion/Month avg) 1.070 Trillion....I guess that obstructionism is reducing the deficit....huh?

Feel free to check my calculations, and remember Fiscal Year runs from Oct 1 of the previous year (oct 2011 for FY12) to Sept 30 of the record year......

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

You know you are right - the "rich liberals" keep getting richer while the "poor liberals" who have been voting for them keeps getting poorer

And the "rich republicans" keep getting richer along with the "poorer republicans" who vote for them get wealthier.

What does that tell you about how the "rich liberals" treat their "poor voting liberals" - not very well as can be seen

[-] 5 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Even if that were true, i'd say that we poor liberals get paid in dividends. Better access to health care, less discrimination for pre existing conditions and unemployment benefits for those protracted battles with the greedy right wingers. All and all, I rather have social justice and live moderately than receive the spoils of a coup d'etat.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

But what you are saying is that "you have no "spirit" to succede" and accept the fact that you will be no more nor no less then the next guy.

Sort of like being a "common person" no drive - no will to survive - just be complaicent.

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

Success comes after the war. Once the Reagan Revolution is brought to her knees, I'm thinking about becoming a journalist.

[+] -4 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Reagan left a legacy that carried GHW Bush and Clinton through a booming economy as well as having defeated the USSR, a generational and existential enemy of our country. But at least they carried a flag.

We are now facing the morphed version of that enemy in the Democratic party, who seek to do through our own governmental processes what the Soviets could not do through intimidation and force.

Reagan collapsed the Soviets, Obama and the Democrats are working to collapse the United States. Reagan won the war, it remains to be seen if Obama can win the sabotage of the American system.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Maybe you to should read "Karl Marx" "Communist Manifesto" to give you a better understanding of what you may be talking about.

[-] 6 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 12 years ago

I read that in college along with Locke, Adam Smith and a score of other old school thinkers. I even read Ayn Rand. You want to hear a joke? While America paid millions upon millions of dollars on nuclear missiles to beat the Soviet Union during the Cold War, The Soviets sent us Ayn Rand and did it for a fraction of the cost. lol

[-] 3 points by ineptcongress (648) 12 years ago

hilarious!!! thank you. a pernicious mole sent to infiltrate our educational and moral belief structure. selfishness without regard to consequences affecting others is greatness and success:) 2010 movie atlas shrugged is worth the 2 hours--very well done.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 12 years ago

I don't get it

[+] -4 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Vote Republican. Break the 50 years of failed liberal agendas.

[-] 0 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Like Reagan, and Bush I & II. There's 20 years right there.

[-] -1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Both parties suck. Vote third party.

[-] 3 points by ineptcongress (648) 12 years ago

thank you for calling this bullshitter out.

[+] -7 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

tell me.....on what data, and by what calculations does the CTJ arrive at those figures?

If you are going to post the incorrect opinions and assumptions of a biased partisan web site I am sure you have that information to verify their figures? Right?.......

The "1%" are NOT taxed at a rate that is "about half" of everyone else.....dividends and capital gains are taxed at a lower rate for EVERYONE...not just the "1%", all retiree's, stock, bond, and 401k holders pay EXACTLY the same rate....regardless of income level...... dividends, which are already subject to corporate tax liability (marginal rate: 35%) BEFORE they are distributed to share holders, and capital gains, which the securities that create them carry risk of loss as well as potential of gain, ARE NOT WAGES......the marginal tax rates are determined by WAGES.....pay for work, not subject to loss or devaluation by the market.....

Gains are not wages....but, I guess that is too difficult for you libtards to understand.... The Citizens for Tax Justice are not a credible source......

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

If Rush didn't say it, it must be false! Typical retardican response, it's a "liberal" source, their statistics are no good, blah blah blah.

As to the tax rate argument, the figures speak for themselves. The poor do not receive the majority of their income - if they receive any income at all - from dividends and capital gains, and so do not "qualify" for the 15% tax rate. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, receives the bulk of his income from dividends and capital gains, and only pays about 15% in taxes.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

no...the poor pay zero, ten, or fifteen percent.....or get money they never had deducted using the EITC....

Up to $34,500 single, or $46,250 of income if they have children or spouses... (the cut offs for AGI at the 15% marginal rate, everything below $8500.00 / $12,150.00 is taxed at the 10% marginal rate)

The Standard deduction (which EVERYONE gets) is $5700.00 Single, $8400.00 HOH......from zero to those amounts have ZERO tax obligation....

with the standard deduction and deductions for dependents, and earned income credits....that extends to those making up to around $60,000.00 dollars.....

So I guess they DO pay the same rate.....and those in the middle income sector DO have investments and DO qualify for capital gains when they sell them....

I guess that isn't in the Communist Manifesto, or posted on your socialist websites so you didn't get the memo.......

Maybe do a little research before you start trying to pass lies as truth....huh?

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

You "forgot" FICA, which accounts for 40% of ALL federal tax revenue, and is paid by every working citizen. Is is also capped at $106,000, and does not apply to income from dividends and capital gains.

And continue to ignore the Romney example, because it completely voids your so-called "argument".

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

FICA taxes are SPLIT between the employee and the employer-each paying 50% of it. EXCEPT Obama dropped the percentage being paid by EMPLOYEES temporarily for the past two years so they no longer have to pay their entire 50% of it.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Those numbers are based on self-employment, which does not benefit from the cut.

[+] -5 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

hardly....the top 10/5/1% pay so much more in real dollars that the "as a percentage of income" nonsense is a red herring......

it's fair that every income sector pays equal "percentage of income".......

You libtards like "fair"...right?

Romney earned 375,000,.00 for speaking, exceeding the FICA cap....so, he paid more in individual FICA taxes than did 90% of Americans.......(the top 10% begins at about $110,000.00)

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Make 1/3 the amount, pay three times the tax rate.

Social security portion of FICA on $375,000 = $13,243.20, or 3.5%

Social security portion of FICA on $106,000 = $12,400, or 11.7%

If that is your definition of "fair", you are a sociopath. Either that or you're just really stupid.

[+] -6 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

your hyperbole is sociopathic........FICA is supposed to be a social insurance paid by those who work for their OWN benefit after the retirement age.....those who pay FICA on the maximum amount will NEVER see their benefits reach their contributions....those who pay at the lowest amounts will easily see their benefits exceed their contributions.......another social welfare transfer program.....

Also.....since Romney is self employed he pays the full amount of FICA tax 12.9%...plus 2.9% for medicare tax...with NO cap

Once again....research would prevent you from looking so stupid

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Maximum Taxable Earnings for Social Security

Source: The Official Website of the Social Security Administration

$106,800 in 2011 $110,100 in 2012

Funny how you didn't know that. Maybe you should try doing some research BEFORE you stick your head so far up your own ass.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

The 2012 year has just begun, doofus........and 2011 hasn't been filed or accounted for....

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Yo, Einstein. Those are the caps on maximum taxable earnings that are set into law for the periods noted.

Are you retarded?

That was a rhetorical question ...

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No. Percentage of income is the most relevant measure by far. If the income were more fairly distributed, the tax structure could be altered slightly resulting in a stronger middle class, more revenue, less need for financial aid, and a budget surplus.

If all income should be taxed at a flat rate, this would include capital gains. If that's fair, then all for profit entities should pay the same effective rates on their profits. They should do business with ZERO subsidies.

This would be a fundamental change. A giant improvement over the current system. The rich would throw a bloody fit.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

You forgot to make the distinction between the book corporate rate and the effective corporate rate. Most larger corporations do not pay anywhere near 35%. Some pay no federal taxes whatsoever on profits. Many pay virtually no state or city taxes either.

You also forgot to mention that that the benefits of corporate welfare are passed on primarily to the rich. Wages have fallen for the majority of workers while salaries for CEOs have multiplied many times. At least 40% of all dividends are paid to the richest 1%. Capital gains are income. Otherwise, Warren Buffet would be worth 7 figures. Not 11. Capital gains are income therefore should be taxed. After all, only the gains are taxed. Not the investment principal. If a gambler does not want to pay taxes on his or her winnings, then he or she should not gamble.

Just for the record: I realize that low payouts are not taxed. They should be.

Like I have said before, you critics of CTJ are welcome to cite the results of any study on total effective rates conducted by any group funded by any source. Nothing should be regarded as gospel but nothing should be off the table either. All sources are open for consideration and scrutiny. Only then, do we have any chance to get anywhere near the truth.

[+] -7 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

So, what has the Obimination done to change this? Nothing.

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

He declassified the IRS report exposing the low tax rates on the richest 400 that Bush classified. Aside from that, about as much as your GOP ass-buddies.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Can you do us a favor. Please post the tax return for Rep Charlie Rangle?

[+] -4 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Is that all you have to offer? Let me remind you that 5 trillion spent in less then 3 years with nothing to show sure did make a change - a change in how much our future gentration is going to have to pay in taxes.

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Why do you think I support BO? That is not the issue.

[+] -5 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

So you are not concerned about how much he has spent putting this country deeper and deeper into debt. Yet he has done nothing to address "tax code changes" to make it a "more even playing field for all".

OK you can vote for him but it's sort of like being insane - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

[-] 4 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

I debunked the original topic with facts and you think I support Obama?

Thank your Republican ass-buddies for blocking EVERY initiative BO has put forward, as well as every compromise position. Except of course for the health care mandate - which they endorsed. Yet you still blame BO, go figure ...

And in case you didn't get it before, I don't support BO, either.

[+] -4 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Hay, he had two years before the Republicans took over the house to accomplish his "wants and desires". Instead he wasted that time on "healthcare".

Hope you benefit from it.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

You are literally too stupid to insult.

[-] 6 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

No they don't pay 37% of the taxes you blithering idiot.

The devil is in the details.

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 (followed by attorneys, doctors, and celebrities). 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 income for richest one percent 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 tax rates 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. Not even close. 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. Not even close. Their share as a group represents about 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.

The richest 500 Americans hold more personal wealth than the lower 150 million Americans combined. These richest 500 Americans pay an effective rate of under 15%.

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!

In the meantime, Check out this report from Citizens For Tax Justice:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

A quote from the report:

"The total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective tax rate for the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent). From the middle-income ranges upward, total effective tax rates are virtually flat across income groups." "

"If you still have even the slightest doubt, watch this video of independent economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich debunking 7 lies about the economy. Pay special attention to that 7th lie.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0

I type the truth. When you account for all Federal, State, and local taxes, the middle class pay about the same effective rate as the richest one percent."

[-] 3 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

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 public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, more currency, 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 of America's private wealth. The lower majority held the rest. It was the best year ever for the American middle and lower classes. And rightfully so. 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 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.

Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that their effective tax rates probably never exceeded 39%. My belief is that if true, those rates were still considerably higher than the previous lows of '29' and the policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.

One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. 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.

[-] 6 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

I have stated many times that FDR's policies (designed to partially reverse the record high concentration of wealth) were successful every year but one. I have stated that his policies resulted in economic growth and job creation every year but one. Also that he did in fact, officially end the Great Depression.

The following is an entry from 'looselyhuman' who has gone on record with a similar claim. One source to verify our claims is included. Out of respect for 'looselyhuman', I will post not only the source, but also his entire entry unedited:

Its a good one. Looselyhuman said:

"Revisionist history. Check this out re: FDR's taxes that long outlived him (until 1980-82): http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

Unemployment declined every year from 1933-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938 as well. The rest of the world was in free fall. There was no trade or commerce and without government spending it would have been total collapse. Then, yes, things took off even more during the Keynesian economic stimulus known as WWII.

Unemployment (% labor force)

1933 24.9

1934 21.7

1935 20.1

1936 16.9

1937 14.3

1938 19

1939 17.2

1940 14.6

Percent change GDP

1933 -4%

1934 15%

1935 10%

1936 13%

1937 9%

1938 -7%

1939 7%

1940 9%

How would you feel about 15% economic growth today?"

[Removed]

[+] -7 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

it is interesting that this poster chooses 1933 as the starting point for his comparison.....the fact is the Pre-crash 1929 GDP in current dollars was not exceeded again until 1941....so much for "growth" of GDP....it was playing catch-up, not "growing".....

FDR's own treasury secretary told the House Way's and Means committee in 1939:

"“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…And an enormous debt to boot!”"

[-] 5 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Once again, to quote 'LooselyHuman':

"Unemployment declined every year from 1933-1940 except 1938 when FDR listened to the GOP and cut back on the New Deal. GDP grew every year except 1938 as well."

To restate the obvious, it was a slow and difficult recovery. Like I have said before, thats why they called it 'The Great Depression'.

But it WAS a recovery. The numbers don't lie.

There is only one place in the universe where a 'quick' recovery from such a crisis is possible.

That place is Fantasy land.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

i thought you would like to know that i got a response from the slammer on why he works so hard and so many hours yet still is posting here all day. he said he has to do analysis and make decisions at work but then has lots of time to do what he wants! i told him that most people would not consider that 70 hours of work and he should not push others to work hard when he does not - 24 hours later i haven't heard back - surprised!

[+] -8 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

doubling public service sector employees from the 20's to 1939 was a big help in that skewed view of unemployment during FDR's so-called recovery....not much "recovery" in consideration of the 3.2% rate of unemployment in 1929.....

Investment dropped from 1929 and removed that flow of funds into the economy.....that was one of the largest components of the fall......

as was the musical chairs of naive new investors dabbling in the market driving up prices beyond real value......much like what happened in 1990, 2001, and in the real eastate market in the late 2000's...

FDR's policies and limitations, and Hoover's Smoot Hawley were contributors to the depth and length of the depression, both of them and their efforts made it much worse than it would have been without government intervention... This posters puerile and shallow view of the facts and events is further proof of his lack of understanding of dynamic economic principles.....and more evidence of his simple hatred of those who have demonstrated a larger amount of success and their rewards for doing so....

He is an angry obstinate parrot......

[+] -7 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 12 years ago

15% would be great ,never will happen though. The far left through over regulation has assured that. Thank the Nimby crowd, the spotted Owl and the enviro nazis.

[+] -6 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

there was nothing wrong with the 15/28% rate of 88-89

It generated more in real dollars when factored for inflation (in 1990 dollars) in 89 than the increased rates in 91/93 (31%/39.6%) did through FY 94.....after the Bush41/Clinton tax increases it took 5/2 years to reach the same level of inflation adjusted federal revenue....

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Your argument is so weak you must resort to calling me names in the first sentence of your response. I do no even need to red the rest to know that it is full of democrat talking points.

[-] 4 points by Nordic (390) 12 years ago

It's amazing how many stupid trolls there are on this site. What's up with that?

[-] 3 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 12 years ago

It's the same idiots who vote against their own self-interest. Go figure ...

[-] 4 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Studies show that in societies with less wealth disparity, the quality of life of all people is comparatively higher (including the wealthy). Furthermore, the top rate during the Clinton years was merely 5% higher than it is today--and our economy flourished during that period. I'm not saying we can attribute economic performance to tax rates (high or low), rather innovation tends to drive economic growth, but the point is, moderately higher tax rates on top earners did not inhibit economic growth (and we need more revenue).

As far as I'm concerned, Pres. Obama is probably better off allowing the Bush tax rates to expire. We need more than just the pre-Bush income tax rates on the wealthy, we need the estate tax to revert back to pre-Bush levels. Obama accomplishes this by simply doing nothing (or veto any legislation that tries to extend these tax cuts).

If we want to cut taxes on the middle tax, we can do so as part of separate legislation (after the Bush tax cuts expire, and find their way to scrap heap of history, where they belong). I'd also support trade reform, which charges a border tax on imports equal to the amounts the country of origin charges our exports (including any value added taxes our exporters have to pay). We can use this money to help our exporters deal with softer/indirect barriers to our exports (and with any luck, we have a little left over).

If we also cut military spending significantly, we'll be able to afford the things we need for a bright future.

[-] 3 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 12 years ago

When it comes to corporations i dont want them to raise taxes, i want them to cut write-offs. Here's why - 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Taxes in 3 years http://goo.gl/Nh03z . And it goes as high as hundreds of millions our government owes them at the end of the year.. I tell you, its makes me ill to watch these donate to worthy causes, act like they are really caring then write it off their taxes where they really give nothing but the peoples tax money while they profit.

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 12 years ago

REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11#ixzz1jmJFra99

[-] 3 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

It seems to me that if you make most of the money, then you should pay most of the taxes. The 1% contribution of 37% is not enough.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

the 1% doesn't make most of the money....they made 16.9% of income in 2009......I'm not sure what mathematic calculation turns that into "most"...but, I'm not adept in liberal or socialist math.....

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

You are not adept at bullshit, either.

[-] 2 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

The richest 1% reaped well over 16.9% of the personal income in 2009 and paid WAY UNDER 37% of all individual taxes. Not even close.

As usual, the devil is in the details.

A few quotes from the source of scammersworld's figures. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

(3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation's taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes (depending upon the economic assumption made about property taxes and corporate income taxes).

(4) AGI is a fairly narrow income concept, and does not include income items like government transfers (except for the portion of Social Security benefits that is taxed), the value of employer-provided health insurance, underreported or unreported income (most notably that of sole proprietors), income derived from municipal bond interest, net imputed rental income, worker's compensation benefits and others.

The share of personal income reaped by the richest 1% in 2009 was 20.4%. They paid 22.1% of Federal, State, and local taxes.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

The 1% contribution of 37% is not enough.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23796) 12 years ago

Unless you are a member of the 1% I can't understand why you defend their interests? Can you explain?

There are a lot of people hurting in this country right now. Do you think that is some kind of joke.

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Because taking from someone else does me no good, nor does it benefit anyone else.

How does taking ten dollars from me (or anyone else) improve your lot?

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23796) 12 years ago

How do the wealthy get their money in the first place? They use capital and labor (which they have all the power to value at a low price these days, hence, one-half of all Americans are earning less than 26k per year) to extract a profit. Could they not pay more for the labor?

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Why don't you create a business to work yourself?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23796) 12 years ago

This is not about small businesses or against small businesses. It is about the big corporations who set low wages for everyone else while extracting record profits. If big corporations paid their millions of workers decent wages these days people would have more disposable income to spend at small businesses.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

don't you have any idea how other countries function (we can look at france or sweden) - with shorter work weeks and higher wages - more vacation and free health care and education - no idea?

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

... And those countries are in even more dire economic circumstances than we are. Socialism and governmental property confiscation for the purpose of wealth redistribution has been shown over and over not to work.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

really?? and what do you know about sweden, finland, norway gemany etc - you need to back up your words with some evidence - stop regurgitating free market silliness unless you can come up with some facts - can you - i doubt it!

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

They are all part of the European Union. The European Union is on the verge of collapse. We will be able to witness their robust economic conditions shortly.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

you are stupid but you must know it since you won't really answer a question - stick with your horse shit - it suits you!

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

You are truly a master of potty mouth. You must have nothing to back up your opinion, so the best you can do is use naughty words and insult me.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

potty mouth - so you are a child - sorry, i thought i was dealing with an adult - i should have known! when you grow up learn to use google - the facts are known to all but you and a few at the wall street journal editorial board - travel a bit when you grow up - no, not just to northern alabama but over seas - see how well people live in developed countries - you could just read a travel book if you are not able to handle adult reading - drive on italian roads and see how much better they are than ours - go to a european city and see how much cleaner it is than ours - go ahead and let me know what you find - fool - you are what is wrong with this country - you are probably some relatively poor hard working dumb country boy who thinks that we are the greatest country in the world and he is lucky to be here - well look around - we do have the worlds biggest military - a lot of good that is doing us - go away little boy

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

OH and they pay for 99.99% of the polical campangians, so since it's their guys in Washington maybe 99.99% would be more fair.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth,

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

How does the money I have and hold restrict the money you can have and hold? Money is not a zero sum situation. The very fact that our currency is debt based is proof that you (or anyone else) can create wealth out of thin air.

[-] 2 points by Centrist (3) 12 years ago

Quick follow up - I think what people really want is a tax on wealth rather than income, but they have that in some European countries but wealth is difficult to measure, easy to move offshore, and has resulted in widespread obfuscation (see diner des cons for an example) and a very expensive version of the IRS.

Thoughts?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

I think income faces many of those problems as well. If Forbes mag can figure it out every year I think the feds could give it a shot. As a matter of fact I think people want the government to know what they own, in case somebody says they don't own it, they got a case to keep it if you follow.I see no reason we couldn't fund the government this way, and I think it would be more inherently fair.

[-] 2 points by RevolutionCA (33) 12 years ago

All I gotta say is that the working class should pay no taxes since the ruling class already profits off of their labor. Everyone in the ruling class should be paying all of the taxes.

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 12 years ago

We should not have a ruling class.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

To pay for the level of social services we seem to desire as a nation, we all will have to pay more. Income tax, fees, corporate taxes, maybe a tax on consumption too.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

just wrote this to the toon man and i think you and i had this debate once before but - don't you have any idea how other countries function (we can look at france or sweden) - with shorter work weeks and higher wages - more vacation and free health care and education - no idea?

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

Yes we may have gone through this before. Sweden pretty much follows the "taxing of everyone more" approach i mentioned above, I think the average Swede pays around 45% in taxes part of it is a big tax on consumption. The US is spoiled, we want the benefits of a welfare state but we're not willing to pay the price.

France is another matter, they have built a welfare class that while being cared for enough to survive, can't find work and get out of their near poverty condition.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

and where do you get your info - i don't think you have any idea of how things work in sweden or how they live - do you know any swedes?? yes they pay high taxes but what do they get for that - and what do we pay (not just federal income tax but total tax) and what do we get for it? have you been to france - do you have any idea how they live? if you have any interest i being taken seriously and have a dialog you can't simply spout right wing nonsense and by that i mean ny times crap!

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

I fail to see how encouraging a democratic examination into what services we want and believing we should be taxed more heavily is a right wing position. I'm not judging the Swedish system (my point has been to pay for what you want, and the Swedes do that) and I wasn't looking to rehash some real or imagined disagreement we may have had. What other countries do can and should be studied.

In the end it comes down to two things, what do the people here want for themselves and are they willing to pay for it. Looking at a lot of these posts it's clear the posters want a lot form government. The task now is to get a tax structure to pay for it.

As far as the numbers go, according to the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) in 2010 Sweden had a total tax revenue of 45.8%, the US 24.8% as a percentage of GDP. The point of course is that we need to pay more if we're going to have social programs.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

first of all we are a richer country than sweden and live less well (the bottom 90%) because the pie is divided up more fairly there. if the top 10% of the population paid more tax and the bottom 90% were paid better wages (as in sweden) we would all live better. secondly 54% of your tax dollars goes to the military - more money than almost the rest of the world combined - and who are we defending ourselves from? so how about that - go back to the wage and tax structure of 1965 and cut the military like ike suggested!

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

Fine! I can live with that, but the problem isn't limited to spending 54% of the tax dollar on the military, assuming your figure is accurate. A major part of it is that we're spending more then we're collecting too.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

health care and the military - do some research - that is where the money goes - that is why countries with nowhere near the resources we have, have populations that live better than most of the people here - they work less - have more time with family and friends - have more vacation and more secure lives and retirements

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

I've seen the figures for spending. Life is full of choices and too many people choose the military. Cutting military spending out totally though still doesn't close the budget gap.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

changing to swedens health care system (or france or australia - should i go on?) would give us a surplus - look it up - dean baker has written plenty on this. and what does it mean that people choose the military - that is for sure not the reason we spend more than the rest of the world combined. if there were good paying jobs our military would be sol!

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

You could change to any health care system model you wanted. The problem isn't that, part of the problem is people don't wish to pay for it. Another problem is that when you attach the word socialism to anything in America and people are unreasonably afraid of it.

Enough of our representatives get elected on a platform of national defense that talking about an end or even major cuts to military spending is a foolish dream at this point in time.

Military spending is around $0.7 trillion a year, spending on health care from all sources is about $2.5 trillion. Medicare and Medicaid are around $0.88 trillion, insurance $0.8 trillion. Out of pocket payments, drugs, hospital costs, clinic expenses make up the rest. The military budget doesn't quite cover the premiums for those with insurance now, let alone those without.

Face it, the nations you mention all have good health programs, but they also tax their people more. I'm in favor of a single payer and in higher taxes, unfortunately Americans want something that doesn't exist, they want free health care.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

can you stop giving me your opinions and present some evidence - what is called military spending is just part of defense spending - dept of energy, coast guard - all sorts of way to hide spending - google it. look up war resistors league defense spending for a comprehensive study. as to single payer the results vary but serious polls show most support for that system - "That frustrates people like Himmelstein, who says he's seen poll after poll that shows significant public support for a single-payer system. "A majority of American people say they favor a plan like Medicare paid for out of taxes covering all Americans," he says. Medicare is one type of single-payer system.

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

What do you mean by tax on consumption?

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

First fix the current tax codes, eliminating deductions and corporate welfare, but if we still can't get enough money for the level of services we wish to provide levy something like a national sales tax on nonessential goods.

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Ok feel free to answer or not. I don't really care. What I said is that maybe we could stop paying for all of the illegal's health care when they come back and then spending money on sending them back across the border. Like I said before, it may be hard hearted but I think we should just send them back across after a little bit of water.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

There really isn't a question there, but I can respond. I don't think pointing someone at the border and telling them to walk home is going to do much once the person gets out of sight. If you're going to send them back you'll have to drive, fly, whatever and keep them under guard.

[-] -1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

Or you could step up patrols. End the immigration problem and create jobs. At least one of them is a goal of OWS.

[+] -4 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

We could stop paying for the illegal's medical and paying for transport back across the border. It may sound hard hearted but I say let them walk back.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

Not going to go over big with a large portion of the country. I'm indifferent to how we solve the problem, we just have to agree to a solution, if part of the answer is a secure border fine, enforce the laws we have or change them.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Yah, and include paying for college, free housing, living wage - the list goes on and on.

How about if everyone stops what they are doing, starts over and become responsible for their "own" actions instead of being concerned about what others are doing or not doing.

It will be "self clensing" when this happens. Until then - the country is still "in the crapper"

[-] 0 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

I agree, we want too much. We've allowed ourselves to believe that government money is free money or that we're owed something. In spite of all that though, if a majority want colleges to be free, fine, they'll just have to be willing to pay enough in taxes. If you can't pay for it then you can't do it.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

A big part of the problem is that people demanded more from the government - the government got bigger - bigger government means more regulations - more regulations mean higher costs for products and services - higher costs for products and services means less production because people can't afford the prices - less production means less jobs - less jobs mean people have less to spend - less to spend means more government to offset the difference.

It's a complete cycle. The cycle needs to be broken and it needs to start with the govenment and regulations - and a more fair tax structure for "everyone" not just the rich, not just the poor - I mean everyone.

When that happens then things will get back to normal in this country because everyone will have a "vested interest in America" instead of china, india or all other 3rd world countries that our corporations presently use to manufacture products to be sold there in the United States. .

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

I agree with you completely.

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Conservatives do not desire government services the OWS mob does, that is the reason we are having this discussion. Perhaps you should become associated with others who agree to pool money to pay for services, then you will be able to have all the items you want paid for by others who agree it is a good thing to pool money and allow others to take from the pool to pay for what they want.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by ChemLady (576) 12 years ago

There are services we've decided we don't want to give up, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the military make up most of our government's spending. It may be that we built a welfare trap for ourselves with government programs, but there seem to be a lot of people that want to keep them.

In all honesty I don't care which way we decide to go, cut them all and I'll plan for myself, or don't, but if they are kept I'd rather see them funded with taxes and not borrowed money.

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

They cannot be afforded.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 12 years ago

Here are some interesting, revealing statistics that clearly demonstrate, our government no longer represents the majority of Americans.

According to the Federal Reserve the average American family lost 23% of its net worth between 2007 and 2009, and that figure has probably remained fairly static since then. Meanwhile the publicly announced wealth of Congressional members has increased 11% since 2009. Nearly half of Congressional Representatives are millionaires and about two-thirds of Senators are millionaires.

Do you honestly believe these people represent the average American. Think about that the next time Congress votes down increasing taxes on the very wealthy.

For those who doubt my figures, here's a link to the report: http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-nearly-half-of-congress-67-of-senate-are-millionaires/

Incidentally, these figures are conservative because they don't include personal homes or spousal income.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

I have tried to make the case many times the issues OWS has are with government, not corporations.

[-] 1 points by geo2seeit2 (39) 12 years ago

And Broke 100% of the banking laws to change them so not to be so called corrupt . im driving on the wrong side of the freeway. i know there is a cop at the off ramp... so i change the law before i get there and smile as i drive by... but the rest of us that didnt get that notice of the law being changed in time and now are common criminals with fines to pay (bailout )

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

So, it would seem to me that your issue would be with the government rather than the bankers as it is the government that makes the laws.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

and they own 68% of the country...so I would say 68%

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

How does the money I have and hold restrict the money you can have and hold? Money is not a zero sum situation. The very fact that our currency is debt based is proof that you (or anyone else) can create wealth out of thin air.

Sounds to me like you have your work cut out for you. Get to it and work harder!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

Whats that got to do with anything? I'm just saying people should pay according to the benefit they get.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

"They" did not get any "benefit", "they" got paid for the work they did.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

When the government upholds the value of the money you have, thats a "benefit" the more money you have the greater the benefit.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

They are not upholding the value of the money, they are intentionally destroying our currency.

Government is an alligator, all it does is eat the private sector.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

So what does make money have value?

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

The belief that our money has value. Once the US has printed enough paper (or entered enough zeros in a computer), no one will believe our currency has any value. It is already happening, evidenced by the increase in gold and silver purchases and prices, long term storage food prices and purchases, the fact that no one will buy our government bonds (except for the Fed monetizing our debt), and the general inflation of prices and the devaluation of our currency.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

ohhhh ok, I'll take all that worthless money off your hands if your looking to get rid of it...

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

What do you have to trade me for some of my worthless money? You seem to want it, I will trade with you for it. Silver? Ammo? Food? Fuel? Tools?

[-] 1 points by Centrist (3) 12 years ago

One of Nucleus' comments is false.

The lower tax rate on investment gains does not explain how the rich got rich, as they would have had to either saved income first or been born into the money they invest.

Which would lead to two other issues up for debate- 1) taxation on estates and 2) caps on salaries. I'm not going to focus there because I don't think that's what this conversation is about.

The capital gains tax rates are not only for the rich as all investors, including mom and pops benefit from it. Everyone who has saved money and decides to invest it can benefit from it. And keep in mind, the money you invest has already been taxed once.

Thoughts?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

Are We Entering the Age of Inherited Wealth?

The release of the latest Forbes 400 List of Americans is, once again, being billed as a triumph of self-made wealth.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison – all self-made – topped the list, once again. And Forbes heralds that fact that “a record 70% of the Forbes listers are self-made.”

Yet their announcement obscures the fact that half of the top 10 on the Forbes list have inherited all or some of their wealth, making America’s billboard chart of opportunity look increasingly like the the lucky sperm club.

Tax policy has allowed the accumulation of wealth to the extent that the US now has an aristocracy.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

As far as having responded to me, you are preaching to the choir. I think all tax should be reduced and all governmental spending should be reduced within that amount. Stop the ability of the government to borrow money.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Here's a link to the historical "effective tax rates" in the US across all income levels.

[+] -5 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

I agree with toonce. Here is the test. Most of the posters on here claim they are poor or are for the poor. It is a big issue with them. LOTS OF POOR PEOPLE in America. It is out of control how many poor people there are, according to OWS posters on here. They are ALL unemployed,,,, YES ALL. They cant find jobs or the salaries are below minimum wage. So,, if there are THAT many poor and all of them are not working,,,, WHO THE HELL IS PAYING THE TAXES THEN?????????? Yep, the 1% is the correct answer.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 12 years ago

50% of Americans now live near or below the poverty line, according to the Census Bureau. The overwhelming majority of them work, according to the IRS. They pay taxes: payroll taxes (at a higher fate then the 1%, by the way, property taxes (yes many are still in their ow n homes) sales taxes, utilities taxes, state and local taxes among others.

The assertion that the poor don't work is a LIE, and the assertion that they don't pay taxes is a LIE meant to DECEiVE.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 12 years ago

Maybe a better way to look at the wealth distribution problem is to focus on input and output. If a poor man puts in 40 hours of labor, he should receive 40 hours in wages.

If a rich man puts in 40 hours of labor, but receives 4000 hours in wages, his greater share must be taken from a group of 1000 poor men who each should have received 40 hours in wages, but instead only received 36.

The four hours taken from each of the 1000 poor men is 4000 hours. This is where the rich man gets his salary.

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 12 years ago

Sounds to me like you should be ENCOURAGING people to get richer rather than poorer. I would hate to see your commercial on TV suggesting you get poorer is a better direction to go. YOU GOT what you voted for. 50 years of a failed liberal agenda where the poorer are encouraged to get poorer while the RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS got MUCH RICHER. Your RICH democrats, which you fail to attack, got the same 4000 hours in wages you are whining about. Where is your attack there???? Have not seen it. Think twice about where YOU should start pointing your finger,,,, maybe it should START on your side of the fence,, then you can point toward ours... But you wont because it is easier or VOGUE to point our way,,, right? (George Soros as only ONE example)

[+] -6 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

Don't let this guy's long winded nonsense fool you....he cannot produce any sources for this information beyond a partisan website called "Citizens of Tax Justice".....and he has no earthly idea of the calculations used or what raw data the calculations are based on....

He also is distorting the discussion, as all his assertions are based on "as percentage of income" He know the rich pay a far greater share of all taxes, but he doesn't care about that...he is a socialist, he wants to punish those with more income than others and those who have more remaining after living expenses.....So, to misrepresent the actual shares of overall taxation paid by income groups....or the taxation share vs the income share......he and his partisan website sources use the misleading (as a percentage of income) to compare beach balls to golf balls and attempt to portray the golf ball as a larger object.......

Citizens for Tax Justice uses information from another web site: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy - http://www.itepnet.org/

Who uses their own model to calculation the figures, and lists no source of raw data from which they calculate their results...

This poster himself has said on several occasions REPEATEDLY that the comparison is incomplete unless a side by side of household wealth by percentile or class...certainly that standard would also apply to taxation.

and yet, all we get are percentages that we are supposed to believe because they are posted by a partisan website and the notion is agreed upon by a partisan hack like Robert Reich.....

Without detailed comparison, without credible source of the data used to make the calculation, and without a list of sales and property taxes by income class.....we are just to accept this as fact...because the poster, in his repetitive tedious verbose postings says so......

My prediction: This poster will attempt, with more of those sort of posts, long and unvaried, to blur and obscure the fact that the source of raw data, method of calculations and direct comparison of results are unknown to him.......

These exact posts are found all over the internet.....this poster is nothing but an obstinate parrot who things by the sheer repetition of his opinions he can make them true....

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

Sure I have an idea. We debated this at length. You're just too strung up by partisan strings to remember.

They also prevent you from noticing the comparison which is present on the site I made reference to.

Look it up.

Then read 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. 40% of all dividends in the United States are paid to the richest one percent. 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. One of which was waged in order to protect one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

The oil industry has not contributed one dime to the effort. Instead, they continue to lobby congress for massive subsidies and tax breaks. The benefits of which again, will be hoarded at the top.